Web site for Moo2 4 way league.

[P-K]

Step, Cabman and me are ok with new ladder. I see its 3:2 votes. I ll wait to have more opinion about it. Now my reply.

"Therefore, adding a new 1v1 ladder which concurs automatically with the old 1v1 ladder should be no issue at all. It is counter productive in itself."

This may look like conflict, but im sure it can also be a peacefull coexistence. Prime ladder is old one and it always stays that way. My ladder is rather to give more new players a fresh better start then old ladder rules can give to new players. Elo estimate is a clear mistake in my opinion. Plus old ladder is very static. Low scores for wins and an estimate system ranking holds back whole ladder against true dynamic growth. I played gomuku on elo score. I started with 1200 and played around 1200 games. Gomuku is not my strong side so I got now only around 1600 score. But this new system is much more dynamic. When guy high score ( like 1800) looses against new one (1200) he is -39 points, while new one gains that distance. If young guy looses his total loos is tiny =1. We dont have many games in our old ladder. If we sum this up with static low scores and an estimate system it gives an image of a really hard way for new players to catch the vets. While new ladder gives them a fresh start and a dynamic scores. I guess it will provide us more players willing to play on new ladder = more players who play moo!

I cannot demand on Marius to erase old vets who has high scores. They once get it and must be kept with it.

Marius can be contacted by everybody. I forgot about Seb`s special case.


"IMO a big mistake.
Actually, I proposed same solution for team ladder but there is an important difference:"

First of all orion handles 13 teams not 11. Second all teams are set from begin to equal score 1200 or urs 1800. Its the team score, not score for a player! There is no score for player in team ladder. When team has 1200 and one of its members win game score goes for team not the player.

"This isnt true for his ladder. New players will enter permanently. They get an (overrated) rating of 1200 and newbie bashing is the most attractive choice to improve his elo score then."

Overrated ranking of 1200? I dont understand it.

"Old ladder has asp"

Yes its a good system. Im working to find a guy who would write a dynamic part of ladder web site. Im talking about raports and small databse. This will elimiante me in process of reporting. However this requires time. Im trying my best. I dont wanna wait till i find someone - we can have new ladder now and later improve it for good of all.

"I really see no improvement at all and adding a coexisting ladder is evil in itself."

I hope i conviced anyone enough its not evil. To calm down a bit some people`s minds i propose a golden solution:

When raporting in old ladder player may write that he wishes or not to keep his game in new ladder. Default will be "i dont wish". My ladder can have also a different way of raporting then old ladder. Games can be reported as posts here - in case some new guy doesnt want to raport in old ladder.

PK

[StepNRazor]

Looks like we have a heated debate going on this ladder issue.
Ok no biteing, scratching or pulling hair :P
I think you both are giveing good points of views for both side to look at perhaps this should be brought into a new pol vote thread for 1v1 ladder isuue you both can post your views and invite others to as well.

[siron]

I think you both are giveing good points of views for both side to look at perhaps this should be brought into a new pol vote thread for 1v1 ladder isuue you both can post your views and invite others to as well.

I am not in the mood for such voting where both sides try to mobilize their buddies.

Let me just point out why I am not convinced by any of PKs arguments.

Step, Cabman and me are ok with new ladder.

Just for the record. Step told me that you explained him:
a) elo is generally broken (which is inaccurate there is just the seb79-issue - see post above)
b) ladder is inactive (which is EXTREMELY inaccurate - there are more than 150 ladder games this year - almost each day a game)

Well, this is extremely misleading (at least). Step (who isnt really interested in 1v1 ladder) had therefore the impression

c) You want to REPLACE the old ladder.

I am not interested to change his vote (since I am not interesting in voting), but let me just point out:

If I had same impression and your comments would be somehow accurate I would also support your proposal when you implement the old ladder history.

My ladder is rather to give more new players a fresh better start then old ladder rules can give to new players.

Well, they have automatically an average rating at start. When new players lose 5-6 games in a row and they were crushed like bugs they lose interest in ladder nevertheless.
In your ladder they have an below average rating then and they stay there forever when they leave (but they are not at bottom like more active players).

There is really nothing which supports your hypothesis that your rating would generate more activity. Well, I read often on the kali-chatserver and I asked several other players.
There is NOONE besides you, who has ever complained about the elo on the chatserver there (in my presence).

There is a simple other reason why they lose interest. moo2 online has a steep learning curve. There are many talented new players. But sadly, not enuff tutors.
Cybersaber, dirt-bag, zirkahn and sky bandit are strong veterans who always liked to play a lot unrated 1vs1s or 4ways with new players. And there is Cabman who does it very often now, too.

I appreciate it.

There are other players who like to talk with new players...discuss some strategy guides with them. But thats not the same!
Playing new players is BY FAR the most important. Take some ****ed up race to have some challenge...and discuss the game afterwards (when they wanna listen.)

Sadly, you rarely do this (compared to the above-mentioned players). You have done this succesfully with your buddy cabman. But there were others players talented like him who didnt had comparable support. (Cybersaber, db and sky often offline the recent months.)

And when there is a player who only (mainly) plays ladder and plays with full strength against newcomer....thats simply counterproductive. And sadly there are such guys. And I always said that I dislike them.

Plus old ladder is very static. Low scores for wins and an estimate system ranking holds back whole ladder against true dynamic growth.

Is it really static? The last new player who received an elo is Cabman. He started with very low rating (somewhere near 1300 IIRC). There is enough dynamics that he has already a better elo than you, PK.

Nevertheless elo estimates are even more dynamic than your proposed k-value IF a newcomer wins some games...otherwise he stays more or less constant at 1100. In your case he lose several elo points (which is more dynamic in this extreme case but also more depressing but I guess elo is no issue at all for newcomers. most depressing is getting crushed like a bug because of too few tutors who prepare them for ladder games.)

I cannot demand on Marius to erase old vets who has high scores. They once get it and must be kept with it.

*yawn* Have you read my post carefully? Downgrade their elos to eloestimates means adding an asterisk. When they will comeback and play a game they have their elo back again. Immediately. The standard procedure for inactive players in go and chess rankings. Really nothing justifies your word "erase" here. The point is....you dont want it. Thats all. But let us remember:

There was a ladder cleanup in april 2004. IIRC it was based on your proposal. At least I remember that you supported it. Be aware! Marius erased their ladder rank. It is gone forever. Darn!

First of all orion handles 13 teams not 11.

*yawn* But just 11 teams with players yet?! Eh? Thats what I meant. It is clear now, isnt it? So mebbe there will be added 2 further teams (I dont think this will ever happen). But this will not be decided by a newcomer. The Starleague Politbuero will decide if there are enuff strong players for more teams. So hopefully teams will be fair that an later starting elo of 1800 is no big bias.

Overrated ranking of 1200? I dont understand it.

Let us say that X experienced kali players will join your league at start. The average elo of these X players will stay at 1200 since there is no inflation. Then Y new players arrive. No or just very few kali online play before. They also have the average 1200 at start. The average player of X is better than the average player of Y. (Or has anyone doubts that kali experience improves skills?) Therefore the average newcomer is overrated. (I observed this at some third-class chess-server with PKs solution. Newcomers-hunting there. And stopped to play there because of this.)

-----------------------------------------
I will stay with old ladder as long as it exits. When PK wanna be admin of old ladder, I would support this. (Should be possible since Step has the code.)

But guess whole discussion is fruitless and PK starts new ladder nevertheless. So I stop here for now.

-----------------------------------------

I hope you will have many many new players in ur ladder....(because of your elo)....oh wait!

Darn! But of course not so many new players that you have to concur with the old ladder....

You dont want this, either!

Just remove me from your site, PK. And thats it then. Peace.

[ALEXlD]

I will stay with old ladder as long as it exits. When PK wanna be admin of old ladder, I would support this. (Should be possible since Step has the code.)

Yea Improvment of old ladder would be the best solution imo !

[P-K]

Lets make some things more clear.

I have never said ladder score is broken. In my opinion new elo will work better, but old one works.

I have never said old ladder is inactive! This is a very bad lie. I know this ladder very well and fired it up year ago after long break. It would be crazy to say its dead.

I have never said I want to replace old ladder. Main goal was to have two ladders working together.

I ll talk to Step about these "informations" u got from him. They are EXTREMELY inaccurate!

"Well, they have automatically an average rating at start. When new players lose 5-6 games in a row and they were crushed like bugs they lose interest in ladder nevertheless."

U cant estimate that any new player who will loose his first games will just leave ladder. In old ladder as u loose the game in stage of elo estimate u also got a very low score. Even lower then in new 1v1.

"There is really nothing which supports your hypothesis that your rating would generate more activity"

I belive its worth to TRY. Only guy who doesn`t work - doesn`t make mistakes. New fresh score and more dynamic system of points may bring more users. If it won`t nothing is lost anyway.

"Sadly, you rarely do this"

I do what I belive I should do. It`s not your interest who I play and who I don`t play. I dont stick my nose into your games.

"Is it really static? The last new player who received an elo is Cabman"

It took him a whole YEAR to do this. I don`t see much dynamic action in that.

"IIRC it was based on your proposal"

I don`t remember it was my idea.

"Let us say that X experienced kali players will join your league at start. The average elo of these X players will stay at 1200 since there is no inflation. Then Y new players arrive. No or just very few kali online play before. They also have the average 1200 at start. The average player of X is better than the average player of Y. (Or has anyone doubts that kali experience improves skills?) Therefore the average newcomer is overrated. (I observed this at some third-class chess-server with PKs solution. Newcomers-hunting there. And stopped to play there because of this.)"

1200 for all is a basic score for new players. When players will win/loose game they will gain new ratios. We must start with something. Maybe u observed this 3rd class server - I played above 1000 games in simmilar system. U cant say it will be hunting for newbies forever and it will fail by this. A player who has high score like 1600+ will gain only little points for his won game with newbie (1200). Small prise for him and huge risk of loosing points ( with distance above 400 points it would be around 30-40 loos ). I dont see a reason for hunting in his position.

U shall be removed as u wish.

PK

[StepNRazor]

The main thing I liked about PK's new ladder was it would give new players a chance to compeat, and I felt that would incourage new players.
If there is such a problem over the two ladders do what is done in sports.
A mjor league and a minor league.
New players can try to gain experience playing in the minor league ladder and learn more how to compeat and perhaps start the major league ladder when they feel they are not gaining much in playing in minor league.

I expect differences of opinions, I also expect that people can resolve their difference of opinions is a much nicer way than what this difference of opinion has netted. You both are nice people I know this and you both know this stop being mean to each other.

If you dont like my sugestion THINK of alternative. When something doesn't work oneway oranother pileing logic to make a square peg fit a round is no good think of some other ideas, it might take a week or month or however long it takes thats not a problem.

So you guys work together not appart on this ok thats a problem lets fix that first then lets fix the issue of second ladder, give eather a hug a pat on the back get lets move forward ok.

[Gusset]

Two ladders is an interesting suggestion. I really don't know what it would look like, but maybe someone could put together a proposal. The following would need to be changed/developed (perhaps completely), but maybe it is a start to get the ball rolling.

The idea, in my mind, is to make a system where newcomers can play against others who are closer to their level of experience to learn, as opposed to getting squashed by 3 year veterans in games that are documented, and losing interest.

Keep in mind that I do not know much about how elo works.

1) Reset the current ladder so that any games older than X are removed (1 year, 2 years, whatever). This could have the effect of removing some players from the ladder completely. Call this "Ladder A" for now. Maybe it means manually entering the data into a new setup, or maybe we just ask Marius to do it and keep the existing site/code.

2) Start a new ladder that is restricted somehow. Call it "Ladder B" for now. Perhaps the restriction would be tied to your standing in the existing ladder, e.g. players ranked higher than 7 on Ladder A are not permitted to enter games on Ladder B, however anyone is allowed to enter games on Ladder A.

This particular set of parameters will fail miserably, though, if there is no activity on Ladder B. So, there needs to be good participation.

As an initial boost, perhaps Ladder B could be seeded with games from the past 6 months or so that do not involve the top players on Ladder A. This could get the ball rolling.

NOW, FOR THE FLAW IN ALL OF THIS, all you elo experts might be able to figure out a way around this: this could still result in a logjam of better players at the top of Ladder B. If some hot player who is better than all of us comes along and dominates Ladder B, then moves on to playing in Ladder A, said player could become impenetrably entrenched at the top of Ladder B. No different than what we've seen at times int he past on the current ladder.

Then there's the question: are there enough players to support two ladders like this?

Just a few thoughts, not particularly well developed.

-Gusset

[siron]

OK. Let us play Chinese whisper here.

When your version differs much from the version I presented here, it can have several reasons:

a) there is a communication problem between a ladder freak who dislikes 4ways and a 4way freak who dislikes ladders.
b) communication problem between me and step.
c) typos
d) lies

Well, I just respond here because you claim that point d) is involved here. That is absurd.

When I asked Step which points by PK convinced him to support his idea he replied the 2 points I summarized the post above.

I dont have the chat log any longer, but before I summarized I reread the log and found some statement very similar to:

a) "New Players (!) can't get (full) elo."

Because of the plural "players" I summarized it as "generally broken". And I corrected Step in the chat immediately.

Therefore I still remember it.

And I also remember that he mentioned in some of the next sentences "That a new player" has this problem.

He meant seb79 and I assumed from the context that PK told Step about it.
Since you PK admit in this thread "I forgot about Seb`s special case." it seems possible for me that you told him something wrong (unintentionally).

Since Step has not introduced all his sentences (but they were directly after my question) with "pk told me that" (which is unusual in a chat) it seems also possible that I misunderstood him and he had some other source about the elo and seb79 issue. (which I doubt since he is not interested in ladder.)

It could also be a typo. Maybe it was never Steps intention to use the plural in the above-mentioned sentence, which introduced the discussion.

b) about activity:

One of your main points here....your elo will generate more activity.

When you overemphasize your idea, step prolly had a wrong impression about the current ladder: that it really needs more activity.

I think I quoted him correctly, but I dont blame that you or him lied (you should be careful with such claims), just that there was miscommunication.

c) "I have never said I want to replace old ladder."

Read carefully. I have never said that you said this nor have I said that Step claimed that. I just said that this was Steps impression after your chat with him. Thats what he said to me and I am still absolutely sure he used the word "replace".
-----------------

"U cant estimate that any new player who will loose his first games will just leave ladder."

You can present your hypothesis that they leave because of elo. And of course I am allowed to present my hypothesis here. And to be accurate. I see a difference between just losing and getting crushed like a bug.

"In old ladder as u loose the game in stage of elo estimate u also got a very low score. Even lower then in new 1v1."

You should know that such comparisons are meaningless. Or whats your next step? Proposing an initial elo of 5000?

"I belive its worth to TRY."

It is worth a try when there is some empirical support for your hypothesis. I see none.

"I do what I belive I should do. It`s not your interest who I play and who I don`t play. I dont stick my nose into your games."

Have you ever heard of external effects? Public Goods? Well, before you write such things you should read about it.
And BTW who is the one of us both who writes comments about my ladder games on his website. You or me?

""Is it really static? The last new player who received an elo is Cabman"

It took him a whole YEAR to do this. I don`t see much dynamic action in that."

Pleeeaaassse, a bit more accuracy. Difficult to ignore such comments. Just a look at the game history:
1. Cabmans first ladder game: 2004-11-29
2. Cabmans first victory: 2005-01-01 Here he started to catch up. And he received a better elo than you in LESS THAN A HALF YEAR.

" U cant say it will be hunting for newbies forever and it will fail by this. A player who has high score like 1600+ will gain only little points for his won game with newbie (1200)."

Technically the problem persists. It is right that a 1600 rated player should lose interest. Let us say the top 3 players. But there are still players in the top10 who can abuse it then.
BTW, what happens with your ladder when there are 1600+ rated players and a strong veteran or very talented and strong newcomer will join later on? He will feel that your solution is a disadvantage for him. It is really as bad communism ;D....your "one size fits all"-solution. That's why no chess federation (I am aware of) uses that solution. They all prefer more sophisticated solutions similar to current kali ladder.

"U shall be removed as u wish."

You should do so, finally.

[siron]

"If you dont like my sugestion THINK of alternative."

Give PK the code of kali ladder. He should look into the code and should be able to detect elo formula.
I think that elos are volatile enough (see cabman-example). Even if some guys want more volatility that should be no reason for new ladder.
PK has only to detect the K-Value in the old-code. I guess these kind of fixes should be possible for him.

[siron]

"1) Reset the current ladder so that any games older than X are removed (1 year, 2 years, whatever)."

When it is an active player the influence of the old games will diminish automatically. Elo is constructed that way, that it doesnt need this fix.
Problems are inactive players. They should be removed from rankings then.

"2) Start a new ladder that is restricted somehow. Call it "Ladder B" for now. Perhaps the restriction would be tied to your standing in the existing ladder, e.g. players ranked higher than 7 on Ladder A are not permitted to enter games on Ladder B, however anyone is allowed to enter games on Ladder A."

There is some drawback. It doesnt contain PK then.

[StepNRazor]

I like a cadet type ladder system, maybee cadet isn't the right word a place where players that are not super good players could compeat agianst each other.
And keep the vetrans ladder preserved, if they feel like they got the stones to compeat in vet ladder then thats thier choice, buit if they feel they need to train up a bit moreor are comfortable in the level of play thay are at in training ladder then they play there.
Major league baseball is not concerned about what happens in minor league baseball, but people go to both types of games. there is room for new players and even some not so new that dont want to get stomped in vet ladder. Me I dont mind getting stomped at all so used to I'm suprised I dont walk with a limp heeh. But I like my stompings to come from 4ways so I wish I could draw more input to this I just know that we should be governign a lot better than we are governing we kinda sucking right now and we need to not suck as leaders or we have none to lead for.

Ok so each of us is pulling a different way on this I think if we cant think of any solutions soon perhaps we should let second ladder go.


How about this?
I'd like to steer a bit away from the 2nd lader topic and on a feature for new site.
A training schedule, I think it would be nice for vets to set aside 1 or 2 days a month or maybee they could help new players coach em along in games.
Games that the vet and the new player swap side ever 10 turns or so so the new player can get a real view of what to do. Or maybee play a series of games and swap sides from thime to time.

I will be away for a while, I will try and look in on this when I can.

[Gusset]

Originally posted by StepNRazor
IA training schedule, I think it would be nice for vets to set aside 1 or 2 days a month or maybee they could help new players coach em along in games.
Games that the vet and the new player swap side ever 10 turns or so so the new player can get a real view of what to do. Or maybee play a series of games and swap sides from thime to time.

This reminds me of something I did 5 years ago or so. It worked out very well as a learning exercise for me, and I'd bet it would work for anyone else who is a little new and wants to learn some MOO2 concepts in a "hands-on" fashion.

I had read the strategy guides, but I needed to see some of the playing concepts actually applied to really understand them.

I asked a good player if he could literally walk me through a game. I started a single player game with a balanced race (uni/aqua of some sort, IIRC), large galaxy, 1 AI, and saved it. I then emailed it to him. We got together over voice communication (we used Firetalk, I think, to eliminate long distance phone charges), then both loaded up the game, and he talked me through each and every big and little thing he did for every turn. All I did was listen to him and perform the exact same moves on my end. In effect, we were playing the exact same game, so I got to see exactly what he did as he built his empire. Since we started from the same point in the same game, it tracked perfectly on our two separate computers.

This was an excellent introduction to empire building in MOO2. I learned first hand the power of housing colonies, some good tips on selecting where to colonize (before this I'd never have settled a huge terran ultra-poor singleton), a better research path, balance, etc.

Maybe this is an idea everyone has used, but I've never heard of anyone else mentioning it, so I thought I'd float it. It saved me a lot of time climbing the learning curve. Maybe it's an idea that others can promote and/or use.

-Gusset

[ALEXlD]

ll I did was listen to him and perform the exact same moves on my end.

Nice Idea, but we cant tell all our secrets to them !

Important is that new players knew, why there´s a need to make housing.

U need to make it, to get POP, POP gives u more RP (research) and more PP (productionpoints).

To win vs ur enemy u need more ships and/or better techs.

http://moo2.de.vu/Short_Help_MoO2_newPlayers.txt

[siron]

OK. Let s continue here:

http://www.spheriumnorth.com/orion-forum/nfphpbb/viewtopic.php?t=23&sid=eb7fe91de453e4949d626351ca89cf15