Restarting Ladder Games - Yay or Nay?

anarres · 30-06-2003, 13:16

I just found out I have very different ideas about restarting than some people do.

IM(not so)VHO a restart should only happen when a massive unbalancing factor is present in the map design. Most of the restart cases I have seen are not due to the map being massively unbalanced.

If AI's are at least 7 or 8 tiles away and they attack you and you die, I suggest not playing on such a high difficulty level. It is only on emperor and deity that they have such high numbers of start units, and such initial capability.

If you find yourself with slightly worse lands, or if you get MA'd to death by turn 100, it is part of the game.

For ladder purposes, I suggest that in all of these instances they are recorded as losses.

A decicsion to restart between two players is always going to be fine, but I felt it a good idea to share what I thought with you, and to see what you thought too.

FWIW, I have played on from several games comparable to the 'bad' side in restarted matches...

digger760 · 30-06-2003, 14:01

i think its between the two players. Any disagreements between 2 players is sorted out with the ladder admins.

anarres · 30-06-2003, 14:40

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by digger760

i think its between the two players. Any disagreements between 2 players is sorted out with the ladder admins.

Any game can be restarted if the players agree. I am not asking or proposing any changes to the ladder rules in that respect. Please read on...

What I am asking is that people understand why I personally will not allow restarts to my games unless the map is massively unbalanced.

I am also asking everyone to think about the issue and talk about when restarts are good and when not.

Does no-one here see the danger of restarting on a high percentage of games? The biggest problem will be when players play on Deity and build very little or no defenses early on. In a decent munber of these games they will be attacked (in part because they are so weakly defended), and they will ask for a restart. A player who builds sever warriors/spears will be punished for playing a more balanced game - they would be better off playing a farmer gambit and restarting if attacked...

These are real concerns, and not aimed at any individual, and not aimed at any current or recently restarted games. I raised this as a concern some time ago on MSM with several people, I just never got around to posting about it until now...

anarres · 30-06-2003, 14:41

BTW, you can disagree with me if you want folks...

22 views and only 1 reply??

ERIKK · 30-06-2003, 15:00

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by anarres
IM(not so)VHO a restart should only happen when a massive unbalancing factor is present in the map design. Most of the restart cases I have seen are not due to the map being massively unbalanced.

Massively? What is massively. I think it is about how much it will affect your gameplay and if both players agree the map sucks.

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by anarres
If you find yourself with slightly worse lands, or if you get MA'd to death by turn 100, it is part of the game.

Yup, as you know, thank god not all people do want to do MA-boomerang games... But at this point I agree.

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by anarres
For ladder purposes, I suggest that in all of these instances they are recorded as losses.

We are not talking about the losing-against-AI games, or are we?

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by anarres
FWIW, I have played on from several games comparable to the 'bad' side in restarted matches...

As you stated in the other thread. You base your opinion on your own criteria here. These criteria are not shared by all other people. Other people might have asked for a restart in your cases...

Skyfish · 30-06-2003, 15:04

I can't disagree with you anarres.

Restarts should be done in case of excessive unbalance in the game between the 2 human players.
In the case of farmer's gambits and getting jumped on by AIs, I don't agree. It is indeed one of the dangers of playing at high level and needs to be assumed by the players, it's not a good enough reason to restart in my eyes. It's just a loss. You will never get rid of the "luck"/RNG factor in a Civ3 game.

Part of playing well on high level is balancing a farmers' gambit with the need for military support. Leaving the option of restart "always open" would push towards forcing players to jsut one strategy in the opening moves and take some of the fun, and challenge, away from the game.

It does have a negative influence on the Ladder but also the way games will be played. Restarts should be, on top of the 2 players agreeing, reviewed by a panel (including the Map Maker and a recognized high level player) before being allowed , it's one of the way I see into finding a solution. Again the criteria for a valid restart would be a really unbalanced start between the 2 humans, taking into account : type of terrain, food, bonus ressources, luxes, geography.
Since we do not have that many games being restarted this should be easily feasible.

ERIKK · 30-06-2003, 15:11

[quote]quote:Originally posted by anarres

Quote:

Originally posted by digger760

Does no-one here see the danger of restarting on a high percentage of games? The biggest problem will be when players play on Deity and build very little or no defenses early on. In a decent munber of these games they will be attacked (in part because they are so weakly defended), and they will ask for a restart. A player who builds sever warriors/spears will be punished for playing a more balanced game - they would be better off playing a farmer gambit and restarting if attacked...

hmm... lets focus this on our games: that was absolutely not the case in our game I lost. But in our game right now I am strong compared to you while my units from turn 10 on die like flies against the barbs... You play it risky and see this as a tactic but you must know that if a Deity AI wants you dead in turn 30 there will not be much you can do apart from rushing some spears. And especially not when - in my game - you miss bronze working + warrior code and got the Greek hoplite as enemy.

I see this as pure and simple bad luck. No complaints whatsoever. But if you suggested a restart I would agree too. So, indeed, we need a general rule on this!

Kemal · 30-06-2003, 15:21

I partly agree with you, anarres.
I also think map restarts should be kept to a minimum, but as digger says ultimately it's a decision to be made by the two players involved in the game. Some players take the ladder and the rankings more seriously than others, and I can imagine that not everyone wants to spend their (limited) time on civ3 fighting from a backwards position knowing they'll probably lose no matter what.

It should be noted that when deciding to put in AI civs in a PBEM, you're not only fighting your human opponent, but also the participating AI civs, and any player should commit the resources necessary to handle the AIs at whatever stage the game is, just like in a single player game. That said, I do think that the sometimes *very* early AI rushes (ERIKK vs anarres game#3 is a fine example) should warrant a restart as no matter what you do there is no sure defense against them, the only thing the game result will depend on in these cases is whether your defensive unit survives the onslaught of AI free units. That doesn't involve much skill from either player, so whether you can speak of a winner/loser in such games is highly doubtful in my view.

You say that players could opt to play lower difficulty settings but I think you'll agree with me that most of the time the reason deity is chosen is to at least give the players some challenge in the early stages of the game, since most of the players at this forum seem to be pretty experienced and capable of handling deity AI, not to mention the difference in unhappiness and research costs between levels like monarch and deity.

I'd say just let players decide beforehand whether and how many restarts are possible during the game, and whether such restarts should have ladder consequences or not.

Aggie · 30-06-2003, 15:26

I think anarres is right.

I will always play on, unless I agree with my opponent that the map is not what we ordered for. In my match vs Jack Merchant we asked for a map with room to expand, but we both got only 4 cities. That's reason for a restart, but only when both agree.

I see an early sneak attack from the AI as part of the game. In my game vs Stapel I almost lost (I had one red-lined defender left). That would have been fine.

EDIT: But I must say that I play for the fun of the game more than to win. I see challenges in all sorts of situations. When I'm far behind I want to see if I can come back. When I'm isolated or surrounded by AI, that's also a great learning experience.

col · 30-06-2003, 15:40

I'll always play on too. I think AI attacks are part of the game and I wouldnt want to remove a random element. If you want everything exact and predictable then go play chess.

I lost against Meli mainly, i think, because he had a better starting position - but so what. He played very well. I tried as hard as I could then conceded when i could do no more. We both enjoyed the game. Backs to the wall defense has its moments too.

I also ruled for a restart in a Meli v Killer game when looking at the random generated map as a neutral third party, it was obvious that one side had a vastly inferior start and that there was no real chance for a contest. 10 cities v 4 cities doesnt make for a good game.

We have experienced mapmakers who main job is to ensure equal(ish)starts. If your mapmaker doesnt do their job then that is grounds for restarting the game as in Aggies post above but otherwise no.

It IS just a game guys. Sometimes you win; sometimes you lose. Accept losses gracefully and celebrate the wins.

30-06-2003, 13:16	#1
anarres anarchist butcher Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: United States of Whatever. Posts: 4,677	Restarting Ladder Games - Yay or Nay? I just found out I have very different ideas about restarting than some people do. IM(not so)VHO a restart should only happen when a massive unbalancing factor is present in the map design. Most of the restart cases I have seen are not due to the map being massively unbalanced. If AI's are at least 7 or 8 tiles away and they attack you and you die, I suggest not playing on such a high difficulty level. It is only on emperor and deity that they have such high numbers of start units, and such initial capability. If you find yourself with slightly worse lands, or if you get MA'd to death by turn 100, it is part of the game. For ladder purposes, I suggest that in all of these instances they are recorded as losses. A decicsion to restart between two players is always going to be fine, but I felt it a good idea to share what I thought with you, and to see what you thought too. FWIW, I have played on from several games comparable to the 'bad' side in restarted matches... __________________ <b>Calculate the probability of culture flips: Flip Calc</b>

30-06-2003, 14:41	#4
anarres anarchist butcher Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: United States of Whatever. Posts: 4,677	BTW, you can disagree with me if you want folks... 22 views and only 1 reply?? __________________ <b>Calculate the probability of culture flips: Flip Calc</b>

30-06-2003, 15:04	#6
Skyfish Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: dead. Posts: 2,349	I can't disagree with you anarres. Restarts should be done in case of excessive unbalance in the game between the 2 human players. In the case of farmer's gambits and getting jumped on by AIs, I don't agree. It is indeed one of the dangers of playing at high level and needs to be assumed by the players, it's not a good enough reason to restart in my eyes. It's just a loss. You will never get rid of the "luck"/RNG factor in a Civ3 game. Part of playing well on high level is balancing a farmers' gambit with the need for military support. Leaving the option of restart "always open" would push towards forcing players to jsut one strategy in the opening moves and take some of the fun, and challenge, away from the game. It does have a negative influence on the Ladder but also the way games will be played. Restarts should be, on top of the 2 players agreeing, reviewed by a panel (including the Map Maker and a recognized high level player) before being allowed , it's one of the way I see into finding a solution. Again the criteria for a valid restart would be a really unbalanced start between the 2 humans, taking into account : type of terrain, food, bonus ressources, luxes, geography. Since we do not have that many games being restarted this should be easily feasible. __________________ <font color=\"brown\"> <b><i>\"NOT back from the dead\"</b></i> </font id=\"brown\">

30-06-2003, 15:21	#8
Kemal Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Netherlands. Posts: 3,108	I partly agree with you, anarres. I also think map restarts should be kept to a minimum, but as digger says ultimately it's a decision to be made by the two players involved in the game. Some players take the ladder and the rankings more seriously than others, and I can imagine that not everyone wants to spend their (limited) time on civ3 fighting from a backwards position knowing they'll probably lose no matter what. It should be noted that when deciding to put in AI civs in a PBEM, you're not only fighting your human opponent, but also the participating AI civs, and any player should commit the resources necessary to handle the AIs at whatever stage the game is, just like in a single player game. That said, I do think that the sometimes very early AI rushes (ERIKK vs anarres game#3 is a fine example) should warrant a restart as no matter what you do there is no sure defense against them, the only thing the game result will depend on in these cases is whether your defensive unit survives the onslaught of AI free units. That doesn't involve much skill from either player, so whether you can speak of a winner/loser in such games is highly doubtful in my view. You say that players could opt to play lower difficulty settings but I think you'll agree with me that most of the time the reason deity is chosen is to at least give the players some challenge in the early stages of the game, since most of the players at this forum seem to be pretty experienced and capable of handling deity AI, not to mention the difference in unhappiness and research costs between levels like monarch and deity. I'd say just let players decide beforehand whether and how many restarts are possible during the game, and whether such restarts should have ladder consequences or not. __________________ <b>\"In the Game of Thrones, you win or you die\" </b>

30-06-2003, 15:40	#10
col King Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: South Sandwich Islands. Posts: 1,529	I'll always play on too. I think AI attacks are part of the game and I wouldnt want to remove a random element. If you want everything exact and predictable then go play chess. I lost against Meli mainly, i think, because he had a better starting position - but so what. He played very well. I tried as hard as I could then conceded when i could do no more. We both enjoyed the game. Backs to the wall defense has its moments too. I also ruled for a restart in a Meli v Killer game when looking at the random generated map as a neutral third party, it was obvious that one side had a vastly inferior start and that there was no real chance for a contest. 10 cities v 4 cities doesnt make for a good game. We have experienced mapmakers who main job is to ensure equal(ish)starts. If your mapmaker doesnt do their job then that is grounds for restarting the game as in Aggies post above but otherwise no. It IS just a game guys. Sometimes you win; sometimes you lose. Accept losses gracefully and celebrate the wins. __________________ I can't be arsed.

30-06-2003, 14:01	#2
digger760 King Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: The Fake Dog Poo Factory. Posts: 1,887	i think its between the two players. Any disagreements between 2 players is sorted out with the ladder admins.

30-06-2003, 15:26	#9
Aggie Emperor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: N/A Posts: 4,490	I think anarres is right. I will always play on, unless I agree with my opponent that the map is not what we ordered for. In my match vs Jack Merchant we asked for a map with room to expand, but we both got only 4 cities. That's reason for a restart, but only when both agree. I see an early sneak attack from the AI as part of the game. In my game vs Stapel I almost lost (I had one red-lined defender left). That would have been fine. EDIT: But I must say that I play for the fun of the game more than to win. I see challenges in all sorts of situations. When I'm far behind I want to see if I can come back. When I'm isolated or surrounded by AI, that's also a great learning experience.