Rankings - what I would like to see.

[rbodleyscott]

I would like to see a rankings table for DAG challenges.

The scoring system would need to take into account your opponents ranking, so that you get more points for beating (or even losing a close game) against a higher ranked player.

Also, however, as it isn't possible to choose who takes up an open challenge (and wouldn't be good for the game to be ableto so) , it must be possible for a higher ranked player to get as good as score from playing a beginbner as from playing an equal ranked player - but in order to do so the higher ranked player should need to beat the low ranked player by a larger margin than he would need to to get the same score against an equal or ihgher ranked player.

All this should not be beyond the scope of some fairly simple mathematics, and could I think be implemented fairly easily once the details of the formula have been decided.

[76mm]

frankly, I'm not keen on the idea of having every game I play be subject to some kind of competitive ranking. I try to play to have fun, and want to play other players that want to have fun, and not be concerned about how this or that game will affect my "ranking", or whether I should play someone because it could lower or increase my ranking.

at the least any such system should be on an "opt in" basis. Or if people want to compete the devs can simply organize more formal versions of whatever pantherboy is doing...

[rbodleyscott]

frankly, I'm not keen on the idea of having every game I play be subject to some kind of competitive ranking. I try to play to have fun, and want to play other players that want to have fun, and not be concerned about how this or that game will affect my "ranking", or whether I should play someone because it could lower or increase my ranking.

at the least any such system should be on an "opt in" basis. Or if people want to compete the devs can simply organize more formal versions of whatever pantherboy is doing...

Nobody would be obliged to take note of their ranking.

I agree, however, that it would be reasonable to have an opt-out. It should be possible to specify whether an open challenge is to be included in the rankings or not. If you don't want to be included in the rankings, you wouldn't have to accept a challenge that is a "rankings" challenge.

This (to my mind) would be fairer than players issuing a challenge, hoping to play a game for the rankings, and then having the challenge accepted by a player who vetoes its inclusion.

The disadvantage of not having every challenge included in the rankings is that players could avoid entering the rankings until they have practiced long and hard against real players in "non-rankings" games. Then, when they do finally enter the rankings as an unranked player, they would effectively be a "ringer", getting better scores than they should until the system equilibrates after a siginificant number of games.

[Gunjin]

I think I read somewhere that they are planning on bringing in a MP ranking system in. I do agree with your ideas.

[TheGrayMouser]

I assumed it would be like the way it is now for single player, if you dont wan the results diplayed just turn off the option in your profile

[pipfromslitherine]

Personally I think something where you can have stats as we do for the single player game, but also a real (opt-in) rankings system for MP games (ideally where you can decide ahead of time if a game 'counts') would give something for everyone - the stats are just supposed to be interesting fun, not competition.

Cheers

Pip

[maximvs]

A ranking like that would be skewed if you were, for example, play-testing a new scenario.

I can envisage being in a situation where you maybe lose two or three trial battles whilst trying to find a balance of opposing forces when creating a game. A ranking system recording this would inevitably suggest to others that the player is not performing at a level that they might wish others to expect!

Nobody like to be thought a 'Dork' (with due respect to all would-be Dorks reading this post! )

[deeter]

The last and only time I played online was Shogun Total War and there were two types of games: rated and friendly. Results of friendly games were not rated. Some of the best players only played rated, so if you wanted to play them you had to risk points to do so. That could work easily in FoG.

Deeter

[pipfromslitherine]

Exactly what I was talking about. As an example, in the Dune games you only got 'ranked' on matchmade games, where you couldn't choose your opponent or map, so it was more of an overall test of skill.

So playtesting a scenario wouldn't affect your competitive ranking.

Cheers

Pip

[deeter]

In STW, it was less random. You knew who your opponent would be up front and the points total. The armies were are pretty limited in makeup so there were few surprises.

Deeter