PBW League Idea...

[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...

[Nodachi]

*Bump*

Here you go Binford.

[Binford]

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

[Gimboid]

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

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