PBW League Idea... - Page 4

tesco samoa · #31 September 2nd, 2002, 04:14 PM

Geo we could just start the ladder with the 2 game system... as you mentioned earlier and then in about 3 to 6 months... The active ladder players could decide if they want to have more of a formal system... Or just keep it the way it is...

That way the ladder can begin and evolve through its active members....

And then the dicussion of the othe important topics can begin... such as Challenge rules... Game Setup etc...

sparhawk · #32 September 3rd, 2002, 01:05 AM

That looks workable,

So just an idea from to other side of the atlantic ocean: why make more than 1x1 games??
I think it would be the best thing to find out who's best in a 1x1 games.

Make some standaards maps, so everyone has thesame starting position, with equel colonizable planets .
Like a chess game; everyone is starting with the same position and the same pices, only the strategy will determine who will be the winner.

And using the system of lazarus..(sorry i forgot)
you get more point if you win from a stronger/higher placed opponent.
But I think it also wise to put some restriction to that, because otherwise the top player will be challenged too often by "newbies" (because you can score more if you win.) So probaly something tesco said about only challenging the 4-5 below and above you.
In this case the top player will not be challenged by newbies (and newbies cannot be playing against to experienced players)
And also in this case every game is up to your skills, because you will be playing games against players who have a comparising amount of points, eq the same experience.

Sparhawk

[ September 02, 2002, 12:07: Message edited by: sparhawk ]

Nodachi · #33 September 8th, 2002, 05:05 AM

*Bump*

Here you go Binford.

Binford · #34 September 8th, 2002, 10:00 AM

Thanks! Sorry I started a new thread on the same thing.

I wasn't thinking along the lines of a ladder env. I don't think Strategy games lend themselves very well to that. What made me wonder if this could be done was a lot of my family plays Duplicate (aka Contract) Bridge with a couple of Life Masters in my family. This system earns points based on the size of the event as well as how well you do. (A better description is here:

http://www.acbl.org/details.asp?id=1831&PID=9069

(no bridge knowledge needed to understand this page).

The Elo system in Chess is a good example as well also being very strategic in play. I think 4X games like SE4 are more like bridge than like Chess though due to the incredible number of variables that get setup before a game even starts whereas Chess always begins the exact same way. This would be more analagous to Bridge where the card deal would be like Map placement, how racial points are used, starting systems values, etc.

I'm thinking everyone would generate points for playing but people who play a lot of games a long time would advance more quickly than casual players. This is very much like Bridge where people who travel to tournaments regularly (usually retirees) advance much more quickly than people who only play when regionals/sectionals are near them and time permits.

A formula would need to be built that takes into account starting resources, starting planets, starting racial points, starting research level (L, M, H) and research cost (L, M, H). I know a game that starts with Low tech, medium or High research cost, 2000 racial points and 1 planet will have much lower scores than one with (for ex.) Medium Tech, Low research costs, 5000 racial points, and 5 planets. There would need to be a ratio multiplier applied to the score to make the balance even.

I'm thinking along those lines anyway, but there might be an easier way: What are the experience points that accumalate during a game used for? Would this be an indicator of play level during any given game?

Anyway, I am rambling a little so I'll shut up now that I have thrown this out there for some more discussion.

Binford

Gimboid · #35 September 8th, 2002, 11:18 AM

Hmm taking into account game settings might be useful, id have to tip my hat to someone who can win a 5 player large galaxy match as that would take some skill indeed. Although less impressive, it is still an achievement to win a small galaxy 1 on 1 match to

The experience points accumulated during the game are not really useful at all from the perspective of setting up a ladder system so they shouldnt be taken into account. Especially since any points accumulated would be lost if you changed your empire in every game (or tweaked it significantly). i cant speak for everyone but i know that i usually tweak my empire stats to cater for varying game settings (intel/no intel, etc).

Empire experience points could also be artificially inflated by simply playing a few single player matches against the AI using that same empire file

Skulky · #36 September 10th, 2002, 08:39 PM

How about not only getting points for beating certain players depending on their skill but also getting points based on what kind of game it is, hence rewarding players for playing longer/harder games. Using neutrals, unless approved for a scenario game, would reduce points (because ppl could abuse them).

I'm not sure if this makes sense, but that way people who play one game every 3 mos. as opposed to those who take longer/shorter (how?) will be ranked equally by gaining more points for that type of game. Also, any game that is shorter than X turns wouldn't be counted, and anything that looks odd would need investigation.

I like the idea, and am talking nonesense now, yeah!

geoschmo · #37 December 13th, 2002, 01:59 AM

Anybody have any new ideas on this one? I am still considering putting together some kind of league that doesn't have to be one on one games.

Geoschmo

Chronon · #38 December 14th, 2002, 08:03 AM

I've been thinking about this topic recently, and it seems to me that the best systems for multiplayer games are those that reward winning without overly penalizing the losers (since there are many more of them than winners).

A very simple way to do this with SEIV would be to tally points per game played. The total number of points for a game would be the number of players, and that total would be divided by the number of winners. So, in an eight player game with two winners (an alliance victory), each of the victors would get 4 points. A solo victory in the same game would get 8 points. These points would be added to each player's previous total and divided by the total number of games played, resulting in a points per game score for every league member. The league standings would then be based on the points per game score.

There would need to be a minimum number of games played to qualify for league ranking (otherwise you could have anomalous high scores for infrequent players (like the 1.000 batting average in baseball you sometimes see in April)). This system would allow, I think, for a valid comparison of those who play alot and those who play fewer games - without simply rewarding frequency of play (it seems to me a player that only plays ten games and wins 5 of them is better than a player who plays 50 and wins 10). And it would allow for players who like games with lots of players (Fyron) to compete in the same league with one-on-one players (who may all be over at KOTH by now...).

Anyway, just some thoughts. Because of real-life time constraints I can't play KOTH (as much as I'd love to!), but I would jump into a league like this one in a minute. So, I hope you do decide to start one, Geoschmo.

[ December 14, 2002, 06:09: Message edited by: Chronon ]