bravelaker
Chieftain
Being the one that initated alof of those 6 or 7 player games i have to agree. They were a great source of points but alot of whinning and cheating ruined alot of them.
An Open Inquiry: Ladder Interest
- Thread starter Trajan
- Start date
SlowwHand
King
Admittedly I have no experience or knowledge in setting up a Ladder, and to illustrate my point, let me ask a question about something I never understood.
How is a Ladder for Tribes different than for individuals?
A Tribe is actually a single entity, after all.
How is a Ladder for Tribes different than for individuals?
A Tribe is actually a single entity, after all.
bravelaker
Chieftain
Hey Trajan you seem to have some positive response in starting up the ladder again. My wife doesnt post much but she will play as well just to let you know and alot of us will be talking the newbies that are around into playing. I was wondering if you could post all the new rules that would be decided on for sure with the new ladder.
General_Maximus
Chieftain
a tribe ladder would actually be much easier, if it was manual. there will be 10 tribes at the most, which as slowwhand already stated, are 10 individual rankings. each tribe may have 6 players, but that is not 60 rankings, just 10.
you could even have an always on top thread of ladder and tribes, to "bring people in". Have the tribe thread locked, and just edit and re-edit the posts , with the first post being a link to the ladder rankings, and each post after, describing each tribe and it's CURRENT members.
remember, it is an idea, that's what you want, ideas...
you could even have an always on top thread of ladder and tribes, to "bring people in". Have the tribe thread locked, and just edit and re-edit the posts , with the first post being a link to the ladder rankings, and each post after, describing each tribe and it's CURRENT members.
remember, it is an idea, that's what you want, ideas...
Yes, Maximus, a manual tribes system would be easier. Since you guys seem to be okay with a manual system, I think I will implement it that way. I just always have these grand ideas, but I realize there's no way I have enough time to build everything I wish to build. I have some more comments about the tribes system, but I'll post that in the tribes thread.
As for permanent ladder and tribes threads, how do you keep it always on top (sticky)? Does that require admin approval?
Trajan
As for permanent ladder and tribes threads, how do you keep it always on top (sticky)? Does that require admin approval?
Trajan
Bravelaker, as far as rules go, I haven't gotten around to figuring those out yet. I'm thinking about keeping the rules that the original ladder had.
I may need some help from you guys on figuring out some of the rules- for example, there are some things in civ 2 multiplayer that could be viewed by some as "cheating" and legitimate by others. I forget what those issues were, perhaps some of you may remember what I'm talking about.
But I guess for the basic rules, it would be something like this:
1) One ladder account per player, no exceptions.
2) All players must agree on settings before game begins
3) No cheating of any kind (we still need to define what is 'cheating' and what isn't, see above)
4) It is the player's responsibility to know whether or not the player he/she is playing against has an existing valid ladder account (i.e., make sure your opponent is on the ladder before you play a game).
5) Since we now have game comments (ala GameLeague), there are no more settings you are required to report when reporting a match. You can describe the type of game you played in a game comment.
6) Please keep all your game comments relevant and on-topic. If a particular game report has a ton of game comments that are all flames, I will lock that game report so that no one can add any more comments to it.
7) To handle disputes, I think we will go with the suggested idea of a rotating mediator system. We will have certain experienced players rotate in and out of the position of mediator/arbiter. This is to lessen the workload on any one person. That person, for the duration that he/she is the mediator/arbiter, will assume all responsibility for settling disputes with regards to cheating. The people who sit on the rotating mediator board as well as the current person who is the mediator will be posted on the ladder site.
There are probably many other things that need to be addressed, but I haven't thought of them yet. Feel free to add anything or mention something that you think needs to be mentioned.
Trajan
I may need some help from you guys on figuring out some of the rules- for example, there are some things in civ 2 multiplayer that could be viewed by some as "cheating" and legitimate by others. I forget what those issues were, perhaps some of you may remember what I'm talking about.
But I guess for the basic rules, it would be something like this:
1) One ladder account per player, no exceptions.
2) All players must agree on settings before game begins
3) No cheating of any kind (we still need to define what is 'cheating' and what isn't, see above)
4) It is the player's responsibility to know whether or not the player he/she is playing against has an existing valid ladder account (i.e., make sure your opponent is on the ladder before you play a game).
5) Since we now have game comments (ala GameLeague), there are no more settings you are required to report when reporting a match. You can describe the type of game you played in a game comment.
6) Please keep all your game comments relevant and on-topic. If a particular game report has a ton of game comments that are all flames, I will lock that game report so that no one can add any more comments to it.
7) To handle disputes, I think we will go with the suggested idea of a rotating mediator system. We will have certain experienced players rotate in and out of the position of mediator/arbiter. This is to lessen the workload on any one person. That person, for the duration that he/she is the mediator/arbiter, will assume all responsibility for settling disputes with regards to cheating. The people who sit on the rotating mediator board as well as the current person who is the mediator will be posted on the ladder site.
There are probably many other things that need to be addressed, but I haven't thought of them yet. Feel free to add anything or mention something that you think needs to be mentioned.
Trajan
Spartan_RawB
Co-chief of Blackhand
I like the idea of the rotating administrators, but I fear that coherence and consistency of rules will be jeopardized. I suggest that one admin be given a permanent post to settle the difference in opinion among the mediators. This is the only way to ensure a coherent and consistent ladder policy.
I agree on that point. It's something that we touched on earlier about how committees tend to get caught up in excessive bureaucracy. The question is, who will pick the uber-arbiter and who will be the uber-arbiter?
Also, for tribes, although disputes will probably be less than in the SP ladder, there should still be a formal procedure for resolving disputes. As all of you will be involved in the tribes matches, who will arbitrate for the tribes ladder? We could always have a jury type system where tribes not involved in the disputed match can arbitrate the tribes involved in the disputed match. Just a thought.
Trajan
Also, for tribes, although disputes will probably be less than in the SP ladder, there should still be a formal procedure for resolving disputes. As all of you will be involved in the tribes matches, who will arbitrate for the tribes ladder? We could always have a jury type system where tribes not involved in the disputed match can arbitrate the tribes involved in the disputed match. Just a thought.
Trajan
bravelaker
Chieftain
I think thats a good idea the only problem i forsee is how many tribe leaders will be able to be reached at a given time to discuss the problem?
General_Maximus
Chieftain
[color=dark red]simple, after a dispute arises between 2 tribes, the tribe leaders have a specific amount of time to resolve the issue. Through either ICQ chat, some other chat, or via email.
EVERY dispute should be resolved within an allotment of time specified by the moderator, based on the type of dispute. Obviously a cheating dispute will need more time, so the moderators can review the save files of the alledged cheating incident, maybe a week. A no show on tribe games would be a quicker allotment, maybe 2-3 days.
Each type of dispute would have a specified number of days, so each side can submit their evidence and/or comments, and the moderator would have a few days to decide on the issue.
Bottom line, somebody is going to have a dispute. the tribe leaders have lives, they would have to present their case via email to moderator. The moderator also has a life, and would require time to decide on the issue. this is all assuming one dispute at a time. the moderators may have 5 disputes to settle, and need that time more than the tribe leaders would.
a main moderator, could also delegate different disputes to different moderators. The cheating disputes could be sent to a moderator with"veterna" status, basically someone who can detect a cheater. the "stalling" disputes could be sent to a moderator with knowledge of scheduling and time zone, so they could decide on a start date ultimatum, and so on...
I would also take this time to volunteer as a member of the "cheating moderator" group. I am well versed in how to be cheated, and can usually detect any cheat, with enough save files, including mapping the board.
My suggestion also is when we list the accepted cheats list, we list them as what they are, and not how they are done. most of us veteran players know how they are done, but we do not need to teach any new dogs new tricks.....[/color]
EVERY dispute should be resolved within an allotment of time specified by the moderator, based on the type of dispute. Obviously a cheating dispute will need more time, so the moderators can review the save files of the alledged cheating incident, maybe a week. A no show on tribe games would be a quicker allotment, maybe 2-3 days.
Each type of dispute would have a specified number of days, so each side can submit their evidence and/or comments, and the moderator would have a few days to decide on the issue.
Bottom line, somebody is going to have a dispute. the tribe leaders have lives, they would have to present their case via email to moderator. The moderator also has a life, and would require time to decide on the issue. this is all assuming one dispute at a time. the moderators may have 5 disputes to settle, and need that time more than the tribe leaders would.
a main moderator, could also delegate different disputes to different moderators. The cheating disputes could be sent to a moderator with"veterna" status, basically someone who can detect a cheater. the "stalling" disputes could be sent to a moderator with knowledge of scheduling and time zone, so they could decide on a start date ultimatum, and so on...
I would also take this time to volunteer as a member of the "cheating moderator" group. I am well versed in how to be cheated, and can usually detect any cheat, with enough save files, including mapping the board.
My suggestion also is when we list the accepted cheats list, we list them as what they are, and not how they are done. most of us veteran players know how they are done, but we do not need to teach any new dogs new tricks.....[/color]
kolumbusus
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2002
- Messages
- 12
k
Spartan_RawB
Co-chief of Blackhand
I didn't know pink was your fav color, max.
General_Maximus
Chieftain
Actually, my favorite color is teal, but that was supposed to be dark red....oh well, I hope I still got my point across in pink
Hi - Been playing civ2 for years, mostly with just friends around the area, would love to join the ladder tourney and/or tribe. How do I even get started?! Also, if anyone wants to play, usually evenings in -5 GMT time zone, please let me know. ICQ# 271666903.
On another note, what do most people play on? Ie, we almost always use 2x1 (If I'm even naming that right, 1 movement, 2 production). 1x1 is way to long. 2x2 makes some units ridiculus, ie, super catapult. Just curious.
Mark (Skivrmt)
On another note, what do most people play on? Ie, we almost always use 2x1 (If I'm even naming that right, 1 movement, 2 production). 1x1 is way to long. 2x2 makes some units ridiculus, ie, super catapult. Just curious.
Mark (Skivrmt)
bravelaker
Chieftain
well most of us play 2x2x cause it moves quickly or whatever reason others play it but you can choose any settings you want as long as the other person agrees on it
The ladder system is currently under development, Skivrmt. Once it is finished, you will be able to sign up and participate. The single player ladder will be highly automated with little human intervention except for dispute resolution and maintenance.
It's basically up to you and whoever you are playing a game with to decide upon the settings.
We can continue to think about the dispute resolution system. It isn't a major hurdle to developing the ladder, so we can think about it as the ladder is being built.
Trajan
It's basically up to you and whoever you are playing a game with to decide upon the settings.
We can continue to think about the dispute resolution system. It isn't a major hurdle to developing the ladder, so we can think about it as the ladder is being built.
Trajan
mcbrain
Chieftain
hi i'm from german and i want to play civ2 at the intenet who can help me thanks for asks
General_Maximus
Chieftain
first, you can get ICQ, the main messager service for civ 2 players. download that at this link ICQ then, add as many civ 2 players you can from their postings here. MOST people put there ICQ numbers in their postings.
second, you could try MSN gaming zone. Here is a link to the zone-MSN Gaming Zone, they also have a messenger service called zone friends, and a zone chat room where people set up games.
my ICQ number is 196275457
my zone messenger name is Maximus_Tuatha
see ya
second, you could try MSN gaming zone. Here is a link to the zone-MSN Gaming Zone, they also have a messenger service called zone friends, and a zone chat room where people set up games.
my ICQ number is 196275457
my zone messenger name is Maximus_Tuatha
see ya
After considerable thinking, I am changing the scoring formula. The model I will now use is now loosely based upon the system used by the FIDE (World Chess Federation). This model uses what is known as the "ELO" system, which is based upon the premise of a Percentage Expectancy Curve.
What this means is that for a given difference in points between two opponents, we can calculate an "Expected Winning Percentage" of sorts. This is how the formula will now look:
NS = OS + K(S - WE)
NS = New score
OS = Old score
K = arbitrary constant - a rating coefficient
S = Match result (1 = win, 0 = loss)
WE = Expected result using the following formula:
WE = 1/(10^(-D/F) + 1)
D = difference in score between the two opponents
F = Winning Expectancy Factor - this is determined by a table we create, see below for an example
PointDiff Higher% Lower%
0 50 50
25 51 49
50 53 47
75 54 46
100 56 44
150 59 41
200 61 39
250 64 36
300 67 33
350 69 31
400 72 28
450 74 26
500 76 24
600 80 20
700 83 17
800 86 14
900 89 11
1000 91 9
1100 93 7
1200 94 6
1300 95 5
1400 96 4
1500 97 3
1600 98 2
1700 98 2
1800 99 1
1900 99 1
2000 99 1
2100 99 1
2200 99 1
2300+ ~100 ~0
So as you can see, given this table, we are saying that "for a point difference in a match between 700 and 800, the higher-rated person should win 86 percent of the time and the lower-rated person should win 14 percent of the time."
In a sense this is arbitrary, but at least we can always adjust the scale. I set these percentages arbitrarily - we can always change them.
This system might seem a bit complex to you, but there is a reason why many different sport and game leagues use a system similar to the one used by the FIDE. It is a weighted moving average. The mathematical and statistical explanations behind this formula are very interesting, but I don't have the full understanding to be able to explain it. But what I do know is that this system works for many applications and I think it will work here.
Trajan
What this means is that for a given difference in points between two opponents, we can calculate an "Expected Winning Percentage" of sorts. This is how the formula will now look:
NS = OS + K(S - WE)
NS = New score
OS = Old score
K = arbitrary constant - a rating coefficient
S = Match result (1 = win, 0 = loss)
WE = Expected result using the following formula:
WE = 1/(10^(-D/F) + 1)
D = difference in score between the two opponents
F = Winning Expectancy Factor - this is determined by a table we create, see below for an example
PointDiff Higher% Lower%
0 50 50
25 51 49
50 53 47
75 54 46
100 56 44
150 59 41
200 61 39
250 64 36
300 67 33
350 69 31
400 72 28
450 74 26
500 76 24
600 80 20
700 83 17
800 86 14
900 89 11
1000 91 9
1100 93 7
1200 94 6
1300 95 5
1400 96 4
1500 97 3
1600 98 2
1700 98 2
1800 99 1
1900 99 1
2000 99 1
2100 99 1
2200 99 1
2300+ ~100 ~0
So as you can see, given this table, we are saying that "for a point difference in a match between 700 and 800, the higher-rated person should win 86 percent of the time and the lower-rated person should win 14 percent of the time."
In a sense this is arbitrary, but at least we can always adjust the scale. I set these percentages arbitrarily - we can always change them.
This system might seem a bit complex to you, but there is a reason why many different sport and game leagues use a system similar to the one used by the FIDE. It is a weighted moving average. The mathematical and statistical explanations behind this formula are very interesting, but I don't have the full understanding to be able to explain it. But what I do know is that this system works for many applications and I think it will work here.
Trajan
Similar threads
