Page 9 of 11

Re: Classicists League Table

PostPosted: 18 Nov 2010, 15:33
by bb82
echotwo wrote:But to claim that solos are in themselves over-rewarded is I think ludicrous. All other things being equal, it's draws that are over-rewarded.


I think being worth 3-4 times more than a draw is appropriate, to hopefully encourage others to go for it and to help promote the primary goal of the game. I just don't believe that the outcome of a game can be appropriately measured against outcomes of other games. All ranking systems will be flawed because of that.


echotwo wrote:How effective do you think the pseudo-Socratic method is at conveying the impression that you're not actually interested in having a conversation with your interlocutor?


When I was younger I use to always have the urge to argue. But I've realized over the years that people tend to believe what they want to believe, no matter what another says. So although I still have that urge, I now vastly limit my arguments and search for my own truths. I see little to gain from doing otherwise.

In this case, from all my experience/studying of the game, I've come to hold certain truths about the game. One of which is that given a group of highly competent players, the game will usually end in a draw. This is because of the layout of the map and that a competent player would not only understand the tactical situation of the map, but would also not want to see anyone but themself solo.


As for the socratic method, in this modern era, I find it to be a waste of time and far from the best way to learn.

Re: Classicists League Table

PostPosted: 18 Nov 2010, 15:56
by echotwo
bb82 wrote:As for the socratic method, in this modern era, I find it to be a waste of time and far from the best way to learn.


Yes. A 'waste of time' would be the best description of such attempts as.

So who do you think the better player is? The one that plays easy games or the one that plays challenging games?

Re: Classicists League Table

PostPosted: 18 Nov 2010, 15:59
by bb82
echotwo wrote:Yes. A 'waste of time' would be the best description of such attempts as.

So who do you think the better player is? The one that plays easy games or the one that plays challenging games?


:D

Re: Classicists League Table

PostPosted: 18 Nov 2010, 17:29
by VGhost
InterMPC wrote:I don't agree with "too much talk", but I do agree with "not enough action".
...I think some "leader figure" should decide how we move forward from here. Whether we have a vote for the best system, or it is decided on by said "leader figure" or whether a panel is selected to come to a consensus on the best solution.
What ever the outcome is, I can build it if needed and will make it as automated as possible. ie mapmaker enters the results of the games and the spreadsheet works out all changing values.

lannes wrote:here here, let us just put it to a vote and we will see what the majority wants.

raphtown wrote:Ok, but what are we going to put up to a vote? The individual issues? Which voting system we will use?


Well, since InterMPC is doing all the actual work, I figured I'd do all the paperwork. I have drafted and submitted, to you all, via PM, a proposal to vote on, complete with detailed instructions on how to vote. If by some chance you are a member and did not receive this referendum, contact me by PM and I will provide you with a copy.

(I may not be a very legitimate "leader figure", but when raphtown's asking what we're doing, I felt like a Bavarian Fire Drill wasn't completely out of order. ;))

Re: Classicists League Table

PostPosted: 19 Nov 2010, 02:35
by raphtown
GhostEcho wrote:(I may not be a very legitimate "leader figure", but when raphtown's asking what we're doing, I felt like a Bavarian Fire Drill wasn't completely out of order. ;))


Haha. The college life can be a busy one at times, and unfortunately that does not always give me time to read through entire discussions. I've been trying to delegate this task for a while, so go ahead, I give you my blessing. ;)

I recommend that all Classicists weigh in on this issue.

Re: Classicists League Table

PostPosted: 25 Nov 2010, 07:42
by Ceebs
In looking at the table linked in the first post, it seems to me that it is in dire need of an application of the KISS principle.

Quite simply, there is no point in having a category or column for 6 or 7 way draws. These do not happen ever in a game that has been properly completed. Such a result would equate to a consensus among all players of "we don't want to play anymore so we are all giving up simultaneously". At that point, we might as well "unrank" the game entirely.
The League table will look much better with fewer columns.

Re: Classicists League Table

PostPosted: 26 Nov 2010, 17:18
by VGhost
The results of the vote are now posted in a separate thread here.

There will be a second run-off vote, held over the weekend, on one question which was not resolved satisfactorily.

Re: Classicists League Table

PostPosted: 06 Dec 2010, 22:07
by AndyCooke
No Surrender also finished a few days ago.

Re: Classicists League Table

PostPosted: 07 Dec 2010, 00:18
by Mapmaker
Oh, thanks for telling me. League updated.

Re: Classicists League Table

PostPosted: 10 Dec 2010, 07:44
by InterMPC
Hi all,

The league table has been updated to include the Elo style rating system. Please note ATM if you have not completed a game you will be rated 1500 however you will rank below anyone who has completed at least one game. (this can be changed if agreed upon)

You can view the League Table here: League Table

Also a list of completed games and results (and the order of their completion which is important for calculating new ratings accurately) is here: Completed Games

Suggestions of what information to display or not to display are welcome.