Civ3 1v1 Ladder System Poll

[ProPain]

Finally the ladder poll is here.

for a detailed discussion on the ladder see this thread

This poll only includes the ladder system.
Excluded from this poll are the following issues:

start conditions
For now choosing start conditions is left to the players. All starting conditions are allowed as long as both players agree on them before they start the game.

starting ladder position
For the 1st option the starting ladder positions will be determined by :
a) previously played 1v1 games (ERIKK vs Anarres; Mel vs Col)
b) season 3 tournament results (most people who discussed in the previous thread played the tourny so it's convenient)

The starting score for options 2&3 will de the same for all players. Ladder order will be alphabetical. Previously played 1v1 games will be entered.

Happy voting people!

 

[anarres]

For the record, here is the points system mel suggested, and for which I put some numbers in:

Here is the scoring concept that was linked by Mel.

I changed some values, to make it nicer. I also recommend (if we were to use this), that we all start on 1000 points. It will take a few games for people to adjust to a decent place inthe ladder, but it will work well over time.

Rd = Rating difference
H = amount higher ranked player gets if they win, and also the amount the lower ranked player gets deducted.
L = amount lower ranked player gets if they win, and also the amount the higher ranked player gets deducted.

Rd	H	 L 
0-100	50	50 
<200	45	55 
<300	40	60
<400	35	65
<500	30	70
<600	25	75
<700	20	80
<800	15	85
<900	10	90
>900	05	95

So, if I have 1100 points and ERIKK has 350 (hehe), I am 750 ahead, so if I win I get 15 points and ERIKK loses 15 points. If ERIKK wins he gets 85 points and I lose 85 points. This eliminates all the problems of the simple ladder where you can jump many places.


Edit: Removed some of my confused mumblings

 

[anarres]

Or maybe you mean the original table mel linked where everyone starts on 1600?

Edit: I will hold off from voting until I am sure what the options are.

 

[digger760]

I'm not reading that Ladder thread again, to much arguing going on there, although I do remember liking Mels system and it was similar to Annares so either Mels or the The one Anaress posted half an hour ago look good

 

[anarres]

I re=read lots from the other thread, and I think I get it now.

ProPain is refering to the points system proposed by mel, as shown in this link:

http://www.ohiochess.org/ratingch.htm


And now I understand, I will vote.

 

[ProPain]

Your last post is correct Anarres and everybody will start at 1600 in both systems when you apply the chess rules. I suggest we stick to 1600 because it doesn't matter for the system anyway and we need some downward potential so we don't get negative scores.

 

[DaveMcW]

If you use the chess points system, you will need to use "provisional ratings" to prevent expert players from farming newbies. I won't try to explain how provisional ratings work; if you look it up you will see how complicated it can get.

 

[Matrix]

Anarres' system is best I think. Lineair, but reasonably clear.

 

[D.K.]

i havent read any of the threads on this, but i thought i would let u know, every ranking system i have ever seen where u get points for beating people encourages people to only play people they are confident they can beat and avoid anyone who might be a challenge.

its all down to the people who play and how they behave, but i have seen ladders with most of the top 10 unbeaten - its just a race to see who can beat the most newbies

just something u should consdier when voting - a ladder where u have to beat players above u to move up usually end up woth the best players at the top

 

[anarres]

D.K.

Are you suggesting that people at the top will want to give up a month of their free time just to get a few points beating those at the bottom? What would be the fun in playing? And then they'll do it all again for another few points?

Remember that if you play someone at your level you can get many times more points. I don't think the people who will be at the top would be so cynical as to get the 'safe' win for less points.

 

[ProPain]

@D.K. What you suggest is what the simple ladder system does. You beat a player above you and you swap positions.

So you can vote for that

 

[ProPain]

I haven't seen any changes in the poll for a few days. So I'm gonna close is on Sunday 21:00 CET

 

[prettyvacant]

got here just in time then.

To a certain extent this reminds me of the battle of the big-endians, but IMHO although all systems can be exploited by the unscupulous ( or just determined to win/top the ladder) the simple ladder system leaves less room for this.

However as it appears we will be using the points system I would like to vote (if that is possible) to start on 1600 "I remember the days young man when I had a score of 1600 on the civ..." - rambles on. ok you're right, i'm not confident of my initial score increasing.

 

[ProPain]

You can subscribe to the new ladder here

 

[ProPain]

Originally posted by prettyvacant
got here just in time then.

To a certain extent this reminds me of the battle of the big-endians, but IMHO although all systems can be exploited by the unscupulous ( or just determined to win/top the ladder) the simple ladder system leaves less room for this.

I'm moved to tears. Finally someone who understands the real merits of this system. But we're the only ones though.

Ah well maybe I'll also start the simple ladder just because I'm stuborn.