6 ledder points. Why?

[Igor]

To see K size above each map would be a great but there isn't the necessary code yet.

[LPhillips]

I haven't played the new stratego yet so I don't know how quick it is. However in general I find that tightly packed cities play faster that cities that are spead out. If you have played the Jimmy H map you see this also. So it's not just the number of cities that affect the game length.

This is exactly why average game time is used, and it's the perfect measurement. In Stratego, one basically rushes across the map with the strongest stack in Open he can muster, simultaneously threatens the opponents' entire city structure (you can reach 5+ cities from one spot, making defense impossible) and collects a quick win. So maps where quick, abusive strategies dominate then generate low average turn lengths and don't count for much as victories. I'm not a huge fan of stalemates either (the polar opposite), but at least with this K-value system the maps are all fairly treated based on actual play, and not simply some value based on theory such as map size. It's really a good system and a huge step up from the original.

The real difficulties arise when a map has not been completed enough times to generate a factual K value (leaving maps to be valued by size) or when there are map creator errors (such as my originally unbalanced Burning Ice map).

[Argammon]

I have another question but don't think it is worth its own thread:

Why does the winner get ~double amount the points the loser loses? That is a huge advantage for people with much time on their hand who are able to play many games. No wonder Igor sits on the top of the ladder.

If I am missing something, tell me.

[piranha]

On the stats section in your account, to the right of your stats there is a number like (40p). Thats a pool of points. When you win a game you pair the number of points won with points from that pool. If you lose nothing of the points in the pool are lost.
You get 2 points per day in the 1vs1 pool.
1 point per day in the team pool and 2 points per week in the FFA pool.

[Argammon]

What is the reason behind doing that?

[KGB]

Coming back to this thread for a moment rather than create a new one.

I'm in a 4 player FFA ladder game. One of the players just resigned on turn 41. So on my main account page it notes this player surrendered and lost 13 ladder points (and Igor thought he got gypped for only 6 points in 10 turns. 13 points in 41 turns is a far worse payout even if multiplied by 3 for 3 losers. Lucky FFA and 1v1 are separate ladders). My question is: How does the game already know how many points to subtract from this player since the game isn't yet over. The final result might take another 10-20 turns which could affect how many points are given out if the game meets/passes some turn threshold used in the points calc. Or do FFA games not use the number of turns in the points calc?

KGB

[Jeremy]

Abusing a small 1vs1 map leads to virtually no points. Yup. Sounds like the point system is working as desired.

[piranha]

It's not the number of turns of the game but the average number of turns on that map in that type of game. 1v1, ffa, team have separate counters. If there are less than 8 completed games on that map in that type it will use the map size to decide instead.

The FFA calculation is also based on your points against the other players points so if a player is lower rated than the average of the rating of the other players he won't lose that many points.

The winner who is also measured against the other average of the other players will the get points from his point pool.

[KGB]

So then in an FFA:

If you resign on turn 1 or are eliminated on turn 100 it makes absolutely no difference in points lost.
It doesn't matter which player wins the same number of points are lost.

If both those statements are true it's good information to know.

KGB

[piranha]

Yes thats right.