REPOSTED
(simplified for clarity)

Situation;
A + B are truced and just reduced C to 1 territory, while hey each have 15, and 14 respectively. all players have the rating 1500 at the beginning of the game.

current average sizes are:

round x:
A AS=5
B AS=6
C AS=8

C is flaged, but A and B refuse that.
after enough rounds the averages will be:

round y:
A AS=15
B AS=14
C AS=1

At both times x/y, if the game were to end they would finish in this order A,B,C with 15,14,1 territories.

What will be the adjustments if game ended at round x versus round y?

C was the dominant player early, he was brought down by an alliance, and if the game ends at round y he will most likely get less points than people that finished 4th, 5th maybe even 6th.

(the longer it goes the more C suffers, yes)

If the game ends at round X:
____________________________

*in the parenthesis is place points, then dominance points*

1st = A (+19 & +8) = 27
2nd = B (+12 & +14) = 26
3rd = C (+6 & +20) = 26

note - these are not exact values, but in general this is what you would see. Place is worth a set amount of points, but C gets the most for dominance.

dont trust my numbers, necessarily, but trust that the place value and the dominance value will be roughly that... (meaning player C will have the most dominance, etc)

Summary: everyone comes out with roughly the same points.



If the game ends at round Y:
____________________________

1st = A (+19 & +20) = 39
2nd = B (+12 & +14) = 26
3rd = C (+6 & +8) = 14

Summary: A and B milk the system and take a cheap victory over C, milking all the points for the victory as possible.


in both games, once C realizes he will lose (come in 3rd of the three) then C has incentive to flag or suicide

(quicker it ends the quicker he retains the dominance score)

@Grunvagr and Ryan - thanks for your fast answers . I guess its just the games I play that everyone gets bad rolls or something lol.

This isn't quite right grun.

Perhapse a different way to look at the calculation is needed.

At the point when there are 3 players left these three players have already gained dominance points when the 4 other players were knocked out. These points never change no matter how much AS is manipulated.

Supposed up until this point C has dominated all of the 4 elimitated players. He has 4 points out of 6. B might have dominated 3 of the players and tied with one so B's score is 3.5. Suppose A only dominated 1 of the four, his points is 1.

So at this point in the game there are only 2 points left for each player. If the game were flagged the score with the above assumptions would look like this:

A: 1 (placed 3rd)
B: 4.5 (placed 2nd)
C: 6 (placed 1st)

In this case C had a perfect game and dominated all 6 other players. B dominated 4 and tied one . and C only dominated 1.

If the game is manipulated so that A comes first then the following points are given:

A: 3 (placed 1st)
B: 4.5 (placed 2nd)
C: 4 (placed 3rd)

In this case A beats two more players and gets two more points. B beats 1 more player and gets 1 more point, and C doesn't beat anymore players and stays the same.

The point adjustments will give A a bit higher score, B no change, and C a slightly lower score.

The rating adjustments are calculated based on the expected score for the three players. If all players had 1500 then their expected score for dominance is 3 out of six. So in this case A gets 3 which is his expected score so his rating doesn't change. B gets 4.5 above his expected score so his rating goes up. C gets 4 so his rating goes up.

The difference is that if everyone flagged A's rating would drop a bit and C's rating would go up a bit more.

feel free to delete my post above then, hehe

i'll not answer unless im positive then from hereon out

I wasnt fully familiar with the fact that you cant ever lose a part of the dominance you had.
That's actually quite nice, as it was a concern that Mad Willy had about players abusing the system. A little tweaking is possible, but not complete manipulation.

hmm, this system is better than I thought! ha

"Not confuse goals you say. Alright, here's the goal. Get more points."

No its not. The goal is to win the board. The score is a *rating* on how good you are in it.

In classic ELO e.g. 200 points difference mean than in 1vs1 battles the higher one will win 75% of the games. I

I see one issue. Lets say 3 people are left. One dominater 2 small ones. Now the 2 ones ally, and manage to kill the domminator.

What stops them, after reducing his size to 1 to artificially prolongate the game just to reduce his AS score?

Tech, you seem to enjoy fiddling about with the English language a lot. Of course, creative writing should be encouraged, but this isn't perhaps the place for that. A text doesn't have to be overly complicated to look smart. But don't take offense, as your posts are generally very interesting from a linguistic point of view. Just out of curiosity, what is your first language?

(And yes, I'm actually working on an analysis on contemporary "international english", so that's why I'm interested in such a "boring" subject... Sorry for going so very far off-topic)

Grunvagr or Ryan - Can you elaborate on the scoring calculation for dominance?

Does ELO come into play for the dominance portion of the score?

"Supposed up until this point C has dominated all of the 4 elimitated players."

Exactly how does one dominate another player? Take 1 of his territories? Take half of all his territories? Take his last territory?

"A: 1 (placed 3rd)
B: 4.5 (placed 2nd)
C: 6 (placed 1st)

In this case C had a perfect game and dominated all 6 other players. B dominated 4 and tied one . and C only dominated 1.

If the game is manipulated so that A comes first then the following points are given:

A: 3 (placed 1st)
B: 4.5 (placed 2nd)
C: 4 (placed 3rd)

In this case A beats two more players and gets two more points. B beats 1 more player and gets 1 more point, and C doesn't beat anymore players and stays the same."

I'm confused. Looking at these two cases, it appears that B stayed at 4.5; B did not get 1 more point. It also appears that C went from 6 to 4; C did not stay the same.

Lastly, how do these numbers relate to your actual dominance score?

fuzzycat - I thought about this a bit. In a game I recently won under the new rules, I felt like a bully, wiping out a person with a few small stacks in one turn. That would often be met with "that's cold!" comments, but now, I was actually doing them a favor, dominance-wise.

I suppose, as someone said in this or the other thread, that if you keep taking part in the scenario you described, you'll get a reputation, and people will be more wary of that when playing you.