Alpha Centauri Forums
Old Test Forums
The New and Improved SMAC League
|
|
Alpha Centauri Forums
Old Test Forums
The New and Improved SMAC League
|
| Author | Topic: The New and Improved SMAC League |
| SnowFire |
posted 12-02-98 07:17 PM ET  
Since the current SMAC league site has started its decline to senility with posting posts in the middle of the thread, here is a new one. My most recent post (that got put in the midddle): I like the teams idea for play, but I would think that the SMAC leauge would not be a point-based league type thing at first, more of an organization that set up matches between members. Members would give their available times, and then a game would be set for a date inbetween 7 available players, hopefully with a continuation date available as well. Eventuallly the League could move up to holding tournaments, but that's in the future (49 players+ alternates = a time limit of 4 hours on 7 matches of 7, after which SMAC's ranking are used to determine the 3 of the 7 who advance. The losers can then be alternates in the other games in that round of tournament to sub for no-shows. The 21 who advance hold 3 games of 7, with 4th place finishers from the previous round as alternates, this time with only the top 2 from each round advancing. One 3rd place 2nd round player chosen by vote would then join the 6 finalists in one massive finals match of SMAC that has no time limit.) In tourneys any custom faction could be used; in regular for fun games, you'd decide pre-game if custom facs can be used or the original 7 will be used. And, alas, I'd probably end up playing the Gaians in most of these games, since I've been their defender as no one else was there for them. |
| SnowFire |
posted 12-02-98 07:37 PM ET
Here's the recovered posts so far. One note: You original idea, DJ, rewards people who play a lot of games, because you only win points by playing games, and even in the one situation you do lose them the risk is nigh on insignificant compared to the 7 point game. If you want to do this type of ranking, try what they do in chess: no points are created in a game, just exchanged, and every player starts off with so many points (say 1000). So in a 2 human player match, I may win 16 points and my opponent may lose 16 points if our ratings are equal. In a 7 player game with all rankings equal, 4th would have no gain, 1st might gain 80 points, 2nd 45, 3rd 20, 5th lose 20, 6th lose 45, and 7th lose 80. I still stand by my original post's idea though. DJ RRebel posted 11-16-98 Here's a post I had in the "SMAC Multi-Player How ???" thread !!! ********* Copied Post (Edited a bit) ******** Who here would be interested in joining a SMAC league ??? I'm the type who gets really competitive during a game, but would like to laugh about them when it's over !!! I'd probably set it up like the NFL, where each player plays once (maybe twice depending on the actual average length of a game of SMAC) a week (it would be up to the players to decide where they play). This way, people would actually have time for other leagues or solo play !!! Another key to the league would be flexibility, I'll co-ordinate it, but I don't want there to be a leader ... we would have to vote on most major issues !!! If 2 players couldn't play for some reason or another, they'd be able to postpone their game a few more days without everyone screaming that it's the end of the world unless we're in the play-offs or something !!! We could have some games of 2 players some of 3 and some of even more !!! I guess the number of point the winning player would get would depend on the number of opponents !!! EX: 2 Players (6 pts): Winner 6pts, loser 0 pts I'd also like to keep it relatively small ... definately 20 people or less!!! If you guys are interested, let me know !!! There could also be team play .. wow .. the ideas are really stirring now !!! 6 players (18pts) 2 teams: 3 winners 6pts, 3 losers 0pts !!! Of course, I'd be taking many suggestions before we started and we'd have some kind of a vote on the rules, point system etc ... So ??? What do you think ??? Message me here or e-mail me !!! <Picture> Jay posted 11-16-98 02:10 PM ET �� DJ RRebel posted 11-16-98 02:14 PM ET Plus I'll need time to organize it, AND, I don't want to do that over the holidays !!! So I'd like to be ready for mid december, in case the game actually comes out in the first week of January (by some miricle) !!! <Picture> I really wanted ideas for now more than anything else .. so ??? Any ideas anyone ??? DJ RRebel posted 11-17-98 11:17 AM ET �� The invitation is still open to anybody who wants in or who just wants to talk about anything to do with leagues for SMAC ... what kind of ideas do you have for SMAC compititions etc ??? Titan posted 11-17-98 05:51 PM ET ��� Vive le Qu�bec! Vive le Canada! Vive SMAC! CClark posted 11-17-98 06:05 PM ET Just asking because some factions my not suit some player's styles. Imagine asking Yo_Yo or MikeH to play Yang? I think they'd quit the leaque on the spot! <Picture> Hopefully, the factions will also be balanced, although if one has a distinct advantage over another it could throw the league out of whack a bit. What might be better is a clan idea whereby everyone who wants to join the leaque signs up for one clan/faction. Faction dominance could be determined with some kind of weighted pts/game to see which faction is ahead overall. Within each faction/clan players could be ranked by a points system (what you proposed looks fine DJRR) to see who the best "Santiago" is, etc. Just thinking...dangerous tho' it can be. DJ RRebel posted 11-18-98 11:50 AM ET As for the schedule, that was exactly what I had in mind .. lets say bob and jim have a game scheduled for week 1, it would be up to them to decide when to play it !!! You clan idea is good, but what I had in mind, was that there would be a preference (home team type of advantage) for each match, like bob (1) vs. Jim (2) .. where Bob would be the first to choose his faction .. and jim would be second !!! At the end of the season, everyone would have the same # first picks, the same number of 2nd picks and so on !!! It would really depend on the number of people in the league !!! I guess maybe 20 people might not be enough for some ideas !!! I guess we can keep the number 20 flexible depending on the ideas that come up here !! Keep up with the ideas ... this could be really fun !!! DJ RRebel posted 11-18-98 11:51 AM ET MikeH II posted 11-18-98 11:57 AM ET Also I couldn't realistially commit to a game a week. Average once a fortnight on weekends I could do though. I'm also not sure I want people coming here posting "I beat MikeH!!!" not that that would happen of course DJ RRebel posted 11-18-98 12:02 PM ET Anyways, you're probably right about not being able to commit to a game a week .. that'll probably be something we judge when the demo comes out !!! If a game is typically under 2 hours, I see no problem in it !!! But if it's 5hrs+ .. then we're going to run into difficulty .. but we could always make things bi-weekly or something !!! MikeH II posted 11-18-98 12:17 PM ET � I know what you mean about the demo. I can't imagine spending so much time on a game which isn't even out yet. CClark posted 11-18-98 01:23 PM ET Depending on what options there are for multiplayer, victories could be based on who has the most "points", the ranking on the Faction Dominance Graph, etc. You'd probably want to sort out some things so that games are consistent. Like whether or not people will play using the "accelerated research" options. (This may or may not adversely affect the University faction...) Oh well... long time until January. Ultra SupremePaco posted 11-18-98 05:46 PM ET �� ~Paco Brother Greg posted 11-18-98 07:52 PM ET �� Don't know if I'd agree to a set schedule of games (like, you must play once per fortnight). Might get hard if most live in the US or Europe, and I am expected to play at 3am. <Picture> Brother Greg. Steel_Dragon posted 11-19-98 01:29 AM ET � I had an idea: DJ RRebel posted 11-19-98 02:35 AM ET I'd like a few more ideas on infrastucture and point systems if you guys have any !!! Steel_Dragon posted 11-19-98 12:36 PM ET Steel_Dragon posted 11-19-98 01:50 PM ET DJ RRebel posted 11-19-98 02:02 PM ET �� Different leagues might not neccisarily be geographical in nature !!! I work nights, and therefore find myself on line during Auzzie evenings !!! But anyways, I'm sure 2 or 3 people could find a 2-3 hour span to play a game at some point over a 2 week span !!! What kind of ideas do you guys have on a point system ??? Think about it for a while and give me detailled plans !!! Steel_Dragon posted 11-19-98 02:44 PM ET 1pt for every city 1pt for every five advances 50pts 1st 10pt for long standing allainces(mim 10 to 20 turns old at the end of the game) -5 pt for using nuclear(OR what of they call it) All numbers based on Civ2 game experience. SnowFire: After this it gets really messed up, going back and forth, not that it wasn't messed up earlier. I'll try and ressurect the rest later. Also, while SD's system is admirable, it's also a pain to count up, and I'm sure SMAC will have plenty of in-game who's the best meters. A problem with team play is that some teams might do extensive specialization, where one fac plays a Morgan-ripoff and produces energy for the other factions and another researches almost exclusively and the other one protects the first two by building a giant military machine. Also in a 3 on 3 match, finding the lone computer controlled faction closest to yuo would be a boon as there would be several easily conqueable cities to take for your pleasure. |
| Steel_Dragon |
posted 12-03-98 01:48 AM ET
SnowFire, My pt system was based on every body playing the same number of games(like 1 per week for 8 weeks, just an example) so everyone would play the same number of games. It would be a pain to count pts by my system, however I like my system(I would  ) becuase it isn't the game about internal development not nessassly conquring? However a random map could place someone at a real dissadvantage as far a pts acuired.May we could one person take one week off to deveped the map used for that week, for all games. We would be on our honor not to look at the map though. How about two leagues one league using the 1000 pt idea so that we could play continuesly and one league sort as a tornomount using something like my idea? Overcouse the continous play one should start first so that we get an idea of MP SMAC. |
| DJ RRebel |
posted 12-03-98 06:03 AM ET
Well, I don't see why there coudn'y be 10 SMAC leagues ... the more the better !!! But yes, my point system was based on everyone playing the same number of games and also the same number of each point type game !!! I don't know where you got the idea of anything else, I didn't metion it because it should have been obvious !!! But that's for clearing it up !!! Anyways, I'm still open for new ideas ... although I'm not going to set anything in stone until at least after the demo has been played for a couple of weeks !!! And I won't be starting any league before the full version comes out, so there's still plenty of time left !!! |
| DJ RRebel |
posted 12-03-98 06:07 AM ET
Actually, I just thought of something else, it's not as good as my other idea, but if people were to play a different number of games (& point games), instead of the complicated chess system, where people will be disapointed for losing points, we could just use a percentage system, where you devide your points by number of posible points !!! Kind of like basketball !!! As I said, I don't like it that much, but it is an idea to explore if too many people can't play too many games !!! |
| Titan |
posted 12-03-98 03:46 PM ET
I think a good way to organize a league would be like in boxing or wrestling. There is an official champion. If you beat somebody, you go one rank in front of him. You may challenge anybody, and if he is in the four persaon in front of you in the ranking, he is forced to accept. This way, anybody by beating the good players could earn a good ranking ant therefore have a chance on the title. The first ranking could be set by a tournament where the opponents are drawn randomly. You build a playoff and play all the games to the end, then you the winner is the champion, and the others occupie the other ranks depending on there performance. I dont know if boxing and wrestling work exactly like that, but it is similar. |
| CClark |
posted 12-03-98 05:10 PM ET
Titan, that may work okay for 1-on-1 matches, but if you had two games of 7 players going on at the same time, how would you adjust the rankings? e.g. Player in first plays player in sixth in one game. Player in second plays player in fifth in another. (Along with 5 other players in both games.) If 6 beats 1, but 2 beats 5, who is in first? The guy who was in 6, just because he beat the guy who was in first? Not really fair to the guy in second now is it? Also, if you are in first, there could be a really big demand on your time for challenge matches. I agree it sounds like a good idea, but I think a point system would work much better in practice. Personally, I'm going to just wait for the game to come out and see if I even like the multiplayer mode! |
| Titan |
posted 12-03-98 05:21 PM ET
CClark, I agree my system has some lack as all the others have. To make a reaaly good system, we will have to wait untill the game gets out and see how the multiplayer really works. An other would be to be ranked on your average score. In my previous system, the many demands on the player in first place would be resolv3e in the fact that he is only forced to accept the challenge of the four best challengers. You could set a rule that would forbid a player to play more than three game to the champion in a month or something like that. ''.g. Player in first plays player in sixth in one game. Player in second plays player in fifth in another. (Along with 5 other players in In boxing, for example, I am the eleventh challenger, but somehow, I got a title match, and I win. In the same time, The first challenger beats the third. I am the new champion, is it fairer for the boxer in second place. |
| SnowFire |
posted 12-03-98 08:14 PM ET
But again, this isn't boxing, which is one on one. Plus, there is more an element of randomess. While beating a player with far more points than you might be great for your score, a newbie getting lucky against an emperor would create problems. I still stand by the chess way of finding scores. Since the results would be sent in to one central authority who would compile the scores, the scoring system doesn't need to be simple; it can be as complicated as you want. And the chess system, which is what Myth:TFL copied off of in its ranking system, is actually pretty easy to understand. The problem with precentages is, conversely, that playing very few games now gives you an advantage. If you play 2 1 on 1 games against your little brother and win both, you now have a perfect 100 percent avergae (as opposed to DJRR's System that rewards players for playing in as many games as possible). The chess system insures that people who don't play much don't get into the upper echelon, but playing a lot is no help if you only get 4th everytime- only playing and winning a lot help. Again, all this talk is probably irrevelant: the League will only exist at first to organize matches (so and so many people are available this day, and this day, etc. We'll pair them like so.). And instead of a regular season type ranking system that ranks every game, as tournaments, I think, would be a much better judge. |
| SnowFire |
posted 12-03-98 08:17 PM ET
Speaking of this, one feature that would both eliminate disputes on who won as well as provide an excellent downloadable tutorial on great past games: a save replay feature in SMAC. Famous tourney games could be replayed forever, and people all over the net could download them and admire them. I'm putting this in a new thread, "A Compilation of All the Ideas for SMAC that can still be Implemented Now." |
| SnowFire |
posted 12-03-98 08:40 PM ET
Okay, never mind, I put it in the Reasonable Questions for Firaxis forum. |
| Steel_Dragon |
posted 12-04-98 12:53 AM ET
Yes this is a little premature, but what else is their to talk about. Overall rankings: Each player starts out with 1000pts Margin of victory would be decide by my system or something like it. But their was only 500pt contubite so |
| Brother Greg |
posted 12-04-98 01:04 AM ET
Hmm, I think that your system would need a LOT of fleshing out though. For instance it makes no mention of military strength, nor improvements in cities (happy citizens anyone?). I personally hope that Firaxis give us a good scoring system and that we can simply use that to allocate points. Even using your method, there would have to be a way to save the game at end, and have an independant reviewer go through the game and allocate points. Anyway, I'm personally happy to wait until the game comes out before we start getting too far into designing the system. I like your ideas in principle, but let's see what Firaxis give us before we go too far. Brother Greg. |
| Marian |
posted 12-04-98 07:54 PM ET
Steeldragon posted one in the Forum on the Alpha Centauri Zone. It sounds pretty reasonable and I think I may adopt it. Take a look at the forum to see what I mean. I can't post it here, since I am on vaction over the weekend. Ciao Marian |
| SnowFire |
posted 12-04-98 08:53 PM ET
To apply SD's kind of system to mine, let's say that two equally ranked players each contribute 20 points to the "win" pool. In a normal game one would win 20 points and the other would lose 20. In a 3 player game, 2nd would keep his/her points, 1st place would gain 20, and 3rd place lose 20. But now let's say the people have different rankings. For every 50 point difference, that person would contribute 1 less point. So if a player at 1200 played a 1000 player, the 1200 player would contribute 24 points and the 1000 player 16. If the 1200 player wins, he only gets 16 points since his opposition was not that tough; conversely, if the 1000 player won, then he would gain 24 points for such an achievement (and the 1200 player would lose 24 for the ignominy). Note that this is the same really as before, there are 40 points in the pool and the winner takes all, its just that some are anteing more. To move this method up to a 7 player game, use the same system: each player should contribute 20 points if all are perfectly equal. If all are not equal, then average their scores. Then use the distance from the average to determine how many points each player antes. If the average of the 7 rankings is 1270, and I have a 1530, then I ante 25 points. If the rounding works out (half round down, half round up), then there should be 140 points anted, exactly as it should be. That 140 points is then allocated back to the people in a preset way; like this: Also, a lock would be placed on anteing that it could not go above 150% or below 50% of the original. So even if I'm 800 points below my opponent (1x1) or the average (multiple game), I still have to ante 10 points. I can't ante 4 points, as would seem to be indicated by that. And If I'm 1000 points above the average, I don't ante 40 points; I only do the max ante of 30. To make up for the lack or too many points, the total in the ante will be assumed to be the same (because I'm so much better than everyone else and maxed out on the ante, there are only 130 points in the pool. It magically becomes 140, the correct amount, without requiring anyone to donate extra points.) |
| Steel_Dragon |
posted 12-04-98 10:18 PM ET
The only problem I have SnowFire is sometimes 2nd and 3rd place could be pretty close and a %of the total pts would more accurely reflect the game played, instead of a striaght number of pts for each place. And I do hope Firaxis will give us a good way to evulate how much better each place was. Though a striaght 10% contributed could lead to a game where a top player would have to win by such a huge margin to gain pts. example player A would have to destroy player be to gain any pts using a % system, which is what you would expect right? |
| SnowFire |
posted 12-04-98 10:35 PM ET
Which is a problem with your system. It shouldn't be required to detroy your opponent; SMAC will be too well balanced for that. Just beating them should be enough. And the arbitrary cut offs encourage cutthroat fighting for the places; with a percentage, "just close" will be almost as good as going for a straight victory over an opponent (assuming that it's a timed game, and you have 20 minutes to either tread water in 3rd or be aggressive and go for 2nd place). Lastly, in a game that goes to completion and the victor wins by conquest, you now have one player with a massive amount of points and 0 points for all the losers. That's not fair. By using the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. system, by hanging tight the entire game and being the last perosn to be eliminated will give you a good score in 2nd, rather than the same 0 that everyonne else got. In short: your system, in games where only one person is left on the map, overrewards the winner and underrewards the close but no cigar people. |
| Octopus |
posted 12-05-98 12:42 AM ET
SnowFire: it seems like in your system there would be little motivation for advanced players to play beginners (since they have a lot to lose but little to gain), but there is a huge motivation for beginners to want to play more advanced people (to move up in rank quickly). This might discourage beginners from playing each other, in hopes of getting a "better" game with someone else. Just a thought. You guys might want to consider having multiple different types of games in your league. For example, consider the "King of the Hill" idea I just posted in "Multiplayer: Nemesis mode in SMAC". Doing things like that might throw a little variety into the league, which might make it more fun. |
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).  |
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.