Slitherine

the army selection will stay as it is ?
some match up are not equilibrate or maybe battle should be mirror , creating challenges with an army better than the opponent is easy (you can answer that nobody is forced to accept these kind of challenges but i often do that , thinking that new players for example need a little advantage when playing against experimenced ones)

ericdoman1 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 7:40 am

3. What about those players who may only play in a few tournaments (you and I for example), compared to those who play in all. Is the rating system going to work on the average or total.
For example Player A has played in 6 tournaments, total points are 6000 so average is 1000. Player B has played in 12 tournaments, total points is 7200 but average is 600. If total points Player B with 7200 will be above Player A with 6000. If average, Player B would be above Player A.

Do you think perhaps you are taking this a bit too seriously? It isn't international chess rankings and it isn't intended just for tournaments.

It is more of a "ladder" system.

Come on Richard. If total or average is classed as being serious, then heaven help us. We have both been playing tournaments for a very long time now so we should know what are the best options.

Keeping things very simple is always a good idea but it will not be 100% accurate.

You could have everybody start on the same number and then 10 points for a win and 5 points for a draw.

You could then change that to say 12 points for a win in HOML, 11 in TDC, 10 in SLitherine and WTC tournaments.

You may not recall this as you weren't involved in playing many single TT tournaments but ratings were based on positions not on who you played. The top tournaments would score you more points. For example, Roll Call, BHGS Challenge and Britcon. Then I believe you had Warfare and then the various double tournaments. All used the Swiss system. An ELO system was used but dopped shortly after, it didn't work? This is probably the simplest method of rating players.

As I say, this is going to be a generic system for all Slitherine games that opt into it.

Slitherine are not going to agree to specially tailor it to FOG, and certainly not to assorted tournament formats. And ranking changes are going to be based on the rankings of the two opposing players in an individual challenge, not on tournament positions. (Previous systems notwithstanding. And it isn't intended just for tournaments, making tournament positions somewhat irrelevant to the scoring method used.)

I think it is more intended to be a "ladder" system than the international tournament ranking system you seem to want it to be.

Currently they are considering resetting it periodically, which I would probably be against.

random27 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 9:27 am the army selection will stay as it is ?

Yes.

some match up are not equilibrate or maybe battle should be mirror , creating challenges with an army better than the opponent is easy (you can answer that nobody is forced to accept these kind of challenges but i often do that , thinking that new players for example need a little advantage when playing against experimenced ones)

Trying to make a force selection system/points system that eliminates unequal matchups would be close to impossible, and isn't something we have development time for attempting.

Setting a challenge as ranked is optional. So if you don't want to be ranked on an unequal matchup, don't set the challenge as ranked.

And if someone else sets up an unequal ranked challenge, don't accept it. (You could always send them a PM telling them that you would be happy to play that matchup but not ranked).

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 9:50 am

random27 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 9:27 am the army selection will stay as it is ?

Yes.

some match up are not equilibrate or maybe battle should be mirror , creating challenges with an army better than the opponent is easy (you can answer that nobody is forced to accept these kind of challenges but i often do that , thinking that new players for example need a little advantage when playing against experimenced ones)

Trying to make a force selection system/points system that eliminates unequal matchups would be close to impossible, and isn't something we have development time for attempting.

Setting a challenge as ranked is optional. So if you don't want to be ranked on an unequal matchup, don't set the challenge as ranked.

And if someone else sets up an unequal ranked challenge, don't accept it. (You could always send them a PM telling them that you would be happy to play that matchup but not ranked).

Thanks for the quick reply , that seems fair for me , i just wanted to know how it will be , i understand that unequal match ups will exist and i dont have any problem with that

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 9:36 am

ericdoman1 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 7:40 am

Do you think perhaps you are taking this a bit too seriously? It isn't international chess rankings and it isn't intended just for tournaments.

It is more of a "ladder" system.

Come on Richard. If total or average is classed as being serious, then heaven help us. We have both been playing tournaments for a very long time now so we should know what are the best options.

Keeping things very simple is always a good idea but it will not be 100% accurate.

You could have everybody start on the same number and then 10 points for a win and 5 points for a draw.

You could then change that to say 12 points for a win in HOML, 11 in TDC, 10 in SLitherine and WTC tournaments.

You may not recall this as you weren't involved in playing many single TT tournaments but ratings were based on positions not on who you played. The top tournaments would score you more points. For example, Roll Call, BHGS Challenge and Britcon. Then I believe you had Warfare and then the various double tournaments. All used the Swiss system. An ELO system was used but dopped shortly after, it didn't work? This is probably the simplest method of rating players.

As I say, this is going to be a generic system for all Slitherine games that opt into it.

Slitherine are not going to agree to specially tailor it to FOG, and certainly not to assorted tournament formats. And ranking changes are going to be based on the rankings of the two opposing players in an individual challenge, not on tournament positions. (Previous systems notwithstanding. And it isn't intended just for tournaments, making tournament positions somewhat irrelevant to the scoring method used.)

I think it is more intended to be a "ladder" system than the international tournament ranking system you seem to want it to be.

Currently they are considering resetting it periodically, which I would probably be against.

So it is going to be a system used across various games. Noticed that one tournament game was using some form of ranking system.

The ladder system or something quite similar (it did use a points system, rather than just swapping positions) was used by kronenblatt in his Ever Green League tournaments, now being run by angusosborne. Initially I enjoyed it but after a while, it was quite rare the leader received any challenges and some players were playing a lot more games than others. Not much of a big deal, as that can be changed in the rules. You just play equal number of games.

The biggest "selling point" is that it would cut down on admin duties for the various volunteer organisers of tournaments.

I think because it is being/may be used across so many different games it will not give an accurate account of rankings for each specific game. So I personally would probably use it but I would have a system in place specifically for FOG II and only for tournament games. I think we (all gamers) would prefer a more accurate rating system rather than a not so accurate one. It would always be interesting to compare both

First time warp ranked game completed.

No difficulty at all in accepting the time warp challenge and points and selection worked seamlessly.
Points for troops in the imported Eygptian 1450-1277BC list were exactly same as seen in FoGII with same preselected troops - no issues.

Note that with the ranking on and with one player starting at 1015 and one at 1000 ranking after game became 1030 and 985.

Is there a flat 15 point addition for a win and 15 point deduction irrespective of starting scores for the players?
Note also that one ranking change seems to be a +1/-1?

Triarii wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2023 9:06 pm First time warp ranked game completed.

No difficulty at all in accepting the time warp challenge and points and selection worked seamlessly.
Points for troops in the imported Eygptian 1450-1277BC list were exactly same as seen in FoGII with same preselected troops - no issues.

Note that with the ranking on and with one player starting at 1015 and one at 1000 ranking after game became 1030 and 985.

Is there a flat 15 point addition for a win and 15 point deduction irrespective of starting scores for the players?

I am not privy to the details of the scoring system. However, it seems that you get more points for beating a player who is ranked higher than you. For example when I was 1015 and Snuggles was 1000, and he won, he got +16 and I got -16.

Note also that one ranking change seems to be a +1/-1?

If you mean deduction == addition, then it seems so on the evidence so far.

Thank you very much for the reply.

For example when I was 1015 and Snuggles was 1000, and he won, he got +16 and I got -16.

That makes sense of the current ranking totals for me.

Understanding you are not privy to this but it would be good to see the formula if possible. It would be good to check against this in the other 4 ranked games I have going especially the mirror games where they will obviously finish at different points. (understand that starting scores apply so am interested to follow ranking scoring when another game starts between mirror completions).

Triarii wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 8:49 am Thank you very much for the reply.

For example when I was 1015 and Snuggles was 1000, and he won, he got +16 and I got -16.

That makes sense of the current ranking totals for me.

Understanding you are not privy to this but it would be good to see the formula if possible. It would be good to check against this in the other 4 ranked games I have going especially the mirror games where they will obviously finish at different points. (understand that starting scores apply so am interested to follow ranking scoring when another game starts between mirror completions).

I will see if David will give me the formula/algorithm.

Here is the formula:

-----------------------

$K = 30;
$Probability1 = 1 / (1 + (pow(10, ($Rating2 - $Rating1) / 400)));
$Probability2 = 1 / (1 + (pow(10, ($Rating1 - $Rating2) / 400)));

if ($Player1HasWon)
{
$S1 = 1;
$S2 = 0;
}
else if ($Player2HasWon)
{
$S1 = 0;
$S2 = 1;
}
else // draw, it never happens but better to have it
{
$S1 = 0.5;
$S2 = 0.5;
}
$Rating1 += round($K * ($S1 - $Probability1));
$Rating2 += round($K * ($S2 - $Probability2));

---------------------

Pow(x, y) equals to x^y (Ex. Pow(10, 2) => 10^2 => 100)
Round(x) returns the rounded value (an integer)

Posts moved here.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2023 6:53 am Here is the formula:

-----------------------
....
}
else // draw, it never happens but better to have it
{
$S1 = 0.5;
$S2 = 0.5;
}
$Rating1 += round($K * ($S1 - $Probability1));
$Rating2 += round($K * ($S2 - $Probability2));
....

Thank you Richard.

A question for David or possibly yourself regarding the piece of the formula kept in the quote -

Would a draw be the default for a game reaching maximum turns without the win criteria (>60 damage or damage >39 and difference >24) being reached?
Or
Is the intention that games reaching a turn limit are not scored for ranking purposes?

I ask because these turn limit games are not common but are certainly not unusual, particularly in community tournaments.

Where a turn limit is reached should it be considered a draw this would apply

{
$S1 = 0.5;
$S2 = 0.5;
}
$Rating1 += round($K * ($S1 - $Probability1));
$Rating2 += round($K * ($S2 - $Probability2))

In which case the lower ranked player at the game start would receive a greater ranking point score for avoiding the defeat criteria. That is possibly a discussion point as it may affect play behaviour?
Personally I would prefer to see a game where both players have invested to reach the turn limit being included so I hope turn limit games are classed a draw.

As the quoted code comment says, there should be no draws. The game engine does not recognise the existence of draws, it assigns victory to one or other player, depending on the code in the game scripts.

If a game reaches the turn limit, the game client decides who wins. What the victory conditions are in games that reach the turn limit varies, depending on the scenario, as coded in the game scripts. For examples: In an Open Battle, the player with the lower % routed (at the Turn limit) wins. In a Defending scenario, the defending player wins if the turn limit is reached without either side winning.

Games that are timed out (which only happens in the Slitherine automated tournaments) will be won by the player who had the game in his in-tray for the shorter total time. i.e. The one who returned turns more promptly over the whole course of the game.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2023 12:50 pm As the quoted code comment says, there should be no draws. The game engine does not recognise the existence of draws, it assigns victory to one or other player, depending on the code in the game scripts.

Thank you again - I did understand the principle for timed out games but not that a 'nightfall' game does actually have a winner and loser in the game client.
Does that mean (from the code comment) condition
SS1 = 0.5
SS2 = 0.5
Does not exist or is it only in the very unlikely event losses are equal in an open battle?

Triarii wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2023 11:40 pm

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2023 12:50 pm As the quoted code comment says, there should be no draws. The game engine does not recognise the existence of draws, it assigns victory to one or other player, depending on the code in the game scripts.

Thank you again - I did understand the principle for timed out games but not that a 'nightfall' game does actually have a winner and loser in the game client.
Does that mean (from the code comment) condition
SS1 = 0.5
SS2 = 0.5
Does not exist or is it only in the very unlikely event losses are equal in an open battle?

It does not exist with the current game engine.

If losses are exactly equal in an Opern Battle, currently the victory goes to side B, which isn't very fair. I will need to look into making it a coin toss, but I doubt if that will make people happy either.

Most generals left is the winner? If codable..

I did some testing using another ID.
Games are not recorded until several moves have been played, I think at least 3 need to be completed.
Clearly the system would allow players to 'up' their rating this way by playing games against themselves but it does take time so maybe not a big issue.

Looking at the formula, it is much harder to increase a rating over time compared with the TDC system.
If a player won 80% of their games against average players then they would max out at around 1300.
If they won 90% of their games against average players then they would max out at around 1400.

tyronec wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2023 12:28 pm I did some testing using another ID.

Clearly the system would allow players to 'up' their rating this way by playing games against themselves

But why one should do this?