Pet hates and etequette

[TheGrayMouser]

Hmm the concept of ranked vs non ranked games is interesting yet .... Would that not cause certain armies to predominate if the game is ranked? Would be annoying if the only armies you see are Swiss, armoured Early hoplites, hordes... ( and your favourite nemisis , bosphos:) )

I kinda dont like the concept of some games count wheras others somehow dont and by definition are somehow not important? .... If you want it to somehow 'count", thats what leagues are for...

I know this will seem odd but i remeber way back when the ist league started and players in it were posting about bugs that were ruining their "important games" (since they were in the leauge) but regular pu games somehow didnt matter... In a small odd way this kinda irked me...
Every game is important cause theres someone on the other end who should be getting your best regardless.

I dunno, the idea that players will gravitate towrds "classes of players" for balanced play has some merit but i just dont see it working out.. plus do you want to feel like you are doing something "wrong" by taking a game from a player who ranks much higher? or what about accepting a game by someone ranked much lower.... Will you be branded as a bad guy out to slaughter newbies for your rankings?

[CheerfullyInsane]

I'm basically in agreement with TGM.

The problems associated with rankings far outweigh any advantage you might get.
Not to mention that I find them completely unnecessary. Why would you want every game to count?
Sometimes it's fun just to muck around with an army you have no idea how to use.
(See my current progress in the IF & SAS leagues, for instance. )

Bottom line is that if you're looking for rated play, there's the leagues.
And presumably once the auto-tourney system gets released to the users, there'll be plenty of ranked gaming available .

In the meantime, I suspect that most people do what I do to avoid annoying opponents.
You simply don't play them a second time.

Lars

[deeter]

All good points to be sure. The beauty of Shogan 1 was that there was only one army list -- Japanese -- so no guesswork about whom should be fighting whom.

And all my games count -- except for the ones I've lost.

Deeter

[TheGrayMouser]

All good points to be sure. The beauty of Shogan 1 was that there was only one army list -- Japanese -- so no guesswork about whom should be fighting whom.

And all my games count -- except for the ones I've lost.

Deeter

On a side note, that is why for me, smaller leagues can be a whole lot of fun when they are themed with historical opponents . Some dude just recently started one called Diadochi

[deeter]

I hope you are enjoying Diadochi. I have a few ideas for other themed tournaments when this one is done. (Still no interest from across the pond?)

Deeter

[dazzam]

I think the most enjoyable games I play are the close ones. This is part of the reason I like the league games is that we get matched up with players of similar ability and an enjoyable round of games follows. Plus the people in the league are a good bunch of so it's a win/win. However the leagues are only part of the games I play in. Sometimes I'm trying out new armies or strategies and are happy just to get a chance to test some new things. However plenty of other times I'd really like a good contest and I post a challenge up. Sometimes you get a good challenge, sometimes you get a someone who quits at the first sight of blood, sometimes you get rolled by a master of the universe (which is good as there is much to learn young skywalker), sometimes you completely crush someone (which personally i don't enjoys so much) and sometimes you get someone who makes a move a week for three weeks before disappearing.

Que sera sera you say well maybe but I just feel some sort of metrics about your opponents and ability to screen them when you post challenges would be good. Cheerfully Insanes suggestion is good..if you dont want to play a particular player then don't. However the problem is that I post challenges and have no power over who accepts them. Personally I'd like to screen out the one turn a weekers and the resigners but maybe that's just me. I'd also like to have a few challenges up there which I know are going to be accepted by someone with comparable level. I'm sure there are some people out there who also might like to know what they are in for when they accept a challenge. New comers might sign up and get 3 games in a row against some of the greats and think stuff this it's too hard but if they saw they were ranked 1st in the world or perhaps a 5 star generals or whatever they may then give it another go against some other fresh recruits.

I think TGM raises a good point in that if we have rankings there would be a tendancy to pick swiss armies or whatever the powerhouse of the other editions are. My suggestion is that as part of the rankings system you got more points for wins with armies that have generally lost in FOG and less points for victories with the swiss etc. Likewise I suggest points gained from a result would depend on the ranking of the opponent. Victory against someone good would enhance your rating more than say a victory against someone who has lost there last 10 games. I am sure an algo can be written to give some measure of a players record.

The key is it would be an option to use. If you don't care about it then don't turn it on or use it. But if you want a game with someone of similar ability and you know they are going to finish the game out and play at a reasonable pace then you might be more inclined to post more challenges or accept ones from similarly skilled opponents.

Anyway this topic has evolved a little from the original theme. Perhaps I should put up a poll about a rankings system/screening system for challenges and see what sort of response I get. Or has this been done already in a poll?