You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
LT30 will be the 1st LT game with more than 30 players. I recommend putting a limit on max number of winners to discourage very large alliances (as in LT28). Marduk's ranking gives more points to winners with fewer players but most players don't care about ranking. Any other suggestions/comments?
Last edited by Kryon (2011-11-24 11:54:36)
Offline
Couldn't understand how it could happen to be this big number of "winners". Maybe its because you can save your few points instead of risking to lose all of them.
I don't know how Marduk ranking works, hoever, there should be a STRONG disencouragement on sharing victory, e.g. FinalPoints = GamePoints/NumberOfWinners.
However, this is also caused anyway just by the rush for the ranking. An "external" ranking can't be of help in a Game which, by its nature, have a start, an end, is unique and completely self-sufficient. In a Game in which you don't collect points, Victory is Victory (and a Honorable Drawn is a Honorable Drawn), but a Victory For All couldn't just exist...
I think old members should rethink about Ranking system and/or keep it paused for some Games, e.g. LT30, which could be ranking- (and point-) free.
In change, to limit number of winners is to "HARD-CODE" something which should instead be chosen by free will. As it is not enough, I would vote against.
Offline
People don't care too much about the rankings (at least I hope so, I'm quite low I think ;b), but there should be a max alliance size to prevent excessive tech swapping etc, or maybe even tech loss?
Offline
People don't care too much about the rankings
A good use of a ranking would be fair team assignment in team games.
Offline
A good use of a ranking would be fair team assignment in team games.
Very good idea. We can do this in two ways:
1) As in World Cup, we can sort players in various groups according to their ranks and then to form a team, we randomly pick one player from each group. As a result, teams will be similar in strength. But this option results in random teams and each team will have only 1 very good player and 1 very bad player.
2) Or we can let players form teams but as a rule average rank of a team can not be larger than a minimum value. This is a more flexible method as it allows players form their own teams and also allows teams with several very good players (if they also have very bad players) and teams without very bad players (if every player is average).
Last edited by Kryon (2011-12-08 00:06:35)
Offline
The ranking system strongly promotes players to win with the least number of players possible. The more players claim victory together the less points are assigned to the winning alliance as a whole. This smaller number of points is then divided among a bigger number of players, resulting in much lower rewards per player. If a player succeeds to win a game alone (extremely hard!) he'll get so many points he'll immediately enter the top 3.
But yea we may also need to set an absolute maximum to the number of winners and / or to the number of players in an alliance. Being gangbanged by a 50 player alliance does not sound fun..
I'm all for using the ranking list for building fair teams. Actually Kryon's #1 proposal sounds like fun: fair and random teams would really shake up the game. Too often a team game is won by those who managed to build the best team through pre-game diplomacy. Consistently winning with random teams would be way more challenging. In an alliance game you also can't choose your neighbors.
Offline
I suppose it would be quite hard to code, but to spice up things it could work like this:
- Players are randomly assigned to Teams by server (with some criteria, maybe Kryon's -1-)
- Players can't know which teams they are in till they get in contact with one ally. Alternitively, they already DO know the Team name but they don't know other players' team till they are in contact with them.
- Allies don't have common view till they get in contact
This package name could be "birth separated brothers package".
well, just some 5 a.m. ideas, going to bed again now!
Offline
I think old members should rethink about Ranking system and/or keep it paused for some Games, e.g. LT30, which could be ranking- (and point-) free.
It seems to me that Rankings would be essentially meaningless if applied evenly to different rulesets, especially given the possibility that the current LTeX/LT30 ruleset has serious exploits in it. I agree that a priority in making Rankings meaningful might be to:
1) Ensure that the ruleset that games are played under is exploit-free (see current discussion about LTeX ruleset in that thread, especially "re-rewonder" and the city-bribing issue)
2) Then file past rankings under a "History" page with link to the ruleset/version they were played with and starting new rankings page devoted to games run under the finalized ruleset.
Offline
monamipierrot wrote:I think old members should rethink about Ranking system and/or keep it paused for some Games, e.g. LT30, which could be ranking- (and point-) free.
It seems to me that rankings would be essentially meaningless if applied evenly to different rulesets, especially given the possibility that the current LTeX/LT30 ruleset has serious exploits in it. I agree that a priority in making Rankings meaningful might be to:.
I don't understand the logic. If the ruleset changes, it applies to all players so it doesn't create advantage for only certain players. Also, the incite cost bug can be very easily fixed by changing book's x1000 with x100 or x10. But if there are any other major "unfixable" bugs in the game, it might be a good reason to disable ranking for the game. However, whether it is voted or decided by the admins, this should be decided very early in the game, otherwise it'd be unfair for winning players.
Offline
I don't understand the logic.
My logic is that a game played under different rulesets results in different score, assuming the rankings use the civscore generated at the end of the game.
Offline
Kryon wrote:I don't understand the logic.
My logic is that a game played under different rulesets results in different score, assuming the rankings use the civscore generated at the end of the game.
Ranking is NOT based on scores in the game. A person's rank score depends on two things:
- the rank (not game) score of losing players
- the number of winning/losing players
Last edited by Kryon (2012-01-20 21:25:58)
Offline
Pages: 1