Longturn Forum

Please feel free to comment here.
It may not bring any changing to a system, but if you find some bugs i will be happy to know it.
I dont like bugs, exploit of not written rules and all other stupid things.

Thank you. I read through the system. I think that at first there is going to be rather large seesaw effect. In the second round, the winners of the first tier/board will play against the winners of the second to fourth board (as they will all have 3 points), for which it will be obvious who wins - and thus not much fun. Similarly the losers of the 1st board will play against the losers of the 2nd to 4th board. So my first change is that

(a) Everyone in the lowest board/tier starts with 0 major points and everyone in the q-th board starts with 1 more major point than the players in the (q+1)-th board, (E.g. If there are 4 tiers then the players in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th boards will start with 3, 2, 1, 0 major points respectively).

The number of major points that the players will have *edit: after the first round* will be 6, 4, 3; 5, 3, 2; 4, 2, 1; 3, 1, 0 - where ;'s separates boards and ,'s separates winners from survivors from losers.

Secondly, the the winners of the 3rd board and the survivors in the 1st board will both have 4 major points. However the players in the 3rd board will be able to get more minor points than the survivors a player in the 1st board, but the latter will clearly be stronger than the former. Thus my second change will be

(b) Players should be sorted first according to major points, then according to which board that they were in during the last round that they played, then according to minor points, then according to their ranking in the previous round, and then (if they are new players) according to the md5sum.

This will make Kryon’s Ranking List have a more lasting effect while we are fine tuning the new ranking.

Thirdly, once the system has settled down it will be very difficult for new players to reach the top. Thus I suggest:

(c) All board's winners' new score should be max{3+their old score, 1+max{survivors' scores of that board}, -3+max{losers' score of that board}}

Note that I do not say, 1+max{loser's scores ...}, as that will cause the players to gang up on the player with the highest score. Also I say not 2+max{survivor's ...}, as if a survivor with a high score `rebels', then if he is eliminated, then he may still have the highest score, thus decreasing the incentive to eliminate a player with a highest score to where he is just a survivor.


Next,

(d) No player can rebel if they are in alliance with more than the maximum number of player allowed in a alliance.

and

(e) No player can claim victory if they are in a alliance with more than the maximum number of players in the last 7 turns (i.e. from x-6 to x, where x is the turn that the victory claim was made).

Finally to prevent some player from making a winning claim on the first turn.

(f) Let x be the turn that the winning claim was made, then by turn x+37:
(f1) If they have destroyed all rebels, then they are declared the winners and t equals the turn this was accomplished
(f2) else if at least one of the rebels are destroyed, then it is a draw and t := x + 37
(f3) If no rebels are destroyed, then the players that made the winning claim will be removed as losers, the board will continue without them, and this process will be repeated by the next x+37 - which may be soon if a winning claim was made in another board.

StratThinker wrote:Thank you. I read through the system. I think that at first there is going to be rather large seesaw effect. In the second round, the winners of the first tier/board will play against the winners of the second to fourth board (as they will all have 3 points), for which it will be obvious who wins - and thus not much fun. Similarly the losers of the 1st board will play against the losers of the 2nd to 4th board. So my first change is that

I can write long story why it is so simple and easy system, i know that 2nd and maybe 3th wave will be not so friendly because people from down of Kryons list will play with People from upper stage, but they already win a game in Ladder system so they should be expirenced players. All of them. In second board will be survivors so they are points collectors, 3rd board in second wave will be quite good board with loosers of first game but most active players in killing other units.

Please try to figure out how this system will live in couple of waves, we dont need to complicated system, when newcommers are joining in middle of Ladder everybody will be able to win all, even if he pass couple of first waves. When he will join after half it will be hard but still possible. It depends how many games we will play to the end.

StratThinker wrote: Next,

(d) No player can rebel if they are in alliance with more than the maximum number of player allowed in a alliance.

and

We will not checking alliance size, we are not able to do it everytime rebel has write a post. Alliance can be declined anytime in a game, it is hard to establish alliance when you are in other continents and want to join your friend to your winning ally. But we can discuss it how it should work, i dont know if we are able to limiting allieing, but in 15 players games we will not have such radiculous formations like 40 players in one ally.

StratThinker wrote:
(e) No player can claim victory if they are in a alliance with more than the maximum number of players in the last 7 turns (i.e. from x-6 to x, where x is the turn that the victory claim was made).

Finally to prevent some player from making a winning claim on the first turn.

(f) Let x be the turn that the winning claim was made, then by turn x+37:
(f1) If they have destroyed all rebels, then they are declared the winners and t equals the turn this was accomplished
(f2) else if at least one of the rebels are destroyed, then it is a draw and t := x + 37
(f3) If no rebels are destroyed, then the players that made the winning claim will be removed as losers, the board will continue without them, and this process will be repeated by the next x+37 - which may be soon if a winning claim was made in another board.

I think you miss a point, this is not system for very low active players which are not even read chatline.
We can add a rule that if somebody will add a winning topic he need to write on chatline link to his topic saying that it is link to winning topic because his ally is able to win this game.
In this case if rebels says that they not agree they have 7 days for killing him, if not winning topic will be delete. But first game winners should be sure that there will be no rebels.
If it is need to have any punishment on players making fake topics? I dont know, but preferably if someone will do fake winning topic only for making mess he could be treated as idler, but we still dont know if it is fake winning topic or not without looking into a game.

Kryons List problems can be moved out by randomizing first game, but we have decided that Kryons List will sort first game.

If the first round of games is to determine what ladders people are in and who plays who in the future, then I suggest that those first games are played on smaller worlds. This makes the game quicker and we get to 'steady state' faster... i.e. if in one game relatively inexperienced players play with more experienced ones, then it will at least not last that long

PS: Great initiative Edrim!

First round will be set from Kryons ranking. still

StratThinker: I think that you missed an idea of this ladder. After each rund all points will be calculated and there will be new general ranking, then based on this new ranking new grades will be created. I`ve made some simulations some time ago and it is very fair system. If you want to fight in first grade always, you have to play active and good. But even if you miss a game or 2 you can still reach this grade very easy. The more rounds pass the better it looks. I asked Edrim exactly the same you did, but then i started excel and just checked how good/bad it is:)

elrik wrote:But even if you miss a game or 2 you can still reach this grade very easy.

Easy as winning games from middle of the Ladder.

I am only worry about games that will end to fast, because other boards will not have time for making theirs strategies, but i think it is quite less probability to kill 80% other players fast.
There is a fine way to make it harder - "first winning post in wave can be written after 50% of players RIP in their game", not to let games with one win ally and all other survivors. It is a simple rule and i think i will add it to winning condition.

Social Media.

I will try to be active in Social Medias like Twitter and Facebook

Add them to your accounts and you will not loose deadlines of Ladder Wars.

I dont know if i should comment your post or not, is it written only for flamewar or similar? Do you want to comment this system and change it for better or just said that you dont like it?
I will comment your words because i promised to do it.

mmm2 wrote: if i was really serious about winning, i would just make sure to RIP all my opponents and get as many kills as possible
also is there some reward for lone wolf victories. What if 14 players declare victory, and only 1 player gets RIP'd?

Nobody ask you to leave any survivors, but when there is so pressure to do massive alliance when everybody beats a couple i am sure you will leave some survivors in future.

mmm2 wrote: why 37 turns? why not 10 or 20 or etc.. Maybe one ladder will be peaceful game, and other game would be statemate vietnam war?

This rule is for not waiting for one "peacefull game" that all players joined in peace wants to send their spaceships to alfacentauri and all other players must wait a year for this peacefull game for the end.
We will play in waves if you didnt noticed, if you didnt read all system and comment every line step by step you could have questions like this, but when you take a look of this in general you should have any objections.
37 is a number connecting to rules, 30 days of playing for beating all players who dont want to declare defeat and 7 days for legalize victory post.

mmm2 wrote: are all lt games going to be ladder games, or there will now be 3 types of games: regular lts with kryon's system + exp lt's + ladder lts?

Experimental games are not popular here, normal games are start one by one and it past several years when we have more then one game open. We will start normal game if there will be players for playing it, next game is LT33 and we will open singing in once LT32 will have closer to end then to a start.
I an thinking about putting all Ladder games to Kryons ranking list with his specific rules, it isnt any objection to do it, just smaller games and smaller amount of points top share for the winners.

mmm2 wrote: i think often there will be huge teams or everyone will be peaceful. what will encourage lone wolf tactics?
I think you should do such as this:
setting_pointpool_winner= (ie, 4)
setting_pointpool_draw= (ie,0)
setting_pointpool_loser = (ie, -4)
game_numplayers=15
game_numwinners=10
game_numlosers=5
game_winner_kills=5000
game_loser_kills=500
points awarded per winner= setting_pointpool_winner * (game_player_winner_kills / game_winner_kills)
draw=all get 0 points?
points awarded per loser = similar as winners

hmm, as you can see, it's going to be rather cumbersome to calculate this by hand. better would be to do the programming to make it automated. Either way, there will be needing testing to make sure calculations are accurate..

I have created simple system, some of players has the same objections as you, please make an excel spreadsheet and try to diagnoze how it will work, we will not play this system infinity, i cant say now how many waves will it take, maybe 10, 15 or 20. after it a player on a top will win a grand prize and we can start again from 0 points or stop and play only regular games.

mmm2 wrote: see point above.. it will be better if you weight system.. ie, lone wolf winner should get more points than if all players in ladder are peaceful and there are no losers...

Are you lone wolf player? I recognize you as wolf pack rather then lone wolf, i didnt see here lone wolf strategy because everybody here creating his own respect system of players and nobody will backstab players in the end of a game. Do you think any player can win lone wolf game from very beggining once terror has been banned?

mmm2 wrote: there was no explanation what is minor versus main point?

I am sure it was, try to read rules with understanding in general.

mmm2 wrote: i think there should not be any 1 points given to survivors... it should either be win or loss.. that seems dumb to give a point just for cowardly resignation.. white flag means loss, not 1 point... <-imo. if i will play i will make sure to RIP other team

Yes, you can kill all other players, it is your right, but you can be cut by time when other board will complete a victory.

mmm2 wrote: I think there are too many rules on delegation. First of all, if game is FFA, maybe delegation should not be allowed, because then lone wolf players are at a disadvantage or they can manipulate other "delegations" for free conquering and expansion. imo, delegation should only be permitted in pre-arranged team games.. not free for alls. That is simple rule imo and fixes everything..

Delegations were made after hudge Flame war and it met in a center, we will have this system and keep it clean and safe from exploits. It can by your opinion to delegalize delegations, if you dont like it dont use it. If i dont like some particular things i am trying not to use them.

mmm2 wrote: seem like good rules... but only thing is there are always unpredictable circumstances that arise..

This situations will be judged by me or other Administrators of LT.

I share viewpoint with maho that this is a bit excessive to have to document every small detail.

Yes, and you can do whatever you want without any punishment even if everybody knows that it is forbidden, rules have been written for those players who want to see them written because they are not able to take them seriously when it is not.

mmm2 wrote: these are more rules, but not bad.. it just seems a bit too beauracratic imo...

This polls rules are little changed maho poll rules. Thank you maho for creating them, I think they are good once to stop mess in polls.

mmm2 wrote: no comment. this is a bit too detailed. i think better if to simplify winning/losing/drawing conditions. do you really want to write algorithm for calculating this and testing it or to do this by hand?

If you dont have comment to anything what for you are pasting it? I can do this in so many way that you should aware of it, this is my deal to sort it out.

mmm2 wrote: other notes:
I do not really know what you meant by Ladder?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_tournament
Somehow I made the interpretation that there would be divisions of games, and then merging, or something like that. But in "ladder" system it seems it's just a rating calculation system...
it seems this will just be a replacement for Kryon's system, but isn't Kryon's system also a Ladder system by definition?

Once again, put some names to excel (like 60 or something like this), set them in a quene, give some points, then sort again, after 10 simulations you will understand core of this system if not change number of players and do the same.

We have made this system without months of talking because players has their own ideas and there as many ideas as players. If you dont like read biurocratics rules there is first post showing this system. It could be a system by his own (this first post) but we have created rest of system for those situations are not clear and to show how exactly will it looks like.

If you dont want to start a race for winning you can still join to regular games which will work like those in past.

hello edrim, i deleted my response because i don't want flame war, but maybe you can put my questions that make sense to your other FAQ page...

Ok, guys, i need to think about this 30 days ending.
It is quite hard to clean a nation in restrict infra on.
Do you prefer to switch restrict infra off in rules or leave it as it is and switch it off in poll section if necessary.

There is a problem about posibility of shortturn playing in LW.

Once there will be only couple of players left they may want to finish a game in shortturn mode.
This is quite fun if every alive player wants to play in shortturn mode, and it will not last so long as normal LongTurn game.

But every playe who wants to play in shortturn mode need to be carefull about it. It is all about fixed endings of all games.

Because if players wants to play in shortturn they dont know how other game will be playing, for eg.:

-there is T90, in one board there is only 4 players alive, rest are dead, they meet together to finish this game in one evening. After couple of hours they are finishing game at T300 with winning ally. Creating post on forum that they have won at T400 corespond to last savegame.

-all other games has 347 turns to finish their games, but what if one other game will end in T200? First game who was end at T400 should have ended at T237. So we are getting savegame (if possible) from T237 and make a tie game with one minor points to everyone alive within this turn.

So my advice is to be carefull in playing shortturn mode in LadderWars.

Edit:
Once there is a unitwaittime for 10 hours it is difficult to play shortturn here.