Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

League tables

Expand Messages
  • Keith Dowsett
    Hmm, I m not sure about this mechanism. The problem is that it favours those people who play frequently, even if they don t do well. If one player finishes
    Message 1 of 7 , Dec 17, 2007
      Hmm, I'm not sure about this mechanism. The problem is that it favours those people who play frequently, even if they don't do well. If one player finishes third three times they may end up with a better rating than the player who finished first, but wasn't able to attend for a few weeks.

      I'd suggest ranking players on their average position. Clearly this doesn't adjust for first timers, but we could allow people to ignore their first game when calculating the ranking. Quite a lot of the regulars have already played once, so the chance of getting an easy win against four first timers is pretty slim.

      The big advantage of this scheme is that it doesn't reward anyone for playing every week - unless they play well.

      Just my Monday thoughts,

      Keith.



      _________________________________________________________________
      Who's friends with who and co-starred in what?
      http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml
    • Neil Parker
      Although i m not in favour of league tables for the sake of it, i think one for Perikles sounds good. I m not sure you need to give a bonus to a new player
      Message 2 of 7 , Dec 19, 2007
        Although i'm not in favour of league tables for the sake of it, i think
        one for Perikles sounds good. I'm not sure you need to give a bonus to a
        new player unless they are the only one. New players to a particular
        game can do quite well, depends on the game and some players do read up
        on the rules beforehand - i sometimes do which gives you familiarity. I
        do favour some method of averaging points for position by games played,
        with ties settled by games played to encourage participation. Overall
        the league ought to be recording points awarded rather than percentage
        of success, so one game won means 5 or 6 points and not a 100% rating.

        Other games, well i don't like Formula De but it does strike me as a
        game suited for league play - escept for the length? Interestingly, i
        was thinking about a TI3 league yesterday but it is a long game that
        needs special consideration and its not likely to get played more than
        twice a year (thats me being optimistic).

        Struggle of Empires and Imperial are two other games than have been
        played frequently at the club and are likely to get 2-3 plays each next
        year - i think both would be suited to a league. One thing that goes in
        favour of Perikles - its simple in essence to learn but it has a depth
        that makes it rewarding.
      • Founder.
        Yep, we have to avoid it favouring sheer frequency of playing. And yet allow someone to overtake someone who plays once, disappears, and sits at the top of
        Message 3 of 7 , Dec 27, 2007
          Yep, we have to avoid it favouring sheer frequency of playing. And
          yet allow someone to "overtake" someone who plays once, disappears,
          and sits at the top of the table, never to be overtaken by anyone who
          has ever come second or worse.

          I think the formula works in that regard:

          Points, divided by [(2 X number of games played) +1 ]

          Possibly with Andrew's change re first-timers, but that only affects
          the "points", not the formula.

          Bob

          --- In lbgc@..., Keith Dowsett <keithdowsett@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > Hmm, I'm not sure about this mechanism. The problem is that it
          favours those people who play frequently, even if they don't do well.
          If one player finishes third three times they may end up with a
          better rating than the player who finished first, but wasn't able to
          attend for a few weeks.
          >
          > I'd suggest ranking players on their average position. Clearly
          this doesn't adjust for first timers, but we could allow people to
          ignore their first game when calculating the ranking. Quite a lot of
          the regulars have already played once, so the chance of getting an
          easy win against four first timers is pretty slim.
          >
          > The big advantage of this scheme is that it doesn't reward anyone
          for playing every week - unless they play well.
          >
          > Just my Monday thoughts,
          >
          > Keith.
          >
          >
          >
          > _________________________________________________________________
          > Who's friends with who and co-starred in what?
          > http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml
          >
        • Founder.
          Well, my humble opinion is: the league WILL indeed record your total of points awarded so far, but the question is what ORDER you then appear in the table,
          Message 4 of 7 , Dec 27, 2007
            Well, my humble opinion is: the league WILL indeed record your total
            of points awarded so far, but the question is what ORDER you then
            appear in the table, just for motivation and bragging rights and
            banter. If the leugue position were ONLY based on points won, then
            frequent players would be unassailable. (And, by definition as host,
            I tend to be here most often!). So there has to be SOME kind of
            averaging, or, rather, a balance between points and averaging, such
            that a less frequent player, or a new player a year from now, stands
            a chance of climbing the chart.

            Let's not get the bonus for your first game out of proportion! In
            the long run (max once per player), it will make very little
            difference; it will just help enthuse the new triallists and give
            them a one-off small leg-up.

            Bob

            --- In lbgc@..., "Neil Parker" <welfarerights@...>
            wrote:
            >
            >
            > Although i'm not in favour of league tables for the sake of it, i
            think
            > one for Perikles sounds good. I'm not sure you need to give a bonus
            to a
            > new player unless they are the only one. New players to a particular
            > game can do quite well, depends on the game and some players do
            read up
            > on the rules beforehand - i sometimes do which gives you
            familiarity. I
            > do favour some method of averaging points for position by games
            played,
            > with ties settled by games played to encourage participation.
            Overall
            > the league ought to be recording points awarded rather than
            percentage
            > of success, so one game won means 5 or 6 points and not a 100%
            rating.
            >
            > Other games, well i don't like Formula De but it does strike me as a
            > game suited for league play - escept for the length? Interestingly,
            i
            > was thinking about a TI3 league yesterday but it is a long game that
            > needs special consideration and its not likely to get played more
            than
            > twice a year (thats me being optimistic).
            >
            > Struggle of Empires and Imperial are two other games than have been
            > played frequently at the club and are likely to get 2-3 plays each
            next
            > year - i think both would be suited to a league. One thing that
            goes in
            > favour of Perikles - its simple in essence to learn but it has a
            depth
            > that makes it rewarding.
            >
          • Neil Parker
            Hi - i ll double check when i get home, but from memory the rules are as follows: Tile selection - any, but not two of the same colour consecutively including
            Message 5 of 7 , Jan 15, 2008
              Hi - i'll double check when i get home, but from memory the rules are as
              follows:

              Tile selection - any, but not two of the same colour consecutively
              including the browns.

              combat odds - compare attacker STR with defender STR choose appropriate
              column, if more than one column applies the strongest force chooses
              which to use (ie the most favourable) but only if qualifies eg if you
              qualify for both +2 and 2:1 you pick 2:1, if you have better than 2:1,
              but less than 3:1, you have to choose 2:1 - i did look this one up on
              Sunday night.

              As far as i remember you can qualify for a battle's victory points if
              you are the main attacker or defender and you win. If the battle is not
              contested - or not correctly contested - by one side, the other side
              will win. If it must be contested to get the points, it would be
              tempting to ignore defended battles to some extent to deny victory
              points. Personally i think it works as Athens and Sparta in particular -
              being the strongest militarily - have the burden of defending more
              battles, it is right that this should be rewarded. The other cities have
              their advantages too though - eg more choice in where to send their
              troops.

              Overall, i think Perikles is a cracking good game which balances
              simplicity with depth - i love the nomination/voting phase. I do take on
              board Josep's points, but i think being too aggressive could backfire -
              you need to have a fair balance of points - i the last game i played i
              scored a lot of points via statues (got three cities on one turn), but
              scored too few points via battles allowing Bob to win with a more
              balanced portfolio.
            • jmalmolda
              In the other post you did with the 16 possible outcomes (copied from BGG) the rule about getting cubes instead of VPs when a battle is not attacked is very
              Message 6 of 7 , Jan 15, 2008
                In the other post you did with the 16 possible outcomes (copied from
                BGG) the rule about getting cubes instead of VPs when a battle is not
                attacked is very clear, we can always change that, but i'd give the
                designer's view a go before deciding

                --- In lbgc@..., "Neil Parker" <vedantananda@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > Hi - i'll double check when i get home, but from memory the rules are as
                > follows:
                >
                > Tile selection - any, but not two of the same colour consecutively
                > including the browns.
                >
                > combat odds - compare attacker STR with defender STR choose appropriate
                > column, if more than one column applies the strongest force chooses
                > which to use (ie the most favourable) but only if qualifies eg if you
                > qualify for both +2 and 2:1 you pick 2:1, if you have better than 2:1,
                > but less than 3:1, you have to choose 2:1 - i did look this one up on
                > Sunday night.
                >
                > As far as i remember you can qualify for a battle's victory points if
                > you are the main attacker or defender and you win. If the battle is not
                > contested - or not correctly contested - by one side, the other side
                > will win. If it must be contested to get the points, it would be
                > tempting to ignore defended battles to some extent to deny victory
                > points. Personally i think it works as Athens and Sparta in particular -
                > being the strongest militarily - have the burden of defending more
                > battles, it is right that this should be rewarded. The other cities have
                > their advantages too though - eg more choice in where to send their
                > troops.
                >
                > Overall, i think Perikles is a cracking good game which balances
                > simplicity with depth - i love the nomination/voting phase. I do take on
                > board Josep's points, but i think being too aggressive could backfire -
                > you need to have a fair balance of points - i the last game i played i
                > scored a lot of points via statues (got three cities on one turn), but
                > scored too few points via battles allowing Bob to win with a more
                > balanced portfolio.
                >
              • Neil Parker
                The rules re influence tiles refer to not picking the same colour in the round - not phase - but the clarification makes it clear - only one influence tile per
                Message 7 of 7 , Jan 15, 2008
                  The rules re influence tiles refer to not picking the same colour in the
                  round - not phase - but the clarification makes it clear - only one
                  influence tile per colour per phase - should make it a tighter affair.

                  The rules re 2 influence cubes (rather than the victory points) for a
                  defender if no attacker are in the rules - don't know why i missed that
                  one. Should make the battles phase more interesting as we may well get
                  less token attacks and players may deliberately avoid attacking to
                  prevent the defender picking up 3+ victory points for the battles.

                  In the 3 games played a new player has won twice. Do we need a bonus
                  point for new players? - i reckon we can abolish that - it does penalise
                  those of us, yes including me, who played the very first game - we also
                  don't need to encourage players to play this game - the interest is
                  there.

                  Thanks to Josep for pointing out the clarifications on the geek -
                  although we enjoyed the variant we did play, i think we should start to
                  play the correct version.




                  --- In lbgc@..., "jmalmolda" <jmalmolda@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > In the other post you did with the 16 possible outcomes (copied from
                  > BGG) the rule about getting cubes instead of VPs when a battle is not
                  > attacked is very clear, we can always change that, but i'd give the
                  > designer's view a go before deciding
                  >
                  > --- In lbgc@..., "Neil Parker" vedantananda@ wrote:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Hi - i'll double check when i get home, but from memory the rules
                  are as
                  > > follows:
                  > >
                  > > Tile selection - any, but not two of the same colour consecutively
                  > > including the browns.
                  > >
                  > > combat odds - compare attacker STR with defender STR choose
                  appropriate
                  > > column, if more than one column applies the strongest force chooses
                  > > which to use (ie the most favourable) but only if qualifies eg if
                  you
                  > > qualify for both +2 and 2:1 you pick 2:1, if you have better than
                  2:1,
                  > > but less than 3:1, you have to choose 2:1 - i did look this one up
                  on
                  > > Sunday night.
                  > >
                  > > As far as i remember you can qualify for a battle's victory points
                  if
                  > > you are the main attacker or defender and you win. If the battle is
                  not
                  > > contested - or not correctly contested - by one side, the other side
                  > > will win. If it must be contested to get the points, it would be
                  > > tempting to ignore defended battles to some extent to deny victory
                  > > points. Personally i think it works as Athens and Sparta in
                  particular -
                  > > being the strongest militarily - have the burden of defending more
                  > > battles, it is right that this should be rewarded. The other cities
                  have
                  > > their advantages too though - eg more choice in where to send their
                  > > troops.
                  > >
                  > > Overall, i think Perikles is a cracking good game which balances
                  > > simplicity with depth - i love the nomination/voting phase. I do
                  take on
                  > > board Josep's points, but i think being too aggressive could
                  backfire -
                  > > you need to have a fair balance of points - i the last game i played
                  i
                  > > scored a lot of points via statues (got three cities on one turn),
                  but
                  > > scored too few points via battles allowing Bob to win with a more
                  > > balanced portfolio.
                  > >
                  >
                Your message has been successfully submitted and will be delivered to recipients shortly.