General_Maximus
Chieftain
this post was edited because I was wrong, I made an assumption, and you know what happens when you ass-u-me. eek:
-
Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .
An Open Inquiry: Ladder Interest
- Thread starter Trajan
- Start date
Actually, if you studied the formula closer, you would see that there is NO WAY you can LOSE points in a victory. The least amount of points you could gain is 0. How did you come to the conclusion that this system is just like GameLeague's? I have all the equations spelled out. You can do the math yourself and see for yourself.
Also, note the example table of Winning Expectancies. We can SET THESE VALUES to what we would like them to be. You want a victory over a guy with 10 billion points less than you to give you 50 points? Sure, we can do that. The question is, would you really want to? Of course we would come to a decent compromise - for example, perhaps we can make the scale so that people with even 4000 points less than you will still give you 50 points if you win in a match against them.
The key here is to study the system. I've laid this all out. The system is highly customizable - we can change the values in the table. Note that in the example table, if you have 2300 or more points than your opponent, you will gain 0 points. You WILL NOT LOSE points, but you will not gain any either. If you have a problem with that, we can adjust the scale to whatever you want. We can make it so that you could have 5000 more points than you opponent and we would still give you 50 points.
Heck, we could even set the system so that for matches where the point difference between the two players is over a certain amount, the winner will always receive a certain minimum amount of points. I could delete all the lines in the sample table past point differences of 700. We could then say that for all games where the point difference is 700 or greater, set the winning expectancy for the higher-ranked player to 80 and the winning expectancy for the lower-ranked player to 20. That way, ALL games with differences greater than 700 would result in a decent amount of points for the higher-ranked player.
I don't see how you can just suddenly come to the conclusion that this system is exactly like GameLeague's and that it doesn't work. In fact, the original CivFanatics Ladder had a system that was not too different from this system. The fact of the matter is, many ranking systems that weigh difficulty and take external factors into account (such as relative strengths of the players involved) will use a system similar to this. They just either tweak the formula or tweak the Winning Expectancy table. Either way, they will eventually figure out a combination that will make the system work for the application involved.
Trajan
Also, note the example table of Winning Expectancies. We can SET THESE VALUES to what we would like them to be. You want a victory over a guy with 10 billion points less than you to give you 50 points? Sure, we can do that. The question is, would you really want to? Of course we would come to a decent compromise - for example, perhaps we can make the scale so that people with even 4000 points less than you will still give you 50 points if you win in a match against them.
The key here is to study the system. I've laid this all out. The system is highly customizable - we can change the values in the table. Note that in the example table, if you have 2300 or more points than your opponent, you will gain 0 points. You WILL NOT LOSE points, but you will not gain any either. If you have a problem with that, we can adjust the scale to whatever you want. We can make it so that you could have 5000 more points than you opponent and we would still give you 50 points.
Heck, we could even set the system so that for matches where the point difference between the two players is over a certain amount, the winner will always receive a certain minimum amount of points. I could delete all the lines in the sample table past point differences of 700. We could then say that for all games where the point difference is 700 or greater, set the winning expectancy for the higher-ranked player to 80 and the winning expectancy for the lower-ranked player to 20. That way, ALL games with differences greater than 700 would result in a decent amount of points for the higher-ranked player.
I don't see how you can just suddenly come to the conclusion that this system is exactly like GameLeague's and that it doesn't work. In fact, the original CivFanatics Ladder had a system that was not too different from this system. The fact of the matter is, many ranking systems that weigh difficulty and take external factors into account (such as relative strengths of the players involved) will use a system similar to this. They just either tweak the formula or tweak the Winning Expectancy table. Either way, they will eventually figure out a combination that will make the system work for the application involved.
Trajan
General_Maximus
Chieftain
i see where i screwed up, and i apologize trajan, i was too hasty. in gameleague, the formula was different. basically, 2 opponents "wagered" a certain percentage of their points per match. the percentage was the same for both players, regardless of points difference. the winner then got 66% of these wagered points, and the loser 33%.
so if i had 1500, and you had 500, we wagered 10% of our points, i wager 150 points, you wager 50 points. 200 points are on the line. the winner gets 66% 132 points, loser gets 33% 68 points. so the person(for this example, me)with 1500 points loses 18 points for winning, and the loser receives those 18 points. The "formula" was increasingly difficult for addition players. I played a league game, my last game, with 3 other players, i had 1850 points when i started, i came in second, and lost 400 points. The winner gained almost a 1000. The three people I was playing had between 500 and 1000 points.
as long as this is not possible in your formula, i will not question it again.
so if i had 1500, and you had 500, we wagered 10% of our points, i wager 150 points, you wager 50 points. 200 points are on the line. the winner gets 66% 132 points, loser gets 33% 68 points. so the person(for this example, me)with 1500 points loses 18 points for winning, and the loser receives those 18 points. The "formula" was increasingly difficult for addition players. I played a league game, my last game, with 3 other players, i had 1850 points when i started, i came in second, and lost 400 points. The winner gained almost a 1000. The three people I was playing had between 500 and 1000 points.
as long as this is not possible in your formula, i will not question it again.
I know this was a long time coming and that some of you are probably wait for this, so it's time for an update on ladder development:
I would say that the SP ladder is about 60% complete at this stage.
HTML and Website Design - complete
Member Login Functions - complete
Member Edit Functions - complete
Game Report Functions - complete
Game Verification Functions ("approve the win" function) - 80% complete
Game Comments Function - not started
Ranking Page with Search/Filter Functions - not started
Member List Page with Search/Filter Functions - not started
Various FAQ and Help pages - not started
The Tribes ladder has not been started. However, because it is not automated like the SP ladder, it will take considerably less time to build, perhaps half the time of the SP ladder.
Usually I spend about 2-3 hours a day on the ladder on a good day. One thing we need to start thinking about is the Winning Expectancy table. How do we want to scale it?
Trajan
I would say that the SP ladder is about 60% complete at this stage.
HTML and Website Design - complete
Member Login Functions - complete
Member Edit Functions - complete
Game Report Functions - complete
Game Verification Functions ("approve the win" function) - 80% complete
Game Comments Function - not started
Ranking Page with Search/Filter Functions - not started
Member List Page with Search/Filter Functions - not started
Various FAQ and Help pages - not started
The Tribes ladder has not been started. However, because it is not automated like the SP ladder, it will take considerably less time to build, perhaps half the time of the SP ladder.
Usually I spend about 2-3 hours a day on the ladder on a good day. One thing we need to start thinking about is the Winning Expectancy table. How do we want to scale it?
Trajan
Another thing I wanted to add is that, as of now, perhaps 7-10 more days of development will be required for the SP ladder. I am debating whether or not to release the SP ladder separate (first) before the Tribes ladder is finished. I am leaning towards doing that right now.
Trajan
Trajan
General_Maximus
Chieftain
if you release the sp ladder first, it will definitely allow more players to become interested in tribe play. you have to know how to play first, before you can play in a team
Spartan_RawB
Co-chief of Blackhand
Thanks for the update, Trajan.
Concerning the winning expectancy, I suspect that many of us lack the statistical background to suggest precise numbers.
However, very broadly speaking, since civ is not like chess (i.e. luck factor, imperfect information), the top players of civ should not be assigned the same winning expectancy v.s. an average player as would be assigned to a top chess player v.s. an average player.
I can't wait to register the first win and rule the civ world from the top.
Concerning the winning expectancy, I suspect that many of us lack the statistical background to suggest precise numbers.
However, very broadly speaking, since civ is not like chess (i.e. luck factor, imperfect information), the top players of civ should not be assigned the same winning expectancy v.s. an average player as would be assigned to a top chess player v.s. an average player.
I can't wait to register the first win and rule the civ world from the top.
General_Maximus
Chieftain
trajan = kewl, robbie = silly
Spartan_RawB
Co-chief of Blackhand
Just one more comment:
I think that creating a ladder WILL attract a lot of players in civfan as well. There seems to be a lot of new faces here.
I think that creating a ladder WILL attract a lot of players in civfan as well. There seems to be a lot of new faces here.
Spartan_RawB
Co-chief of Blackhand
Care to play? I'm stalking zone grounds right now. 
General_Maximus
Chieftain
i don't have time right now robbie, I'm cruising ebay, and packaging my sold items... maybe sat or sunday.
AND i agree, the ladder will attract more players to civfan, hence to tribes
AND i agree, the ladder will attract more players to civfan, hence to tribes
bravelaker
Chieftain
well trajan sounds good on the points thing i think your system works fine if you give 50 pts for a win over newbies its gonna be like some players that will remain unnamed in game league beating rookies all day long wiping out their points and their intrest in the game give top players as few points as possible for beating up on the rookies in my opinion.
Yes, I agree that giving too many points for expert vs rookie games would be a bad thing. I think we should come to a workable solution where the point gain is enough to make playing newbies at least a semi-attractive proposition for experts (in order to allow newbies to learn and play better competition) while not being too high such that experts start abusing it.
I will set the Winning Expectancy table to start. I will try to make the scale reasonable based upon what I believe- and if it doesn't work out to well we will tweak it later.
Also, those of you who would like to do the ladder a service by becoming a mediator on the mediator council should post a message here.
Trajan
I will set the Winning Expectancy table to start. I will try to make the scale reasonable based upon what I believe- and if it doesn't work out to well we will tweak it later.
Also, those of you who would like to do the ladder a service by becoming a mediator on the mediator council should post a message here.
Trajan
General_Maximus
Chieftain
like I mentioned earlier, I would like to review cheating accusations. I believe a "council" should be started to review these issues, with an odd number of members for vote cases. Not too many, either 3 or 5. I offer myself as one.
SlowwHand
King
I'll volunteer where needed, except for analyzing for cheats.
I don't read about cheats, bugs, etc., and would fail miserably.
I don't read about cheats, bugs, etc., and would fail miserably.
bravelaker
Chieftain
Sounds like a good crew of people to look at the cheating so far and even though my schedule is fairly busy at times i volunteer myself to help out on the cheating issues if needed
General_Maximus
Chieftain
leave the politics, to the politicians, like ozzy...
FLQ.Storm
Chieftain
it looks like Starcraft's ladder formula
http://www.battle.net/ladder/ladderfaq.shtml
a winner always win points (1 being the minimum)
and the loser always loses points (1 being the minimum)
if you win vs a high ranked you get more points than vs low ranked
so there is no point for good players to "newb-bash"
http://www.battle.net/ladder/ladderfaq.shtml
a winner always win points (1 being the minimum)
and the loser always loses points (1 being the minimum)
if you win vs a high ranked you get more points than vs low ranked
so there is no point for good players to "newb-bash"
bravelaker
Chieftain
Hey Trajan I heard the new ladder starts next week do you know what day you are gonna start it on
Similar threads
