headers
Doug Orleans | 5 Oct 02:00
X-Face

Re: Cheatbots

Shannon Appelcline addresses some of these issues in his latest column:

http://www.skotos.net/articles/TTnT_156.phtml

In particular, he talks about computer-assisted analysis as a solution
to analysis paralysis; he also talks about what he calls "personal
translation" as a way to avoid out-of-band communication between
players: each players sees a different version of the game, e.g. in
Clue, one player's Noose might be someone else's Candlestick.  His
other suggestion is anonymity, which I think is used a lot in
play-by-email games for the same reason.

--dougo <at> place.org

-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal
Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us
Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out more
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Andy Turner | 5 Oct 07:22

Ranking

On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 08:00:09PM -0400, Doug Orleans wrote:
> Shannon Appelcline addresses some of these issues in his latest column:
> 
> http://www.skotos.net/articles/TTnT_156.phtml

I also found this bit on ranking worth noting:

> A better answer is incentivize scoring placement, not just winning. The
> advantage that you do have in online play is that many players are probably
> in your game for the long haul. They'll still be there next week and next
> month. Thus you can offer rankings and make sure that your rankings
> incentivize placement. I've read about an offline gaming club that uses a
> very simple ranking system: the winning player gets a number of points equal
> to the number of players; the next player gets two less than that; each
> additional player gets one less; down to the last place player who gets 0
> (so in a five player game, finishers would get 5, 3, 2, 1, and 0 points). At
> the end of a "season", whomever has the most points, "wins". Our own Gang of
> Four has an even stronger incentive system. Each player gets ranking for
> each game they play. The first-place player gets ranking points for beating
> all 3 other players; the second-place player gets 1 loss and 2 wins; the
> third-place player gets 2 losses and 1 win; and the last-place player gets 4
> losses. Thus, the better you manage to do, the better your ranking does (and
> in fact you can usually improve your ranking with a second-place finish, and
> in rare cases even with a third-place finish.)

--

-- 
Andy <turner <at> arcusdigital.com>

-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |

Gmane