Forum game Diplomacy league

[mat.gopack]

well, I think the leaderboard would kinda be an incentive to play. How about having Wins and Draws to start off? The problem is factoring the size of the game in...

[sjg11]

well, I think the leaderboard would kinda be an incentive to play. How about having Wins and Draws to start off? The problem is factoring the size of the game in...

I think we could use this as the amount of points every game.
For example
Solo-12
2 Way Draw-6
3 Way Draw-4
4 Way Draw-3
5 Way Draw-2

Then we multiply the pointss by the number of players in the game
For example if you solo in a game with seven players you get 12x7=84 points

[Waterice man]

I think it would be better to multiply by the square root of the number of players. Whilst this does tend to complicate the mathematics, it doesn't make the smaller games completely irrelevant as just multiplying by the number of players does.

[sjg11]

I think it would be better to multiply by the square root of the number of players. Whilst this does tend to complicate the mathematics, it doesn't make the smaller games completely irrelevant as just multiplying by the number of players does.

True and complicated mathematics isn't quite so complicated with a calculator.

[Pedros]

I definitely favour Ceebs suggestion of the ELO-based system in DiplomaticCorp. It's complicated, true, but it seems to me to meet all the objections to the present main site ranking systgem - that it encourages draws, takes no account of the abilities of the people you beat/lose to, etc, and also deals well with the varied number of games.

I'd be totally opposed to the suggestion that we multiply base points by the number of players in the game. That would totally unbalance the system in favour of large games, even if no solo is gained.

[Pedros]

Should we opt for a league, I'm willing to captain a team. (I've captained tourney teams, so it's nothing new, and I'm sure I can recruit two other reliable players.)

I'd suggest we just start sign-ups for teams. If we get a sufficient number of teams (that look reliable in quality, which I would say means having at least one person who has participated reliably in forum games in the past), we start. If not, we can implement rankings.

Not so fast cs! The overwhelming sense in this discussion so far is against a league and teams!

[sjg11]

Should we opt for a league, I'm willing to captain a team. (I've captained tourney teams, so it's nothing new, and I'm sure I can recruit two other reliable players.)

I'd suggest we just start sign-ups for teams. If we get a sufficient number of teams (that look reliable in quality, which I would say means having at least one person who has participated reliably in forum games in the past), we start. If not, we can implement rankings.

Not so fast cs! The overwhelming sense in this discussion so far is against a league and teams!

I had a good idea today. How about we try a knockout tournament. Or maybe have mini leagues and then have x number of players go through to a final. Just something I thought I'd throw out there.

[mat.gopack]

well, I'd love a league, but it needs support. How about we start with the rankings, maintain them for a month. In a month, we can have the top X players do a tournament.
or the top X players could all form a team, and have a draft for any other interested person.
Just a thought, but it could merge the two ideas nicely

[cs]

Should we opt for a league, I'm willing to captain a team. (I've captained tourney teams, so it's nothing new, and I'm sure I can recruit two other reliable players.)

I'd suggest we just start sign-ups for teams. If we get a sufficient number of teams (that look reliable in quality, which I would say means having at least one person who has participated reliably in forum games in the past), we start. If not, we can implement rankings.

Not so fast cs! The overwhelming sense in this discussion so far is against a league and teams!

Well, there's no reason not to do both. And I figured I'd put it out there and see what happened. If there's no interest, there's no interest.

[cs]

I definitely favour Ceebs suggestion of the ELO-based system in DiplomaticCorp. It's complicated, true, but it seems to me to meet all the objections to the present main site ranking systgem - that it encourages draws, takes no account of the abilities of the people you beat/lose to, etc, and also deals well with the varied number of games.

I'd be totally opposed to the suggestion that we multiply base points by the number of players in the game. That would totally unbalance the system in favour of large games, even if no solo is gained.

Your comment about the main site ranking system failing to take into account who one plays against is a very good one. The other problem I have is that it takes no account of which power you play--it's absurd that solo as Russia is worth just as much as a solo as Austria, given the latter is much more difficult to accomplish. I don't think we could really factor that into the forum games, as there's not enough of a database to even start to assess whether, say, France or China is the easier country in Imperial (though Turkey is, without dispute, the most difficult by a long margin and requires the most skilled, experienced, persuasive, and good-looking of players to manage even a share of a draw).