|
| Re: Proof of the pudding |
Mon, 29 March 2004 07:37   |
|
|
|
| Ptolemy wrote on Mon, 29 March 2004 13:12 |
This entire discussion didn't start for creatinga league - it started for assigning players rankings to basically get players ranked as beginners in beginner games etc.
Personally, I state that players should be at least intermediate or advanced for games I host - however, I take anybody that comes along. If I'm playing in the game, the players better be at least intermediate to stand a chance 
Theoritically at least, all players in a game can be ranked as to their skill level which doesn't necessarily have to be linked to their finishing position.
|
If we could come up with a way to measure the skill level of a player then that would be perfect, but that discussion really does go round in circles 
The league system is second best, but workable. And while it doesn't measure skill directly, a high league rank is a firm indication of a high skill level.
When players are looking for games, if the host recommends players of rank 5/Captain/whatever and they are rank 2/Corporal/whatever then they will have a good idea that the game is not for them.
Currently players see "intermediate" and think "well, I can kick AI's butt so I'll have a go".
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Proof of the pudding |
Mon, 29 March 2004 08:28 |
|
|
|
Yes, I'm well aware of this 'intermediate' problem. Unfortunately, this ladder system isn't going to help much since you'll still get players thinking - 'well, I can kick AI's butt so I'm sure I can slaughter anyone in that 'Captain' game. Unless games get restricted to only rated players, this is still going to happen. Restricting games to only rated players may mean that not enough players are located for a game. It's a Catch 22 situation.
Wouldn't we be better off rating players in games on Autohost and building up a database using e-mail addresses (kept private)? Hosts could rate players in their games - even if they are playing themselves. A playing host just can't rate himself so receives no rating in that game (unless a 3rd party checks things out after the game).
Ptolemy
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Proof of the pudding |
Mon, 29 March 2004 09:21 |
|
|
|
Ranked games will be restricted to ranked players. To begin with, when most players dont have ratings, the players will automatically be assigned the rank that the game specifies. In this situation it is up to the hosts not to accept players who obviously don't fit.
You are right that it means that there will be less players available, so to begin with the games will probably be small.
| Quote: |
Wouldn't we be better off rating players in games on Autohost and building up a database using e-mail addresses (kept private)? Hosts could rate players in their games - even if they are playing themselves. A playing host just can't rate himself so receives no rating in that game (unless a 3rd party checks things out after the game).
|
Again, this was how we were originally thinking. The problem with this is there is no recognised standard by which hosts can judge their players. This would lead to different hosts rating the same players differently and with players arguing with hosts. It would just be too subjective.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Proof of the pudding |
Tue, 30 March 2004 00:10 |
|
|
|
Keep in mind some people have egos and think having a big rank matters (for bragging)... even if they have to cheat to get it.
It isn't hard for someone to pre-game alliance type cheat. It isn't hard for someone to control 2+ players in a 10 player game (untracable by Ron) if he has a few hundred spare dollars.
Do we want a system that encourages egos and as a result, cheating?
I remember in another turn based strategy game (Metalknights), how I lost because my high ranked and ego opponent likely hammered the server with requests to get in which likely made me lose my connection. (He likely had a t1+ line, and could hammer the server hard enough to disrupt all other traffic to it). In that game only one person at a time could do his turn and I was about to take him out (everyone else started helping me after his previous always getting turn advantage).
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Proof of the pudding |
Tue, 30 March 2004 03:32 |
|
|
|
I don't see a problem with players being rated differently by different hosts. Using a grading scale such as donjon outlined would make the ratings balance out anyway.
Besides, if I rate a player as advanced in one game and another host rates the same player as intermediate or even advanced beginner in another game, we all still know that the player is at least intermediate or advanced intermediate and not a beginner which is the whole point of the excercise.
I think we need to get some volunteer hosts together that are willing to rate players.
Ptolemy
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Proof of the pudding |
Tue, 30 March 2004 04:01 |
|
|
|
| multilis wrote on Tue, 30 March 2004 06:10 |
Do we want a system that encourages egos and as a result, cheating?
|
The fact that there is now something more to lose by cheating (losing your rank) will hopefully mean that the system discourages cheating.
And to counterbalance the ego thing, another way to build your rank is to play lots of games, so we might actually encourage people to play more.
As in everything there is good and bad. I'm of the opinion that there is more good than bad, and there seem to be quite a few people who agree with me.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Proof of the pudding |
Tue, 30 March 2004 04:30 |
|
|
|
| Staz wrote on Mon, 29 March 2004 08:21 |
Ranked games will be restricted to ranked players. To begin with, when most players dont have ratings, the players will automatically be assigned the rank that the game specifies. In this situation it is up to the hosts not to accept players who obviously don't fit.
|
Not neccesarily, a host calls for an intermediate game of twelve players:
He gets 3 new players,
2 beginners,
5 low intermediate,
4 intermediate,
2 high intermediate,
1 advanced player.
He may choose to accept all but the identified beginners...
he assigns ranks of intermediate to the 3 new players,
now the game has a real ranking weight of (5*2+7*3+2*4+1*6)/15=3
(which is intermediate 
Note: the host is better off to query the new players to ascertain their playing level, because it would be quite discouraging to a player to start as an intermediate, and then at end of game bounce back to low intermediate, and then in the next game bounce back to beginner. (This is for beginners, who have had no experience with net-play)
With players who are at or close to an intermediate level rating them as intermediate will not hurt so much; they might bounce back to low intermediate and stay there for a while, or they may even advance
The safe levels for entry are either beginner or intermediate... even for a player who normally would be considered advanced, or expert... if it is true that they are an expert they will advance to that level quite quickly.
I would suggest that a host be slightly judicious in his choice of players... the example above has a range from 2-6 which is a very wide range, the game would most likely be dominated by the advanced player, making it a very hard game for the less advanced players. A range of 3 is more appropriate, an intermediate game with some low intermediate and some high intermediate.
Using the players listed above, and queries which ascertained that two players were beginner, and one could be classified as intermediate. You then get:
5 low intermediate,
5 intermediate,
2 high intermediate.
which would give a game weight of (5*2+5*3+2*4)/12 which is a low intermediate game. (but more balanced)
When a host says "no" to a player, it is slightly disheartening, however, you could scan new games and suggest another game which would be more appropriate (But Ashlyn has a new beginner game starting...)
It may seem weird denying entry to the advanced player, but hopefully the advanced player is "advanced" enough to understand and wait for an appropriate game to start.
[Updated on: Tue, 30 March 2004 04:44] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
