PBEM - Results thread

See my post again (2 up). I have edited again, make more sense now.

A # of points per played game. Bonus or Penalty per result. Get a base score by deviding per # of played games.

Make sense now, doesn't it? ;)
 
Originally posted by ERIKK
game 2
erikk (100) vs anarres (150): erikk win, gets 100 + 60 points, anarres loses 100 - 10 points
Click to expand...
:lol:

Decided it already have we? ;)
 
OK,

Can I change my mind again?

Just read a site on how the US Chess Federation does rankings.
Similar to ERIKKs but more complicated, :goodjob: ERIKK!

Rank = OldRank + K (W + We)

Where K is a constant the total number of points you can win or loss

W = the score in the game 1=win 0=loss 0.5=draw (if poss)

We = 1/(10(dr/400)+1)

where dr = difference in ratings

Everyone starts on 1600 and for these chess dudes if your rating is
0 - 2099 the K is 32.
2100 - 2399 the K is 24.
2400 and above the K = 16.

This means for big differences in ratings they would change by 32 points at most

Also there is stuff in here about changing level and therefore K numbers that would apply...

Melifluous
 
Originally posted by Lt. 'Killer' M.
on the starting positions: am THIRD PERSON should check both starts - if they differ too muhc HE/SHE calls a restart....

check via Screenshot.
Click to expand...
Or just start the game and post the starts to a thread. If you make posting the start mandatory, it is obvious if the start is unfair. However, only a *very* poor start should allow a restart, there are many other random factors beside the 12 starting tiles that determine how a game ends...
 
anarres: I agree that there's more, but if one guy starts with 21 tiles of tundra......

the 'other guy must agree' rule is fair unless it is very clearly uneven....
 
@ Matrix
The First system is certainly not a joke!! In fact I think it's by far the most simple and elegant system. It doesn't require much maintenance compared to a scoring system which will make it much less vulnerable to loopholes and exploits

Think about it, it isn't as crazy as it seems on the 1st impression
 
Mel: The problem with that system is that the more games you play the higher the ranking, even if you lose.

If I can only play 1 game per month, I shouldn't be penalised because someone else is playing with AP (sic) several times a week on tiny maps with chieftain AI's. The system has to be an 'average' to be fair, i.e. a division by the number of games played has to be in the formula.
 
Killer: 21 tiles of tundra would come under any definition of "a *very* poor start" :)
 
Originally posted by anarres
Mel: The problem with that system is that the more games you play the higher the ranking, even if you lose.
.
Click to expand...
No, if you keep losing you will get a lower score (in my example), but not lower than 100 points, as you get 100 points per game...

See my example...
 
Melifluous's chess thing looked good. Although I hav'nt put much thought into it. I belive it is important to consider the bigger the difference in ranking and the chess system does that.

If it is 1v1 and you have AI players, what if the AI wins. Who gets the points for the win...By histogram? or is it called a draw for the ratings system.

I would like to have a crack at you guys:ripper:, even if I get a beating:rocket:
 
Rank = OldRank + K (W + We)

Let W=0, you still get:

Rank = OldRank + K.We

Since We = 1/((dr/40)+1), a dr value of 0 (even rank) gives We=1, and:

Rank = OldRank + K

Or not?
 
ERIKK: I was replying to Mel's system, not yours. :p

I still think ERIKK and Mel are on to something, maybe they will work. I am just trying to poke holes now when it matters. It will be too late to complain about the system once it is in place...
 
Originally posted by Melifluous
Erm did I not put Rn = Ro +K(W-We)?

If W = 0 then

Rn = Ro - KWe?

Melifluous
Click to expand...
No Mel, you put a plus, not a minus...

Your system makes more sense now :)

Edit: Beaten to the post button again :sad:
 
Just to throw something else into the mix, why not have standard maps. Its no problem to create maps that offer each player the same start position.

Randomly generated maps inevitably will favour one player over another. Why not have an artificial symmetrical 'arena'? I know that the explore element will be missing but in 1 to 1 games, does this matter?

You could randomly choose a map from the selection so that you wouldnt necessarily know which map you were playing on.
 
Col,

I offered to make a 'fair' map before, but people (i.e. ERIKK) seemed opposed to the idea.

The issue of resources, etc. was to contentious, I think people will want the 'unknown' factor.

Having several maps will not help as your start position could very easily be used to determine which map you were on.

I am undecided on the map issue still.
 
I'm all for standard ladder maps (works in Warcraft/starcraft) but I need volunteers to make them. I'm no map maker myself.

[edit] And after reading Anarres post just above me I'm kinda undecided myself. But we could cater both camps in this. People can decide themselves if they wanna use the standard ones or not.
 
Sounds great ProPain, especially the second proposal.

I really do think one restart per game per player should be allowed, as these games tend do take quite sometime before they are finished and playing a game for so long on a total jungle start totally takes the fun out of the game. But no premade maps please, because if both players start out at about the same place players who aren't as good in the game as others can't hope on a lucky start.

I don't know whether I could be fully active in this competition as I do like to play something else except PBEM thus might decline some challenges, and I like to play large maps which take a long time to complete.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Quintillus
Sticky Thread Cleanup
Replies
2
Views
2K
Moff Jerjerrod
Moff Jerjerrod
AlanH
  • Sticky
[C3C] News: COTM 166 (Iroquois Deity) Results and Congratulations
Replies
0
Views
122
AlanH
AlanH
Nizef
TSG 241 Announcement
Replies
9
Views
741
sebtanic
S
V
TSG 238 Announcement
Replies
5
Views
2K
lerrocco
L
V
  • Sticky
TSG 242 Announcement
Replies
3
Views
636
Megalou
Megalou
Top Bottom