EiA Ranking/Ladder

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

EiA Ranking/Ladder

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> EiA Ranking/Ladder

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

EiA Ranking/Ladder - 7/13/2004 10:42:53 AM

eg0master

Posts: 161
Joined: 3/20/2002
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline

A long time ago somebody spoke of setting up an EiA ladder/ranking site. Since then nothing. And since old EiA games took very long to play I guess nobody ever made a ranking system for EiA since you were happy if you got 7 players.

But with a computer version a ranking system might be nice when setting up games with other players.

Anybody know of a EiA ranking system ever used?

_____________________________

24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence? I think not.

Post #: 1

RE: EiA Ranking/Ladder - 7/13/2004 9:13:21 PM

Pippin

Posts: 1233
Joined: 11/9/2002
Status: offline

Not sure I follow. Do you mean raking site, or ranking used inside the game itself?

Usualy, there are wargaming sites that have a simple SQL database. Users make an account, and often there is a forum or chatroom to find other players to join in a game. An initial post is then made to declare who is who and the database logs that a game is in progress. When the game is done, the database is then updated to reflect who won and who lost. Points for the players are then adjusted accordingly.

I am not sure but I think most rated systems now follow the popular old chess format. A high rated player who plays vs low rated players will get less points for his win than the low rated players. There are a few reasons for this no doubt, but I think the main one is to prevent the pros from bottom-feeding off the newbies. If you want to rack up a lot of easy wins, then the penalty should be higher for a loss to discourage this tactic, and your win points should not be as rewarding. Considering a lot of this game revolves around dice, and diplomacy, etc. I think bottom feeders may have a tuff time.

_____________________________

Nelson stood on deck and observed as the last of the Spanish fleets sank below the waves�

(in reply to eg0master)

Post #: 2

RE: EiA Ranking/Ladder - 7/13/2004 11:15:35 PM

eg0master

Posts: 161
Joined: 3/20/2002
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline

I'm talking about a ranking site, much as http://www.wargamer.com/thegamersnet/ works with other games.

And yes a "chess type" ranking system as you describe is what I'm wondering about.

A well used "chess system" works well in many games since you have only 2 players (as in chess). I'm not sure how well such a system works on a game using 7 players...

_____________________________

24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence? I think not.

(in reply to Pippin)

Post #: 3

RE: EiA Ranking/Ladder - 7/31/2004 7:52:17 AM

Pippin

Posts: 1233
Joined: 11/9/2002
Status: offline

Just bumping this one back up. If someone does SQL for a hobby, I have a server etc I could throw up and have a dedicated site just for EiA rated...

_____________________________

Nelson stood on deck and observed as the last of the Spanish fleets sank below the waves�

(in reply to eg0master)

Post #: 4

RE: EiA Ranking/Ladder - 7/31/2004 9:16:55 AM

eg0master

Posts: 161
Joined: 3/20/2002
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline

But what algorithm should be used?

_____________________________

24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence? I think not.

(in reply to Pippin)

Post #: 5

RE: EiA Ranking/Ladder - 7/31/2004 9:48:03 AM

Pippin

Posts: 1233
Joined: 11/9/2002
Status: offline

This one may take more thought than I originally thought (no pun intended).

There is only 1 winner in EiA. Thus, only one player should gain points, while the rest should lose them. However, it does not take a genius to soon realize that there are 6 losers for every winner (assuming we are doing the 7 player game, and not the versions where 2 players go head to head with multiple countries). This means, that in the end, (given the average), every player will end up getting deeper and deeper into the hole. The only players who will have a non negative rate, will be newbies who just started to play with the default given rate.

Perhaps, it may be best to devise a system where the top 3 player in a game (those with closest percentage to victory point accumulation) end up gaining points. The other 4 loses points. Now this also may result in a negative run in the end, however, I think we should give the top player a large bonus. After all, originally there is supposed to only be one winner right? Perhaps the head player, wins double the points normally gained? This may just work out even then.

Lets assume a game is worth +/- 5 points.

Winner (2x5) + 2nd Player (5) + 3rd Player (5) - 4th Player (5) - 5th Player (5) - 6th Player (5) - 7th Player (5)

= 10 + 5 + 5 - 5 - 5 - 5 - 5
= 0

So, there is no negative or positive bias. Given enough games on average, everyone should be holding at their true measurable rate.

Or, how about just modifying it so that only the winner gets positive points after all.. Assume winner gets six times the points won, versus the points for losing. Then:

Bias = (5x6) - 5 - 5 - 5 - 5 - 5 - 5 = 0

Maybe we should have two databases for each player, one using the first function and the other the last. Thus each player would have two separate rates (usually).

What do you think?

_____________________________

Nelson stood on deck and observed as the last of the Spanish fleets sank below the waves�

(in reply to eg0master)

Post #: 6

RE: EiA Ranking/Ladder - 7/31/2004 9:23:31 PM

yammahoper

Posts: 231
Joined: 4/23/2004
Status: offline

Hmm, I have never been involved with a ranking system before. Does the points scored take into account the margin of victory? The experience of the opponents? The overall spread of victory points between 1st and last place? Are the points only given for the position you end up in, i.e 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc?

Perhaps a good way to hand out ranking points would be to base it upon total percentage of VP gained at the end of the game. !00% (the winner) gets 20, 99 to 95% gets 16, etc, etc. Below a certain percentage could even be negative, a neat way to regulate those players who do not care about winning and play crazy. Games are often very close and hang on being lucky enough to win or loose between eco phases, making VP gains often painful. How painful would it be to play a great game, lose by just a smidge and then get NO recognition for it?

Off topic...A seven player game. Man I wish. We started twice with seven players. Once Austria was taken out of the game and the next time both Spain and Russia had to quit.

Also, what would a ranking system be used for? National and World competions of EiA

As if...

yamma

< Message edited by yammahoper@yahoo.com -- 7/31/2004 7:28:37 PM >

_____________________________

...nothing is more chaotic than a battle won...

(in reply to Pippin)

Post #: 7

RE: EiA Ranking/Ladder - 8/1/2004 1:08:49 AM

eg0master

Posts: 161
Joined: 3/20/2002
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pippin

This one may take more thought than I originally thought (no pun intended).
[...]
What do you think?

My feeling exactly, but you forget the fact that in most ranking systems with results close to a draw, the looser might even gain rank and vice versa since the outcome was expected to be more decisive. Your idea is similar to my initial idea but lacks the factor what happens when a player with low rank almost wins over a high rank player.

I tried to pust an example of my algorith but the post was to long or something so I'll retry (typing in notepad forst not to loose the text).

_____________________________

24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence? I think not.

(in reply to Pippin)

Post #: 8

RE: EiA Ranking/Ladder - 8/1/2004 1:17:47 AM

eg0master

Posts: 161
Joined: 3/20/2002
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline

So my initial idea:

Rn = New Rank
Ro = Old rank
TR = Total rank of all players in game.
Rp = Rank percentage = Player rank / TR
BP = Base points for player position in game.
TBP = Total base points in game (i.e. 26 for 7 player game, 16 for 6 player and then 10, 6, 3, 1 and 0 for single player games).
BPp = Base point percentage = BP/TBP

Rn = Ro + (BPp - Rp) * TBP

BPs for winner, 2nd place and so on for different games:
7 player game BP: 10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0
6 player game BP: 6, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0
5 player game BP: 4, 3, 2, 1, 0
4 player game BP: 3, 2, 1, 0
3 player game BP: 2, 1, 0
2 player game BP: 1, 0
1 player game BP: 0

Computer player (in games less than 7 players) does not count. only human players and their relative position is used.

In practice this means the top 50% of the players (fractions rounded down) gain points while the others loose points if rank is the same. A low rank player gains more or looses less than other players.

The number of points lost/gained are in proportion to your position and the expected outcome (i.e. rank percentage). The total rank change after each game is zero (the same ammount gained by a few players are lost by others).

Another idea would be to use the VP percentage rather than final position in the game, but how that would work I have yet to think a little more about...

Comments?

< Message edited by eg0master -- 8/1/2004 12:20:24 AM >

_____________________________

24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence? I think not.

(in reply to eg0master)

Post #: 9

RE: EiA Ranking/Ladder - 8/1/2004 7:20:28 PM

Pippin

Posts: 1233
Joined: 11/9/2002
Status: offline

quote:

My feeling exactly, but you forget the fact that in most ranking systems with results close to a draw, the looser might even gain rank and vice versa since the outcome was expected to be more decisive. Your idea is similar to my initial idea but lacks the factor what happens when a player with low rank almost wins over a high rank player.

Originally I figured we should give extra points to lower rated players. However, this can open things up to obvious cheating. For example, you got two low rated players in a game, and beside them is a high rated player. The low rates are in a position where they know they are going to lose no matter what, and cant even possibly come into a decent running place. So what do they do? They go and team up to knock out the high rated guy at least, making him lose as well. Thus they somewhat come out ahead in this situation despite the fact they still lose.

I�m trying to make this example simple hope I got the point across.

_____________________________

Nelson stood on deck and observed as the last of the Spanish fleets sank below the waves�

(in reply to eg0master)

Post #: 10

RE: EiA Ranking/Ladder - 8/1/2004 8:25:17 PM

eg0master

Posts: 161
Joined: 3/20/2002
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pippin

[...]
Originally I figured we should give extra points to lower rated players. However, this can open things up to obvious cheating.
[...]

That is an interesting point... However any system will probably have some loophole for cheating since there is always the possibility a few players gang up in order to bring someone else down.

There will be tha same with any system and players just "rank bashing" would probaly get a bad rumor and in the long runm those players will not be involved in the "serious games". I would hesitate many times before playing with an unknown player and the ranking is not for fam,e and glory, only a way to find players with equal ability. Of course many players would not see it this way and I would try to avoid them...

But frankly... isn't the "two loosers gang up to bash someone else" just what happens in EiA? A few guys will sooner or later know they will never win so they gang up in order to bring someone else (who is probably winning) down and probably that way wins a few battles which means they get more VP and actually comes closer to victory than before. Isn't that what the game is all about? The fact that some might choose opponent to bash considering their rank rather than game VP is a little sad I guess. Maybe that is why we need a VP based formula rather than just looking at final position in each game? THat would eliminate the point in "rank choosing" since you loose more if you don't bring down the high VP guys no matter whatr rank they have?

The point with using something where originbal rank is considered is mostly to make new player more quickly come to "their correct" rank and to avoid the high ranking players from playing low ranking guys just in order to gain more rank. The latter of those is a much bigger potential problem than some occational rank bashing in a portion of the games.

_____________________________

24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence? I think not.

(in reply to Pippin)

Post #: 11

RE: EiA Ranking/Ladder - 8/1/2004 9:51:19 PM

Pippin

Posts: 1233
Joined: 11/9/2002
Status: offline

quote:

But frankly... isn't the "two loosers gang up to bash someone else" just what happens in EiA? A few guys will sooner or later know they will never win so they gang up in order to bring someone else (who is probably winning) down and probably that way wins a few battles which means they get more VP and actually comes closer to victory than before. Isn't that what the game is all about? The fact that some might choose opponent to bash considering their rank rather than game VP is a little sad I guess.

Well I am not sure I�d call it Rank bashing. It�s just that, when a system awards final points due to winner/loser rates, it somewhat allows certain people to use this to their advantage in ways that may not at first be obvious. In a two player game there is no problem, because two or more users can not circumvent the system gain more or loss less points. You either win set, or lose set. Hence, no one has been lobbying to change the chess system for ages, it seems to work. I know in Axis & Allies communities for example, you may still have up to 5 players but there is only 2 sides in the end, so the same rated system can work. Though there are a few interesting situations with this.

For example, a lot of high rated players will not play someone rated 50 or 100 points below them. This is because it may take them 2 games just to break even if they lose one. Considering a lot of the game revolves around dice (not always skill), it is not too hard to realized even a newbie can beat a top player on a lucky day. Also you have newbies who go around looking only for top players, hoping to get that lucky win that cashes in a lot of points. To make things worse, the newbies tend to do the most biggest gambits, not because they lack total battle planning, but because they want a quick and decisive win..(in other words, an easy win).

E.G. Some newbies will place their whole bid in Ukrain or Eastern Europe, and attempt to blast Karelia. These kinds of games are over very quick, it goes one way or the other. The allies just take too long to get into the game with this style of play. Even assuming this crap shot only works 1/3 or � games, it will still put a newbie far ahead of his proper rate. Hell, even a monkey can do this. Anyhow, this is why �Power Europe� players are shunned on, and when they do it enough they get a bad reputation.

Now, a 7 player game, where each player wins or loses points differently, can get a tad weary. Sure, the main goal is to win, but when depending on who wins determines how many points are won/lost by the other players�. I sense some conspiracies going around the game where users will be biased at the start. So what this means is the guy with the highest rate (depending on the system), will have to watch out as most people will be wishing for him to go down more than anyone else. But allas, perhaps we could just make this an expected standard and assume ahead of time that the highest rated players will be targeted, then maybe everyone will be happy with it?

If this is a tcp/ip game, it is possible to set it up so that no one knows WHO IS WHO. This could make things more fair, however as I have learned, each player has their own style etc, and it would not take long for people to figure out who was who, even if you prevented any chat communications during the whole game.

_____________________________

Nelson stood on deck and observed as the last of the Spanish fleets sank below the waves�

(in reply to eg0master)

Post #: 12

RE: EiA Ranking/Ladder - 8/2/2004 12:47:45 AM

eg0master

Posts: 161
Joined: 3/20/2002
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline

Well pippin, you are certenly right about one thing. The two sided chess system works for many games since there are usually only two sides which EiA does not have.
And I agree there is a potential problem where the highest ranked player will be targeted.
And maybe you are convincing me... maybe the risk the high rank player is being targeted should be "payed off" with lettingt him "win" as much points as anybody else if he wins...

Maybe the solution is not a rank system with "points" for each game but rather VP average?
Or maybe there has not been a ranking system for EiA since noone has come up with something good (and the board game took too long to play to actually see the rank stabilize)...

_____________________________

24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence? I think not.

(in reply to Pippin)

Post #: 13

RE: EiA Ranking/Ladder - 8/2/2004 1:24:35 AM

Hoche

Posts: 491
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

All I can say one the issue is that I don't want to be a part of a ranking system. If I had a high score then people would be more likely to gang up on me in the next game and it would be boring. I don't care how good you are if your France and the other six MPs gang up on you every time you're screwed. People would end up playing for the rank and not the game.

However if there was a rating system on the quality of gamer then that may be useful. It would be like the rating system on ebay. If you are a competent player who is friendly and gets their turns in quickly then your opponents could give you a high rating. If someone is a jerk who waste times and irritates people then they would get a low rating. That way when people are putting together a group to start a game you would know who would be desirable and who to avoid. Now that would be useful.

< Message edited by Hoche -- 8/1/2004 5:56:51 PM >

_____________________________

It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for its welfare.
-Edmund Burke

(in reply to eg0master)

Post #: 14

RE: EiA Ranking/Ladder - 8/2/2004 4:13:49 AM

NeverMan

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hoche

All I can say one the issue is that I don't want to be a part of a ranking system. If I had a high score then people would be more likely to gang up on me in the next game and it would be boring. I don't care how good you are if your France and the other six MPs gang up on you every time you're screwed. People would end up playing for the rank and not the game.

However if there was a rating system on the quality of gamer then that may be useful. It would be like the rating system on ebay. If you are a competent player who is friendly and gets their turns in quickly then your opponents could give you a high rating. If someone is a jerk who waste times and irritates people then they would get a low rating. That way when people are putting together a group to start a game you would know who would be desirable and who to avoid. Now that would be useful.

Undoubtedly the best idea on this thread yet. Very insightful. Great Points. Great Post.

(in reply to Hoche)

Post #: 15

RE: EiA Ranking/Ladder - 8/2/2004 1:33:49 PM

eg0master

Posts: 161
Joined: 3/20/2002
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline

From the beginning it has always been in the back of my head that any ranking system will not work without a rating system like the one Hoche describes since ranking or not - yopu want to know what others think of the guys you are about to play...

_____________________________

24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence? I think not.

(in reply to Hoche)

Post #: 16

RE: EiA Ranking/Ladder - 8/2/2004 6:49:47 PM

Pippin

Posts: 1233
Joined: 11/9/2002
Status: offline

For those curious, one of the popular chess algorithms is as follows:

x = 16 + ((LosersRate - WinnersRate) / 25)

If x > 32 Then x = 32
If x < 1 Then x = 1

Winner gets +x
Loser loses -x

Depending on who wins can give you quite a difference in rate change :P

_____________________________

Nelson stood on deck and observed as the last of the Spanish fleets sank below the waves�

(in reply to eg0master)

Post #: 17

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> EiA Ranking/Ladder

Page: [1]

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

0.750

Slitherine

EiA Ranking/Ladder