Massive Assault Official Forum
   
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 7:44 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 133 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: AHgpeu
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 4:21 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf

Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 12:31 pm
Posts: 269
Karma: 1
Hello all :D
I like Gliko,but want see more players than now.If new system give it,i will
content


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 6:59 am 
Offline
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:15 pm
Posts: 135
Karma: 8

Location: Bern
Some days on leave and now I'm reading this. :-?

artmax wrote:
... the price of defeat is high in Glicko! Just dare to defeat and try to find yourself in the rating list after that. Heart attack is guaranteed.

Yes, of course. Your actions involve consequences and you should face them rather than hiding defeats in the win/loss ratio.

artmax wrote:
That's why tough players do not like playing with newbies.

Heihojin commented this already and I second that. Find another way to get those games for instance with tough mentors instead of messing up the ranking system.

artmax wrote:
That's why Player #1 has played only 35 games since January, 2006 and last time he logged in 15 days ago.

And do you all know who is Player #2?
AHgpeu? No!

Player #2 is a certain Tywer who last logged in 3 months ago.
He is a trial player and the points you see are cut off.

Player #1 is CptX and I know him. He can't play so much because of his time consuming studies.

Tywer was one of the best players in MAN and I would like to play against him but not within trail mode because I don't like the demo restrictions.

artmax wrote:
Let's get our fun back!

I consider myself as an experienced and tough player. For me fun = challenge. Ergo without challenges in terms of playing against other tough players I won't have fun.

AHgpeu wrote:
Hello all :D
I like Gliko,but want see more players than now.If new system give it,i will
content

Perhaps you will see more players. Either you have to play against them all in order to know their skill or you have to look it up in the player details (win/loss ratio). To my mind both ways are too time consuming.

And devs: Just like on the battlefield you have to bear the consequences of your actions if you use "Nicko" only. Pay attention to your customers!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 7:58 pm 
Offline
Levy

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 7:45 pm
Posts: 2
Karma: 0
Just to add my 2cents. The current system is best. I can tell who should be close to me and who will kick my butt. I'm not interested in being a general unless I'm good enough to be a general. I play under the name Big-O. I'm average and prefer an average ranking to a general ranking because of experiance... please, I've played newbies that have kicked my butt because they are better strategic players. The current system reflects this. Going to a MAN type scorign is a BAD idea.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:20 am 
Offline
Veteran

Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:22 am
Posts: 94
Karma: 0
Hi all!
Basically I support opinion of the majority expressed, that the new rating system is not so good. It even cannot be named rating:) It all the same that in football to award a victory over the championship to that who has hammered goals more.
(And to whom has hammered, as has hammered, where has hammered also other unimportantly:))
The rating system should consider both rises and falling of players. So it most likely system of charge of spots - Only and all.

Unique plus that the size of a map is considered. But this plus in is some times outweighed by a minus of that spots are not deducted at loss of a party.
What for to think.... To puzzle:), what for to be improved? If it is possible to hand over simply not liked party and to begin some new parties.
And if again something to not like that again to surrender and anew..... What sense of game then :)?
And the sense of new system is very simple:)) Developers want that played more, and as played - unimportantly. The main quantity!!! Here that appears important. And I generally always was for quality:)

I address to developers of game. If after introduction this of system you do not receive expected boom of inflow of games and players you will return to rating system with subtraction of spots?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:57 pm 
Offline
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 7:23 am
Posts: 132
Karma: 0

Location: Norway
guderian27 wrote:
So...we can have both systems for the happiness of all!


I agree totally with Guderian27; both systems have their advantages and drawbacks. If you implement BOTH systems players can have an "experience" rating and a "proficiency" rating.
Thus it will be more apparent what type of player you are.

I agree with Artmax that Glicko takes away much of the fun from the game, because if you care a little of your rank you WILL have to fine check all your moves, and "never" make any mistakes. Personally I don't prefer this type of gaming. I want to play as much as possible in the shortest amount of time, not spending an hour on a single turn on a large map mid game...

Consider the fact that most players have a very low number of draws; this is because it is nearly the same as a loss and will penalize you heavily if you are playing someone with a much lower rank. For me the penalty used in Glicko seems too harsh, and cutting this to maybe one quarter amount would be much appreciated.

Finally, I agree with most comments that the new system is not an improvement of the game. It does not seem like a good idea, because it WILL make players surrender a lot lot more! Now where is the fun in that? Everyone wants to win, and if the odds are against you why bother trying?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:58 am 
Offline
Developer

Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 338
Karma: 0

Location: Wargaming.net
Gentlemen, let me give you explanations on what we were planning to do with the Rating System.

Our research of the player base demonstrated that there is at least 3 different groups of players with quite distinctive perception of the game and needs. And it happened, that they also have various expectations regarding the ladder mechanics.

Roughly these groups can be defined as:
"Newbies" - those, who have just started playing the game and understood the basic rules;
"Middle Class" (the guys who already have had the taste of victory over live players and think the future is bright, but who didn't have a chance to play a lot (or at all) against veterans like Tiger or Pitor on bigger planets.
"Veterans" - those who played Massive Assault for a long time, some starting with the first retail version of the game. These guys played many dozens and even hundreds of serious bloodshed conflicts on planets of all sizes and have huge arsenal of tactical and strategic tricks, intuition, etc. It's really hard for a Captain to defeat, say, Tiger on Sea Switzerland - and that's what "Real Massive Assault" is all about (for those guys who think they are tough).

Well, the boundaries between these three groups are not strict. One can always give an example of a really brilliant Major who defeated one of the most experienced players on a big map, and there are always some players "in-between" the above 3 categories. But three are good for fundamental understanding of various types of "ladder perception":

"Newbies" obviously do not care about fine tuning of the rating system, based on probabilistic iterational algorithms. They are still learning the game mechanics and trying new units and planets. It is VERY important for these players and THE WHOLE COMMUNITY, that these players play a lot of games - no matter winning or losing - just learning the game in all its aspects and NOT DROPPING OUT. Those good players who advocate for "punishment for losing" should realize that if the newbies are disappointed - they tend to drop out, and we don't have newbie base big enough (i.e. satisfied enough for keeping playing), there will be no base for new Generals and Marshals, and the player base can shrink to a couple of dozens of top player playing among themselves - do we want that? I think no. All of us will benefit if we have a strong stream of incoming newbies, staying in the game and turning into "Middle Class" and then to "Veterans" (you have to realize that there are diminishing factors (due to various reasons) along this way. And the more happy newbies we have, the more new Veterans the community will have in a long run.

And the fact is that the newbies are strongly disappointed by the existing (GLYCKO-based) rating system. Well, they usually don't post on the Forum, but that does not mean they are happy with GLYCKO). Wargaming.net people are monitoring the chat - the most convenient place for the newbies to express their opinion - and usually they say things like "What the hell? I din't lose and I lost X points and was downgraded to Lieutenant" or "Wow! I didn't do anything, didn't win a game recently, and they gave me Z points and I was promoted..." which eventually goes down to what Rodehard posted here: "My rank jumps up and down so much now that I could use it for a fan." (and he actually is not quite a newbie). Anyway, the newbies just are frustrated by the fact that their score and rank are changing back and forth with no visible connection with the results of their games. And that undermines the faith in such rating system.

Well, also, keeping in mind that the Newbies are more likely to lose, if they play with Lieutenant and higher rank players, their (i.e. Newbies') score and on average is not going up to fast and very often goes down. It's not encouraging FOR THE NEWBIES. Once again, you don't see newbies post such views in this forum, but that's what you can often see in Common and private chat channels. So, pure GLYCO is DAMAGING the newbies perception of the game big time.

One more thing: private discussion with Veteran players demonstrate that they ARE AFRAID of tutoring the newbies, because they are likely to get 5 points for the victory and -200 points for the defeat. And when you play dozens of games on V6 Demo - tutoring game I mean, those which a General should not play too rough - you are likely to lose once in a while. Tiger, for example, IS playing with the newbies, feeling the inner necessity to teach the newcomers. And he is currently a COLONEL (12th place) !!!!!!!!! And I am a still a Captain (42nd position) - having 6 years of experience playing Massive Assault against most talented players. What's that about? Basically, in many cases GLYCO is simply lying (i.e. gives irrelevant and inaccurate information) about the skills of a good player.

As for "Veterans" - we can read their expectations and motivating in this Topic, so let me be brief: they want EXTREMELY tough competition, uncompromised challenge, immaculate turns, etc. And that's good! That's what we made Massive Assault for. As a player, I also like tough challenge, especially on Sea Switzerland.

And "Middle Class" - well, it's somewhere in the middle: They crash the Newbies pretty easily, they are optimistic about their future "military" career, and many of them have not yet had bitter experience of continuous beating by top players.

I'll continue my post very shortly. There are important things still to be said.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:00 am 
Offline
Developer

Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 338
Karma: 0

Location: Wargaming.net
It is obvious that there are various categories of players in MAN2, and no single rating suits all of them. GLYCO is BAD for the Newbies and parts of "Middle Class", and top players (not all though) are saying that the new system is bad for them. One more drawback

MAN2 will be using the combination of systems. The Game Server is keeping all the logs, so it is always possible to re-calculate any type of rating at any time.

You can call the new system's points "Experience Points". Yes, the more you play, the more points you get. That's the definition of experience. And simultaneously, there will be GLYCO-based rating with certain limitations and corrections, which we have not yet finalized. That GLYCO-based rating will kick in (but using all the previous data from the log) in about a month. Soon we'll post the proposed modifications and you'll have a chance to discuss them.
So, for those of you, who don't believe "Experience Points" - there will be another column giving you GLYCO-based points, like you are doing now.

And everybody will be happy. New players will see their fast progress until they are Lieutenants, or Captains, and "tough nuts" will always have "magic" column for accurate opponent selection.
We are asking our top players to perform a little patience; the CLYCO-based rating is coming soon. All you previous and current games are stored in the Server's log, so if you prefer to play games in GLYCO-influenced environment - just keep doing so, and it (along with your previous game results) will be reflected in your GLYCO rating in about a month.

Now we need to see how the new system can help increase the flow of the Newbies, who break through into the "Middle Class". It is very important for ALL OF US.

We hope that you will understand that we are doing it for the sake of the MAN2 community and at the end of the day - it will increase the challenge in the higher ranks, as there hopefully will be more talented Majors, Generals and Marshals whom we kept from dropping out at the beginning of their career.

Thank you for your understanding.

Victor Kislyi,
Wargaming.net


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:28 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:14 pm
Posts: 424
Karma: 10

Location: Michigan
While I prefer the glicko system, I can understand what Art is talking about--once you achieve the top ranks you become somewhat obsessed with maintaining the position and sometimes this takes some of the fun out of the game. That said, the reason players have reached the top ranks IS because they are totally obsessed with playing a smart/strong game. We take great pride with gaining the rank of general or marshal and, once there, we don't want to fall back. I play every game to win, i hate to lose and i only surrender when i believe that there is no chance to pull the game out. None of this will change with a different ranking system. What will change is because i play a limited number of games i will drop from Marshall down to lieutenant and, just like in the old MAN, never really have the possibility of moving back up unless i start playing hundreds of games at a time. At least in the old MAN there was a planet ranking where you could see the skill level of each player. Since the gliko system is already in place, as suggested before, why not use both? Also, I know the #1 player--he is outstanding and his gaming time is limited by his studies, not because he fears to lose!

_________________
Archers! But sir, will we not hit our own men? Yes, but we'll hit theirs too, and we have reserves!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:52 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:14 pm
Posts: 424
Karma: 10

Location: Michigan
A few more thoughts: After thinking about this more i have come to see that what the dev's want is not really a bad thing. We all want this game to be a success and for this to happen everyone that plays must get enjoyment out of playing. If there is no chance for someone to reach the upper ranks then this really lessens the appeal of the game for them and while i may actually enjoy spending hours going over a large map move, most others probably don't. If the members of MAN2 want a large and diverse player base then some of us must put aside our ego and accept whatever betters the gaming experence for the whole group. The old MAN did this by letting everyone climb the advancement ladder. Also, we all play the game for different reasons, some for the challange and some just to have fun, who is to say that one reason is better than another. Tiger is also right when he says that many of us will not play the trial players because of the massive loss of points that will come with a loss. My question is how hard would it be to have the planet by planet rating of the players like we had in the old system. This way, everyone moves up the "Ranks" and you can still see the "Rating" of each player--everyone could be happy.

_________________
Archers! But sir, will we not hit our own men? Yes, but we'll hit theirs too, and we have reserves!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:13 am 
Offline
Tough Nut
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:52 pm
Posts: 29
Karma: 0
storm440 wrote:
We all want this game to be a success and for this to happen everyone that plays must get enjoyment out of playing. If there is no chance for someone to reach the upper ranks then this really lessens the appeal of the game for them and while i may actually enjoy spending hours going over a large map move, most others probably don't. If the members of MAN2 want a large and diverse player base then some of us must put aside our ego and accept whatever betters the gaming experence for the whole group.

I want this game to be a success; however, I am not willing to sacrifice the criteria that I value in order for that to happen. I can only speak for myself, although others have echoed similar sentiments: I want to be rated according to the skill I demonstrate. I do not have to put aside what I want in a game, because I decide how I spend my time. I will continue to play my games over the coming weeks out of good faith in the devs' reassurances that a skill-based rating system will be implemented.

I still believe that an "experience"-based rating system is an atrocious idea and will have only detrimental effects on the MAN2 community. Turn-based strategy is the smallest segment of the video-game market, and appeals to very few gamers. I believe that the key to succeeding in such a niche market does not involve coddling the masses with token, paper-mache ratings. Don't look to World of Warcraft as your muse; think of Chess instead.

Emphasizing ratings according to "experience" in the manner as was originally proposed fosters a player base in which I want no part. I am willing to await the implementation of a skill-based rating system, and evaluate how the new system(s) affect the quality of opposition. However, no one is under any obligation to sacrifice his or her own time to "better the gaming experience for the whole group."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:18 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:14 pm
Posts: 424
Karma: 10

Location: Michigan
heihojin --
I want this game to be a success; however, I am not willing to sacrifice the criteria that I value in order for that to happen.

If you want the game to be a success it has to be economically viable and to do this it has to have more than a few hundred hard core gamers. The fact is that good players know who the other good players are and if you are unsure about someone a quick look at the win/loss record will give you a good indication. I know of several players, myself included, that took more pride in being "rated" highly on different maps than in being "ranked" highly. It created a win/win situation for the whole network and how can that be bad? As you yourself admitted, the turn based game is the smallest segment of the gaming market, if you want people to create these games there has to be enough players to justify the expense.

_________________
Archers! But sir, will we not hit our own men? Yes, but we'll hit theirs too, and we have reserves!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:57 pm 
Offline
Tough Nut
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:52 pm
Posts: 29
Karma: 0
storm440 wrote:
If you want the game to be a success it has to be economically viable and to do this it has to have more than a few hundred hard core gamers.


Yes, but one must first have a few hundred players in order to grow to be several thousand players strong. Game-playing communities build upon themselves; as the community grows more social and communicative, it tends to attract more players into the game than before. Sacrificing the core group of players in an attempt to attract more newbies is a very bad move; an even smaller, less happy group of core players is not going to be a draw for newbies.

This is especially the case given the type of players to whom the new scoring system will appeal. Players who are less concerned about the skill they demonstrate and far more concerned with churning out as many victories as possible will not stay with the game. They will have no incentive to improve, because they don't have to in order to attain their goals. They will either quit once they power-game or cheat their way to the rank of "Marshal," or they will get bored of the grind and quit beforehand. But they will quit.

Those newbies who do love the game will be much less inclined to stick around as well. They won't like that so many games result in their opponent surrendering. They won't like that they aren't being recognized for becoming better players. They will be disappointed that one only has to acquire n more victories in order to advance to the next rank, instead of beating progressively tougher opponents. There will be fewer "hardcore" MAN2 players around to provide them with challenging competition, and even fewer players who are willing to "mentor" them. These are your newbies who would have been more likely to stay with the game, the ones who love turn-based strategy and who would have recommended the game to their friends (as I did). They are your target market!

The economic success of the game given its current business model depends on word-of-mouth advertising. The game is in a niche market, and Wargaming.net receives a one-time influx of revenue from each customer. It is vitally important to convert Trial Players into Lifetime Members, and so you must give players reasons to subscribe. Do you really believe that changing the basis for assigning ranks in the manner that was proposed will give players more reasons to subscribe, instead of taking away those reasons?

I believe that replacing the skill-based scoring and ranking system with the new scoring and ranking system is a two-step formula for disaster: 1.) lose most of your core players, and 2.) lose the newbies you want to keep. The ones who would have recommended the game to their friends will be disappointed that MAN2 almost fit their criteria, but didn't. They will go elsewhere. And the power-gaming newbies will get bored and then leave. The end result is a gutted community.

Quote:
I know of several players, myself included, that took more pride in being "rated" highly on different maps than in being "ranked" highly. It created a win/win situation for the whole network and how can that be bad?


I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say here.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:21 pm 
Offline
Supreme Marshal
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2003 4:40 pm
Posts: 1980
Karma: 6

Location: Moscow, Russia
In the original MA and in the first MAN there were bonus points to players, which ones lost the game, but I didn't see too many fast finished battles when player click 'surrender', if they had bad deployment (I've played more than 5000 games in the MA/MAN). Now there is not bonus in this case, so it is not good argument, that players will not fight. Who will play with such player in the future?

_________________
Massive Assault Clan "Tiger's Galactic Empire"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:55 pm 
Offline
Tough Nut
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:52 pm
Posts: 29
Karma: 0
Tiger wrote:
Now there is not bonus in this case, so it is not good argument, that players will not fight. Who will play with such player in the future?


I didn't have any experience with previous iterations of MA, so I can't comment on the scoring system used then, your observations of such, or inferences drawn from those observations that relate to the current proposal. I can only evaluate the current proposal and make predictions of player behavior based upon the new incentives being offered.

When all that matters is the points that are gained from a victory, players shouldn't care whether or not that player surrendered on the first turn in his or her last game. In fact, the more important the score is to that player the more inclined he or she should be to look for easy, quick victories - such as against opponents who are inclined to surrender quickly. That is the behavior rewarded by the new system.

Those of us who value challenging gameplay in addition to recognition will suffer, or go elsewhere.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 7:39 pm 
Offline
Supreme Marshal
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2003 4:40 pm
Posts: 1980
Karma: 6

Location: Moscow, Russia
heihojin wrote:
I didn't have any experience with previous iterations of MA, so I can't comment on the scoring system used then, your observations of such, or inferences drawn from those observations that relate to the current proposal. I can only evaluate the current proposal and make predictions of player behavior based upon the new incentives being offered.


In the original MA and in the first MAN player have got points in the any case except Draw. For example, battle Marshal and Conscript:
Marshal could get 1 point if he lost or 4 points if he win.
Conscript could get 10 points if he lost or 40 points if he win.

About ranking in the MA/MAN (how many points should have player to get new rank):
Conscript = 0 point
Private = 1 point (at least one finished battle)
Corporal = from 1 to 10 points
Sergeant = position in the rating higher 15% or from 10 to 20 points
Lieutenant = position in the rating higher 40% or from 20 to 75 points
Captain = position in the rating higher 60% or from 75 to 200
Major = position in the rating higher 75% or from 200 to 500
Colonel = position in the rating higher 90% or from 500 to 1000
General = position in the rating higher 99% or from 1000 to 2500
Marshal = position in the rating higher 99% and >=2500 points

As you can see in the old system you could lost Marshal one game and you get rank Sergeant, but I could repeat, that I didn't see such players, who get points without fighting just by using 'surrender'. The new rating system (Nicko) don't allow you get points from lost battle. You can ask other old players about system of disclosing in the previous games (MA/MAN) and they could say that FNU could lost any chance in these games during first turn of PL. If players didn't use 'surrender' when they could get points and had really bad situation, why now they should do it without any bonus?

Moreover, in the tournaments of the first MAN number of turns was important factor. There was rule:
If two or more players have the same score, winner being defined based on following factors (listed in priority order):
1. Result of battles for equal-score players
2. Difference: (Sum of turns in lost battles minus sum of turns in won battles)

If player hadn't experience of defending lost position, he had small chance in the tournaments.

_________________
Massive Assault Clan "Tiger's Galactic Empire"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:24 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:14 pm
Posts: 424
Karma: 10

Location: Michigan
Quote:
I know of several players, myself included, that took more pride in being "rated" highly on different maps than in being "ranked" highly. It created a win/win situation for the whole network and how can that be bad?

What i meant by this was as follows: First, You had the system that Tiger has just discribed--one in which you received points for wins and very few points for losses. While there were a few players that played hundreds of games at a time just to move up the ranks, these were mostly the exception. I played over 160 games in MAN, some against a few players that were playing massive amounts of games and i never had anyone surrender just because their layout was bad. I finished as a general and while i may have thought a few of the marshalls were not really great players, all that i played were at least good--you could not play the number of games required to have the points for marshal without becoming at least good.
Second, there was a different part of the web site that rated each player on each map. This "rating" was based on the skill of the players. You could have a captain that, because of who he has played and beaten, in the number one spot and a general or marshal 50 or more positions down because they did not have as good a win loss record against the top players on that map. There was also a combined rating for all maps. It was this "rating page that i was speaking of--if you could manage to break into the top 10 on any of the maps i think it was quite an achievement!

_________________
Archers! But sir, will we not hit our own men? Yes, but we'll hit theirs too, and we have reserves!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:53 am 
Offline
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:15 pm
Posts: 135
Karma: 8

Location: Bern
storm440 wrote:
Second, there was a different part of the web site that rated each player on each map. This "rating" was based on the skill of the players. You could have a captain that, because of who he has played and beaten, in the number one spot and a general or marshal 50 or more positions down because they did not have as good a win loss record against the top players on that map. There was also a combined rating for all maps. It was this "rating page that i was speaking of--if you could manage to break into the top 10 on any of the maps i think it was quite an achievement!


You're right, it was the Glicko rating system and I really miss this website. :(

In fact, and like storm I could abandon Glicko in-game if we get this website with detailed statistics back. Nevertheless I would appreciate both systems in-game.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:49 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:14 pm
Posts: 424
Karma: 10

Location: Michigan
One other thing to consider. While many of us like the current system, i do not think it is perfect. I give myself as an example. I think i play quite well but i do not think i am a great player or some sort of brialliant stratigest. Do I think that with the right layout i can beat anyone playing--yes, but this could be said for 30 or 40 other players as well. Would i place myself in the top 20, yes. Top 10, probably not. Top 5, diffenatly not. Yet, over the last 6 months i have held the #1, #2 #3 and #4 spot--where i currently am. I usually play 10 to 15 games at a time but i mostly play on large maps and since i play slow, most of my games take a long time. The system rewards this and here is why. If you play a lot of games quickly, you are going to get beat fairly often--there are just too many very good players for anyone to constantly win almost all of there games and when you lose the system is brutal. This penalizes players such as Morn, Pitor or Ahgepu who are all great and who all play a very large number of games against other top players. Of the 4 Marshals, only Ahgepu has more than 100 wins (many more). I sit in 4th with 65 wins, captx is in 1st with 35 wins and i believe Spasm is the other marshal with about 50 wins. Now even if I think captx, spasm and myself are all Great players, do we really deserve to be ahead of Pitor, who sits in 5th place with over 400 wins? Just something for all of us to think about.

_________________
Archers! But sir, will we not hit our own men? Yes, but we'll hit theirs too, and we have reserves!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:46 pm 
Offline
Tough Nut

Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:23 pm
Posts: 59
Karma: 0
I agree the existing system isn't perfect. It gives too much significance to indiviual results and doesn't allow for the random element of the game. Consistent winners shouldn't be demoted so quickly for an occasional loss.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 7:24 am 
Offline
Veteran

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 1:36 am
Posts: 88
Karma: 0
Hi all,

heihojin has already expressed very closely what I think about the new system, so I'll try to be quick:

Firstly, I think Glicko system is perfect for this type of game, emphasizng skill and not the number of games played, like the proposed new system does.

I'm one of the players who doesn't have much time to play, but the Glicko still gives me a chance to get high on the ladder if I play well, and I think this is how it should be.

However, I do understand that the game needs commercial success, which means keeping players happy. Being high up on a ladder is one of the main drives of competitive play, so average players will be encouraged to play if they have a reasonable chance of getting high up on the ladder. In Glicko system they don't have that chance, in the new system they do, just by playing a lot.

Commercially it is better to have a lot of average players then a few good ones, so I understand the makers for trying to introduce the new system.

But please, don't forget that this is still a skill based game and there is a lot of skilled players that make the game challenging and interesting for everyone. Everybody will miss highly skilled players if you alienate them with the new system.

I propose having two separate metrics, both available in the game itself:
1) Score - new proposal
2) Skill - Glicko system

This way, most people have a good chance to be high on the Scoreboard, and good players have a chance to be high on the Skillboard.

Two other points:
1) Be careful of exploits with new system (ie. pairs of people winning & losing just to bump Score up)

2) Glicko could be tweaked by weighing different maps so that loosing on V6 Demo for example would not be such a problem for skilled players: winning or loosing on a small "(un )lucky" planet (where luck matters more) should not involve the same amount of points as on a big planet.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 133 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Karma functions powered by Karma MOD © 2007, 2009 m157y