Increasing turn speed

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Ruatha:
In any future game I might host I'll add a penalty to the "turn submission league" I think.
The rules are as follows:
The first three players to send in the turns get +1 points, the Last but one gets -1 and the Last player gets -2 points (Not submitted turn = -2 pts).

Then if some player/s gets to much negative score they will be kicked, this can be done in three ways:


1. I initially say that I might kick any player that gets to much negative points. (I don't like this alternative as I think the rules should be celar and avilible prior to anyone joining the game).

2. Anyone reaching a fixed limit, say -100 pts get's kicked. (If there are three players who constantly makes the first three submissions each turn then everyone else will be kicked eventually, not good).

3. A relative limit. Anyone who has 50 pts less than the one who is one step above on the pts list is kicked, positive score counts as zero.
(This is my favorite)
ex:
1..17 Others...
18. Olle +8 pts
19. Kalle -47 pts
20. Johan -97 pts.
Means Johan will be kicked as he has -50 pts less than kalle, but Kalle won't be kicked as he has -47 points less than zero (Olle has a positive score, that counts as zero).

Any reflections, ideas, suggestions??

If turns routinely come in with the same player order, three will also have the same problem you mention for option 2:

Five Players, a,b,c,d,e
a +1 per turn
b +1 per turn
c +1 per turn
d -1 per turn
e -2 per turn

After turn 50, player e will have 50 pts less than player d (50 * -2 = -100; 50 * -1 = -50) and player d will have 50 pts less than players a,b,c (as + counts as 0) so both get dropped. After that, the special case of the Last two players happens, and you start to get

a +1 per turn (50 at turn 50)
b -1 per turn (50 at turn 50)
c -2 per turn (50 at turn 50)
d Dropped
e Dropped

After 50 more turns, Player c has lost 100 points, and is now down to -50, with the next player up at 0, and so gets dropped.
(note: if the +1 for being in the first three and the -2 for being the Last stack, then c gets dropped after 100 turns rather than 50)

For that matter, unless the order is decidedly random, eventually, someone is going to get dropped.

Five players again: a, b, c, d, e
a: 50% chance of first, 20% chance second, 10% chance third, 10% chance fourth, 10% chance fifth
b: 10% chance of first, 50% chance of second, 20% chance third, 10% chance fourth, 10% chance fifth
c: 10% chance of first, 10% chance of second, 50% chance of third, 20% chance of fourth, 10% chance of fifth
d: 10% chance of first, 10% chance of second, 10% chance third, 50% chance fourth, 20% chance fifth
e: 20% chance of first, 10% chance of second, 10% chance of third, 10% chance of fourth, 50% chance of fifth

After just 84 turns:
a:84*50% + 84*20% + 84*10% - 84*10% - 2*84*10%
= 42 + 16.8 + 8.4 - 8.4 - 16.8 = 42
b:84*10% + 84*50% + 84*20% - 84*10% - 2*84*10%
= 8.4 + 42 + 16.8 - 8.4 - 16.8 = 42
c:84*10% + 84*10% + 84*50% - 84*20% - 2*84*10%
= 8.4 + 8.4 + 42 - 16.8 - 16.8 = 25.2
d:84*10% + 84*10% + 84*10% - 84*50% - 2*84*20%
= 8.4 + 8.4 + 8.4 - 42 - 33.6 = -50.4
e:84*20% + 84*10% + 84*10% - 84*10% - 2*84*50%
= 16.8 + 8.4 + 8.4 - 8.4 - 84 = -58.8

So, after 84 turns, d gets dropped (-50.4, next highest has 25.2(0)), followed by e one turn later
(d dissapeared, causing the next one up to be c, at ~ 25.2(0) while e is still at ~ -58.8)
You can run these numbers for different probability spreads (note: 84 turns was picked as the threshold for d going away; it was done after using 1000 and a little math to pick up on the fifty below threshold), but ultimately, unless the distributions for the turn order are close to even (even = everyone has 20% chance of taking any given position), you WILL drop someone eventually.

Perhaps instead it could be implemented as a production modifier - Empires of Emporers who give their orders sooner have more time to complete them, and Empires of Emporers who give their orders later have less time to complete them. Then again, that might be much too difficult.

[Roanon]

Wow this is beginning to get deeply mathematical. Long calculations cut short, this confirms Woundwort's bad feelings about someone being penalized even if submitting within the time frame.

Dividing the time into "deadline" and "grace period" is more complicated but excactly what would be needed, I guess. In NGC3, I liked the idea of having 72 hours time for a turn if needed - there are times when I just can't play for 2 or 3 days in a row. On the other hand, most of the time I am able to submit within 24 hours - and eager to get new results soon then.

So, something like 48 hours deadline with additional 12 hours only used in kind of "emergency" was more what I wanted and expected, but of course thats not what is in the game description... Plus, with 20 players, the need to use the "extra" 12 hours arises more often than not, even if all are trying to make their turns asap.

I think we will just have to live with 60-70 hours average deadline, or let the turn submission league develop and then attack those on the bottom first

[ June 05, 2003, 14:38: Message edited by: Roanon ]

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Roanon:
Wow this is beginning to get deeply mathematical.

Nah - that was just light math with a few generalizations loosely based on the law of large numbers for a limited case of five players. If I wanted to get deeply mathmatical, I would be using symbol manipulation, which would have the added benefit of giving an exact formula for who is most likely to get dropped first and how many turns it will likely take given their probability distribution relative to everyone else's - but that would be way too much work just for this; a simple example will do just fine, and is much easier.

[ June 05, 2003, 15:02: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

[Ruatha]

Just to clarify, in NGC3 there will never be anyone kicked for being late in submitting turns. What was stated at the start of the game stays that way.

The problem I see is that whne the turns for some reason (i e real life issues) get's slow for a while, a lot of people (me including) downgrade the game in priority.

I play several PBW games, when I get several turnfiles sent to me at once, I play the ones that I prioritize highest first.
my general priority runs something like this:
1. Is the turn due soon, if so take this first.
2. Is this a fast turnaround game, if so do this quick.
3. Do the rest (This can be tomorrow if there is much RL(tm)) do do.

[tesco samoa]

I would not play in a game like that.

If you want quick turn around.

State the game is this many hours auto. No exceptions.

if a game is 72 hours and I do a turn every 48 hours ( due to emails with players etc... ) And I am the Last player to post each time. I should not be kicked.

Your idea does not take into account the actual game itself. Because not all SEIV gaming takes place within SEIV.

Kicking one player could ruin the whole game.

I have seen players drop out of a game due to RLI which has completey ruined a game's RP.

Imagine what would happen if the biggest empire was the Last player to submit there turn all the time.... Gonzo... Or you force them to submit their turns when their not ready because they do not want to be kicked.

And what happens if say in a 48 hour game everyone submits their turns within the first two hours... One player happens to be Last or near Last. He is a quick submitter... but due to ranking... a bad player in this system.

[Slynky]

I gotta go with Tesco on this one.

I'm not sure there is much that can be done. The PBW game is posted with time paramneters and any additional requirements in the notes. I don't think anyone should be scrutinized out of the corner of one's eyes just 'cause they are perpetually the Last to upload (but do so within the stated requirements).

I, too, sometimes look at a game where I am excited about getting my turn back to see how I did and (briefly) let some thoughts run through my mind about the (single) player holding the game up. But I remind myself that everyone doesn't allocate the time and passion I do to the game and that they have other hobbies or RL events to spend time on.

I haven't started a new game on PBW lately ('cause I'm in enough at the moment), but I like the simple: "36-hour T/A; miss 3 turns during the game without requesting "permission" and you're automatically booted."

And, as always, there is the player who loses interest 'cause he is losing (pardon the pun ). He'll likely drop which makes the game unfair as the people next to him gobble his territory up or his allies begin to suffer. I don't believe in this. I play till the finish (or until my team agrees to "throw in the towel")...but not everyone feels this way.

And, assuming it's possible, I'd hate to see some kind of award system for people who submit more promptly than others that results in direct game benefits. I'd hate to see my position in a game suffer for reasons that really have nothing to do with game play ability.

I once posted a poll on what makes games interesting. Fast turnaround, 6 players, game sponsored by a "heavyweight", and (already) knowing the people in the game were the winning items. I'd have to say, now that I have been on the forum a while and tucked a few PBW games under my belt, I can understand why the poll came out the way it did. I know right now of many people who I would like to play with who submit turns well within the time limits, won't quit, and offer good play.

[Captain Kwok]

The best method to increase turnaround times is to play in smaller games with under 10 players that share similiar playing habits to yourself.