PBW League Idea...

[Rollo]

Thanks Eric,
now I got a headache .
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

[Zanthis]

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.

[geoschmo]

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

[LazarusLong42]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
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

Yeah, it could be done automatically. It wouldn't be too much work, except for the Last case (>2 players and >1 winner). Though I'm thinking that case may be set up in too complex a fashion and should be treated as a draw.

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

[sparhawk]

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 ]

[geoschmo]

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

[tesco samoa]

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...