Why, why,
WHY do you not ask for our feedback
before doing things like this?
Nick_WN wrote:
We have started some perfection of the new system and the first thing we modified is the bonus awarded for defeating strong opponents. So now defeating Major or Colonel brings you 3-5 times more points then for defeating newbie.
Rank is no longer an indication of a player's strength. The same player whom I mentioned in a previous post, the Major with a penchant for playing the A.I., is now ranked a Colonel. I believe that I, a newly-promoted Sergeant (and former Major), am a heavy favorite to win against him given that I have handily beaten him in two successive games on the same map. So with this new system I have even more incentive for repeatedly challenging him over and over again, right?
I don't understand the purpose of awarding extra victory points based upon either player's rank. Rank is no longer an indication of skill. The officer ranks are now infested with A.I.-stomping players, and that trend will only continue.
Quote:
Another important update is the End Turn Ratio which gives some % out of victory bonus depending on the turn you end the game. The main idea is to avoid giving huge bonus for 'easy victory' - when your opponent just doesn't bother to make his turns and you get complete victory bonus on Turn 0.
I don't understand this at all. Is it not enough that my opponent already has incentive to surrender a disadvantageous position against me on the first turn? With this new "upgrade," you are now punishing
me for him surrendering on the first turn!
I understand that you want to remove incentive for players to collude and take turns surrendering to each other in an effort to pump up each other's score. This is not the way to do it. The way to do it is to implement a
penalty for surrendering.
Finally, I hope that this "upgrade" to the ranking system is not intended to replace the skill-based rankings that Vic promised us.