|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Slynky, Geo has sent in his empire. We're good to go.
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
While I was waiting for you guys, I rolled up a balanced mod map as I mentioned. It looks to be a bit interesting. I made starting points with some room to grow (but not the WHOLE map!). There are a few interesting links. But, I'm not trying to push this mod on you guys. I'll be glad to roll up a regular small spiral and adjust the starting points if you like. Or, just roll that baby up and let luck be as it will. Just let me know. I'm just hanging around to get your game started. Email or reply here. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
roll it up.
EDIT: as in I don't care either way, so surprise us. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif If you've already got a map ready that works [ February 16, 2004, 03:33: Message edited by: Phoenix-D ] |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Just to make sure...Phoenix...
This map does NOT use NONE atmosphere. So, if you chose that not knowing what the game map would be, let me know! [EDIT] There are NO moons! [ February 16, 2004, 03:43: Message edited by: Slynky ] |
Re: SE4 Rating System
not a problem.
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
I'll hang around a bit to make sure the game is off correctly. [EDIT] Changed game to ALPU and 48 hours...kind of the standard for these games. I don't suspect either of you will have a problem doing turns, though. Good luck (luck?) to both of you. [ February 16, 2004, 04:05: Message edited by: Slynky ] |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Well, wanted a large starting planetand got a medium one, but I don't mind playing with this as is. Phoenix has already done his turn, so I guess that means he doesn't mind either. So we can just play on.
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
Not sure how I missed that...for some reason, my eye just went to the second line and completely skipped the large planet. Not sure how you build your empire but sometimes, a little bit of how I tweak my empire depends on knowing what my starting planet is going to be (or how many). So, considering it's my mistake, I'd be happy to correct it...I'm home all day today. Sorry for the mixup http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif . |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Actually I didn't even notice. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif And my plans don't depend on world size either. Especially not with this kind of setup. Just means we won't be able to support quite as large of fleets without more buildup than usual.
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Site updated:
1 game completed: KOTH 1 game added: KOTH (Just assumed it would be a rate game, Geo and Asmala http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
To explain, at least in my circumstances, I may decide to short my construction ability a bit for other areas of the empire design. That is, IF I know there will be a large world to build my starting colony ships on. I have found myself in a situation where my construction ability was shorted so much that I couldn't build a colony ship in 1 turn on emergency build on a medium world. IF, and I say, IF, either one of you did something like that, it would make a BIG difference in getting colony ships out. That's why I offer to do the setup again. I don't mean to be pushy...I just want to make sure my mistake isn't going to hamper someone's game plan. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
As far as it having an impact on the game, don't worry about it. I am quite sure that I will make mistakes in the game that have more impact on the outcome then what size HW I had. Oh, I don't know, like forgetting to use my first turn research, or something like that. Not saying I did that, but I could do something that stupid. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif |
Re: SE4 Rating System
OK. Then I will let it stand without any more offers.
Hehe, I know of what you speak. I've not actually ever forgotten to use first turn research but I HAVE forgotten to uncheck the "divide" box http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Site updated:
1 game added NOTE: I have not received any further votes for Parasite's inclusion for a rating in the Anklebiters game. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Hi. I would like some players to test out some of the new koth maps i have been working on.
With some of the upcoming challenge games ask to play on a new Koth Map. Rating Challenge game owners can set the games up with some of the new maps and then you can post your thoughts about them in the other thread. I Have a map pack of some tester maps set up this weekend for download. IT would be a great help as I am at the big stage of setting up the start positons. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Site updated:
1 game completed 1 game added Welcome a new member, Taterbill! |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Hi there,
Simplify surrender to Master Belisarius. Thx MB for game. Why I had a strange feelings that you guess my every (stupid) moves. :-) Cheers Simplify |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Ratings Bash game Steal Dragon vs Alneyan:
Steal Dragon surrendered Last turn without any explanation after having unable to pull out a turn for five days. I wonder if it was because he felt he was losing or because he no longer had the time to play. As I *think* I was losing (but I could be wrong, if you recall our game Slynky. *Smirks*), I guess it is the latter. I emailed Geo about this in case he has more information about Steal Dragon's status. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
I see I have some updates to do http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Site updated:
2 games completed 2 games added Gecko games adjusted (except for Pairs) Congrats to Alneyan for getting back to 4 digits! Please review to make sure I haven't missed a game of yours. Cheers! |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Site updated:
1 game completed. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
Slynky - Can you remind me. Do the rating change when the game finishes or as people lose? |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Site updated:
2 games completed Contrats on Geoschmo and Parabolize to the "land of 4-digit scores"! |
Re: SE4 Rating System
It might happen that two players lose at the same turn in multiplayer-rated game. What result should they report between themselves?
The logic solution was to take the equivalent from chess- draw between them. It adds 0.5 point for both players W in "R = P + K(W - W')" formula. Se4 Rating Rules states: "The only requirement is that in a multi-player game, it must be a single victory ("Last man standing"). " But then there is another question. Why it must be Last-man standing, if two players can end up with draw? I think that should be left up to players- they should deside that it game settings dicusion what game they want- team victory allowed or not. [ February 25, 2004, 11:39: Message edited by: BBegemott ] |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Am I missing any games to post?
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Bbegemott:
It might happen that two players lose at the same turn in multiplayer-rated game. What result should they report between themselves? I suppose that could happen but I've never seen it. I suppose we have to make an allowance for it, though. The first thing that comes to mind is breaking the tie by who was ahead of the other loser at the end of the previous turn. A draw is a possibility to be looked into. Se4 Rating Rules states: "The only requirement is that in a multi-player game, it must be a single victory ("Last man standing"). " But then there is another question. Why it must be Last-man standing, if two players can end up with draw? I think that should be left up to players- they should deside that it game settings dicusion what game they want- team victory allowed or not. Assuming we could agree a good tie-formula, this might be useful. Then there is the problem of a 3-way alliance winning the game and everyone on that alliance wanting a draw (among the 3 of them). I'm in 2 team games now and I have already made an agreement (that doesn't involve fighting) that settles the position of the winning team (if we should be the winning team http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ). But I can understand not wanting to fight among each other. Hopefully I understand your questions (2 different ones). And it can be discussed. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Having a Tie is not going to happen in the Pairs Game, because only 1 team has both players as Rating members, and we all know that Tesco & Asmala couldn't win a game even against the AI. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
Seriously if they do win, they must deciede who the winner is between them. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Site updated:
1 game completed |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Site updated:
1 game added |
Re: SE4 Rating System
I hope you haven't forgot to add:-
2x2 Challenge Challenge: Baron Grazic vs Fire http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Site updated:
2 games added 1 game completed (first multi-player game...score not yet computed) |
Re: SE4 Rating System
OK, we need to come to an agreement on the best way to rate a multiplayer game. I re-read the thread portion that discussed it and I don’t think there was a consensus. So…here we go again:
(1) I think everyone agreed a multiplayer game needed to result in a rating that yielded (or lost) more points than a regular 1 x 1 game. (2) But, I think, most also agreed that the gain or loss in points shouldn’t be so great that it would discourage entry into multiplayer games. With this in mind, I worked on a formula based on the formula we use for 1 x 1 games and added a dimension to, hopefully, reflect the fact that a winner beat more than one player and a loser lost to everyone. And those in the middle got a variation in between. It goes like this: 4 players (for simplicity sake, all rated 1000). Players A B C and D (who finished in alphabetical order). Player A beat everyone. So, we average the scores of the people he beat, in this case, 1000. Compute points based on the formula which we all know comes out to +16 for him and –16 for the others. But, we disregard the losers. We only compute the points for player A. HERE is the adjustment: Player A beat 3 other players so we square the number of players he beat (3) to get a total of 9 and subtract the square of the number of players who beat him (0) to get 0 and add that to his score. This yields a total of 25. FINALLY, we add a point for every person he beat (3) for a final score of 28. Player B beat everyone except one person. So, we average the scores of the people he beat, again 1000, and he gets 16 points. Then we average the points of the person who beat him (1000). He loses 16. So far, he is even. Then we do the multiplier. He beat 2 people, so 2 squared is 4 and then subtract the square of the total number who beat him (only a 1). The resulting score is 3. And we add 2 points (for the number of people he beat giving a FINAL score of 5. Player C, without being verbose, should be a FINAL score of -2. And player D should wind up with a loss of 25 points. This is for Ratings of 1000 (to make it easy). Here, we can see the people in the middle of this 4 x 4 didn’t win and didn’t lose. Hence, not a lot gained or lost. Of course, this changes a bit based on Ratings that aren’t 1000. (well, DUH!) Let’s look at 5 people and see if the person exactly in the middle comes out about even: A B C D E (this is the shortened Version and same winning order): A= +16 points from rating computation (beaten players) -0 points from rating computation (players beating him) +16 points for the square of beaten players (4 squared) -0 points for the square of players beating him (0 squared) +4 (for each victory) Total = 36 B= +16 points from rating computation (beaten players) -16 points from rating computation (players beating him) +9 points for the square of beaten players (3 squared) -1 points for the square of players beating him (1 squared) +3 (for each victory) Total = 11 C= +16 points from rating computation (beaten players) -16 points from rating computation (players beating him) +4 points for the square of beaten players (2 squared) -4 points for the square of players beating him (2 squared) +2 (for each victory) Total = 2 D= +16 points from rating computation (beaten players) -16 points from rating computation (players beating him) +1 points for the square of beaten players (1 squared) - 9 points for the square of players beating him (3 squared) +1 (for each victory) Total = -7 E= +0 points from rating computation (beaten players) -16 points from rating computation (players beating him) +0 points for the square of beaten players (0 squared) -16 points for the square of players beating him (4 squared) +0 (for each victory) Total = -32 Remember, we are using points based on everyone being at 1000. This would fluctuate with various Ratings plugged in. We all see that the winner got about as many points as if he had played in 2 and a quarter games. And the loser lost about as many points as if he had lost 2 games. The others inside are a mixture. Though not as exact a formula as the 1 x 1 rating, remember, rating a multiplayer game is not ever going to be perfect. There is no way a formula could account for ganging, bad position, etc. With those imperfections in mind, the goal is to come up with a pretty good award (and subtraction) of points for a game that should count more than a 1 x 1 game but not so bad as to deter anyone from joining one. I know it seems a bit complicated but comments are invited. The fault I see in this is that the winner and loser seem to get a bigger number than the others (of course, this could be changed some depending of Ratings of other than 1000). Or, revisit the thread below to look at other suggestions, too. But we need to arrive at some sort of rating agreement. Note, this requires the computation to be done after the game has been totally completed (as it relates to rated players). |
Re: SE4 Rating System
I'm not in the rating system, just an outside observer. But I follow KOTH and the Ratings site just for fun. After having read that proposal, one thought kept running thru my mind: "keep it simple". Just my $0.02
[edit: Here's an idea. If there were 4 players as you describe, just score it as 3 1vs1 games. A beat B, C and D. B lost to A, but beat C & D, etc. This would mean no new formulae. Yes, it would suck to be D, but he did come in Last...] Slick. [ March 09, 2004, 03:08: Message edited by: Slick ] |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Slynky, essentially, I agree with Slick. Merely treat it as a round robin between the players involved. Yes, you would get larger point swings, but that's the whole idea... at least to me. You play against four others and are out first, you should take a beating in the Ratings! But if you win...!! That's the risk (and the fun) of multiplayer.
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Coming 3rd or 4th in a 4 player game is really not that different. It would really make it quite annoying if players refuse to surrender when they are down beyond repair just to salvage some points. With your system the difference between 3rd and 4th position is a whopping 23 points. Well worth to hang in there even if you only own a few rioting planets and some minefields.
A better (IMHO) system would give something like +25 / 0 / -10 / -15. After all; only the winner is a winner, even second place is a looser. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
However, some people objected to it because the first person out in a 5-rated-player (for example) game would lose 4 x 15 (to use an example calculation). Some thought that was excessive and might make players stay away from multiplayer games. For my own purposes, it's easiest to keep track of and as long as the person is aware ahead of time what they are getting into when they join a multiplayer game they shouldn't complain if they get "bitten" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif . |
Re: SE4 Rating System
I still prefer a method where you caclulate the points lost by averaging the Ratings and splitting points between the winners. It's not as complicated as it sounds when you get down to it.
Five player game: A B C D E E eliminated first E loses points as if losing to one player of a rating equal to the average of the four players beating him. A, B, C, D gain that number of points split between the four of them. Two ways to do this. Equal shares, or some sort of ratio based on their relative Ratings. The first is easier, but the second isn't that complicated. Ultimate winner A gains x+.5x+.333x+.25x=2.08x points. D loses about .75x points. C loses about .4x points. B gains about .1x points One advantage of this is that nobody gets hammered with a 15X drop in score for getting toasted early in a game. The most you could ever lose would be points equal to losing a 1 v 1 game. Another advantage is the ultimate winner doesn't get jacked up with a 15X jump in scores. The most the ultimate winner could gain is approximatly 3 times the score gained from winning a 1 x 1 game. The actual amount will approach 3x the larger the game gets, but never reach it. Players aren't incentivised to hang on in a hopeless cause as Primitive pointed out. Players will be more relaxed and able to play to win, instead of playing defensively for rank and trying not to lose. Players with good Ratings are going to be ganged up on, that's a given. But this way they aren't unfairly penalized in their Ratings. Otherwise they will probably tend to avoid large games, causing a lowering of the quality of the competition in those games. And with this method you can also calculate scores as the players are eliminated. Which I agree is important. [ March 09, 2004, 15:31: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: SE4 Rating System
i like geo's idea.
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
I think Geo's idea has a lot of merits, too. I'd prefer to do it with the "straight-line" method (the easier method he referred to), after all, not sure there is any really detailed need to be so careful to adjusting points in a ratio'd manner (I mean, why make sure we give the highest rated player a bigger proportion of the points when HE may be the next player out). And, I've always liked the idea of computing it as a player is beaten (assuming I get a report... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif ).
One of the good points, I think, is one of the points I worry about, though. And that is the skew that prevents the lowest finishing player getting points subtracted any worse than a 1 x 1 game while allowing the winner to gain points equal to 2 "1 x 1" games (or even more). While this is appealing to those who fear a person may hang around hoping that someone else will go out a turn before them, this could also lead to people overwhelming multi-player games. After all, you have a chance to gain an equivalent of winning 2 or 3 "1 x 1" games but NEVER having the fear of a loss being any worse than a single "1 x 1" game. In other words, you risk as many points in a "1 x 1" game as ANY multiplayer game yet the fruits of victory could yeild much more in point gain. I'm not against it, mind you, I'm just listing my concern. If we get a lot of people who prefer this way to rate multiplayer games, this is what we will use. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: SE4 Rating System
That's a valid point, but I see it as a positive. More people and more games being rated. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
While your downside risk is minimized, your chances of getting the 3x jump isn't all that great. That would require a 20 person game, and you'd have to be first out of 20. Most of the people would fall in the range in the middle, not getting much plus or minus. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
One more vote for Geo http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Winning a Huge game is a major feat, and should be richly rewarded. |
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
Quote:
|
Re: SE4 Rating System
My evil twin brother http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif is asking what if someone had a small low maintance ship hiding in a red nebula. Therefore he would not be "Killed", yet he has clearly lost. Are there rules/gentlemans agreements on this that I have missed?
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:16 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.