PBW League Idea...

geoschmo · #1 August 29th, 2002, 04:38 PM

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

Jmenschenfresser · #2 August 29th, 2002, 04:49 PM

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.

geoschmo · #3 August 29th, 2002, 04:56 PM

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

Jmenschenfresser · #4 August 29th, 2002, 05:04 PM

I would definitely be down for that action. A 4 limit is fine by me.

tesco samoa · #5 August 29th, 2002, 05:26 PM

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.

geoschmo · #6 August 29th, 2002, 05:45 PM

AIIIEEEE! My brain hurts Tesco.

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.

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.

Geoschmo

tesco samoa · #7 August 29th, 2002, 05:55 PM

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...

geoschmo · #8 August 29th, 2002, 06:00 PM

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

Jmenschenfresser · #9 August 29th, 2002, 06:15 PM

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.

mac5732 · #10 August 29th, 2002, 06:20 PM

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