Introversion

I know, now get in my game before this thread goes way off topic !

I picked the player ranking system, but recording would be my second choice.
so fed up with players dropping from games maybe ranking could help this, for example have a drop count as like two losses or more, that way the even if you have no chance of winning your still better off staying untill the end.

<<<

so fed up with players dropping from games maybe ranking could help this, for example have a drop count as like two losses or more, that way the even if you have no chance of winning your still better off staying untill the end.>>>>

<-- Trident


Thats terrible, especially for people with very poor connections. (56k location host/player). But it should be more unique then Blizzards ranking system for Warcraft and Starcraft.

Base the ranking system off Score points---

Every game you play at the end of the game whatever points you get goes to your score. The higher your points, the better rank you get. (rank 1 is best)

Now some people might say: "Well, Tom is letting Pete win every game so he can earn lots of points."
Tough luck, you're going to have that in any RANKED game. Theres always people doing stuff of that sort.

So you go into a negative score and the game is over. Nope you don't go below 0. But if you have 10,000 points and you lose a game with -50. your rank goes down to 9,950[/b]
Does that sound good?

::::EDIT::::

I guess you should make two different ranking systems
One for Normal play and One for "Ladder??//Tournament" play?

Just incase people DO cheat, it doesn't make much different on Normal, but ladder should be watched closely and you should be able to report a winbotter.

4u42NV-KuKu

I'm sure it could tell the difference between a disconection and someone actually hitting the 'leave game' button.

i dont really see the point of cheating in that matter, it would only put the player up against others that are too good for him because hes a lazy cheater.

KuKu wrote:<-SNIP->

I hereby request KuKu has his/her privilege to use coloured text removed.

Montyphy wrote:

KuKu wrote:<-SNIP->

I hereby request KuKu has his/her privilege to use coloured text removed.

Seconded!!!!

xander

xander wrote:

Montyphy wrote:

KuKu wrote:<-SNIP->

I hereby request KuKu has his/her privilege to use coloured text removed.

Seconded!!!!

xander

That is a lot less painful on the eyes. Very pretty

we all have to go through a painful baptism on each site we start posting at, as did I.

And I'm wondering Kuku, are you trying to communicate with aliens or sumtin?

If they sit on Pluto and point ordinary binoculars at Earth, this is what they see:

KuKu wrote:
Base the ranking system off Score points---

Every game you play at the end of the game whatever points you get goes to your score. The higher your points, the better rank you get. (rank 1 is best)

Now some people might say: "Well, Tom is letting Pete win every game so he can earn lots of points."
Tough luck, you're going to have that in any RANKED game. Theres always people doing stuff of that sort.

So you go into a negative score and the game is over. Nope you don't go below 0. But if you have 10,000 points and you lose a game with -50. your rank goes down to 9,950

I also hereby request that KuKu scales his/her avatar to a more friendly size

fixed it!!!!
( i feel like the little kid that got bullied around )

but what do you think of it thoughhhhhhhhhhhh


kukuuuuuu

KuKu wrote:fixed it!!!! :)
( i feel like the little kid that got bullied around :( )

but what do you think of it thoughhhhhhhhhhhh


kukuuuuuu

You are new here, and made a couple of newb mistakes. You have been hazed. If you don't complain about it, and correct the mistakes that you have made (as you have), and learn from those mistakes, it will stop in time. Unless you are like martin, and say stupid things all the time. He gets kicked around a bit.

As to your idea, I would rather wait to see what IV comes up with. If I were designing a ladder system, I would penalize losses, reward wins, and only lightly penalize drops. I believe that I proposed a system early on that weighted wins by place, game difficulty (i.e. the strength of the other players), and score ratios (i.e. a 100 to -50 win is better than a 10 to 9 win). While that may not be the perfect ranking system, something like that makes a lot of sense to me. If you beat a player who is ranked much higher than you, you go up a lot. If you beat a player who is ranked much lower than you, you go down a lot. If you drop, you go down only a little.

xander

xander wrote:If you beat a player who is ranked much lower than you, you go down a lot.

I don't think this would work, unless there was some kind of "matchmaking" system where you could find others of your caliber to play against with ease. Or, at the very least, an easy way ingame to see others' rankings.

Also, there should definitely be a threshold, above which you don't get penalised for winning against (say, for example, 10% below your rank) or people will never play others who are ranked lower, and as such no games will ever get played except by those who don't care. ;P

On top of that, to pick an example at random, if you are playing a 3-player game with one excellent player and one abysmal player, what happens then? The player who wins could theoretically still go down in rank, and the others almost have no choice but to lose rank (unless of course there are bonuses for just playing against others of more awesome skill.)

To summarise, I think penalising players for winning against lower ranked players will result in people being much more picky about who they play, and some possibly 'unfair' results when playing in mixed company. I would suggest that there be no gains for winning against much lower-ranked people, but no penalties (or much less severe ones.)

Either way, if there was to be an official ladder, I would much rather that it was external (i.e. via a website,) or at least not forced upon you ingame.

I like your idea for ranking games xander. It seems like its similar to chess games online.

If you beat a player who is ranked much higher than you, you go up a lot. If you beat a player who is ranked much lower than you, you go down a lot.

It'll be scary for that part though. There will be a lot of the kicking/leaving of games. As of right now people that join defcon 6+ player games seem to have ALOT of patience compared to other RTS games with people waiting in the channel, but that kind of ranking will really distort game attendence and probably kill the population of defcon (making it harder to get a game going).

That's just the negative, the good side to your ranking system would be sicne you're playing with people of your skill level you'll learn to play better each time cause you're challenging yourself. Not too long ago i actually saw a game name "Newbs only."


but you're right lets just see what IV has instoreeeee. cause he better have some kind of ranking system !


KuKu

KuKu wrote:fixed it!!!!

HEY!

that is falsification of history!

that is falsification of history!

So is the saying "Brilliant!!!" from the guinness beer commerical

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WqO0Q_zNKA