The Malta Method, a Paris Method for PlayDip

This is the home for suggestions for site improvements, changes to house rules, and new variants.
Forum rules
It's okay to suggest new rules variants in this forum, but proposing new *maps* should be done in the linked "New Map Variant Proposals & Voting" subforum.

Re: The Malta Method, a Paris Method for PlayDip

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 08 Apr 2019, 17:08

Let me clarify that FCFS, as it stands today, is not a system that I wish to remain available for rated games.

My intention with the Malta Method was to find a way to reintroduce FCFS, once it is taken out, but with alterations to make it fairer.

If you're fundamentally opposed to allowing any sort of FCFS, I'm not sure this Malta Method is going to quell that opposition. But for those of you on the fence, are there changes that could be made to what I propose above that would seem fair? That would allow players that wish to sign up for a specific power to do so, rather than just a chance at one (like Preferences, which based on the results of the poll, is likely to remain in place)?

For instance, what if all players selecting "DEFER" the second time were given a random order at the back of the line, rather than ordering it based on confirmation time?

Or what if there was only one DEFER, at the time of joining the game, and the confirmation process stood as it is today?
NoPunIn10Did
Forum Administrator

Variant GM & Designer
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2296
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 1501
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: The Malta Method, a Paris Method for PlayDip

Postby jay65536 » 10 Apr 2019, 19:17

I think the part that to me seems most unfair is the idea of having a tiebreaker that unbalances how the ratings pot is split in the event of a draw.

I now think maybe there is a solution for that though. Suppose that instead of changing how the pot is split after the game ends, we change the level of each player's contribution to the pot before the game starts? That is, if you are picking a country early in the order, you contribute to the pot as if your rating were higher than it really was? And inversely, picking later means you contribute as if it were lower?

This way there is still some kind of reward/punishment mechanism for choosing early, but not one that encourages players to target those at the bottom of the picking order.

I have some other ideas to tighten up how joining/confirming could work (I don't think choosing a country as soon as you join should be an option) but what do you think of the proposed change to the tiebreaker idea?
jay65536
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 10 Sep 2016, 18:13
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1124)
All-game rating: (1130)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: The Malta Method, a Paris Method for PlayDip

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 10 Apr 2019, 20:14

jay65536 wrote:I think the part that to me seems most unfair is the idea of having a tiebreaker that unbalances how the ratings pot is split in the event of a draw.

I now think maybe there is a solution for that though. Suppose that instead of changing how the pot is split after the game ends, we change the level of each player's contribution to the pot before the game starts? That is, if you are picking a country early in the order, you contribute to the pot as if your rating were higher than it really was? And inversely, picking later means you contribute as if it were lower?

Considering that the amount of the "bet" in the pot is invisible to a player until they officially have lost the game, I'm not sure this ends up being much different from what's currently described.

jay65536 wrote:I have some other ideas to tighten up how joining/confirming could work (I don't think choosing a country as soon as you join should be an option) but what do you think of the proposed change to the tiebreaker idea?

If you aren't choosing a country as soon as you join, then it's not an FCFS replacement, which was the goal of this exercise.
NoPunIn10Did
Forum Administrator

Variant GM & Designer
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2296
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 1501
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: The Malta Method, a Paris Method for PlayDip

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 10 Apr 2019, 20:27

NoPunIn10Did wrote:
jay65536 wrote:I think the part that to me seems most unfair is the idea of having a tiebreaker that unbalances how the ratings pot is split in the event of a draw.

I now think maybe there is a solution for that though. Suppose that instead of changing how the pot is split after the game ends, we change the level of each player's contribution to the pot before the game starts? That is, if you are picking a country early in the order, you contribute to the pot as if your rating were higher than it really was? And inversely, picking later means you contribute as if it were lower?

Considering that the amount of the "bet" in the pot is invisible to a player until they officially have lost the game, I'm not sure this ends up being much different from what's currently described.

Actually, now that I've thought about it, it would be different. But if we're going to go with an Elo modification, rather than a scoring modification to the game, I would probably stick to sinnybee's original suggestion about using the statistical records of performance to modify the "bet" for each player.
NoPunIn10Did
Forum Administrator

Variant GM & Designer
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2296
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 1501
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: The Malta Method, a Paris Method for PlayDip

Postby jay65536 » 12 Apr 2019, 21:44

NoPunIn10Did wrote:If you aren't choosing a country as soon as you join, then it's not an FCFS replacement, which was the goal of this exercise.


I mean, I guess maybe there's a slight disagreement here on what parts of the Paris Method to keep and what to adapt?

In your mind, what is the reason why we're not having FCFS for rated games anymore? My interpretation is that the reason is because we don't want people "bumhunting" rated games, i.e. looking for rated games where they can choose to play certain powers while staying out of games where those powers are unavailable. My earlier idea of having a randomized (or possibly randomized-in-stages) picking order was meant to mitigate that. But if we think the reasoning behind getting rid of FCFS is something else, then my ideas are misplaced and the method should look more like your original idea (but I still think the original tiebreaker idea doesn't seem right).
jay65536
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 10 Sep 2016, 18:13
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1124)
All-game rating: (1130)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: The Malta Method, a Paris Method for PlayDip

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 12 Apr 2019, 22:33

jay65536 wrote:I mean, I guess maybe there's a slight disagreement here on what parts of the Paris Method to keep and what to adapt?

In your mind, what is the reason why we're not having FCFS for rated games anymore? My interpretation is that the reason is because we don't want people "bumhunting" rated games, i.e. looking for rated games where they can choose to play certain powers while staying out of games where those powers are unavailable. My earlier idea of having a randomized (or possibly randomized-in-stages) picking order was meant to mitigate that. But if we think the reasoning behind getting rid of FCFS is something else, then my ideas are misplaced and the method should look more like your original idea (but I still think the original tiebreaker idea doesn't seem right).


Getting rid of FCFS comes from a number of reasons, including the "bumhunting" as well as some meta-game concerns.

Ultimately, FCFS is one of those things that provides great convenience to the user, allowing them to know which country they will play before committing to play. That convenience is mostly not exploited except by a choice few "bumhunting" users. The idea here was to use some precedent from an existing power selection process to allow the FCFS convenience, but at a cost.
NoPunIn10Did
Forum Administrator

Variant GM & Designer
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2296
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 1501
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: The Malta Method, a Paris Method for PlayDip

Postby jay65536 » 13 Apr 2019, 21:03

NoPunIn10Did wrote:Ultimately, FCFS is one of those things that provides great convenience to the user, allowing them to know which country they will play before committing to play. That convenience is mostly not exploited except by a choice few "bumhunting" users. The idea here was to use some precedent from an existing power selection process to allow the FCFS convenience, but at a cost.


OK, so I guess it makes sense now why you would want to keep the first half of the joining process the same as FCFS.

I still think, if that's the direction we want to take, the "cost" should be some form of up-front Elo penalty for people who pick earlier, and the earlier the pick, the bigger the penalty (with a reward for later picks).

And I'm still of the opinion that the idea of being able to defer twice and get a random country, while picking order (and thus penalty/reward) is determined by time of confirmation, is somewhat unfair. Maybe we could tweak it as follows, sort of a combination of your original idea and what I tossed out earlier:

When you join the game, you have the option of choosing a country or choosing to DEFER.
In the confirmation phase, you again have the option of choosing a country or choosing to DEFER. However, if you DEFER a second time, you must also submit an ordered/ranked list of all the countries that were not selected in the join phase. When the game starts, anyone who picked DEFER twice is randomly assigned a spot in the (remaining) picking order, and then countries are handed out to those players by going through the picking order and giving them their top-ranked country that has not yet been assigned.

This way, the main mechanism of your idea is kept in place, but we don't have the potential unfairness of multiple people picking DEFER twice and some of them being assigned a random country while still being on the short end of the reward mechanism.
jay65536
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 10 Sep 2016, 18:13
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1124)
All-game rating: (1130)
Timezone: GMT-5

Previous

Return to Suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests