Matrix Games Forums

I like my position in the middle... anyone up for a game? Want to ask before I simply challenge my first victim... I mean opponent.

All,
Near final rules update:

We have two games going right now. And Llv34Mika is looking for someone to play.

I will use the ELO Rating System. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system. I found a simple system to use here: https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/98469/elo-generator. I plan to start with the results of the last tournament. See above.
Note the ELO system is continuous. So it shows who is at top all the time. So we could keep this going after mods and/or say the addition of the Pacific Theater. We the community just have to agree.
The ELO system allows us to play as many games at the same time as we want. But, you don't have to play more than one game at a time.

Not sure how to handle challenges that are not accepted. Ideas? Theoretically if you win enough games and Sugar doesn't play any games you point score will surpass him. Practically if you don't play and win against Sugar it would take a lot of games. Maybe we should have something like you must complete two games every six months to remain an active player. Inactive players are not considered in the standings but can resume any time. Your thoughts???

House rules are allowed as long as both players agree.

I like Mika's suggestion of rewarding quick defeats and possibly rewarding longer games (players who stick with it to the bitter end.) There was a lot of discussion on this so right now don't plan on doing this.

I plan on some system that rewards players that play both sides against each other. The two games can be simultaneous, sequential, skipped after another opponent, or not at all. My idea if two players play and each wins 1 games that counts as 1 win for each. If one player wins both games that counts as 3 winds for the winner and only one loss for the looser. This would encourage dual haed-to-head games. Thoughts???

I plan on some system that rewards decisive, major, and minor victories. Thoughts?

ORIGINAL: nnason

All,
Near final rules update:

We have two games going right now. And Llv34Mika is looking for someone to play.

I will use the ELO Rating System. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system. I found a simple system to use here: https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/98469/elo-generator. I plan to start with the results of the last tournament. See above.
Note the ELO system is continuous. So it shows who is at top all the time. So we could keep this going after mods and/or say the addition of the Pacific Theater. We the community just have to agree. - I'm okay with continuing with your existing ELO rankings, though others may wish it to be reset. However it should be kept to the basic game IMO, no mods or new scenarios, as these may have a different game balance

The ELO system allows us to play as many games at the same time as we want. But, you don't have to play more than one game at a time.

Not sure how to handle challenges that are not accepted. Ideas? Theoretically if you win enough games and Sugar doesn't play any games you point score will surpass him. Practically if you don't play and win against Sugar it would take a lot of games. Maybe we should have something like you must complete two games every six months to remain an active player. Inactive players are not considered in the standings but can resume any time. Your thoughts??? - A system that hides inactive players is a good idea. Whether their Elo rating should be reset, is another matter, I'm fine with it, but others may disagree

House rules are allowed as long as both players agree. - I would disagree, as it is effectively like a mod in that respect

I like Mika's suggestion of rewarding quick defeats and possibly rewarding longer games (players who stick with it to the bitter end.) There was a lot of discussion on this so right now don't plan on doing this. - Could be doable, as number of turns are tracked in PBEM

I plan on some system that rewards players that play both sides against each other. The two games can be simultaneous, sequential, skipped after another opponent, or not at all. Thoughts??? - Wouldn't the Elo system reward more play anyway. Not sure if this is needed, unless you make it compulsory, so as to ensure a fairer game balance

I plan on some system that rewards decisive, major, and minor victories. Thoughts? - Again, no objections to that

Mika - I would be fine with starting a new game, provided I play as the Allies.

Good comments from PJL1973 others???

Okay with hiding inactive players

Okay with allowing house rules

I don't think we need to create incentives for symmetrical play

The ELO system has no concept of minor or major victory. In that case we would need a point system with a real tournament with a predefined number of games.

Anything other than a decisive victory (for either side) is extremely unlikely to occur.

Major and minor victories require survival to the end date which is sometime in 1947 iirc.

I do think we should have a graduated point system, might encourage people to fight on!

Better to play more games than forcing people fighting a lost cause.

Sugar, I see your point as well.

Though in most cases it is easy enough to predict with pretty good accuracy when the resigning Allied side would actually fall. For the Axis side there would be some incentive to play at least a bit on the defensive to get a feel of how long they could last.

I think making the games more than a zero sum win/loss is a good idea.

Everybody can continue if he wants to already, it`s about forcing players to continue.

It's about providing a granularity to the reward system, particularly for the loser.

For those, such as you appear to be, that only consider it a zero sum (win or loose) it won't be appealing.

With a granular system, players can still resign. They just need to negotiate an agreed upon conquest date. Doesn't sound too hard to do... unless the 'winner' wants to be jerk and won't negotiate. Almost all of the time the loser should have a pretty good idea of when the end is coming. The only exception might be an Axis player who suddenly realizes that victory will be beyond his grasp but still has a lot of fight left.

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

Anything other than a decisive victory (for either side) is extremely unlikely to occur.

Major and minor victories require survival to the end date which is sometime in 1947 iirc.

That's why I thought using the end date of a game for the points rewarded would be fun. But I'm not sure how to include it into an ELO rating. And keeping scores/points AND elo would be too much if you ask me. I can live with both.

btw, nnason
playing mirror games is fun but takes more time. Time might be the biggest problem for many players. Allowing it is okay for me but I wouldn't reward it with extra points. But since you host this tournament it is just up to you. I'm just trowing in my 0.02€.

Definitely not thrilled at a system that rewards mirror games. I barely have time for one game at a time, and sometimes not even that. Time constraints, for me, also put a premium on efficiently arriving at a determination of who wins, which puts me in the Sugar camp on that issue. I would if necessary fight it out to the bitter end, but that would make this seem more like work and less like recreation.

Perhaps KZ's ladder system is the most flexible, and the Elo-Rating could be used for the player with lesser rating to determine his preferred side, instead of the challenger (or a mirror game if both agree). Would be nice if the lower ranks could challenge anyone above no matter the difference, this would open the opportunity for the time challenged players to proceed with fewer games (if good enough of course).

Not a lot of activity here, I am ready for the next tournament...

once finish the AAR doing, if patches macht¡ ready for battle as German; if allys Francia will not be beaten.

Afaik we never met, up for a match?

azúcar right never ..never..never; meet;

once finish the AAR, send me PM; to discuss the pacht