|
PBW League Idea...
We have got several requests for some kind of ladder or tracking of stats for PBW games. There are many ways to do this, all with some level of complexity and work to maintain for whoever.
My latest idea is for a PBW league. As many players could join as wished. All league games would be two-player games. Any sort of settings that are acceptable to both players would be allowed for officaial league games, including AI players if wanted. As long as both players agree to it. We wouldn't try to set any sort of schdeule or anything, but each league member would be required to play a one on one game against every other member of the league eventually. Your ranking would be a simple won-loss that would be tallied manually by somone and posted on a website. I think the biggesst complaint people would have about this is the one on one games. Are there enough people that like one on one games to do something like this? Personally I love one on one games. They fly. You can get a lot of turns in and I tend ot not lose interest in the game like I do in bigger games. Geoschmo |
Re: PBW League Idea...
Don't see why it should be limited to one on one games. Of course your chance of winning is less with 3 or 4 or 5 people, but I'm not sure that really matters.
Although I do think there should be a low limit. I suggest no more than five, but that is just me. |
Re: PBW League Idea...
Well, I was trying to keep it simple, that's the only reason for the 2 man limit.
I suppose I could combine it with the other idea we kicked around. Allow 2, 3, or 4 man games. If you win the game you get three wins. 2nd place gets 2 wins and 1 loss, 3rd place 1 win and 2 losses, and Last place 3 losses. My preferance is the two man league, but if it takes opening up the game size to get interest I would do that. I think four players should be the limit though. And people like me that want to play two man games can still play two man games for league standings. Geoschmo |
Re: PBW League Idea...
I would definitely be down for that action. A 4 limit is fine by me.
|
Re: PBW League Idea...
that would be cool... Can only challenge a player who is a max of 5 players above you...
You win you move up the ladder... If you lose you move down the ladder... Position based on wins up to 20 games and then winning percentage after you hit 20 games... That way the ladder has 2 levels... An appropriate one for veterns where your rewarded for playing games and winning and a 2nd level where new ladder players can join and fight it out between each new player until they hit the 20 game mark... Or for something that makes sence Just based on win totals... And additional losses for players who withdraw from the game for no reasaon.... Such as a -3 on the loss table and another table where it shows they withdrew for no reason... Or A system where scoring is based on Ratings Say there are 40 people... Score would be 1st place player is 40 pts... 5th place player is 35pts.. if the 5th place player beats the 1st place player he gets 40 pts added to his Ratings.. So you could have stats such as GP, W, L , %Winning Perentage , Ratings ( or experience ) and a nice rank ( for the fun of it ) But I think it is important to keep the 5 position limit rule in effect... Or... Even 5 pts for a win or minus 5 pts for a loss which is then affected by the ranking system x1 for new players ( under 4 games ) x2 for privates x3 for corporals x4 for sarges etc..... Ah so many ideas... But I am in. |
Re: PBW League Idea...
AIIIEEEE! My brain hurts Tesco. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
That all sounds great, but very complex. This wouldn't be a standard ladder where you play anyone and move up by winning, that sort of thing. I want to give people the incentive to play people they have not played against before. I want this to be a league where you have to play everybody. I don't want to restrict people from playing only people within five spots of them. I want everybody to play everybody, as much as possible anyway. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Good idea about an incentive for staying in the game to the end. Hows this: Instead of wins and losses, we count only wins. Losing just doesn't give you a win, but leaving a game in progress without at least ackowledging the other player beat you takes away one of your previous wins. I would like to only allow two of your wins to be against one person. Once you have beaten that person two times, you can still play them, but if you win it will have no effect cause it will "bump out" one of your previous wins, so no net change. They can however earn a win by beating you. Once you each have two wins against each other there is no net change by playing each other. But since this is a league we will have seasons. Every six months or so we start a new season and drop all the old records. Everybody start over at zero wins. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Geoschmo |
Re: PBW League Idea...
i like that idea geo about the two wins...
as well as this one Even 5 pts for a win or minus 5 pts for a loss which is then affected by the ranking system x1 for new players ( under 4 games ) x2 for privates x3 for corporals x4 for sarges etc..... If you beat two players you can add the totals together... That way you can fight who ever on the ladder and the scores are adjusted based on experience... What ever is decided I would like to play... Sorry for hurting your brain... I figured I would toss out 3 seperate systems... for debate... Now we have 4 systems open for debate... |
Re: PBW League Idea...
I have no problem on multiple ideas. Just bear in mind in all likelyhood this will be maintained manually, and that limits considerably the complexity which can be considered.
We could get a standard ladder which would be run automatically. In that system you would move up the ladder half the distance between you and the person you beat. And you only move down by people below you beating people above you then. It's not a bad system, but it's not really what I wanted to do. But maybe the fact of it being handled automatically for free is a big incentive to choose it over any idea we can come up with on our own. Geoschmo |
Re: PBW League Idea...
I dunno Tesco, 4 games in 6 months is certainly doable, but how many will actually seriously exceed that?
It would be very easy to track four fields, from which you could derive total score: wins, losses, total games and players faced. Very easy to track and easy to come up with a scoring system if desired. Tracking the amount of times people have played will be the real headache, I think. I don't mind helping out with the tracking, if you don't opt out for something automatic. I'm not great with putting things on websites, but I can handle spreadsheets like there's no tomorrow. |
Re: PBW League Idea...
I like the idea and concept, also how about adding say a team play as well, this would be alittle more interesting then just one on one, could be 3 vs 3 or 4 vs 4, I wouldn't go above 4 players to a side. this way you would have both single player and team rankings. You could possibly add or subtract a point/s to each player in the team that wins, this could go towards their overall ranking if that is wanted or just leave it at team and individual rankings... oh well my 2 cents
just some ideas mac |
Re: PBW League Idea...
I like the idea of not recrding losses, but it could lead to a problem if you have a "ranking multiplier": If you can play anyone in the league, all the ppl at the bottom will want to play the ppl at the top to have a chance of winning the rank multiplier. With no "punishment" for losing, there will be no risk and so no reason not to keep pestering them.
Unless you introduce the "only two games count" system between each pair of players... Now my Brain hurts http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif |
Re: PBW League Idea...
We would all like to know what kind of players are signed up for a game so that gross inequities are avoided and so that you can get the competitive level you desire. A Ratings system could promote increased participation as well, or maybe not....
I contend that any system you improvise will affect the game community detrimentally. Years ago I played a PBM (US snail mail) game called Nuclear Destruction. I was good, one of the 10 best in the world according to the Ratings system in place, which involved points for winning, ties, + points for those dead ahead of you and - points for those who survived you). But what happened was that people began playing the game for points, not necessarily to win. The better players also found themselves targetted for early elimination by those hoping to advance themselves. This is not an environment I would care to be in. |
Re: PBW League Idea...
Tracking is quite easy...
Challenger Player must submit that they are playing a game and who it is against... When the game is over the Winning player submits that they have won the game. The stats are up dated.. I love stats... So I could keep track of the stats... What ever stats people would want to see. Such as history vs each player etc... I have all the software available to do this stuff. Databases,,, spreadsheets etc... Updates could be run once a week or month or bi-weekly etc... What ever people wanted. On the subject of challanging people below/above you... If you lose your score would be adjusted per ranking and score.. that way the punishment/benifit is little score increase or a little score decrease.. If a player is currently playing a game they could refuse to play that challenge. That way the player would challenge other players... As i have seen on other ladders.. Current games could be listed .... so you would know who is playing... And this system could be used for the two player games as well... That way you know who you played and who is currently open for a game.. who you can challenge... Or even combine the two http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif now my head hurts http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Either way i like those two systems... I see merits in both of them... About Game Play Geo I think Pre-Designed Standard maps would be the way to go. 10 two player maps.... That way there is some variation... and an equal footing on startup. A couple of Tournment Maps if you wish for 3 or 4 player games... |
Re: PBW League Idea...
Ladder systems have it's merits and faults.
Merits would be it's fun, it would get people into that gaming spirit, it would vitalize PBW even more... the faults would be that people with high Ratings would get it into their heads, constant bickerings about how the other player cheated, more hacks and cheats, and even some clubs that might seek to completely destroy beginners so that they might stay up in the charts. |
Re: PBW League Idea...
I would very much like to see a ladder system on PBW. Would make for more incintive to play.
I'm a fan of 1 vs 1 games so that would work for me. At the moment I'm trying to think of how these different systems would work and which one would be best. But knowing my brain that'll take awhile to figure out. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif |
Re: PBW League Idea...
mano-a-mano games rock and are IMO the best way to handle a league or ladder system.
Rollo |
Re: PBW League Idea...
I'd play in the league... and here are my opinions on the matter:
- Only 1 vs 1 games. - Only track wins, losses, and win/loss ratio - Only count the first game you play against someone for total Wins and Losses (this would ensure that people keep playing against new players) - Use seasons. Declare two winners at the end of the season: Most Wins and Best Win/Loss Ratio. If it isn't the same person, then those two could duke it out for the Supreme Crown Of Devastation and Destruction. (and obviously, you would need to have a certain number of games played before you can qualify for the best Win/Loss title). I think that a ranking system only works well when a lot of games are played. Since SE4 can be so time consuming, trying to squeeze in a valid ranking system will likely only lead to frustration. -Spoon |
Re: PBW League Idea...
Something like that was done some time ago for SE3 (most old players would remember the Borg Collective!).
Think that would be good keep the system simple. Like others suggested here, I go for 1v1 game, keep a track of victory/loses, and believe that should be not mandatory accept a challenge. |
Re: PBW League Idea...
Oooh... Laz Posts to the Shrapnel Boards. A rarity nowadays http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
OK, my thought on this has always been that a modified Elo ranking system would work best. The actual specifc mathematics can be worked out later, but the basic gist is this: When you join the ladder, you have a ranking of 1000. You gain points when you win, based on the rank of the player you played against. So, if you're at 1000 and beat someone with rank 1200, you gain more points than if you beat someone with rank 800. This is similar to the ranking system the US Chess Federation uses. This also allows for multiplayer games, through a couple of different algorithms. I'd be willing to help work out the exact algorithms, and also help write up automation for the web. Eric/LL |
Re: PBW League Idea...
Neat Idea but each game would probably need to be played under the same settings in order to have the rankings mean something.
And what would be considered a win? I would suggest several diffrent 'Leagues' one for 2 player, multiplayer, team player, 5000, 3000, 2000, ETC. Try to have something for everyone. |
Re: PBW League Idea...
a win would be victory... which is decided between the players in the game... or just a standard Last man standing
|
Re: PBW League Idea...
I don't think we need to compare game settings to determine the value of a win. A win is a win. Everybody in that particular game is playing by the same rules, so beating them all is no more or less impressive than someone winning a game played with different settings.
Geoschmo |
Re: PBW League Idea...
I used to play rated games of Age of Empires on the Microsoft Gaming Zone, which uses a scoring system similar to that described by LazarusLong42. It seems to work reasonably well both for head-to-head and multiplayer games, including team games. For details you may go to: http://zone.msn.com/conquerors/Ratingsfaq.asp
|
Re: PBW League Idea...
Well a multiplayer win is diffrent than in a head to head game. When you don't have to use diplomacy who ever is better at expansion and production wins. In a multiplayer game that ablity is muted. I am in a game now where the lead player outproduces everyone but they are losing because everyone has ganged up on him. So I still think it takes diffrent skills to win at diffrent types of games. Not all games are created equal.
I would go for a published ranking system. Based on wins and participation. 3 point for a 'Win' 2 for second place and 1 point just for being in the game. and -5 for dropping out. All these points would be divided by the amount of games played. And Ranked players could advertise games and you could join based on your ranking. New folks could still play with experienced folks and still walk away with something. [ August 30, 2002, 19:56: Message edited by: Gozra ] |
Re: PBW League Idea...
OK, because no one asked about it... my suggestion for a ranking/ladder system, in full fledged mathematical glory. Math-impaired people may wish to stop here. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
OK. For any given game, assume you have N players, each of whom has a rating, R1, R2,... RN. These players will "donate"--virtually--a portion of their Ratings to a pool which will go to the winner of the game. The total pool of points would be equal to 50*N. The "donation" for player i will be equal to Di = (50 * N * (Ri^2))/(R1^2 + R2^2 + ... + RN^2). This donation is equal to the total amount the player will *lose* if they fail to win the game. If the player wins, however, they gain (50 * N) - Di points -- or the total of the donations of the other players. Let's take two examples. A two-player game is simple. The total point pool is 100 points. Now, let's take two players with rating 1000 and 1200 respectively. Player 1 donates 50 * 2 * 1000000 / (1000000 + 1440000) = 41 points. Player 2 donates 59 points via the same math. So, if player 1 wins, he gains 59 points and player 2 loses 59 pts. Conversely, if player 2 wins, she gains 41 points and player 1 loses 41 pts. In other words, if the stronger player wins, he gains fewer points than the weaker player does if he wins. In a two-player game that ends in an agreed draw, each player loses their inital donation, then takes back 50 points. So, player 2 would lose 9 points to player 1 if this game had ended in a draw. Now... because I'm a masochist, let's take the case of a *5* player game. Total pool is 250 pts. I'm not going to show the calculations, but I'm going to give you a quick table: </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Player Rating Donation 1 1300 80 2 1200 68 3 1000 48 4 800 30 5 700 23</pre><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Which ever player wins gains the sum of the other players' donations; each player who lost loses his donation. Of course... that's assuming a Last-man-standing game. In some games, team games for instance, players will know going in that they plan to cooperate. In some games, mainly large games, players will agree to a cooperative win rather than fighting a final battle. Both of these are parts of the SE experience. However, they muddle a Ratings system of this sort. I'm not going to write out the math here because without being able to show real equations they'd become hopelessly illegible. Suffice to say: if two people win, take the other three players and add their donations together. The two players each take a share of those points proportional to both their initial donation, and to the total number of points they would have earned had they won. So if, for instance, players 1 and 3 in the above example share the win, player 1 earns 71 points and player 2 earns 51 points. I'll leave the math on that as an exercise for the reader <EG> Comments? Flames? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Eric |
Re: PBW League Idea...
Thanks Eric,
now I got a headache http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif . Nice system (I guess... ). I got another idea for a system. If you win, you get one point. If you lose, you don't. Rollo |
Re: PBW League Idea...
Good post Laz. Like the system. I've always favored point swapping ranking systems, as opposed to those that generate points. However, the system will still suffer some inflation as new players come, lose some points to better players and then leave. The players that stick around will slowly amass large numbers of points (although, given the speed of a SE4 game, that might take many years).
Of course, seasons would eliminate that problem. Or, instead of just resetting everyone each season, you could rescale them all to be within say a 1000 to 2000 point range. If inflation is too bad, adding a "cost" for each game of a few points may handle that. So if the loser's donation is 40 points, the winner might only get 37 leaving 3 points to be removed from the system. |
Re: PBW League Idea...
Ok Eric, I am assuming this could all be done automatically? Cause otherwise this seems incredibally complicated to me.
Also, how does it work for new players joining the ranking system later on. What ranking do they start with? Geoschmo |
Re: PBW League Idea...
Quote:
New players, to start, would start with 1000 as their rating. Later on, new players would start at the average rating of all active players. Whomever wishes to run the service would have to define how long after the Last played game a player becomes "inactive". This doesn't counter the inflation Zanthis speaks of, but it keeps the average points per player stable, thus making things fair for new incoming players. I suspect that even +/-5% inflation in this sort of point system would take a good couple of years to show up, simply because of the speed (or lack thereof) of most SE4 games. Excluding, of course, some of the games in the Uni Cup Tourney, the shortest of which Lasted under a week. I would recommend not artificially deflating the system unless the inflation truly got out of hand. Only one other matter would need to be settled: Say player A and player B start a game today. Two weeks from now, A and C start a game. The first game ends a month later, and two months later the second game ends. What is A's starting rating for the second game?? I recommend it be considered the same as his starting rating for the first game, since at the time the second game started, the first game was not yet settled. (This is not generally a problem in these systems because they're used with games, like Chess or Starcraft, that are finished within 15 minutes to 3 hours, rather than 3 months). Eric |
Re: PBW League Idea...
I don't know. The whole idea of this rating system just seems too contrived to me. It's just my personal opinion, but I would be happy with just a simple wins and losses. No points based on the record of who are playing. Just a win or a loss. And maybe just simply restrict you to one game of record against any one person. To keep people from playing the same people over and over.
Geoschmo |
Re: PBW League Idea...
Geo we could just start the ladder with the 2 game system... as you mentioned earlier and then in about 3 to 6 months... The active ladder players could decide if they want to have more of a formal system... Or just keep it the way it is...
That way the ladder can begin and evolve through its active members.... And then the dicussion of the othe important topics can begin... such as Challenge rules... Game Setup etc... |
Re: PBW League Idea...
That looks workable,
So just an idea from to other side of the atlantic ocean: why make more than 1x1 games?? I think it would be the best thing to find out who's best in a 1x1 games. Make some standaards maps, so everyone has thesame starting position, with equel colonizable planets . Like a chess game; everyone is starting with the same position and the same pices, only the strategy will determine who will be the winner. And using the system of lazarus..(sorry i forgot) you get more point if you win from a stronger/higher placed opponent. But I think it also wise to put some restriction to that, because otherwise the top player will be challenged too often by "newbies" (because you can score more if you win.) So probaly something tesco said about only challenging the 4-5 below and above you. In this case the top player will not be challenged by newbies (and newbies cannot be playing against to experienced players) And also in this case every game is up to your skills, because you will be playing games against players who have a comparising amount of points, eq the same experience. Sparhawk [ September 02, 2002, 12:07: Message edited by: sparhawk ] |
Re: PBW League Idea...
*Bump*
Here you go Binford. |
Re: PBW League Idea...
Thanks! Sorry I started a new thread on the same thing.
I wasn't thinking along the lines of a ladder env. I don't think Strategy games lend themselves very well to that. What made me wonder if this could be done was a lot of my family plays Duplicate (aka Contract) Bridge with a couple of Life Masters in my family. This system earns points based on the size of the event as well as how well you do. (A better description is here: http://www.acbl.org/details.asp?id=1831&PID=9069 (no bridge knowledge needed to understand this page). The Elo system in Chess is a good example as well also being very strategic in play. I think 4X games like SE4 are more like bridge than like Chess though due to the incredible number of variables that get setup before a game even starts whereas Chess always begins the exact same way. This would be more analagous to Bridge where the card deal would be like Map placement, how racial points are used, starting systems values, etc. I'm thinking everyone would generate points for playing but people who play a lot of games a long time would advance more quickly than casual players. This is very much like Bridge where people who travel to tournaments regularly (usually retirees) advance much more quickly than people who only play when regionals/sectionals are near them and time permits. A formula would need to be built that takes into account starting resources, starting planets, starting racial points, starting research level (L, M, H) and research cost (L, M, H). I know a game that starts with Low tech, medium or High research cost, 2000 racial points and 1 planet will have much lower scores than one with (for ex.) Medium Tech, Low research costs, 5000 racial points, and 5 planets. There would need to be a ratio multiplier applied to the score to make the balance even. I'm thinking along those lines anyway, but there might be an easier way: What are the experience points that accumalate during a game used for? Would this be an indicator of play level during any given game? Anyway, I am rambling a little so I'll shut up now that I have thrown this out there for some more discussion. Binford |
Re: PBW League Idea...
Hmm taking into account game settings might be useful, id have to tip my hat to someone who can win a 5 player large galaxy match as that would take some skill indeed. Although less impressive, it is still an achievement to win a small galaxy 1 on 1 match to http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
The experience points accumulated during the game are not really useful at all from the perspective of setting up a ladder system so they shouldnt be taken into account. Especially since any points accumulated would be lost if you changed your empire in every game (or tweaked it significantly). i cant speak for everyone but i know that i usually tweak my empire stats to cater for varying game settings (intel/no intel, etc). Empire experience points could also be artificially inflated by simply playing a few single player matches against the AI using that same empire file |
Re: PBW League Idea...
How about not only getting points for beating certain players depending on their skill but also getting points based on what kind of game it is, hence rewarding players for playing longer/harder games. Using neutrals, unless approved for a scenario game, would reduce points (because ppl could abuse them).
I'm not sure if this makes sense, but that way people who play one game every 3 mos. as opposed to those who take longer/shorter (how?) will be ranked equally by gaining more points for that type of game. Also, any game that is shorter than X turns wouldn't be counted, and anything that looks odd would need investigation. I like the idea, and am talking nonesense now, yeah! |
Re: PBW League Idea...
Anybody have any new ideas on this one? I am still considering putting together some kind of league that doesn't have to be one on one games.
Geoschmo |
Re: PBW League Idea...
I've been thinking about this topic recently, and it seems to me that the best systems for multiplayer games are those that reward winning without overly penalizing the losers (since there are many more of them than winners).
A very simple way to do this with SEIV would be to tally points per game played. The total number of points for a game would be the number of players, and that total would be divided by the number of winners. So, in an eight player game with two winners (an alliance victory), each of the victors would get 4 points. A solo victory in the same game would get 8 points. These points would be added to each player's previous total and divided by the total number of games played, resulting in a points per game score for every league member. The league standings would then be based on the points per game score. There would need to be a minimum number of games played to qualify for league ranking (otherwise you could have anomalous high scores for infrequent players (like the 1.000 batting average in baseball you sometimes see in April)). This system would allow, I think, for a valid comparison of those who play alot and those who play fewer games - without simply rewarding frequency of play (it seems to me a player that only plays ten games and wins 5 of them is better than a player who plays 50 and wins 10). And it would allow for players who like games with lots of players (Fyron) to compete in the same league with one-on-one players (who may all be over at KOTH by now...). Anyway, just some thoughts. Because of real-life time constraints I can't play KOTH (as much as I'd love to!), but I would jump into a league like this one in a minute. So, I hope you do decide to start one, Geoschmo. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif [ December 14, 2002, 06:09: Message edited by: Chronon ] |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:08 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.