artmax wrote:
Glicko is for the minority of players.
And Nicko is for the majority.
Frankly speaking, I like Glicko. But it doesn't matter.
We make MAN2 not for me but for all.
How would you know whether the new system meets the needs of the majority of players without polling them first? I don't remember being asked. Perhaps you might consider how many people have posted in favor of this new system relative to how many people have posted against this new system.
This game will flourish or flounder by word of mouth. I downloaded the demo for this game and was hooked within days. I received the full version as a birthday present from my girlfriend, who knows how much I love this game. I recommended it by e-mail to about 30 other turn-based strategy fans, mostly fellow
Civilization players. Two downloaded and are hooked on the demo version, another purchased the full version on my recommendation alone, and several others are interested but simply haven't gotten around to checking it out yet. Both the demo and full versions are fabulous values, the game is beautifully designed, and the prospect of facing highly-skilled players in intense intellectual competition is quite inviting.
But with this new rating system, players don't have to be "smart enough" - they only have to be "fast enough." Attaining new ranks will be a matter of playing enough games, similar to how players progress in most massively-multiplayer online role-playing games. The grind gets tiresome quite quickly. Why should players pay close attention to individual games when the result is meaningless and nothing is at stake? When players simply surrender difficult positions rather than play their games to conclusion, how many games do you expect to finish? Do you really think that even your typical Trial Player will find this "fun"?
You already have my money. You guys did something great. But if you implement this new ranking system, you won't have my time anymore. I pay great attention to the individual games that I play, and I greatly relish the prospect of progressing through the ladder by virtue of my skill. If you take that away, I will find something else to play - something that rewards me for playing the game
well.
I am not the only one. Turn-based strategy is a niche genre, the smallest segment of the gaming market. It appeals to highly analytical, intellectual players - and these players are proud of their skill. We want to be recognized for our skill.
You already reward "experience" in the form of awards. If you change the basis for the scoring and ranking system to be determined by the number of victories instead of a player's skill, then
you are taking away a reason to play. That reason is more important than you seem to realize. The prospect of being recognized for one's skill at the game keeps players hooked. It gives them the prospect of attaining a goal that others will not be able to do. Take that away, and you will lose those players - and the vitally important word-of-mouth advertising that those dedicated players would have spread.
You have the potential to succeed brilliantly in the turn-based strategy genre, and you also have the potential to fall flat. If you want to foster a dedicated pool of players, you have to give your players reasons to care about their games. You have to
give them reasons to play, and reasons for their friends to play. What you are planning to do will remove a very important reason to play this game!
What is preventing you from seeing this?