PBEM - Results thread

Kemal, Large maps for MP games mean that it will be longer before you meet, and when you do the turns will take much longer (as you have many more units to move).

I suggest standard maps for PBEM games, unless you are *totally* dedicated to PBEM.

I also like to play tourney, gotm and SG's, and I will not take part in this ladder if I will be penalised for this, especially when I play about 4 or 5 hours of civ a day!
 
Originally posted by anarres
Good stuff ProPain,

I have listed some thoughts below, but I am still not sure which system I would go for. I think a poll in a couple of days is a little ambitous, unless all potential problems can be resolved by then.

- You should not be forced to play anyone, ever, but if you refuse a certain number of games you should drop in ranking. This applies to either ladder system.

Sounds good to me

- To back up the last point, you should only ever have to play one game at once, but it is possible for several games to be played at once. The 'simple' system would need to be modified to take in to account multiple games. For example, if I am position 3, and play 2 and 4 in head-to-head's at the same time, and lose against player 4, but win against player 2, where am I in the ladder? Does it count from which game started first or which game ended first?
I'd say the game that ends first. Because if you want to use starting order your ladder will unusable. You can't put in results before an earlier game has finished. This may lead to a domino effect (players 2 and 4 in your example may be playing more games too) that will effectively freezes the ladder.

- Killing a head-to-head game by refusing to play is a loss. A minimum of 20turns/week at the start and 10 turns/week after turn 100 should be enough as a minimum to keep them moving.
I agree

- NO RESTARTS, if you want a 'fair' game then you should not play a random map. If both players agree to a restart then they can declare the game null and void and start again. If you allow restarts from one player only you will get them nearly every game.
I do not agree. One restart per player per game is no that much trouble and makes for a more ejoyable game. I don't believe in the external juror system. This will hold up game starts and is bound to result in endless discussion. One restart per player per game solves all those issues

- % will not give a realistic system, as stronger players tend to play stonger players anyway. Staight swapping on a ladder seems more appropriate. (Otherwise someone in 5th place could play several AP games against players 10 to 15, and get a 100% record in a matter of weeks or even days). Also, a % system would mean no-one would want to play the top players, as losing would matter. In the simple system, a loss means nothing, which is good as it will encourage more games.
My sentiments exactly. I think the simple swapping system has the most going for it. Also losing from a much weaker player is punished by a larger drop on the ladder.

Just my thoughts. Good luck on getting this working ProPain. :)
thanks
 
I think this is not a "real" competition AFAIK. It is just a ladder in which we will put our results from our PBEM's...

Or are you guys gonna put up a real schema? (I am OK with it though)
 
@anarres: I know, the reason I like to play large is just because of the fact that you don't meet early. As I'm a builder-type player I like to have some time for empires to be established before worrying about defences etc.

As for being dedicated to PBEM games, I'd say that given the nature and length of PBEM games, if you're not totally dedicated you shouldn't start one.
 
Kemal, on my game with ERIKK we have only just started to get close to each other and we are on a standard sized map.

On game 1, if we had Deity AI's we would have met sooner, but still would have got to the industrial age IMO.


Restarts

If you allow one restart only per game, and always allow one, people will start gambling with the start, thinking 'is this bad enough to warrant a new game, and will I get a worse position?' In essence it will be used as a tactic. and that's bad...

IMO we should only allow restarts on certain conditions.

Something like:

< 6 land tiles with 2+ food. Note here that I count irrigatable plains as 2+ food, as it will be soon enough anyway.

ideas?
 
Well, my game with ProPain is large continents, and we're apart an entire ocean, but still we've met and making decent progress.

As for restarts, how about allowing one if you can't finish a settler in a decent amount of time (yet to be decided upon). This because it's vital to get some early expansion, especially on higher difficulty level, and you're not going to get that with a jungle start near an inland lake.
 
My problem with restarts is that between reasonable players, its the quality of the first say 5 cities that will determine whether the game is even. The stating 9 squares obviously affects the game considerably but the surrounding territory has a big effect too. That wont be known for several turns.

I think Mel would probably agree that had our start positions been reversed, then the result of the game would probably have been different too. There are enough random elements in the game to want to control some of the variables to make the game fair.

Chess manages to be an interesting game although the start positions have been fixed and open for a long time.

Its not hard to devise symmetrical maps that still offer a whole variety of tactics. You still wont necessarily know where your opponent is, or the position of all the resources/luxuries.

The scoring mechanisms for the ladder arent as important as trying to ensure a fair and even chance for both players.

Please consider either third party checks on the map or the use of symmetrical maps.
 
Hold on guys,

the map is not the only factor in this game! Also the AI locations, sort of AI's (agressive) and if you are on an island or not is important. And if you take the lead because of a good starting location you will always have the chance to be attacked by an AI early in the game.

Look, exploration is the coolest thing of this game. Playing on ready made maps spoils the game IMO. And if you are gonna do it, you should set the AI as well. Because the game still can differ like day and night because of the AI moves.
 
But games don't always have to be completely even. If both players have the ability to expand early on, even if you've started at a not so great location lots of other factors can turn the game upside down, i.e. AI locations, strategic resource placement, combat rolls, getting leaders.

I personally feel that trying to get almost equal starts for players will take away a lot of the fun that a game of civ3 gives.
 
This is OT here, but I just wanted to show people what my hypercube avatar looks like:



Unfortunately, animated gifs are not supported, so it will be my 'virtual' avatar :)
 
considering this ladder system was intended for 1v1 anyway I don't think the map issue is a problem.

Two players want to play premade map. Thats fine
Two players want to play random map. Thats fine too!

Doesn't need to matter when the scoring doesn't depend on the map. Same thing for map size

@ erikk: You're right it's not a competition with playing schedules. It's a ladder which means you can challenge people on the ladder as you see fit. It's very flexible because not everyone has to play the same amount of games
 
Let me see if I can sum up this discussion thus far

1. People seem to be generally happy with mel's chess ranking system

2. Map size is still being debated, although most seem to favour standard

3. Starting Position is hotly debated.

4. Not much mentioned on declining challenges, maybe it is ok to decline if you are in more than say 4 PBEM

Maybe a poll on peoples starting position is best. (I prefer random myself, but you could call one and only one restart if you start is rated below a certain score, again maybe a poll is best, these type of things is personal preferences.
 
digger760,

We are still debating the relative merits of a ranking system or a straight ladder.

Map size and start positions are not important, as long as the two playing agree what they want to do. Restarting is still under debate, but if two people agree the restart conditions before they start a game then all is fair again.

Declining games must be acceptable, but with some limits.

To bring up ERIKK's comment from post #16, a points system could include games with more than 2 human players, for example
100 standard,
+50 for a win,
+10 for winning against a higher player
-10 for losing against a lower player
+20 per player in a game with > 2 players (so +10 for 3 player, +20 for 4 players, etc).
more modifications needed here, including something akin to the chess system Mel suggested, but maybe a bit simpler...
 
ProPain lets agree that this is a "free to use" ladder and that people should decide the game specifics for themselfs (generated map, restarts, location), and that they only have to report who played who and who won.

According to their position on the ladder they will get their points.

The scoring mechanism. You can use mine (very very simple or Mel's (very very difficult)). Or you should have someone get us better one!

Can you make an example? You have 2 PBEM results and some people that agreed to join.
 
Studied the chess formula a bit but I'm not sure if it would work in our situation.

If wel all start at 1600 and can change 32 points a game max, differences will appear very slow. This will be worsened by the fact we all start at the same score and thus have the same K and dr will be small.Considering a civ game takes up a lot more time than a chess game, we won't play that many games either.

Also I would like to stress the fact that complicated solutions to any of the issues will hamper a ladder system. Especially solutions that need staff (3rd party for judging a start location for example) are doomed to fail IMO.

For me the goal is to rank all the 1v1 (doesn't even have to be PBEM as far as I'm concerned) that are played anyway. That way we know who's the better human vs human player.

If we restrict map size or any other game feature, we won't have participants because some like small maps with fast, warmongering games and others large maps that favor longer, building type games. IMO a ranking system should fit all games and not the other way around.
 
I could suggest a formula, following on from my last post. It can include elements from both Mel's and ERIKK's ideas.

If someone else wants to suggest one they should do so....
 
Top Bottom