| Author |
Message |
|
|
The proposed changes will turn players from fighting one another (and taking advantage of design bugs) into fighting together against the system in order to keep the rating, if they deem it important.
So it will swap one problem with another.
From my point of view, the best way to proceed is to assess where are major areas where the system fails and treat those, maybe turning some issues on their head  . This is how i would do it:
- problem: rated 3 and 10 minute games make unjust points by kicking in first round
1. allow players to reject invitations
2. once a game is full, start it - that would turn the issue on its head as the second player would wait for the creator to become offline and then kick him, thus none that creates these games would leave them after signing out
thus in a short while you'll have 3'/10' games only with players that are committed to playing these kind of games
- treat similar problems, must be 2 or 3 more
- introduce mirror random games
- introduce a time factor for all players - the points lost by all players should equal the points brought into the system by new players. that solves one of the biggest problems of ELO rating system: inflation. i would propose something around between 0.05 to 0.15% points/day. that would mean if you have a score of 2000 you lose around 1-3 points/day. that treats the problem of inactive players without being discriminative.
- final step: floor scores over say 2400. the rating should be similar to chess, and there you have: 1200 - 1999 novices and class D to A, 2000 - 2200 candidate masters, 2200 - 2400 national masters, 2400 - 2600 grandmasters, 2600+ world championship contenders (highest rating right now is 2877 by world champion Carsen)
|
|
|
Round 2: Loveboxxx69 vs. andrei82b - games finished.
andrei82b wins all 4
g1: leveboxxx69 titan < andrei82b Kral - round 6
g1m: andrei82b titan > leveboxxx69 Kral - round 5
g2: leveboxxx69 titan < andrei82b titan - round 5
g2m: andrei82b titan > leveboxxx69 titan - round 5
Any progress on collecting game results or for next round we'll still have to report?
|
|
|
Games finished: andrei82b vs excellentman.
andrei82b wins all 4 matches:
G1: excellentman (titan) - andrei82b (kral): andrei82b wins in round 14
G1M: andrei82b (titan) - excellentman (kral): andrei82b wins in round 10
G2: andrei82b (sap) - excellentman (titan): andrei82b wins in round 14
G2M: excellentman (sap) - andrei82b (titan): andrei82b wins in round 13
|
|
|
andrei82b
2586
|
|
|
count me in. there should be however stated rules, procedures and tournament development in more details in first post.
nickname: andrei82 (2413)
map: decisions2 (by shmauk) - pretty fast map, no money penalty on first player, you get a decent 300 every turn (300-400 is optimum), 3 bases/player (2-5 is optimum in tournaments) and there is interesting positioning of forest and mountains for race ballance
|
|
|
Group 1/8 players 1 AnuarAnsat vs. 2 andrei82bu games are STARTING today:
Game 1: AnuarAnsat (Sap) - andrei82bu (Kral)
Game 1 mirror: Kral - Sap
Game 2: andrei82bu (Titan) - AnuarAnsat (Kral)
Game 2 mirror: Kral - Titan
|
|
|
Group 1/8 players 3: zergjah (2216) and 4: andrei82bu (2327) - Games ENDED: andrei82bu WINS 3 of 4 matches:
(please modify scores in Google table)
G1: zergjah (sap) - andrei82bu (kral): andrei82bu wins in 17 rounds
G1M: andrei82bu (sap) - zergjah (kral): andrei82bu wins in 12 rounds
G2: andrei82bu (tit) - zergjah (tit): zergjah wins in 30 rounds
G2M: zergjah (tit) - andrei82bu (tit): andrei82bu wins in 23 rounds
|
|
|
Group 1/8 players 3: zergjah (2177) and 4: andrei82bu (2292) - Games STARTED:
- please modify scores in Google table -
G1: zergjah (sap) - andrei82bu (kral)
G1M: andrei82bu (sap) - zergjah (kral)
G2: andrei82bu (tit) - zergjah (tit)
G2M: zergjah (tit) - andrei82bu (tit)
|
|
|
What you are adressing seems like real problems.
I don't know if they can be easily solved, but there are some things that can be done.
First of all, turns should be 12 hours.
Second, teams should consist of 2 players. For larger teams, as you said, there are too many variables.
In order for maps to be over in less than 30 rounds, maps should have a maximum area of 300 hexes (~17x17) and a turn base production/player between 300 and 400.
Surrendering mechanism should be modified in order to shorten games: winning party accepts or refuses the surrendering of the other party. They accept if they consider they can defeat the team in 5 or more rounds. They refuse if they consider they can end the game quicker. Losing team that surrendered and was accepted has a bonus of 5 turns. Turn number can be adjusted anywhere between 3 and 7, to keep this mechanism appropiate for the map and projection capabilities of players.
That said, if a game is to last on average, let's say, 20 rounds, by round 15 balance will tilt and one team could surrender. With 12 hours/turn and 4 players players there is one complete turn every 12 hours. That means 2 turns/day.
So a game should be over in about 10 days. That seems pretty decent.
|
|
|
I think team tournaments have not been organized cause people were afraid that one player could play on all accounts. But i do not see that as a problem. Whoever wants to work for the whole team alone, let them work. Heck, he doesn't even need his own accounts if his friends give him their password.
If you want such an event to take place, you have to organise it. It's not that hard:
First, you need a solid map for this. i recommend you talk with Talone about this, maybe he'll make a new one.
Second, you need a solid spreadsheet on Google docs, to include at least usernames and e-mails, that allows comments, as it will spare you a lot of work.
Third, set the rules. I would recommend players of above 1800 or more than 50 games played. Duration of stages: 2 weeks for 12h round games that are averagely ended in maximum 25 rounds. for this map needs to be playtested. Make a thread on forum about it. Normally people that playtest the map should not be allowed in tournament cause they have an advantage over the other competitors. So map makers/organizers/testers should not take place in tournament. Then, you ask yourself, why doesn't anyone do it? It's exactly this: players want to compete not to work so that others have fun. Now if that work was somehow backed by the devs, than we'd see more tournaments.
Fourth, after all details are set, contact simsverd or xavi so that players get an in-game announcement with the link to forum. In forum post the link to Gdocs and mention that players will have to athenticate to comment, as e-mails will confirm that it them that entered the data and none other can mess with game results. Anonymus comments are not considered. You can make a simpler game format: 2 unrated games, each player starts one, each player chooses all races. This way games can be mirrrored or not, or you can keep classic 2+2 mirror games.
From then on it should all run smooth, as you will only accept the comments as text cell and each player will complete his own team and the opposing team losing in case they do not, as it usually happens.
|
|
|
Group 1/8 - Games ENDED between Player 7: Opportunist vs. Player 8: andrei82bu
andrei82bu won all 4:
G1: Opportunist (sap) - andrei82bu (titan): andrei82bu won in ROUND 12
G1/: andrei82bu (sap) - Opportunist (titan): andrei82bu won in ROUND 10
G2: andrei82bu (titan) - Opportunist (khral): andrei82bu won in ROUND 13
G2/: Opportunist (titan) - andrei82bu (khral): andrei82bu won in ROUND 11
|
|
|
|
talone wrote: Friends!
Would it not be more interesting for the tournament if we commented on our strategy or posted some screenshots of the games and round number and take them, let's say, every 4 or 5 rounds (starting with round 3)?
I think it would make of a better show, like you wanted. Fog of war OFF would have been great for this (maybe for next tournament). Besides, it might give players some insights on a better strategy, cause that's one of the points: to improve our game, right?
For example the strategy for khrals looks pretty straight forward on this map but for saps and titans I can't figure out yet if the war can be won on land only or ships are necessary and if so when should they be bought?
|
|
|
Group 1/8 - players 7 Opportunist 1910 and 8 andrei82bu 2172 STARTED:
G1: Opportunist (sap) - andrei82bu (titan)
G1M: andrei82bu (sap) - Opportunist (titan)
G2: andrei82bu (titan) - Opportunist (khral)
G2M: Opportunist (titan) - andrei82bu (khral)
|
|
|
is it not easier for you and us to confirm starting a game as comment in the google docs table (instead of russian forum) and then you just modify the cell? It would spare you a lot of time, data would be centralized and players could see in real time what's going on in the tournament, if they look at comments.
Take a look at how I wrote and tell me what you think.
Sorry for making you quit the tournament, I was just asking a moral question, it does not make more or less un/happy.
|
|
|
Is it not odd that you are the organizer, the map author and a contestant, not to mention you are at least 250 points ahead of the next contestant?
Anyone wanna bet who the winner will be?
Everyone knows you're probably the best player out there, so the most honorable thing to do would be that you organize the tournament, let others play and, at the end, play the 4 games with the winner, without fog of war and somehow make them public, with everyone maybe giving their opinion on moves and strategy and maybe some advice to the other player, cause I don't think you'll need any
One other thing you could add to the prize list would be for places 9-13 (as 1-8 get prizes) to receive some training sessions with you (like the ones you do for money), cause they're pretty good aready but need a proffesional teacher to become expert.
What do you think?
|
![[Search]](/templates/default/images/icon_mini_search.gif){kind=icon}
![[Recent Topics]](/templates/default/images/icon_mini_recentTopics.gif){kind=icon}
![[Login]](/templates/default/images/icon_mini_login.gif){kind=icon}
Login
