Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship)
|
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Fri, 26 March 2004 14:00   |
|
 mlaub |
 | Lieutenant |
Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA | |
|
| Crusader wrote on Fri, 26 March 2004 07:34 |
If I may make a small suggestion concerning dropouts, I would suggest we try and not be too trigger-happy against people who miss, say, two turns without notifying the host first. I'm sure you guys have already thought of this and would allow for emergencies in a person's life.
|
There is a huge difference between 'missing a few turn' and abandoning a race/position in a game. I don't think that former is an issue, or should be considered. I have had some very good offenses against other players during a break (meaning I didn't submit). Doing your homework, setting up your shipping routes, etc... has allowed me to take off several turns in a row in any given game.
Most of the time I do a "quick" turn if I am on vacation (meaning I spend a whopping 2 minutes on the game). It's amazing how handy flashdrives are...I have a handme down 128 USB key, that holds about 70 meg of Stars! stuff. It allows me to use other peoples computers to do "quick" turns.
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Sat, 27 March 2004 06:45 |
|
|
|
Hi Guys,
 I was gone yesterday... betcha noticed...
OK, the military ranks as opposed to other set of ranks looks good to me.
The suggestion concerning the reliability index also is simple and very doable (is that a word)
There is two things which concerned me:
Teams:
Granted, a team either wins or loses, one member of the team may contribute to that win just as much as the first ranked player but due to the nature of the job, receives a low ranking.
The idea of 25% advance and 25% decrement sounds fine. That limits the advances to at most 4 in a 16 player game (which is a very rare occurrence)
I think that limiting ranked games with teams to a team size of four would be reasonable.
That means that, lets say you have a game with 12 players on three teams. This still would receive an advance for the winning team.
However, 5 player team games would not be considered for ranking. (ie 3 teams of five) because the advance value of the game would be too much. (when weighted against a normal, non-teamed game)
Substitutes:
Subs do come into play and need to be considered. Considering the challenge of "putting on someone else's shoes," and the nature of most likely substitutions (ie. the player has lost interest due to a bad position/race etc)
I feel that subs should never be penalized for completing a game.
And, they should get any advances that they are entitled to...
and, the host is final arbiter concerning rewards, if a sub comes in and does something wondrous with the race (ie. moves the race from last place to fifth place in a sixteen player game) they have the right to award an extra advance to the player.
Concerning me having the post of rating agent... I would be happy to take it. I hope Ron approves and sets up a specific forum for it. I would be impartial and regular for the forseeable future and set up procedures such that anyone else could come in and be the agent in the future.
I would not consider present games for rating. But all games presently starting and future games could be considered for rating (at the hosts discretion of course)
[Updated on: Sat, 27 March 2004 09:12] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Sat, 27 March 2004 07:41 |
|
|
|
All good to me.
Again, all good.
| Quote: |
Concerning me having the post of rating agent... I would be happy to take it.
|
Great stuff. Let me know what help you need.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Sat, 27 March 2004 11:45 |
|
|
|
Just to toss in a few minor opinions...
1) I like the fact that attention is being paid to some of the additional factors that complicate any sort of rating set-up:
Substitutions/drop-outs, team games, and player reliability.
2) The program is becoming more and more dependent on information supplied by game hosts. Especially since it has been recognized that simple game results cannot be the sole criteria used. So, the issue that will be coming to the fore soon is ascertaining some values on host value and reliability.
(Just another fly in the ointment I guess.)
- Kurt
Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana.
- Groucho MarxReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Sat, 27 March 2004 12:03 |
|
| Kang |
 | Senior Chief Petty Officer |
Messages: 87
Registered: April 2003 | |
|
Now that a set of criteria is being seriously considered for use in your ranking system, there is still an issue not addressed.
For the following, lets assume 16 players.
Top 25% = top 4 players
Bottom 25% = Last 4 players
Now assuming that the only measuring criteria for who is tops and who is a gutter dweller is the in-game scoring system, we are left with some obvious problems.
The top player, or the top alliance of player is usually not in question. The problem is the player who poses a serious threat to him, or alliance that proposes a serious threat to him. This player will likely end up below 4th place once he has taken the brunt of the offensive by the top player/alliance. Meanwhile the player who did virtually nothing but hide in his corner and avoid conflict knows he can advance in the rankings by building jug cc's and chaff to raise his score into the top 4 places while the real threat is slowly dropped to a lower ranking because he is fighting a war.
The other problem that is likely to occur if people take this system seriously, is that in a game the top players will become more likely to ally with each other to preserve their ranking rather than choosing to fight on opposite sides. I don't see how this can benefit the game.
Last problem is that most games do not have public player scores, so the host will be required to get the passwd's for each player and check their rankings, or ask the players to provide the ranking and hope it is accurate. OR set up a victory condition so that the game can be force generated to a given year following game ending to see what the rankings are, but that leaves open the possibility of score manipulation again.
Kang
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Sat, 27 March 2004 13:42 |
|
|
|
| Kang wrote on Sat, 27 March 2004 11:03 |
Now that a set of criteria is being seriously considered for use in your ranking system, there is still an issue not addressed.
For the following, lets assume 16 players.
Top 25% = top 4 players
Bottom 25% = Last 4 players
Now assuming that the only measuring criteria for who is tops and who is a gutter dweller is the in-game scoring system, we are left with some obvious problems.
The top player, or the top alliance of player is usually not in question. The problem is the player who poses a serious threat to him, or alliance that proposes a serious threat to him. This player will likely end up below 4th place once he has taken the brunt of the offensive by the top player/alliance. Meanwhile the player who did virtually nothing but hide in his corner and avoid conflict knows he can advance in the rankings by building jug cc's and chaff to raise his score into the top 4 places while the real threat is slowly dropped to a lower ranking because he is fighting a war.
|
Since the vc's are decided by the host, the host should be in the best position to decide upon who will be awarded advances.
Also, just because it is a 12 player game, it doesn't neccessarily mean that three players have to be awarded advances. If two races dominate then an award of two advances is most appropriate. (Once again, this is a judgement call of the host)
| Kang wrote on Sat, 27 March 2004 11:03 |
The other problem that is likely to occur if people take this system seriously, is that in a game the top players will become more likely to ally with each other to preserve their ranking rather than choosing to fight on opposite sides. I don't see how this can benefit the game.
|
True enough, I can envision this situation as well, but hopefully, this kind of practise can be curtailed by
the host NOT announcing who is playing until the game is set. The host may also want to keep an eye on player ratings and disallow disparate joins (say 2 levels below, or 2 levels above the average envisioned ofr the game)
| Kang wrote on Sat, 27 March 2004 11:03 |
Last problem is that most games do not have public player scores, so the host will be required to get the passwd's for each player and check their rankings, or ask the players to provide the ranking and hope it is accurate. OR set up a victory condition so that the game can be force generated to a given year following game ending to see what the rankings are, but that leaves open the possibility of score manipulation again.
|
It has become almost standard practise that the host DOES have the password of his/her players. Therefore access to total ranking is moot. (also, there are other methods to ensure access.)
Yes, the host does get a lot of the responsibility:
- he needs to report who is playing to the rating agent so determination of the weight of the game can be made.
- he needs to decide which players will be awarded advances based upon victory conditions of the game.
- he needs to decide which players will receive decrements.
- he needs to report on reliability of the players at the conclusion of the game.
The rating agent then will take this information and determine the value of advances, the value of decrements, and adjust all the players reliability ratings.
I don't think it is a burden of extra work for the host...am I correct?? 
...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Sat, 27 March 2004 14:06 |
|
|
|
| overworked wrote on Sat, 27 March 2004 10:45 |
2) The program is becoming more and more dependent on information supplied by game hosts. Especially since it has been recognized that simple game results cannot be the sole criteria used. So, the issue that will be coming to the fore soon is ascertaining some values on host value and reliability.
(Just another fly in the ointment I guess.)
|
A fly in the ointment... hmmmm.
Well, first of all, if a person is brave enough to commit themselves to hosting a game, it speaks well for them in the beginning.
If it turns out that the host is unreliable, (or a cheater) we already have a good system for dealing with that. (ie. they are barred from hosting again)
So, I think this is already under control.
[Updated on: Sat, 27 March 2004 14:08] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Sat, 27 March 2004 17:10 |
|
| Crusader |
 | Officer Cadet 2nd Year |
Messages: 233
Registered: January 2003
Location: Dixie Land | |
|
PPS is really not a problem. We just setup games to declare a bogus winner at some pre-arranged year so that scores are rendered public, say on year 80 or 100 or whatever.
I agree that hosts are not able to play in ranked games. I hate that, as I have often hosted my own games so that I can play in the type games that I like (self-serving, I know), plus I know that if I'm playing I have a host I can trust.   But we must all change with the times.
I agree that hosts need to have access to the players' passwords nowadays. Hopefully, if this system actually goes into effect, dropouts will diminish, however, as has been mentioned before.
Setting reliability ratings for hosts is just another side-benefit that helps everyone. Having a system helps to prevent the rantings of one causing a slanderous situation that persecutes a decent host. I don't think that happens too often, but I still believe this is a good thing.
***Brief delay to run pick up the oldest from work while Staz is yakking*** 
Well, now I've lost my train. All I remember thinking is how all this supposition and deep-planning is making my head hurt. 
[Updated on: Sat, 27 March 2004 18:07]
Nothing for now.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Sat, 27 March 2004 17:45 |
|
|
|
Another issue we need to address is when is it acceptable to stop fighting. Do players need to continue submitting turns when they are down to 3 scouts hiding in deep space ?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Sat, 27 March 2004 18:04 |
|
|
|
In an effort to show that ranking games do not have to be boring, I've been thinking of some ideas for games that are different but that allow players to be ranked easily. Having never played a non-standard game I have no idea how practical they are.
HP shootout: Ranked by score at year X, no player can own more than 20 planets.
-f shootout: Ranked by # planets owned at year X, then by resources. No CA.
The big fleet: Host designs a particular ship design and plays an OWW observer race based in the centre of the galaxy. Players are ranked by # of that ship design in orbit around the observer planet on turn X, then by score. Ship design is probably a very expensive and almost useless nubian design. No other ship
design can be at the observer planet.
Mining contest: Players are ranked by kt of germanium at their HW on turn X. AR not allowed.
Race for biotech: Players ranked by bio level on turn X.
Last man standing: After 2450 players ranked in reverse order of turn in which resources drop below 10k.
Balanced teams: Teams are ranked by team member resources multiplied together on turn X. Note that 50 * 50 = 2500, while 75 * 25 = 1875, so balanced teams do better.
Mentors: 4 teams of 2, each with a beginner and an advanced player. Teams ranked on resources of beginner at turn X.
Fight through: Host plays a OWW AR; all players are put on hold for 100 turns while the host builds. Host then takes 1 player per planet and positions a large fleet of nubs around it, setting the players to enemy. Players are ranked in the order in which they colonise their target planet.
Survival: Host plays a NAS race. All players put on hold for 50 turns then the host hunts them down and kills them. Players are ranked by how long they survive.
Nominate: each player nominates one enemy before the game starts. Winners are the first to kill their nomimated enemy. Losers are their victims.
Mixed victory: 8 players. Winners are the player with the most planets at X and the player with the highest average resources per planet at X. Losers the same, but the lowest value of each. Players have to decide which to go for.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Sat, 27 March 2004 18:12 |
|
| EDog |
 | Lt. Junior Grade |
Messages: 417
Registered: November 2002
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA | |
|
| Staz wrote on Sat, 27 March 2004 15:45 |
Another issue we need to address is when is it acceptable to stop fighting. Do players need to continue submitting turns when they are down to 3 scouts hiding in deep space ?
|
Sounds to me like a player could request from the host to leave a game. Given the situation outlined above, a host shouldn't penalize the player for leaving the game (unless he was in the bottom 25%, at which point he loses rank).
I can't tell you the number of times as a host I've had players drop. If I'd had a single email from the player saying "you know, I'm wasting my time because I'm in a hole and will never get out of it - please make me inactive" I might feel a little differently about players who drop.
Unfortunately, most of them aren't serious enough players to hang in there even when they're fighting a losing battle. It's easier to stop submitting turns and possibly ruin the game for everyone else. What a bunch of trolls.
EDog
http://ianthealy.com
Born, grew up, became an adventurer
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | |
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Sat, 27 March 2004 18:32 |
|
| Crusader |
| Officer Cadet 2nd Year |
Messages: 233
Registered: January 2003
Location: Dixie Land | |
|
My Game Idea, or What I Did During My Kids' Spring Break
I have always liked the idea of trying to even up the playing field as regards the PRTs. I also think this would allow the more experienced players to go head to head with the beginners.
Races are designed so that they have the following left-over points:
AR 50
SS/PP 100
WM/HE 125
SD 137
IT/IS 150
JOAT 175
CA 200
(I do NOT remember who first came up with this. Please, someone help me give the credit where it is due because I certainly did not dream this up)
These handicapped races are played by the experienced players. If you want to allow the beginners to join in, experienced players can help them to design monster-type races or the host can provide from a list of "canned" monsters.
Now, beginners would still need some help as regards tactics, strategy-planning, micro-management tips, etc; but they at least have some economic advantages that help to equalize the playing field while they learn.
I suppose since we are talking about games with hosts who don't play, we can also stipulate that experienced players take weapons expensive. 
I suppose that the host will also be required to act as arbiter to all diplomatic treaties, non-aggression pacts, and alliances, especially when negotiations are between beginners and experienced players. That would certainly help to keep me straight-up in my dealings. 
Of course, you don't HAVE to have a mixed game of beginners and experienced players. I'm just saying that PERHAPS this is a way that you COULD. Or at least try and see if it is feasible.
Somebody keeps promoting me, and I've yet to have a ceremony! 
Just don't call me "Sir". I work for a living! 
Nothing for now.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Sat, 27 March 2004 18:39 |
|
| Kang |
| Senior Chief Petty Officer |
Messages: 87
Registered: April 2003 | |
|
| Crusader wrote on Sat, 27 March 2004 15:10 |
I agree that hosts are not able to play in ranked games. I hate that, as I have often hosted my own games so that I can play in the type games that I like (self-serving, I know), plus I know that if I'm playing I have a host I can trust. But we must all change with the times.
|
Simple enough, host the games with the particular conditions you want, and don't worry about the ranking system. Enjoy the game.
--OR--
If you are more concerned with how others perceive your ability, then convince someone else to host the game for you so you can be ranked in that game.
| Crusader wrote on Sat, 27 March 2004 15:10 |
I agree that hosts need to have access to the players' passwords nowadays. Hopefully, if this system actually goes into effect, dropouts will diminish, however, as has been mentioned before.
|
As A host playing in my game, I don't have nor do I want the passwords from my players.
As a player in two other games, one in which the host is playing and one in which the host is not, the host has my password in the game where he is not playing, but in the game where the host is playing he does not have the password.
I don't think the host needs the players password, particularly when the host is playing.
I have had one game where the host had the password of another player who dropped, and the host was submitting turns for the dropped player. The host was playing his own race as well.
Very bad situation.
Honesty is best when it is not subject to temptation.
Kang
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Sat, 27 March 2004 19:34 |
|
| Crusader |
| Officer Cadet 2nd Year |
Messages: 233
Registered: January 2003
Location: Dixie Land | |
|
| Kang wrote on Sat, 27 March 2004 17:39 |
Simple enough, host the games with the particular conditions you want, and don't worry about the ranking system. Enjoy the game.
--OR--
If you are more concerned with how others perceive your ability, then convince someone else to host the game for you so you can be ranked in that game.
|
I never worry about any ranking system. No one is more rank than me. 
| Kang wrote a bit later on Sat, 27 March 2004 17:39 |
As A host playing in my game, I don't have nor do I want the passwords from my players.
|
Seriously, I was not suggesting that a playing host hold passwords. One can be a playing host by having a third-pary of impecable credentials, say YOU, hold the passwords for the host so that in case of a player disappearing the race can be inherited by replacement player.
[end of seriously]
     
Ow! Ouch! My head! Oh!
Nothing for now.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Sun, 28 March 2004 05:29 |
|
|
|
OK - I've just spent about an hour reading all contained in this thread and in the original threads.
As has been mentioned in one of the posts, this idea has come up before but never really got off the ground. The ranking system is a good idea though it is unlikely that a high percentage of players will sign up to it. That said, it is a worthwhile endeavor since there will be members to the system and, anything that helps and promotes the game is good.
Obviously, there is no easy way to establish rankings. Therefore, a scale needs to be adopted and that is what should be used. Somebody will always come up with the 'better ranking system' no matter how it is defined. I recommend though that the classification of 'Expert' be reserved to few. An expert is one that knows ALL races, has played all of them in real games (win or lose), and has been around long enough to know inter-galactic diplomacy so well that his / her diplomatic skills are so strong most other players simply are shocked. Experts in Stars! recognize other players sometimes even just by the style of play (I know I do). There aren't many true Experts that still play. But, there are a few.
there is some luck in Stars! - you may have a 1 in 3 race but your HW starts with minimal minerals and the nearest usefull planet takes 5 years to find and is 150+ light years away. Despite this handicap, an expert will still do well and even potentially win the game.
I also agree with the concept of Mentors. Mentored games can do nothing but good for the game as a whole.
Personally, I've gone ahead and added myself to ForceUsers database as a Mentor. And, I will support whatever ranking system is adopted. In order for players to receive rankings though, games will have to be defined as providing ranking points.
Ptolemy
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Sun, 28 March 2004 06:54 |
|
|
|
| Ptolemy wrote on Sun, 28 March 2004 11:29 |
Somebody will always come up with the 'better ranking system' no matter how it is defined.
|
If that happens I think it would be great. However, lets get one system off the ground first
| Quote: |
I recommend though that the classification of 'Expert' be reserved to few.
|
The current suggestion is to use army style ranks rather than labels like "beginner" and "expert". As mentioned a couple of times here, this system is ranking players based on their results, not an assessment of their skills.
Also, the number of players at each rank will be self-controlling, as for every game some people will gain rank and some will lose it.
| Quote: |
there is some luck in Stars! - you may have a 1 in 3 race but your HW starts with minimal minerals and the nearest usefull planet takes 5 years to find and is 150+ light years away. Despite this handicap, an expert will still do well and even potentially win the game.
|
True enough, but also true of all games/sports. Yesterday I was able to watch our (English) rugby team, who are the world champions, come 3rd out of 6 in a european championship. People understand these things, and make allowances for them.
Whatever the flaws in the system, a player ranked "colonel" after 10 games is almost certain to be a significantly better player than one ranked "segeant".
| Quote: |
And, I will support whatever ranking system is adopted. In order for players to receive rankings though, games will have to be defined as providing ranking points.
|
Game hosts will specify in advance that a game will affect ranking and will publish scoring details in the game announcement, subject to a few guidelines such as about 25% of players gain rank and 25% lose rank.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Sun, 28 March 2004 06:56 |
|
|
|
Yes, it appears that if the host is "playing" then the game cannot be ranked (unless another super-host is in charge of player passwords, and the ranking advances/decrements.)
"playing" means the host is actually playing to win,
- if the host is handling an observer race,
- or some other type of race which facilitates the other races during the game,
- or is a challenge which the other races must surmount
then the host is not considered to be "playing" and can request player passwords and handle the ranking details.
The Ranking Forum I envision would consist of one threads:
- Player Rankings
- In Process Ranked Games
- Completed Ranked Games
an update message would be deleted/applied to Player Rankings when changes occur.
PMing me would be the appropriate way to notify me of a new ranked game, including:
- A list of Players
- The starting rank of new non-ranked players.
PMing me would also be the appropriate way to notify me of a completed ranked game, including:
- Players with advances.
- Players with decrements.
- Players who did NOT reliably complete game.
Now, I guess we are waiting on Ron to set up the Forum (if he will)
I would like to make the All-Round Player Competition games ranked games. (Players, do not comment here!!!) I will request your comments by email.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Sun, 28 March 2004 07:17 |
|
|
|
A game with the host playing can certainly be ranked if a neutral 3rd party has the passwords and is willing to rank the game.
Currently, (for instance) the game I just started (Void War) could conceivably get ranked since a 3rd party verified the races and has the passwords. (Obviously, Void War players probably won't be ranked, though if any players in the game wish to have their participation count towards their rankings, I would have no objections)
Along this line, I'm certainly willing to hold passwords and verify races for other hosts and will rank games if a host needs somebody.
Ptolemy
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Skill ranking (was RE: Mentorship) |
Sun, 28 March 2004 07:42 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Now, I guess we are waiting on Ron to set up the Forum (if he will)
|
I guess there's no reason why I can't start getting a new, ranked, beginners game off the ground is there.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat May 11 23:51:54 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
