Valhalla Updates

[Jumpingfist]

I like having warlords and Titans in there own status area. Any of the game you play multiple kingdoms I do not think should be set in the standard main Valhalla list.

[Ry Vor]

First, let's appreciate that Frost Lord and Lord Diamond do all the Valhalla work other than the coding Mike did to provide a file to them at each game's end.  As you might guess from the extensive lists available in Valhalla, there is significant coding and time involved, and they are volunteers.  So ultimately, they can determine what is practical and what makes the most sense.

To me, the most important information is how the kingdoms are doing.  Phil would talk for hours about how kingdoms as different as the Red Dragons and the Underworld could over years of play be pretty close in their standing in Valhalla.  This is not common among other games styled after Alamaze, even though their kingdoms are not nearly so different.  I want to make sure no kingdom in The Choosing is nearly always taken over its alternative kingdom, and that no kingdom establishes a big lead, or is left behind.  So for 3rd Cycle Valhalla, The Choosing means we need more information on how kingdoms do given the percent of time they are selected, rather than a primary focus on total status points earned.  I'd also like some mechanism in place where if a kingdom is dropped before turn 12 status points, it doesn't register points or as a game played as regards kingdoms (not personas).  We could have a column as to how frequently a kingdom is selected.  I assume in the early months of The Choosing, mainly new kingdoms will be selected, but that shouldn't imply that, say, the High Elves have become weak.

Some good ideas expressed.  I'd agree with Jumpingfist that the categories of games should be preserved.  Imperial Tark also might be on to something with 12 player games counting 100% of status points, and a 9 player game counting 75%. 

Perhaps the two main groupings would be by format where a player controls a single kingdom or multiple kingdoms.

Within single kingdom games, we would have individual and team games.  Games with 9 - 12 players would be like the 2nd Cycle Steel (if solo) or Magic (if teams of 2 or more), but we'll want new titles for the formats.  Team games would be by Team Victory or combined status points only.  Solo games would be by Rex or Usurper, or Lion's Share - no SVC in The Choosing.  Solo and Team games should be listed separately. 

With games where players control multiple kingdoms, I think we can support Titan, Warlord, and Brace (two kingdoms each).  These would have separate listings.

[IMPERIAL_TARK]

I like having warlords and Titans in there own status area.  Any of the game you play multiple kingdoms I do not think should be set in the standard main Valhalla list.

Just to be clear, my original intent was not to really modify Valhalla much differently from how its currently done.  I also like the current way that Primeval, Warlords, and Titan games are being set aside in their own groupings, the current listing of the Gold, Silver, Bronze podium finishes, etc. And I certainly think the kingdom records should require a 12+ player game to qualify.

Rather, I simply wanted ALL games to count for actual Status Points towards Valhalla, but prorated/modified by the number of players in the game.  I think the stand-alone status of non-12 player games and modified rules games, results in reluctance to join them when they garner no Valhalla status points (perhaps I'm wrong, but that's the sense that I get).  I think we'd have more people playing Primeval games and Magic games (and perhaps even Warlords and Titan) if they accrued Valhalla status points even at a reduced rate.

I also appreciate the additional programming required to make the modification for weighted Status Points but I don't need/want the actual format of Valhalla to change beyond that.

[Jumpingfist]

Warlords does have a status points section just no body likely reads it to much.

[Jumpingfist]

First, let's appreciate that Frost Lord and Lord Diamond do all the Valhalla work other than the coding Mike did to provide a file to them at each game's end.  As you might guess from the extensive lists available in Valhalla, there is significant coding and time involved, and they are volunteers.  So ultimately, they can determine what is practical and what makes the most sense.

To me, the most important information is how the kingdoms are doing.  Phil would talk for hours about how kingdoms as different as the Red Dragons and the Underworld could over years of play be pretty close in their standing in Valhalla.  This is not common among other games styled after Alamaze, even though their kingdoms are not nearly so different.  I want to make sure no kingdom in The Choosing is nearly always taken over its alternative kingdom, and that no kingdom establishes a big lead, or is left behind.  So for 3rd Cycle Valhalla, The Choosing means we need more information on how kingdoms do given the percent of time they are selected, rather than a primary focus on total status points earned.  I'd also like some mechanism in place where if a kingdom is dropped before turn 12 status points, it doesn't register points or as a game played as regards kingdoms (not personas).  We could have a column as to how frequently a kingdom is selected.  I assume in the early months of The Choosing, mainly new kingdoms will be selected, but that shouldn't imply that, say, the High Elves have become weak.

Some good ideas expressed.  I'd agree with Jumpingfist that the categories of games should be preserved.  Imperial Tark also might be on to something with 12 player games counting 100% of status points, and a 9 player game counting 75%. 

Perhaps the two main groupings would be by format where a player controls a single kingdom or multiple kingdoms.

Within single kingdom games, we would have individual and team games.  Games with 9 - 12 players would be like the 2nd Cycle Steel (if solo) or Magic (if teams of 2 or more), but we'll want new titles for the formats.  Team games would be by Team Victory or combined status points only.  Solo games would be by Rex or Usurper, or Lion's Share - no SVC in The Choosing.  Solo and Team games should be listed separately. 

With games where players control multiple kingdoms, I think we can support Titan, Warlord, and Brace (two kingdoms each).  These would have separate listings.

Some of the suggestions I made early on for reasons you describe here.   Having kingdoms listed side by side by next to there alternate would give a good comparison both on how often one is chosen over the other and how well they do.   An average is already included in the current system so likely you will be able to see a good comparison even if one kingdom has been played more than the other.   

Something that may be a good quick check is see how often a kingdom makes its ESO this should give a good indicator of how they are doing as the approach into the mid game.   Kingdoms that can rarely make there ESO may need to be looked at as they would seem to be having a hard time getting things going as planned.   same as a kingdom that always makes its ESO could be a bit to strong.  Just one of many tools but as aluded to status points are likely not the best of tools.   

For status points I like a max earned in one game and an average of all games to me is more relavent than the total status points that kingdom has earned for a kingdom by kingdom level.  For a player level total status points is a good category along with the other categories already displayed.  But the best persona for each kingdom should be based on first highest medal then max points earned in a single game.  Just because you played a kingdom many times should not make you the best at that kingdom purely on total status points.

I do look forward to what frost lord and LD come up with for this next Valhalla in 3rd cycle.

[IMPERIAL_TARK]

Just curious as to what the status of..... well.... "status points" was in 3rd Cycle for when the new 3C Valhalla launches. I'd still love to have ALL 3C games count towards a player's overall status points regardless of the format (normal 12 player, Duel, Titan, Warlord, Primeval, Slugfest, Confederation, Team/Alliance, etc.)

Simply take their number of status points in a game, divide it by 12 (12 player being the norm/default), and then multiply by the number of players in the game when it started. So let's say a player finishes with 24,000 status points in a game. If it were a 12 player game, they get the full 24K credited (24,000/12x12=24,000). If it were a Duel or Titans game, they get 4000 status points credited to their overall point total (24,000/12x2). A Warlords would be 8000 (24,000/12x4). A 5 player Primeval gets them 10,000 (24,000/12x5). A 6 player Confederation game gets them 12,000 (24,000/12x6). And so on. More players (opponents) gets more status points credited. And if you were in a 15 player or 20 player Slugfest you'd actually earn more than the 24,000 point base (15 player Slugfest: 24000/12x15 = 30,000) since you have to overcome more active opponents.

So when Overall/Total status points are computed to determine overall rankings, ALL games would count to give a better reflection of who is the "King" of Alamaze (at least in status points). I think this would certainly help balance things for players that prefer to play in Duels, Warlords, Primevals, etc. I think it would also encourage players to play in all different types of formats since they know that their points will always count towards their overall total.

[Lord Diamond]

Just curious as to what the status of..... well.... "status points" was in 3rd Cycle for when the new 3C Valhalla launches.  I'd still love to have ALL 3C games count towards a player's overall status points regardless of the format (normal 12 player, Duel, Titan, Warlord, Primeval, Slugfest, Confederation, Team/Alliance, etc.)

Simply take their number of status points in a game, divide it by 12 (12 player being the norm/default), and then multiply by the number of players in the game when it started.  So let's say a player finishes with 24,000 status points in a game.  If it were a 12 player game, they get the full 24K credited (24,000/12x12=24,000).  If it were a Duel or Titans game, they get 4000 status points credited to their overall point total (24,000/12x2).  A Warlords would be 8000 (24,000/12x4).  A 5 player Primeval gets them 10,000 (24,000/12x5).  A 6 player Confederation game gets them 12,000 (24,000/12x6). And so on.  More players (opponents) gets more status points credited.  And if you were in a 15 player or 20 player Slugfest you'd actually earn more than the 24,000 point base (15 player Slugfest: 24000/12x15 = 30,000) since you have to overcome more active opponents.

So when Overall/Total status points are computed to determine overall rankings, ALL games would count to give a better reflection of who is the "King" of Alamaze (at least in status points).  I think this would certainly help balance things for players that prefer to play in Duels, Warlords, Primevals, etc.  I think it would also encourage players to play in all different types of formats since they know that their points will always count towards their overall total.

Frost Lord and I have spent the bulk of what should have been a busy real-world workday discussing how this might work. We'll do some analysis on how it would have affected 2nd Cycle and how it might change 3rd Cycle Valhalla and then decide if we can make your idea, or some variant of your idea, work. It is a great suggestion.

[Frost Lord]

I also wanted to point out that I like a lot of the suggestions that JumpingFist has made. Some of them are not doable until UncleMike gets the Game Servers migrated over to SQL Server, but I am trying to accommodate as many of JumpingFist's suggestions as I can reasonably do with the limited data being captured by the current game server.

JF: I just wanted to let you know that I was not ignoring you... :-)

[Lord Diamond]

For most games, using a version of IT's suggestion will work fine. We are leaning towards just averaging the number of status points each player earns in a game.

Duels have a much bigger impact per game and many more Duels can be fought and won during the same time period that one classic game can be played. Even more importantly, 50% of the players in Duel games will get the win bonuses (5,000).

I am looking for suggestions on how to handle Duels and status points. I recently won a game on turn 10 (2.5 weeks) and had over 11,000 status points. That's way too many points when you consider that I won a Necromancer game after 17 weeks and had 25,000 status points. The 3rd place player in that game earned only 19,750.

What would be fair?

• Should we award just 33% or 50% of Duel Status points?
  
• Remove the 5,000 win bonus?
  
• Do we not include Duels at all?
  

Any suggestions?

[IMPERIAL_TARK]

For most games, using a version of IT's suggestion will work fine. We are leaning towards just averaging the number of status points each player earns in a game.

Duels have a much bigger impact per game and many more Duels can be fought and won during the same time period that one classic game can be played. Even more importantly, 50% of the players in Duel games will get the win bonuses (5,000).

I am looking for suggestions on how to handle Duels and status points. I recently won a game on turn 10 (2.5 weeks) and had over 11,000 status points. That's way too many points when you consider that I won a Necromancer game after 17 weeks and had 25,000 status points. The 3rd place player in that game earned only 19,750.

What would be fair?

• Should we award just 33% or 50% of Duel Status points?
  
• Remove the 5,000 win bonus?
  
• Do we not include Duels at all?
  

Any suggestions?

My system above would give them 1/6 of a full player game (2 total players).