Re: recounted rankings

----- Original Message -----
From: Horn G=E1bor <Horn.Gabor-/[email protected]>
To: <freeciv-0/[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 5:27 PM
Subject: [Freeciv] recounted rankings

>I've finished recounting of the rankings and draw a graph due to that.
>Count went from #42936  to #233550 (older games doesn't contain info
>about that a player is ai or not, and aren't compatible neither the
>current nor the new ranking scripts), it means about 10000 games (hey
>how much time we have :). Here's the graph:

The distribution curves are nice.
A calculation of correlation between player
 results would be also useful to reweal alliance
structure. A "r" close to 1 or -1 can be also
suspicius. When somebody directs two player
or there is a continous (more games involving)
 cooperation among a gang.

(I have to admit, your methods are not in their details
clear for me.)
On the other hand. i don't think that recalculation
of ranking will solve the problems.  (1) How will you
 check that it works correctly for all present and future
strategies? (2) Doesn't it prefers some way of
thinking, alone figthing, ...? (3) Should the new
ranking system show, that you are even
better player?

I aggree that the described, alliaces can be
disadvantageous for games becouse of the
following reason.

According to the third rule of good strategic
games:
"The game can not be won all times with the
same strategy, independently from circumstances."

Examples for all time used "strategies":
    Use only a science rate higher than 50%.
    Build only "happy wonders"+"magellan".
    Make as much alliances as possible.

If the above things are working, there is a probleme
somewhere. First, check, if there is an anti-strategy
(surely you have tried out severel ways).
Let me suggest one more, called "threatening".
You know that one of your neighbour (A) is willing to
make a treaty with an other (B). Both of them have the
 interest, becouse exchangeing knowledge is surely
advantageous for them. Then you send for B
a message "If you sign the treaty I will devastate you". When
you really stronger than B, and you can cause severe
damages (pillage, poison), signing the treaty will mean
disadvantage for B. And for a valid treaty two parties
 needed. (A technical question (4): can you get a message
about foreign diplomatic activity before signiture?)

If none of the anty-strategies working there
should be some new game rules to made. In this
case enlarging knowledge exchange risk is
a possibility, eg players can give fake knowledge
 documentation to others, and units/buildings based
on it will not work. Imagine how risky is it when you
belive that you have an army of musketeers, but their
weapons working in battles not.

Zoltan Lakatos