King of the Hill format discussion
Posted:
Sep 8, 2017, 5:49 PM
I'm creating a new thread for discussing the pros and cons of altering the current system in place for KOTH games - specifically whether a player should have to beat the current crown holder in order to gain the crown and whether a crown holder should lose his/her crown if another player gains the same step in the hill. The discussion began in this thread: https://pente.org/gameServer/forums/thread.jspa?forumID=1&threadID=231392 My 2 cents - I'm okay with other players being able to remove my KOTH crown by playing other players in the hill assuming that they need to accept challenges in order to keep the crown, as is currently the case. I have a tendency to favor the current crown holder keeping the crown if two players occupy the same step. I think those two things will at least in theory encourage more players and games played, which I think is good for the site.
Retired from TB Pente, but still playing live games & exploring variants like D, poof and boat
Re: King of the Hill format discussion
Posted:
Sep 9, 2017, 8:48 PM
The actions that occur when you decline an invitation are not subject to a condition depending on the step they're on, but rather on their rating. If you decline a challenge from a lower rated player (with sufficient days per move), then an action follows, otherwise not.
I agree that splitting up hills into perhaps an amateur and more competitive one would help but not at this time. Growth is slow here, if any, and I'm hesitant to think we could ever grow much more than the current status quo. I'll defer the decision to splitting the hills to when the number of active users are more urging of a split. I have considered if a split would not bring in the numbers, but considering the changes I have put in so far have not produced much growth I'm getting more and more convinced the nature of the game is rather niche.
Posts:
9
Registered:
Jan 25, 2015
From:
West Virginia, usa
Age:
47
Re: King of the Hill format discussion
Posted:
Sep 9, 2017, 9:01 PM
"The actions that occur when you decline an invitation are not subject to a condition depending on the step they're on, but rather on their rating. If you decline a challenge from a lower rated player (with sufficient days per move), then an action follows, otherwise not."
Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't know the koth format was set up that way. It makes better sense to me now.
And, thanks for all you do here.
Message was edited by: jethrofree at Sep 9, 2017 9:03 PM
Re: King of the Hill format discussion
Posted:
Sep 16, 2017, 3:15 PM
Thanks for implementing the crown change and echoing jethrofree thanks for all you do here rainwolf. Interesting to know that the challenge refusal KotH change is based around a rating difference between two players. I'm not sure how I feel about that, since it seems to me that a lower rated player could win and keep the crown from a higher rated player by ignoring them and winning games against other lower rated players in the hill. I haven't actually observed that happening personally, but given my TB poof rating I think I could be shut out of contention for the crown for a long time if lower rated players in the hill decided not to play against me. Eventually, another player might get a higher rating or else I might have to decide to lose quite non hill sets.
Retired from TB Pente, but still playing live games & exploring variants like D, poof and boat
Re: King of the Hill format discussion
Posted:
Sep 16, 2017, 3:40 PM
Declining a game for the hill is only punished in one of the following scenarios: - the challenged player is king (regardless of rating), or, - the challenged player is of higher rating and the number of days per move are 5 or more.
The 1st scenario speaks for itself. I implemented the 2nd one to compromise with someone who suggested that no one should be allowed to decline invitations for the hill. I disagreed and thought it would tip the advantage against lower rated players in a hill.
The tactics you describe are entirely possible, and I have no immediate solution to that but that can be deferred until such tactics become bothersome.
A king can't decline your invitation regardless of rating without punishment, but they can also choose not to accept it. This becomes particularly bothersome if the king is not a subscriber since that chokes up their allowance for KotH games. Send them 2 invitations and they can't challenge or accept new invitations without doing away with yours. Subscribers are only mildly affected if they were king, they have more flexibility in getting KotH games.
Re: King of the Hill format discussion
Posted:
Sep 16, 2017, 4:04 PM
Okay, the first scenario was what I thought was in effect - I just got confused that perhaps I misunderstood that it was only in effect if the second one was in effect. This dual punishment seems fine to me, since the king can't decline or indefinitely refuse to accept as a non subscriber without consequences to their crown.
Retired from TB Pente, but still playing live games & exploring variants like D, poof and boat
Re: King of the Hill format discussion
Posted:
Sep 16, 2017, 6:14 PM
Is "Declining" a KoTH challenge the same thing as just letting the invite sit there, unanswered?
What if someone just simply doesn't respond one way or the other?
Also, the new rule change says a crown holder will not lose the crown if joined on the top step by another player's win against someone else. What happens though if that same player then wins another game against someone else? Who would have the crown in that case?
Just to be clear:
John has the crown, alone at the top. Fred is on the step just below. Fred wins a game against (whoever). Fred now joins John at the top but John keeps the crown.
Now Fred wins another match against (whoever). Dopes John then get the crown?
Re: King of the Hill format discussion
Posted:
Sep 16, 2017, 6:33 PM
Declining is not the same as letting the invite sit there unanswered. Not responding still affects non-subscribers, they are limited in the number of concurrent KotH games they can play, and this includes sent and received challenges. You can, thus, proverbially choke them with your challenges and prevent them from moving at all on the hill if they choose not to accept/decline your challenge. Subscribers are harder or near impossible to choke that way, they're more privileged.
In your example, Fred would get the crown. The only change I made is that when Fred joins John on the top step without John dropping a step, John gets to retain the crown a bit longer. But he doesn't have to beat John to get the crown, the next player to find themselves on the top step and alone will get the crown.
Re: King of the Hill format discussion
Posted:
Apr 30, 2018, 10:18 AM
subscribers currently have no deadline in KotH to play a game before they're being kicked off but it seems to me that's one of the reasons KotH activity appears stale.
I'm thinking of limiting subscribers' inactivity on KotH as well, but giving them at least double the time that non-subscribers have.
I'm considering either 100 days for subscribers or 150 days.
Re: King of the Hill format discussion
Posted:
May 6, 2018, 7:21 PM
Thanks. I think I'll activate the limit tomorrow and initially set it at 100 days. I can change it again in the future should someone want to take a stab at repeating dmitriking's feat of collecting all the crowns.
