 Re: Should we create and use a system for ranking players? |
Mon, 29 March 2004 13:02   |
|
|
|
An interesting series of questions.
The voting options do not completely cover my exact current opinion, so I voted "close" to what I thought, and will clarify a bit here.
I'm sort of indifferent to a ranking system.
I see the benefit of one in aiding hosts in creating games that match players of roughly equal skill together. And the players themselves might appreciate it as a way to "find themselves" in terms of their rough standing by skill within the community.
I also see a number of possible problems; most of these have been mentioned at one time or another in the long thread on the ranking system that is going on. In short, I think the game skill set is much too variable for a single number ranking. And it is also becoming clear that ranking results will be fairly subjective.
I think the creators are trying to address these issues, but have my doubts that it can be done in a simple manner.
The next two questions Kang proposed related to how the host will relate to the ranking system.
If the rankings are essentially host-driven than a host playing actively in a ranking game is a potential conflict of interest. Thus, the mention of using a neutral 3rd party to help with the process in these cases. The main issue here is what information is really needed to aid a host and/or 3rd party in making the judgement calls necessary for accurate rankings?
It's quite easy as an observer host to be oblivious to the diplomatic wranglings and maneuvering going on in a game. For a 3rd party things can easily be worse. Thus, beyond the obvious game results (score), how does one ascertain how well an also-ran race performed? Communications that the race made are an obvious place to look, but at what point does an also-ran get rewarded for being a good communicator and/or running a good PR campaign?
The last two questions are essentially cutting to the meat of the whole issue. Is the community on AH going to use a ranking system as players and/or as hosts?
As a player I view the ranking system as an additional feature of not that high of a value. I'm going to join/skip games depending on the interest the game set-up offers me, and whether I have the time available to properly play. Whether or not it's specifically a "ranking game" will not be an issue.
As a host I do not intend at this time to specifically earmark any new games as "ranking games" from the get-go. However, I will probably offer the players entering a game I host the option of voting to make a game a "ranking game" before it starts. (And if I get sufficient response for starting multiple games, then based on the results of said vote I may well end up with one game "ranking" and the other not.)
- Kurt
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
