The Worlds of Kaomaris

Did you?

Can't find the game.

yes rules state that i have won the game, rules that hannibal has agreed to many moons ago, with this rule i have won, ask hannibal about the rule that means ive won.

d

D. He wasn't asking for an explanation of why you'd won. He just said he couldn't find the game.

Here we go: http://www.kaomaris.com/phpNuke/modules ... 384#action



GM Chris.

Whoever reports a game, I'm sure it would make trewqh's life easier if we include the stuff he needs to fill in, as well as anything else you feel like saying. Eg., in this case:

Full Duel (That's just a double-check that it's on the right thread).
GM Chris. Duel #14. Penta. Dragonette beat Bloodaxe. Oct 2007.

Yep, personally as GM, I'd like the MAP to be always mentioned in the result table. For some games I set up, it avoided me picking a map someone had just played on. and one day, maybe a mini-tournament between "all those who have won on Penta", etc.!

And congrats, D.

H

Done!

Thanks for reporting, pointing and explaining.

OK, three weeks later and a post to try to help update.

As at noon on 24/11/07.

Yondallus beat Tinker, well played both.

ie.
Move from Current to Finished:
GM Han Full Duel Skandinavia. YONDALLUS beat Tinker, in November 2007.

Still in current is:
GM Yon Full Duel Feudal Hannibal v Aussie Gaz.

To be added to Current is a flood of games:
GM Han Full Duel #46 Skull Islands, Tinker v Ultiguy.
GM Yon #02 Full Duel, Original, IFC semi, Crazy Psycho v Sir Harold.
GM Yon #03 Full Duel, Cross Island, IFC semi, Giggidy v Hryllantre.
GM Duke Full Duel, Feudal, TDC Group C, Dragonette v Korexus.
GM Han #31 Full Duel, Skandinavia, TDC Group B, Nemesis v Duke.
GM Mike Full Duel, Original, TDC Group D, Lardmaster v Tinker.
GM Han #32 Full Duel, Crossland, TDC Group B, Egbert v Trewqh.

As at noon on 24/11/07

Cheers,
Han

Updated!

Thanks, Han! Your help is invaluable!

trewqh, do you happen to have a copy of this as a spreadsheet? If so, could you mail it over to me? - To lazy to type all the dat in myself!


Chris.

korexus wrote:do you happen to have a copy of this as a spreadsheet?

Nope. Sorry.

korexus wrote:trewqh, do you happen to have a copy of this as a spreadsheet? If so, could you mail it over to me? - To lazy to type all the dat in myself!


Chris.

One figured that out a long time a go.


Dragonette

You probably haven't noticed, but the top-post of this thread has changed a bit, ie Trewqh's semi-official scoreboard/rankings for Duels played.

This post is for perhaps 4 or 5 of us who are interested in formulae for scorekeeping! And for any newcomer who adds to the 4 or 5.

Trewqh always said that his "LEV" was a first stab at a ranking formula, and was open to revision. Trewqh and I have agreed to run my formula (RAT) alongside his first formula (LEV) for a while, and see how it goes.

So there is now an extra column, RAT (=Rating), in the table.

Trewqh's LEV did the main job OK: it is a way of scoring over time. It avoids somebody with one game and one win rocketing to the top of the chart with 100%, and staying there, never to play again, an unassailable 100%. It solves that.

LEV and RAT are not hugely different. Currently, they produce the same rank order among the 22 players who have played Full Duel. But they won't always, and therein lies the difference for the future.

For the 4 or 5 interested at all, the formulae are on the table, and the key differences in future output are:

1. Almost aesthetic. LEV ranges players from 1.000 to 1.999, with lots of decimals. RAT spreads it out from 1 to 100+, less squashed and no decimals. But you could have done that just by timesing by 100 and rounding to nearest whole number, admittedly.

2. The MAIN difference, over time, is that RAT makes it "easier to overtake", especially if you have lost a game early on and then do well. For example, the LEV formula means that my Played6/Won6, if I stuck there, would only be overtaken by Trewqh, who has lost one, only when he reaches Played13/won12. But by the RAT formula, Trewqh would overtake my Played6/won6 more easily - he'd overtake it when he reached Played10/won9. Notice that LEV favours ME; I'm arguing for RAT, despite it being "worse" for me.

And the same happens down the line ... RAT makes it easier for you to have a better score despite early losses, and thus overtake people more quickly if you do well later.

(I want to emphasise that Trewq created LEV as a start, inviting suggestions. And that his LEV is 90% OK. We are just talking about improvements on it or not).

3. RAT separates out scores more. LEV currently has 6 players (ranked 3rd to 8th) on the same LEV of 1.500, despite the fact that one got to 1.500 via winning 3 out of 5, two got there by winning 2 out of 3, and three got there by winning 1 out of 1 - all on the same lev. RAT spreads them slightly, across 55, 53 and 51. Similarly lower down.

4. RAT allows more upward movement. LEV inbuilds a limit of 1.999, so the closer yu come to it, the less you gain for each win, asymptotically towards a max of 1.999. RAT has no actual limit, so you can gain more. In fact, RAT deliberately LOOKS like it is out of 100 (probably no-one will exceed 100), but in fact is not limited to 100. You would hit 100 if you Played10/won10 (You'd deserve it!). But also if you hit Played 14/won13, or Played18/won16, etc.

There never is a "perfect" scoring system. And RAT has the disadvantage of taking no account of WHO you beat to get there. And the disadvantage of over-rewarding number of games played after 30 games or so. So, on that latter, (Trewqh felt I should spell it out in advance), the + number of games is X1 for your first 25 games, X0.5 for your games 26-50, X0.25 for yor games 51-75, and X0.125 thereafter, which stops games-played counting TOO much versus games won, over time, if we ever get into those high numbers of games of Duel played.

OK, this was an explanation for the few who might be interested, either now or new people in future.

Cheers,
Han

Thanks again, Han, for your contributions!

The only point on which I don't agree is the first one (which is not the most important point, at that!). LEV is aesthetically closer to WoK spirit as it reminds army LEV. You say it's too squashed, but still it reflects the fact that it's rare to see an army levelled 2.000 or higher in Duels.

As for the scale, RAT has the theoretical potential of reaching infinity, but you designed it so that it oscillates between 1 and 100. This gives 100 steps on the scale, while if you take all the 1000th decimals between 1 and 2 you get 1000 steps. But, again, this is only theory and you're right that in practice LEV is less spread out.

The rest of the points are sound and convincing.

Chalk up another victory for Hannibal.

I just conceeded in GM Yon's Full Duel #43.

Well played Han.

Gaz

Thanks, Gaz. It was a great Duel. Made all the more exciting by the two surprising tricks you did: Moving those Oranges all the way round our nap, faster than I'd allowed for; and ripping your own Violets to get through and take my Lt Blues. Both were big surprises that wrong-footed me, and gave you a chance at a win. I enjoyed it as a thriller. As a close-game, it was closer than 4 Full Duels I've played, just behind those against trewqh and Duke. So it was very close.

Thanks for the game and the excitement,

Cheers,
Han

Updated.

Congrats, Han! You're not making my attempts to reach the top of the table any easier.