#1 01.06.2013 13:21:07

Kryon
Player
Posts: 331

the ranking system

WHEN there is NO time and winning-alliance-size limits, the current LT ranking system  (as explained here: http://longturn.org/ranking/ ) works very well. We decide winners by surviving alliance instead of in-game scores and each winner earns the same amount of points. But winners earn more points if there are more losers and fewer winners (to discourage large alliances).

The reason of not using in-game scores is to have all members of one alliance to win the game and not some members of several alliances. Also, we assign equal points to winners because in-game scores do not really represent how much a player contributed to the victory.

But earning fewer rank points was not enough to stop players from forming a large alliance in LT30. So in LT31 we voted for a winner-size limit. And to encourage members of the large alliance to eventually fight we put a time limit. But the map was huge in LT31 and time limit was not big enough.

So, ONLY IF there is a time and winner-size limit AND IF the time limit is not enough, then the current method fails.

LT32 is a team game so we don't have to worry about large alliances or time limits. But for the next alliance game, we should discuss how to better discourage large alliances. The current ranking system already discourages large alliances but we may also impose an alliance limit by modifying the freeciv code.

Offline

#2 01.06.2013 13:46:53

edrim
Ganoes Paran
Posts: 478

Re: the ranking system

Kryon wrote:

The reason of not using in-game scores is to have all members of one alliance to win the game and not some members of several alliances. Also, we assign equal points to winners because in-game scores do not really represent how much a player contributed to the victory.

I wonder if all of LT30 winners was in (at least) string ally.
Please take it in mind when you will try to write a new rules, i propose to take a look at nice Marduk's rules about winning and loosing at old.longturn.org

Offline

#3 01.06.2013 23:32:58

mmm2
Player
Posts: 573

Re: the ranking system

kryon, it was a good idea you had from the beginning and most voted in favor of it. but it's better that there be fewer of these kinds of rules with so many caveats.

i would suggest that every turn there should be a report showing which players are sharing vision with each other. sharing vision is synonymous with alliance even though it is usually one or two players with embassies linking the shared vision together. for the case of lt31, it was our team of kryon,johnhx,mmm2,pipo,mrsynical,det0r, and ifaesu most of the time thinking that the other "teams" were also limiting their size to 7 (we even booted rsnk to make room for other player! lol). If we had known that there was such a mega alliance through some kind of a report being displayed we could have better made diplomacy and probably would have recruited the other non-allied players... This kind of report about shared vision would be very beneficial. With this info, it's up to the players to decide about how to position themselves so they are not too weak. But it's impossible to see the linkage of shared vision even through embassy reports. There was no way our team could even guess that the main team had such a huge shared vision (shared vision=alliance). so this kind of report detailing the shared vision linkage of players would be very beneficial. I don't think the programming would be hard to do this either. of course lt32 will be a pre-arranged alliance game with diplomacy disabled for non-team, so this isnot relevant for LT32. i don't like that lt32 will be pre-arranged with revealmap 1, but that's a separate topic.

Last edited by mmm2 (01.06.2013 23:47:53)

Offline

#4 02.06.2013 02:08:33

det0r
Player
Posts: 166

Re: the ranking system

mmm2 wrote:

i don't like that lt32 will be pre-arranged with revealmap 1, but that's a separate topic.

We will never please everybody with the game settings, that is why we try to alternate between team games/FFA games, and why we try to test out new settings (and occasionally throw in things like map revealed - one game was even played with no fog of war!)

Offline

#5 02.06.2013 12:55:05

edrim
Ganoes Paran
Posts: 478

Re: the ranking system

mmm2 wrote:

for the case of lt31, it was our team of kryon,johnhx,mmm2,pipo,mrsynical,det0r, and ifaesu most of the time thinking that the other "teams" were also limiting their size to 7 (we even booted rsnk to make room for other player! lol).

But it was only your team to do it. You will never force players not to group in large alliances.
It is normal(?) that some of them will arrange big groups to avoid attack theirs nations and grow in peacefull way as long as they can (sending theirs puppies to war with specific targets), after some time they will break enemies and show tail of alliance that they were so strong that tail is not deserves for winning, so they (tail) will post about defeated even if they were allies in winning ally. For some players it is normal situation. You can still win with this strategy, it is hard but you can. Sometimes when you attack some of tails they dont deserves for defend and die in view on all alliance, for me this is same like backstabing but it is a price of being in big ally.

There is another thing with vision, this is so different then ally ingame, you can give your ally vision to other ally but you still go your own way to winning a game, sometime one of player in ally is a double agent and he share a vision with enemy ally, do you want to cut all this nice strategies?

For me allieing is strictly connected with ally status ingame, I dont understand need of changeing it. If you dont want to show that you are in big ally, you can still establish ally pact just before game ends.

Offline

#6 02.06.2013 16:34:41

mmm2
Player
Posts: 573

Re: the ranking system

edrim wrote:
mmm2 wrote:

for the case of lt31, it was our team of kryon,johnhx,mmm2,pipo,mrsynical,det0r, and ifaesu most of the time thinking that the other "teams" were also limiting their size to 7 (we even booted rsnk to make room for other player! lol).

But it was only your team to do it. You will never force players not to group in large alliances.
It is normal(?) that some of them will arrange big groups to avoid attack theirs nations and grow in peacefull way as long as they can (sending theirs puppies to war with specific targets), after some time they will break enemies and show tail of alliance that they were so strong that tail is not deserves for winning, so they (tail) will post about defeated even if they were allies in winning ally. For some players it is normal situation. You can still win with this strategy, it is hard but you can. Sometimes when you attack some of tails they dont deserves for defend and die in view on all alliance, for me this is same like backstabing but it is a price of being in big ally.

There is another thing with vision, this is so different then ally ingame, you can give your ally vision to other ally but you still go your own way to winning a game, sometime one of player in ally is a double agent and he share a vision with enemy ally, do you want to cut all this nice strategies?

For me allieing is strictly connected with ally status ingame, I dont understand need of changeing it. If you dont want to show that you are in big ally, you can still establish ally pact just before game ends.

you don't agree that shared vision is equivalant to being an ally? why would you share vision with enemy??? i do not think that your church team attacked anyone within your shared vision?? you only attacked those outside of your shared vision?? i proposed nothing more than just a report showing the web of shared vision, because this is extremely difficult to find out, unless you have embassies with almost every player on map...

and for your example of double agent - you can find that out by checking their embassy to see if the vision is going only one way. but there is no way to tell about size of alliance the neighboring player is in, it could be that the leader that is linking/distributing the shared vision is too far away. So therefore in the neighboring player's embassy it might show that they have no alliances and shared vision with 1 player even when they are sharing vision with 50 players via two or three "leaders" who are distributing/linking the vision...

Last edited by mmm2 (02.06.2013 17:14:46)

Offline

#7 08.06.2013 21:27:27

Kryon
Player
Posts: 331

Re: the ranking system

The ranking algorithm (described here http://longturn.org/ranking/ ) was designed by Marduk for games without alliance/time limits. Therefore, we only have two categories: winners and losers. Marduk later proposed to add a third category "survivors" but it did not happen.

There were 67 players in LT31. At the end, 31 players were alive and 36 players were dead. Among the 31 alive players, 7 claimed victory, 24 did not. So, 60 players are considered as defeated no matter if they were alive at T180 or not.

As far as I know, LT31 was the first game that ended with too many alive players who belong to different alliances and who were still fighting. So instead of having only winners and losers, I propose adding a third category "survivors" for those alive players who did not claim victory. Only dead players would be considered as defeated and lose ranking points. Survivors would neither earn or lose any points. And winners will equally share the points lost by the losers (as before). In future games, even if we do not limit alliance size, the survivor category might still be used by some players. For example a player who is not in the winning alliance but who helped winners indirectly by not attacking them or by attacking their enemy might be left alive by the winners as a return of the favor and not lose any points.

I'll make this new "survivor" category an option for all future games by adding it to the ranking page. However, for LT31 I have to ask the 7 winners whether they accept this or not because we can't apply new rules to finished games without consent of all involved. If all 7 winners agree, I'll consider the 36 dead players as defeated and the 24 alive players who did not claim victory as survivors. If not, all 60 players will be counted as defeated.

So, here is the question for winners of LT31: (kryon, akfaew, dimitril, edrim, joris, kull, mrsynical)

- Are you willing to consider all alive players of LT31 other than the winners (24 players) as "survivors" and get ranking points only from the 36 dead players instead of from all 60 players?

Kryon votes YES

Offline

#8 08.06.2013 23:20:52

Dimitril
Player
Posts: 83

Re: the ranking system

I vote YES of course.

Offline

#9 08.06.2013 23:36:26

akfaew
Administrator
Posts: 619

Re: the ranking system

Dimitril wrote:

I vote YES of course.

Why "of course"? From what I understand, by voting "yes" you get less points.

Offline

#10 08.06.2013 23:48:22

akfaew
Administrator
Posts: 619

Re: the ranking system

Kryon wrote:

For example a player who is not in the winning alliance but who helped winners indirectly by not attacking them or by attacking their enemy might be left alive by the winners as a return of the favor and not lose any points.

I'd rather the goal of the game be total annihilation of all enemies, and not clicking thru until the end without caring about the outcome. Likewise, the winning alliance should want to maximize their points - the only reason to leave such "survivors" alive is to retain reputation for future games which is a side effect of a small community. I think the ranking should be kept simple, and award winners. The only problem here is no clear definition of winners in LT31. A problem which hopefully we won't encounter again.

Offline

#11 09.06.2013 02:23:52

det0r
Player
Posts: 166

Re: the ranking system

I vote no. Such a rule will simply encourage people to break the rules on alliance size (why do we even bother with these rules if people can violate them?).

In this particular case, I definitely vote no to creating such a class 'after the game' for LT31. If such a rule had been in place beforehand, maybe there would have been less incentive for me to seek an alliance of less than 7 people. At this stage I am thinking that I should break rules more often in future games because people seem to be getting rewarded for it.

Offline

#12 09.06.2013 05:01:59

Dimitril
Player
Posts: 83

Re: the ranking system

I care little about those points or a +1 on a website. I've been fighting because I enjoy figthing and it teach me. Beside, those player who surendered didn't had to. To me it only seem fair to vote yes.

Offline

#13 09.06.2013 06:21:07

mrsynical
Player
Posts: 171

Re: the ranking system

Kryon, you are a kind person. The initial vote was "If you are a survivor and do not respond to this thread for 10 days (until June 5th) then you'll be considered as defeated." It was a valid choice was to not respond and be considered defeated (even though some may have just not bothered).

I vote NO, or else you will end up with more pseudo-alliances where an alliances is formed, but some members just choosing not to claim victory. As akfaew said, I would try and keep it as simple as possible: winners vs loosers.

If you must have a surrender/survivor category is must be declared. It must not be a default option if you did not reply.

Offline

#14 09.06.2013 07:11:54

Kryon
Player
Posts: 331

Re: the ranking system

I hear that some of you are against the survivor category even in future games. I agree that if we have a survivor option, it will further encourage some unofficial cooperations between alliances/teams or between an alliance and lone-wolf players. Maybe it is not such a good idea after all.

Alright, we have 7 winners and 60 defeated players in LT31 then. Since Players/Winners=67/7=9.6, each defeated player will lose 12.5% of their rank score and 7 winners will equally share those points among themselves. Assuming each defeated player has a score of 1000, it can be estimated that winners will earn around 60*125/7=~1100 points each. The actual number will most likely be slightly larger.

Last edited by Kryon (09.06.2013 07:27:36)

Offline

#15 09.06.2013 11:21:01

edrim
Ganoes Paran
Posts: 478

Re: the ranking system

There will be always situation like this:

game with 21 players, max win alliance 7 players, so 3 alliances by 7 players, they are not able to war with both enemies with same time, thats sure, it is something normal in attack one alliance by both of them in specyfic time,
but
if there is 70 players, and 10 alliances with 7 players each, if 5 or 6 this 7 peoples alliances are group together for attack and they have a decision group what every alliance should to in specyfic time, after finishing this rest of alliances who was not join to large one they are picking winners from this big group and rest of them are survivors without any loose, this situation are sick

I understand that in nature it is legal, that bigger group will eat smaller once, but there is no rules about it. I know that smaller group will have less chance to get a win but this win will be much more valuable, but in this way we will stuck on games like: "get any player to alliace you are able to get and you will see what happen on the end". There was many leaders of such thinking in past, they have bring this idea to this community and after some games they quit, because they dont understand rules of this community. I wonder when old players will quit from this longest flame war about alliance size and play in new way. This will be less fun because games will look: two biggest alliance, if anyone dont want to join to one group will die, games will be resolved in gunpoder era because one group will be bigger and will kill players of smaller group one by one. No diplomatic wars, less betrayal, brute force of larger number of players.

I am against survivors if it is not restricted to % of players like %5 or something like that, because some time you dont want to waste your time for finding last player(s) to kill him(them).

Offline

#16 09.06.2013 13:34:30

wieder
Administrator
Posts: 811

Re: the ranking system

What happens in a team game if all the teams are defeated and one player from the surviving is not claiming victory?

Offline

#17 09.06.2013 15:00:02

Kryon
Player
Posts: 331

Re: the ranking system

Why would he not claim victory? In a team game the whole team wins regardless of whether some of the players are dead or alive.

Offline

#18 10.06.2013 04:19:41

mrsynical
Player
Posts: 171

Re: the ranking system

Kryon wrote:

Why would he not claim victory?

Stranger things have happened!

Kryon wrote:

In a team game the whole team wins regardless of whether some of the players are dead or alive.

In a team game, the whole team is in the same boat.

If there is some random dispute within the team (about if they claim victory or not), then the "captain" should probably have final say.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB