TDC - Archive

[Karvon]

We, the coordinators, have reconsidered and decided NOT to have our games ranked for Slitherene ELO at the present time.

1. First, their ELO system is still buggy and there is no announced time frame as to when this might be fixed.

2. More importantly, their ELO system would count games discarded for rerolls which would artificially change ELOs of said players.

Regards,

Karvon

[Karvon]

Just a review of how we use TDC ELO.

1. The first rating considered is that of the period, so, for example, if you've played in Classical before, you will be placed based on your Classical ELO ranking.

2. If you are new to a period, but have played another one or more within Ancient or Medieval, then you will be placed based on the Game ELO compiled from those respective periods you have joined in the past.

3. If you are new to a game, then you will be placed based on your Common ELO; which is a cumulative ELO based on both games.

4. If you are new to TDC, but had some history in DL or Slitheren tournaments at the time we launched TDC, then you likely were assigned an initial TDC Common ELO which was calculated by a formula drawing on those records. Your Common ELO would be used to place you.

5. Other players new to TDC will normally start at 1000. Coordinators reserve the right to review data presented by any coordinator drawn from other tournaments, and rank a new player higher if approved by a majority vote of our committee.

Regards,

Karvon

[tyronec]

First, their ELO system is still buggy and there is no announced time frame as to when this might be fixed.

As far as I know Medieval is working, it is just Ancients that has the scores the wrong way around.

More importantly, their ELO system would count games discarded for rerolls which would artificially change ELOs of said players.

Slitherine ELO system ignores games that have ended within a few (it might be three) turns of starting.

[Karvon]

If it ignores games ended quite early that would address our main concern.

I'm sure they will get the bugs sorted out in due course.
In which case, we will likely move to support it for TDC.

Regards

Karvon

[tmac11]

Count me in armies to follow

1. Seleucid 300 - 206
2. Greek 227 - 146 with Roman Allies
3. Kyrenean Greek 321 - 276

[tmac11]

Count me in armies to follow

1. Neo Hittite/Aramean 890 -700
2. Babylonian 890 - 729
3. Hebrew 800- 682 with Kushite Egyptian Allies

[Karvon]

I thought the cut off point between Bronze Age and Classical was the advent of HF Hoplites, yet we have the Lydian army with hoplite and lancer core troops in the Bronze Age list? Is this an oversight?

Hi Ian. I have mentioned it to the organisers. I was expecting the date to change. Not sure about allowing the Thracian Triballi army as well. So they should have stuck with the end date being 701 BC. I expected somebody to have chosen it by now so I'd end up using my 2nd choice. To be honest I feel a little guilty using it and have changed. BTW I hope you are thinking of flexing your muscles in another period as well.

We had a lengthy discussion about it. When quired a couple of seasons ago, RBS suggested a cut off of 688 BC. After reviewing the lists, we noted that Assyrians, Phoenician and Hebrew lists all split at 682/681, and thus felt that was a better place to divide, though it does leave the Lydians in the earlier period. They only have half a dozen hoplites and lancers, and they are pricey, so though a tough list, we felt it was the way to go. If they prove too overpowering and popular we will revisit this issue in the offseason.

Regards,

Karvon

[tyronec]

If it ignores games ended quite early that would address our main concern.

I tested this for Medieval during the Beta and yes, games that end after just a few turns are not scored.

[Karvon]

If it ignores games ended quite early that would address our main concern.

I tested this for Medieval during the Beta and yes, games that end after just a few turns are not scored.

Do you know how many turns?

Thanks

Karvon

[Infinitude]

Please count me in. Armies to follow - if there are any left

[gort7078]

I would like to enter,

My armies
1- Parthian 250 bc-225 ad

2- Sassanid Persians 591 ad-628 ad
ally Turkish 552 ad-599 ad

3-Hunnic (Sabir) 463 ad-558 ad

Thank-you!
Don Owens/gort7078

[tyronec]

About three.

[ianiow]

I thought the cut off point between Bronze Age and Classical was the advent of HF Hoplites, yet we have the Lydian army with hoplite and lancer core troops in the Bronze Age list? Is this an oversight?

Hi Ian. I have mentioned it to the organisers. I was expecting the date to change. Not sure about allowing the Thracian Triballi army as well. So they should have stuck with the end date being 701 BC. I expected somebody to have chosen it by now so I'd end up using my 2nd choice. To be honest I feel a little guilty using it and have changed. BTW I hope you are thinking of flexing your muscles in another period as well.

We had a lengthy discussion about it. When quired a couple of seasons ago, RBS suggested a cut off of 688 BC. After reviewing the lists, we noted that Assyrians, Phoenician and Hebrew lists all split at 682/681, and thus felt that was a better place to divide, though it does leave the Lydians in the earlier period. They only have half a dozen hoplites and lancers, and they are pricey, so though a tough list, we felt it was the way to go. If they prove too overpowering and popular we will revisit this issue in the offseason.

Regards,

Karvon

Ok, thanks for the insight guys. I wonder why the Lydians managed to get such "advanced" tech ( lancer cav and close order long spear foot) so much earlier than other civilisations? I guess that's a story for another forum page.

[tyronec]

We had a lengthy discussion about it. When quired a couple of seasons ago, RBS suggested a cut off of 688 BC. After reviewing the lists, we noted that Assyrians, Phoenician and Hebrew lists all split at 682/681, and thus felt that was a better place to divide, though it does leave the Lydians in the earlier period. They only have half a dozen hoplites and lancers, and they are pricey, so though a tough list, we felt it was the way to go. If they prove too overpowering and popular we will revisit this issue in the offseason.

Another option would be to have a gap between the periods.
So Bronze & Iron before 700BC, Classical after 680 BC.
With that approach you could have all lists included, just less of them available to two periods.

[heidipie]

eric

sorry for my error, instead of Irish , will put down Catalan co. , 1305 to 19

thankee and Merry Xmas , see y all in January

[Karvon]

We had a lengthy discussion about it. When quired a couple of seasons ago, RBS suggested a cut off of 688 BC. After reviewing the lists, we noted that Assyrians, Phoenician and Hebrew lists all split at 682/681, and thus felt that was a better place to divide, though it does leave the Lydians in the earlier period. They only have half a dozen hoplites and lancers, and they are pricey, so though a tough list, we felt it was the way to go. If they prove too overpowering and popular we will revisit this issue in the offseason.

Another option would be to have a gap between the periods.
So Bronze & Iron before 700BC, Classical after 680 BC.
With that approach you could have all lists included, just less of them available to two periods.

Not a bad idea either.

Karvon

[CheAhn]

Count me in, Cheers.

[ericdoman1]

Good on ya Nik.

Hope all are well?

Would be great if you could enter another period as well. You are a quick player so you'll finish one period quickly. Heck enter 3 or more:)

[tyronec]

Please count me in. Armies to follow.

[tyronec]

Please count me in. Armies to follow.