Slow day on the forum so I happened to pop over to the tabletop section. After a while I found a page with all sorts of statistics.
Now, I like statistic (yes, I do, so what?!) and it was fun to read the different tables.
What would be even more fun is if there was similiar stuff for FOG-PC.
Any plans for tournaments? I remember talk about some MP-ranking later on. Is that ELO?
Could be quite easy I imagine. Just a check box beside the others one can...check if one wants a ranking game.
Or if tournaments could be held only those games counted towards rating.
ELO-ratings?
Moderators: Slitherine Core, FoG PC Moderator, NewRoSoft
ELO-ratings?
Last edited by hidde on Sat Jul 31, 2010 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
deadtorius
- Field Marshal - Me 410A
- Posts: 5290
- Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:41 am
I don't think an ELO system should be optional for a multiplayer oriented game like this one, but rather mandatory, even if only considering reasonable matching between players with various skills. I've already made that request a while ago in here.
Hm, I wouldn't mind mandatory ratings...but that's now when I've been playing for several months. I remember when I started. Had never played MP. Hesitated for quite some time, Started with some friendly games. Lost my first four. Then I won some and found the courage to aply to pantherboys League (the very last to get incothyso wrote:I don't think an ELO system should be optional for a multiplayer oriented game like this one, but rather mandatory, even if only considering reasonable matching between players with various skills. I've already made that request a while ago in here.
).What I want to say is that it can easily become intimidating to newcomers if the gaming gets too competitive.
well, I'd rather say viceversa. because atm you don't know with whom are you playing, as a new player, you can get beaten pretty bad, and there's nothing more discouraging than that. Seeing an ELO for each player and trying to play with the ones close with your ELO settles that. It can also be used to give more army/victory points in the favour of the weaker player for ELO unbalanced games. really, I can't see any fault in having it, but only the necessity.
-
deadtorius
- Field Marshal - Me 410A
- Posts: 5290
- Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:41 am
Some people have posted they refused to play solo since they did not realize their scores were being made public. It comes down to individual privacy so players should have the option to opt out of their user names and scores being displayed anywhere on this site. It may not be your real name and ID but some people don't want any kind of public exposure online. Could get into a legal issue eventually with privacy laws and all that stuff.
Why do you want to force players to participate in some sort of competitive system? I have no interest at all in some competitive BS, I get enough of that at work every day, I just want some good fun matches.cothyso wrote:I don't think an ELO system should be optional for a multiplayer oriented game like this one, but rather mandatory...
Shogun Total War MP offered the choice to post ranked or unranked challenges. Scores from ranked games were tracked to create a ladder sytem. Some of the best plyaers only issued ranked challenges, so I you wanted to play them you had to take a beating on your score. Sometimes worth it though.
Deeter
Deeter
it was not intended to be used as competition (even, though, what's wrong with competition? if you lose, you're not a worse person, you know), but to help players find games against people with playing skills close to their own ones, in order to have fun. there's no fun when you beat a beginner to ashes, or when you get trashed by some god-like-compared-to-you player.
but don't mind me, I've stated my 2 cents, you've read it, you don't agree.. me neither.. time to move on.. both of us
but don't mind me, I've stated my 2 cents, you've read it, you don't agree.. me neither.. time to move on.. both of us
-
deadtorius
- Field Marshal - Me 410A
- Posts: 5290
- Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:41 am
-
claymore58
- Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
- Posts: 426
- Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 1:56 pm
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
Living Thing
Personally, I enjoy ELO. I was on the Telephone Line chatting to a Sweet Talkin Woman when it came Out of the Blue. I almost Turned to Stone when I heard that I had set a New World Record. 
I sure that the clever boffin's at Hexwar/Slitherine can cater for Competitive Player Lists as well as open play. I'm not sure that we have the volume of players to have automatic ranked matching (as in COD2). Still it would be good if it was an option.
I sure that the clever boffin's at Hexwar/Slitherine can cater for Competitive Player Lists as well as open play. I'm not sure that we have the volume of players to have automatic ranked matching (as in COD2). Still it would be good if it was an option.
They laid waste to our land ....
For the record, I would be against any mandatory ranking system, whether or not I could choose to keep the results private or publish them. The issue is not that other people can see what a poor player I am, but if every game is tallied, I personally would become much more conscious about what armies I was choosing, my opponents, etc. As it is, I often choose armies that are easy opponents against certain other armies, not really caring that much if I lose. I would not want to find myself selecting Late Repub Romans and Seleucids every battle.
-
CheerfullyInsane
- Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
- Posts: 302
- Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:11 pm
- Location: Birkerød, Denmark
To each his own, I suppose.
Personally, I couldn't care less if I lose.....Well, obviously I'd like to win just occasionally, but the main point is playing the game.
Current win/loss ratio is something like 4/13 and some of these defeats have been fairly .....*ahem*.....humiliating, but I'm having all kinds of fun.
Mainly I lose because I try another army just to see what it can do (or in some cases what it can't). Then spend a couple of games fine-tuning it.
Either that, or I do something bone-headedly moronic.
However, having said that, I'm a little wary of ratings.
It does induce competitiveness to some degree. While it may help people finding opponents of the same skill-level, it might also intimidate newcomers.
And I can almost guarantee that it'll become harder for newbies to find opponents. And let's face it, the only way to pick up the tactics is to get thoroughly spanked by someone better than you.
And 'skewing' the ratings (such that the lower-rated gains more points from a victory than the higher-rated player) is a nice idea on paper.
But they tried that with AH's old AREA ratings, and what happened was that certain groupings got established, and it was very hard to get into because nobody wanted to risk the massive loss of points a lucky win to a newbie would entail.
Not to mention that this game entails a *lot* of luck. Not dominately, but there's certainly a nice chunk of random thrown into each game.
Personally, I really like the current system. Establish an army, and send out a challenge. You have no idea what will be coming, or who'll take up the gauntlet, which forces you to have a balanced army and to think on your feet.
Granted, as a newbie, you run the risk of being slapped around, but as long as the boards are here, one can usually pick up a game with someone willing to point out the salient points of the game.
So, if ratings are on the horizon, at least make them voluntary.
CheerfullyInsane
Personally, I couldn't care less if I lose.....Well, obviously I'd like to win just occasionally, but the main point is playing the game.
Current win/loss ratio is something like 4/13 and some of these defeats have been fairly .....*ahem*.....humiliating, but I'm having all kinds of fun.
Mainly I lose because I try another army just to see what it can do (or in some cases what it can't). Then spend a couple of games fine-tuning it.
Either that, or I do something bone-headedly moronic.
However, having said that, I'm a little wary of ratings.
It does induce competitiveness to some degree. While it may help people finding opponents of the same skill-level, it might also intimidate newcomers.
And I can almost guarantee that it'll become harder for newbies to find opponents. And let's face it, the only way to pick up the tactics is to get thoroughly spanked by someone better than you.
And 'skewing' the ratings (such that the lower-rated gains more points from a victory than the higher-rated player) is a nice idea on paper.
But they tried that with AH's old AREA ratings, and what happened was that certain groupings got established, and it was very hard to get into because nobody wanted to risk the massive loss of points a lucky win to a newbie would entail.
Not to mention that this game entails a *lot* of luck. Not dominately, but there's certainly a nice chunk of random thrown into each game.
Personally, I really like the current system. Establish an army, and send out a challenge. You have no idea what will be coming, or who'll take up the gauntlet, which forces you to have a balanced army and to think on your feet.
Granted, as a newbie, you run the risk of being slapped around, but as long as the boards are here, one can usually pick up a game with someone willing to point out the salient points of the game.
So, if ratings are on the horizon, at least make them voluntary.
CheerfullyInsane
I've got two words for ya: Math is hard.
-
IainMcNeil
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13558
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:19 am
-
claymore58
- Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
- Posts: 426
- Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 1:56 pm
- Location: Brisbane, Australia