Ladder points

[Igor]

I not quite know how much ladder points are added to a game winner, but I am sure that must be a difference between victory on big map and on small map. Small map let to finish a game in 5 or 8 turns, but big map winner spend 20-30 turns to win. I think that big map winner must get more ladder points than small map winner. Difference can depend on number of cities, for example, or on size of map.
May be it is already realized in practice, I don't know. I just think that it is more difficult to win on a big than an small map.

[LPhillips]

He's right. Small map victories are cheap, and depend on seizing a single city, or one hero offer or ruin reward. Cheap strategies work well, and the outcome is often largely luck.

[piranha]

It's using ELO rating. Size of map doesn't matter for the points awarded. It's decided by the players rating when the game is started. If you beat someone ranked higher you gain more, less when you beat someone lower. That's why Chickenchaser and Star get so few points when they win but lose a lot when they lose a game.

There is a bit of luck in the game but there is skill in managing the luck so the best player will be winning in the end as we can see by looking at the ladder.

Should be just as hard to win for anybody regardless of map size. FFA gives you more points when winning.

[KGB]

Should be just as hard to win for anybody regardless of map size. FFA gives you more points when winning.

I think Igors point was that a large map game takes longer to finish due to map size than a small map game. So you can potentially play 3-4 small map games in the time you can play 1 big map game (or even 10-15 games if the large map game has a long time between turns and a large number of players). The ELO system doesn't take than into account so if you want to rank-monger you are better off playing a lot of games on small maps.

As far as ranking points goes, do you decide the points when the game starts or ends since a players ranking may change a lot if a game takes 20-25 days to complete.

Lastly, does the system encourage/reward players for playing a variety of opponents? In other words can you get a ton of points by simply playing 10 simultaneous games with 1 other player and winning all 10? A better way would be to only allow 1 ladder game at a time with another player otherwise this is another way to rank-monger.

Unfortunately there isn't a nice easy solution like chess (where you only acquire points in tournaments and are only playing 1 game at a time and all games are the same in terms of board size/pieces).

KGB

[Igor]

If long game or short game doesn't mean for a ranking system, that stimulate to play 10 short games on a small map instead a long 1 on a big map. And men who like big map games will not be on the top of the ladder. Only if they will play 5 times more games than others )

[piranha]

Perhaps you are right and there is a reason to adjust points by mapsize.

This would also mean you lose more when you lose on a big map. There is a K value which is 32 right now which makes it possible to win / lose 1 - 32 points per game (but you get extra points from your point pool so you can get more when winning).

Something like:
2500 tiles, K = 20 (50x50)
5000 tiles, K = 24 (100x50)
7500 tiles, K = 28 (150x50)
10000 tiles, K = 32 (100x100)
15000 tiles, K = 36 (150x100)
22500 tiles, K = 40 (150x150)

Right now there are so few players on the ladder so I don't think it's a good idea to limit who you may play. But I think that is something worth looking at as it grows.

I think rank monging, or just doing everything you can to get up the ladder is okay as long as it doesn't mean cheating in any way. Playing the same person could of course be cheating if he doesn't even try to win. But playing someone skilled is also a great way to learn so I can understand if some people are taking their chance to get many games against the top ranked players.

It's a bit hard to control cheating but I'm thinking about implementing some sort of system for it. I added IP checks yesterday to be able to spot players who play against their own "loser account" which is probably the easiest way of stealing a couple of extra points.

The ladder points are decided when the game starts. I know it changes a lot during a long game but we figured out that it was more honest that you get the points that you see the other player having when you start the game.

[magian]

I really like the idea of tournaments.