$10.00
Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
17 Posts

War of the Ring: Lords of Middle-earth» Forums » General

Subject: The Online Ladder: Lords of Middle-earth expansion rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Ralf Schemmann
Germany
Siegen
NRW
flag msg tools
www.der-ringkrieg.de
badge
www.der-ringkrieg.de
mbmbmbmbmb
With the release of the Elrond version of the java client, the question poses itself how to integrate the Lords of Middle-earth expansion into the java client.

With at least two more expansions planned, which can probably all be played separately from each other as well as in various combination, setting up multiple ladders seems to be utterly impracticable. On the other hand, limiting the ladder to the base game would be make it impossible to play the expansions in that competitive form.

I therefore propose to allow opponents wanting to play a ladder game to choose their game version in mutual agreement. Results would all be combined in one ladder, reflecting an overall skill ranking of the game, including all its components. The default would still be the base game - so if two people wanted to play a ladder game, but couldn't agree on what version to play (a rare occurrence I would imagine), they would have to agree on the lowest common denominator: the base game.

This would encompass all versions and components of the game released since the 2nd edition, including the Treebeard mini-expansion and the "Council of Elrond" optional rules. Basically I would like to make this as open and all-encompassing as possible.

Let me know what you think about this.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Poulter
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree that with so many possible variations, one ladder is the way to go. However, I would like to see people state what variation they used when posting the results on BGG, purely as a matter of interest.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josiah Leis
United States
Merino
Colorado
flag msg tools
I spent 100 GG and all I got was this stupid overtext.....
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree with the proposed one ladder with the base game being the default. Then if players want to add expansions or optional rules they can.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josiah Leis
United States
Merino
Colorado
flag msg tools
I spent 100 GG and all I got was this stupid overtext.....
mbmbmbmbmb
I am not a chess player so I have no idea how an ELO system works. However I'm not sure I understand why you need any overall rating other than a player's average rating between both sides? Isn't that a fair enough indicator of how good someone is? If player A has 550 with both Free and Shadow and player B has 600 with Shadow and 500 with Free I would most definitely consider them to of equal overall skill levels (assuming they'd played roughly the same number of games).

Also because the Collector's Edition is such a different beast from 2nd Edition I believe the ladders were kept separate for a reason and should remain so. The games are different enough to warrant it.

*Edit* Lol I just went and looked at the ladder. Seeing as my rating is significantly lopsided it makes the statement I made above seem very self-serving which I don't mean it to be. I am not opposed to a new overall system for ranking players overall skill levels with War of the Ring for seeding purposes or what have you. However, I am genuinely curious as to what (if anything) people feel is wrong with the current ladder system or why it would need to be changed.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
birchbeer
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Kartigan wrote:
I am not a chess player so I have no idea how an ELO system works. However I'm not sure I understand why you need any overall rating other than a player's average rating between both sides? Isn't that a fair enough indicator of how good someone is? If player A has 550 with both Free and Shadow and player B has 600 with Shadow and 500 with Free I would most definitely consider them to of equal overall skill levels (assuming they'd played roughly the same number of games).

Also because the Collector's Edition is such a different beast from 2nd Edition I believe the ladders were kept separate for a reason and should remain so. The games are different enough to warrant it.

*Edit* Lol I just went and looked at the ladder. Seeing as my rating is significantly lopsided it makes the statement I made above seem very self-serving which I don't mean it to be. I am not opposed to a new overall system for ranking players overall skill levels with War of the Ring for seeding purposes or what have you. However, I am genuinely curious as to what (if anything) people feel is wrong with the current ladder system or why it would need to be changed.


I guess it really doesn't make much of a difference, especially if everyone is good with the current system. I was just throwing this out there since the subject of establishing new rules for the ladder system was being discussed.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian Madsen
United States
Bountiful
Utah
flag msg tools
D'Anna's Favorite Human!
badge
D'Anna's Favorite Human!
mbmbmbmbmb
Uthoroc wrote:
I therefore propose to allow opponents wanting to play a ladder game to choose their game version in mutual agreement. Results would all be combined in one ladder, reflecting an overall skill ranking of the game, including all its components. The default would still be the base game - so if two people wanted to play a ladder game, but couldn't agree on what version to play (a rare occurrence I would imagine), they would have to agree on the lowest common denominator: the base game.

I would say that when players disagree on a specific expansion, only that expansion is left out. Example:

Player one wants to play with:
Lords of Middle-earth
Council of Rivendell
Treebeard

Player two want to play with:
Lords of Middle-Earth

If player one and two don't come to an agreement, than Council of Rivendell and Treebeard are left out, but Lords of Middle-earth is included.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
birchbeer
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Kartigan wrote:
I am genuinely curious as to what (if anything) people feel is wrong with the current ladder system or why it would need to be changed.


Well, I suck so bad with the Free that I'll probably hit zero before long. So unless we can head into negative territory I may need a higher starting number that represents bottom-dweller.

Example:

Shadow rating: 540
Free rating: -226
Average rating: WTF
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
birchbeer
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ralf,

Given that there are still two more expansions to come it probably makes sense for the base game to be the default. I also agree that there should be only one ladder rating list, regardless of the current and future expansions. It's unlikely that any single change is going to dramatically alter the relative strengths/weaknesses of players, and certainly not for more than a few games.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ralf Schemmann
Germany
Siegen
NRW
flag msg tools
www.der-ringkrieg.de
badge
www.der-ringkrieg.de
mbmbmbmbmb
Arcadious wrote:
I would say that when players disagree on a specific expansion, only that expansion is left out. Example:

Player one wants to play with:
Lords of Middle-earth
Council of Rivendell
Treebeard

Player two want to play with:
Lords of Middle-Earth

If player one and two don't come to an agreement, than Council of Rivendell and Treebeard are left out, but Lords of Middle-earth is included.


Well, thinking about it, provision does really only apply to tournament games (where a game MUST be played) and is probably bets left to the specific tournament's rules. I can't see two players in a normal ladder game not being able to agree on an expansion and still want to play at all.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Majek
Slovakia
Bratislava
flag msg tools
mbmb
As to the ELO discussion: the current ladder rating we have is actually very close to ELO. The only differences are that the starting rating of a player is 500, not 1500 and that for simplicity of the calculation the rating gain/loss from a game are rounded to the nearest integer.

One problem with ELO rating (and thus with our rating) however is that it is optimized for accuracy and not for speed of convergence. For example ELO rating of a player is believed to have some significance after about 20 played games. This is actually satisfied by only 11 players on the ladder currently. Also with a pace of about 1 game/week it takes about half a year to show a reasonable estimate of one's rating on the ladder. Unfortunately, I am not aware of a simple rating system that works better than ELO.

Glicko system would be more appropriate to rate players with relatively infrequent play style, but unfortunately the math calculations are much more complex.

Also, I recently came across AREA or concretely its WOTR part. They have more than 12000 players and 300+ boardgames in the system and about 50+ players for WOTR. Anyone has more info about AREA? Obviously there are some players on their ladder that are also in our ladder. Maybe we can think about sending our results also there, just a thought.... I think it works that a tournament moderators send all the game results to AREA and they then update the ratings on regular basis, like every 2 months or so.

As for the original Ralf's question I also think there should be just one ladder for all the variants.

What about the dwarven ring variant, which will be very probably used in some of the Online championship games. I think I would also allow that to be part of the ladder. In general, for a competitive game, I think that players should pick a variant of their choice and then bid for the sides.... of course if both agree bidding can be skipped.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
birchbeer
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Peter,

Very good points. Never heard of the AREA site till now. But now seems like a good time to look into how everyone would like this to look in the future.

I think any database system for tabulating and keeping ratings would be best, especially if it could somehow be given a field in the online client, e.g., players enter their database name/ID number, checkbox which sides they're playing (Free/Shadow) and the results are tabulated automatically after that.

This would really take the burden off of Ralf, Veldrin, or whomever may be doing updates in the future. It would also negate the possibility of errors in figuring the numbers.

Just a thought...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
birchbeer
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Never heard of the Glicko system either, but I DO know Mark Glickman going way back (chess connections).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Raf B
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't see anything broken about how we currently figure ladder ratings. It's what I know and what I am comfortable with (not feeling the Tookish side of my ancestry this morning).

Also, I like sticking with a single ladder, player agreement on what flavor of 2e will be played (expansions, Treebeard), and I don't think the inclusion of Dwarven rings bidding throws a wrench into any of the works.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ira Fay
United States
New Haven
CT
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
If I want to play some games and get on this ladder, where should I look?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Raf B
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
ira212 wrote:
If I want to play some games and get on this ladder, where should I look?

http://www.facebook.com/groups/WotRonline/

Or if you manage to set up a game via Geekmail or other means, report it here.

[Edit: expanded answer.]
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ira Fay
United States
New Haven
CT
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks! The link in the FB group doesn't seem to work:
http://www.warofthering.eu/online.htm

Is there an alternate place to download it? Thanks!

The FB group also seems to have some code, like from this comment:
Magic Geek
Shadow 616 + 10 = 626
Free 582
Games 46 + 1 = 47

Is there a place to read about the ladder rules? I apologize in advance if this question is obviously answered elsewhere, but I couldn't find it. Thank you!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ralf Schemmann
Germany
Siegen
NRW
flag msg tools
www.der-ringkrieg.de
badge
www.der-ringkrieg.de
mbmbmbmbmb
This is the current link to the client and ladder.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.