[Updated on: Thu, 25 March 2004 15:58]

Report message to a moderator

LEit wrote on Thu, 25 March 2004 14:40

This brings up another very valid point: People often claim to learn a lot by fighting a better player and losing. The current proposals don't take that into account at all.

True enough, but no ranking system in any game really takes that into account... however, if a player really learns, they then carry that knowledge and experience into the next game and win

Report message to a moderator

Nahh! That would be the game where Jason and Barry decide to make a return appearance and I get my head handed to me.

Report message to a moderator

LEit wrote on Thu, 25 March 2004 14:53

Discounting FoP because it didn't end is fine, however discounting FoP because my personal score was not the top 2 seems wrong to me. It was a team game, I was the CA and sacrificed a lot of growth to mass produce OAs to help the rest of my team grow. Team games should probably be ranked by teams, iow, the whole team advances or declines and not individual members. Although in AFON 1, I'd dispute that, as several team members didn't work together well. That might be why the game was so close...

Well, who advances is the final arbitration of the host, in a team game of 4 players, the four advancing would be appropriate, however, perhaps the advancement should be slightly modified from a personal placement in a standard game.

That is something to consider.

Report message to a moderator

donjon wrote on Thu, 25 March 2004 21:06

LEit wrote on Thu, 25 March 2004 14:53 Discounting FoP because it didn't end is fine, however discounting FoP because my personal score was not the top 2 seems wrong to me. It was a team game, I was the CA and sacrificed a lot of growth to mass produce OAs to help the rest of my team grow. Team games should probably be ranked by teams, iow, the whole team advances or declines and not individual members. Although in AFON 1, I'd dispute that, as several team members didn't work together well. That might be why the game was so close... Well, who advances is the final arbitration of the host, in a team game of 4 players, the four advancing would be appropriate, however, perhaps the advancement should be slightly modified from a personal placement in a standard game. That is something to consider.

My view is that 25% of players should advance, 25% should decline and 50% stay where they are. I am also of the opinion that in normal games no team should have more than 25% of the players.

In that case, the winning team advances.

Donjon thinks it should be 20% rather than 25% though, I believe.



A couple of other, general, points...

"Friendly" in my above post is a reference to football (soccer) matches; a "friendly" is a game which does not count towards tournaments or leagues. I don't know where the term comes from originally.

I'll point out again that the ranking is a measure of your performance, and therefore an indirect rather than a direct measure of your skill. Despite that, it will probably be a better measure of skill than anything else that has been proposed.

[Updated on: Thu, 25 March 2004 16:21]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

LEit wrote on Thu, 25 March 2004 21:33

This is quite amusing. The biggest point I'm trying to make is that there are no 'normal' games. Even if they start 'normal' (whatever that is) they quickly become unique due to the players and the other random factors (most notably habs of nearby worlds to each race's HW).

Glad to be providing some entertainment value for you

I think that there are plenty of "normal" games; in fact, trying to come up with something significantly different (and still workable) is one of the areas that causes the most discussion on this forum.

Whatever your view on that, in most games you win by crushing your opponents, and you are allowed to form teams. In games with no pre-game alliances, if one team manages to get much more than 1/4 of the players then things generally go downhill fast, with the big team just rolling over the smaller teams.

Quote:

I would suggest only making a big penalty for players who drop without notifying the host before they miss 2 turns. And probably a smaller (or no penalty) for losing the game or getting wiped out. Personally I'd rather have a mixed skill game then a game where several players drop.

I agree totally that dropping should carry a big penalty. However, you also have to reduce rankings of players who do badly in the game, otherwise everyone just rises and rises and the rankings get top heavy. If I (as a beginner) join intermediate/advanced games, and every 3 or 4 games manage to get on the winning team then I might end up an expert unless my rank could also drop.

Quote:

Hmm, perhaps instead of having a ranking system, you just get 1 point for completing a game (including playing till wiped out) and lose 10 if you drop. (100 to 100k for heating?).

Cheating busts you all the way back to beginner, in my book.

The 1 point for winning, no points for losing would certainly be a simple and convenient way of ranking people, though I'm not sure it is the best. All the top ranked players would be those who sit around beating up newbies

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Fri, 26 March 2004 06:08]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Fri, 26 March 2004 07:35]

Report message to a moderator

I was suggesting we use the games to set people's initial levels, rather than changing them.

For example, I decide to host an "advanced beginner" game. Everyone who signs up gets "advanced beginner" ranking to start off with.

This way, no-one has to specify their own level, they only need to pick a game that sounds about right.

BTW - what smiley did you remove ?

Report message to a moderator

Whoa! Y'all got busy last night!

If I may make a small suggestion concerning dropouts, I would suggest we try and not be too trigger-happy against people who miss, say, two turns without notifying the host first. I'm sure you guys have already thought of this and would allow for emergencies in a person's life.

I missed over a week's worth of turns in my last game due to my heart attack before I could get back to my computer and get a replacement all lined up. And I had to do that on the sly, because I would have caught pure, holy heck for being on the computer at that time. My dear wife just would not have understood.

While I'm sure no one here would be too strict over a personal emergency situation like I describe, I just felt compelled to have my say in this matter.

Of course, as always, death would involve a drop in the ratings.

The Crusader

Report message to a moderator

Crusader wrote on Fri, 26 March 2004 13:34

Whoa! Y'all got busy last night!

It was a quiet evening.

Quote:

If I may make a small suggestion concerning dropouts, I would suggest we try and not be too trigger-happy against people who miss, say, two turns without notifying the host first. I'm sure you guys have already thought of this and would allow for emergencies in a person's life.

When a player is considered as "dropped" would be determined by the host, as is currently the case. The only change is, if the host thinks a player dropped without a good explanation then the player's status will be "dropped" when the host sends the game results to the ranking people, and the player will lose rank accordingly. If you drop due to heart attack then I think the host would make allowances.

Quote:

Of course, as always, death would involve a drop in the ratings.

Death of a player during the game would raise the rank of the player automatically to "angel". Similar to viking warriors going straight to Valhalla if they died in combat.

How to handle games for players of angel rank, who are dead by definition, is a challenge for the host to overcome.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Staz wrote on Fri, 26 March 2004 07:17

I was suggesting we use the games to set people's initial levels, rather than changing them. For example, I decide to host an "advanced beginner" game. Everyone who signs up gets "advanced beginner" ranking to start off with. This way, no-one has to specify their own level, they only need to pick a game that sounds about right.

Seems to me that if we are going to run a ladder to determine how players rank against one another, the sanest thing to do is to simply start everyone on a level playing field. We might have to weed through a few games with folks way below us and way above us before things settle down, however.

In my case I would probably stay at a beginner's level for quite some time.

Perhaps we ought to reconsider the ranking names. It might be more fun, and less of a discouragement to folks if we used real military ranks or some other label rather than going with beginner, intermediate, etc.

Just a thought. Some new thing to ponder in case you have another slow night.

Report message to a moderator

Player......Rank.... ..Played.....Finished......Reliability
===========================================================
Staz........Adv.Beg....5..........4.............80%   

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Fri, 26 March 2004 10:32]

Report message to a moderator