"Second place" deals are spoiling games - this need not be so

While the idea of statistical analysis to determine "alliances" sounds good, I would like to point out how difficult it is.

Not only do ad-hoc alliances usually form only mid-game to combat a dominant player (meaning that previously the allied players were attacking each other), but also the following comes into play:
- The table layout: this may affect who you can attack, especially if the table does not have many connections across areas
- The play style of the players: some are more aggressive than others, which may result in a player attacking less overall before an alliance is made and more after to weaken the "victim"
- Skill level of the players: more experienced players may have un-spoken temporary alliances that are useful to weaken an opponent and then dissolved when convenient (by not attacking someone, but also not specifically asking to ally)

I am not ruling out such calculations and adjustments, but I think that they would have to be made to address very specific situations only. Anything else is likely to become un-fair and very complicated.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 13/12/2007 10:50:51

While I think that a scoring change could make a difference when a large team lets a small team live to be second, I don't think that scoring changes could help in a situation like PixelCloud describes. There is no way to prevent a verbal alliance/gang bang like that from happening short of removing the chat window.

I guess you could try to consider who players attack as part of the scoring system, but thats going to get really hairy to make that part of the scoring system. Some maps are structured so that 2 teams(out of 4 or 5)don't have opportunity to attack each other much. How would you be able to differentiate that from a verbal alliance?

I feel for you Pixel, but I'm not sure there is anything but social outrage to keep that kind of thing from getting to be a problem.

EDIT: D'OH, I didn't see risers post on the second page. As you can tell, I agree with his reasoning. Hey, a 2 page discussion... this is getting warmed up!

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 13/12/2007 11:02:40

Pixel, I think I might have been at that table with you, or at least I played one where something similar happened. I was part of an alliance, and in the course of the match I had the realisation that although I was winning points, the game was becoming very unfair and unpleasant. So much so that I chose to surrender and let my points go to Pixel, as I believed I'd not truly earned them by the way I was playing.

Reflecting on that game, which I found surprisingly moving at the time, has lead me to the idea of a peer rating system. It would work like this: at the end of a game, each player anonymously rates the others on the quality of their play. Rankings could run from zero for an unimaginative, tiresome player, to five for an exciting, creative opponent. These scores would be averaged across all players and all games, and a ranking system and leaderboard could be drawn up.

An advantage I particularly like with this scheme is that someone who plays very well but suffers bad luck on the dice could still be justly rewarded. As could players who make bold, risky moves which enliven the game but cost them territory. And it completely sidesteps the problem of developing an algorithm which can detect these things happening.

It's very different to the current system, and I suggest that peer rating should run alongside it. I don't think it would be right at all to replace the current ranks with something like this; I believe there should also be a place for a more strategic and militaristic approach. This is a game of conflict, after all. But two complementary ranking systems would attract and encourage people who bring a more playful, social tone to the game.

riser wrote:While the idea of statistical analysis to determine "alliances" sounds good, I would like to point out how difficult it is.

Not only do ad-hoc alliances usually form only mid-game to combat a dominant player (meaning that previously the allied players were attacking each other), but also the following comes into play:
- The table layout: this may affect who you can attack, especially if the table does not have many connections across areas
- The play style of the players: some are more aggressive than others, which may result in a player attacking less overall before an alliance is made and more after to weaken the "victim"
- Skill level of the players: more experienced players may have un-spoken temporary alliances that are useful to weaken an opponent and then dissolved when convenient (by not attacking someone, but also not specifically asking to ally)

I am not ruling out such calculations and adjustments, but I think that they would have to be made to address very specific situations only. Anything else is likely to become un-fair and very complicated.

this is very true; i wasnt looking at the big picture.

oggz wrote:Pixel, I think I might have been at that table with you, or at least I played one where something similar happened. I was part of an alliance, and in the course of the match I had the realisation that although I was winning points, the game was becoming very unfair and unpleasant. So much so that I chose to surrender and let my points go to Pixel, as I believed I'd not truly earned them by the way I was playing.

Reflecting on that game, which I found surprisingly moving at the time, has lead me to the idea of a peer rating system. It would work like this: at the end of a game, each player anonymously rates the others on the quality of their play. Rankings could run from zero for an unimaginative, tiresome player, to five for an exciting, creative opponent. These scores would be averaged across all players and all games, and a ranking system and leaderboard could be drawn up.

An advantage I particularly like with this scheme is that someone who plays very well but suffers bad luck on the dice could still be justly rewarded. As could players who make bold, risky moves which enliven the game but cost them territory. And it completely sidesteps the problem of developing an algorithm which can detect these things happening.

It's very different to the current system, and I suggest that peer rating should run alongside it. I don't think it would be right at all to replace the current ranks with something like this; I believe there should also be a place for a more strategic and militaristic approach. This is a game of conflict, after all. But two complementary ranking systems would attract and encourage people who bring a more playful, social tone to the game.

I don't think peer review is a great option (honor system rarely works). The new scoring system that everyone is talking about seems more balanced...

I introduced a peer rating system in a tournament site I made a few years back (can rate other players in the tournament as well as the tournament moderator. the more points the moderator had the more options they had available to them for their next tournament) and it didn't work so well. The biggest problem was that no one wanted to take the time to rate someone else. they just wanted to play another game and no one ever got rated by peers.

Just in case you guys didn't see it, I started a new thread I intended to have focused on the actual math/equations to define the new scoring system. I have a link there to a spreadsheet I made with a first cut at a new method for scoring. Check it out if you get a chance.

thread link:http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/list/113.page

Well, it's a very hard thing to try to change the scoring system to just alleviate the pains of alliances. It's almost inevitable with any scoring system,and as rnd pointed out, kdice, another dicewars multiplayer game, has a scoring system including domination, to work this out. It hasn't completely destroyed alliances, but it has drastically reduced the frequency of them.

But this still poses problems: People will ally no matter what, even if it's just to take out a stronger player. I think perhaps a great idea for trying to work with this, as Blue Team said, is an alliance status system. But, why have that if people can privately message other's in game? So alliances are possible with every scoring system out there, even in peer reviewed (which doesn't seem to work)

Also, even if peer review worked, what's so wrong with an alliance? That's why i suggest working on a set alliance system, but I have no ideas myself (I just agree with blue)

I think if we try to think of ways to work with alliances Before we go changing the scoring system, it would be much more practical. I'm just saying so since not a lot of people seem to be saying much on the forums, so maybe a poll could be taken (?) and more people are joining as they find this game on sites such as digg or other advertisements. Shifts in scoring systems can also really turn players off, if they're not comfortable with it.

I'm just letting you know what a regular john might think, because I'm not knowledgeable in such an area where I could contribute much other than opinion. So, there's my 1cent (I get a tax cut on the other cent

)

Part of my complaint with the scoring system is that if a higher ranked player loses early, they lose a lot of rank, but only get maybe 10 on a win. With winning very dependent on starting positions on many maps this should be addressed.

I agree with JDiz. The best you can do with the scoring system is keep smaller players from getting a higher score just because the big guy lets them live until medium size teams are dead.

@tradwolley well if a high rank plays with lower ranks then that scoring is natural. As to the bad starting places, there is some chance that comes into play with this game. Kinda hard to change that fairly. Besides, good players that deserve rank will be able to overcome bad placement more often than lesser players. Thus, if you only look at losing one game due to placement it seems unfair. However, averaged out, the players' ranks will settle where they should be.

Now, i like some of the ideas posted by sittingDuck and PixelCloud and Tradwalley, but face it guys, its just not reasonable to change it to anything suggested so far- not saying I'm against that sort of change, but none would really solve this problem so far.

I think the best thing is to have a way to check if players are making alliances every game, ie. getting second 5 games in a row, then put a watch on those players and if they are, drop their rank severely.

Also in-game pms are one source of alliances, and with the new solution to it (pms sent to an active player are known about to everyone) is good, but can cause suspission among players even if there is no alliance. I think pms should only be visable if an Active player pms another Active player.

I think that Oggz's idea is good, but you have the problem, like Pixel mentioned, some people have problems following the Honor System- You would end up wiht people following "enemies" around dropping their rating.
However, I think that having a peer rating system for the winner would be a good idea, if you rate everyone, you would have too many problems with complicated scores and really, the winner and maybe second place are the only ones that it really applies to. People get out early before they can be graded fairly.

Those are the ideas I've come up with while reading these 2 pages (Ugg) and listening to your guys' thoughts.