Slitherine

Having seen a few posts and been involved in a few discussions myself I want to gauge interest from the FOG community about the introduction of a rankings system. The purpose of the system would be to allow those accepting challenges what they are in for and possibly for those that post challenges to limit opponents to a certain level either a amount better than them or lower than them. The possibility exists to add ratings for speed of play and level of unfinished games or level of resignations etc

Basically the purpose would be to allow players to match up with similar rated opponents and hopefully have more even and enjoyable games..plus the option to turn it off and play anyone. It may encourage players to post and accept more challenges.

I would propose a rating system with the following characteristics.

1) Option to play rankings game or not (extra box in the set up screen). Only ranking games count toward the rankings score
2) Option to display your ranking in posting challenge
2) Players awarded more points for victories against higher opponents and less points about lower
3) Players awarded more points for victories with armies that have shown tendancy to lose and less points for swiss etc
4) Option to limit challenges accepted by certain level either above or below your ranking
5) Server collates information such as frequency of play, time lag between moves etc, and option to display and screen this info
6) When players resign the opponent must either accept the surrender or not. Either way the game ends but surrenders not accepted are collated and option to display or screen

I realize some of this may appear abhorrent to some while it may resonate with others. These are just some of the suggestions I have come across in the posting and would like to see what the community feels. I haven't posted a poll before so please excuse me if I stuff this up. I realize there are many permutations of the various combinations of the options I have put forward but have just tried to capture the main ones

Certainly some sort of ranking system would be fun, if only to see how you yourself compare to other people. Since Slitherine seems to keep track of your results in off-line battles against the AI (I don't remember giving my permission for that data to be made public...), it should be perfectly able to do the same for multiplayer.
I would be less enthusiastic, however, about restricted challenges based on rank (Option 4). From comments made on various threads, I see that new players are already put off by the number of 'locked' challenges, and think that there aren't any games to be had out there. We of course know that the solution is to put up a challenge of our own, but newcomers obviously feel a bit intimidated about that, and any further restriction on who they can play is going to put them off more.
A second objection is that you would be more likely to be denied the (usually chastening) experience of playing someone far better than you, and the lessons you learn from the encounter.
Options 5 & 6 are over-intrusive and not necessarily particularly helpful; low frequency of play and lags between moves doesn't have to mean you're unreliable or uncommitted- you might just be working, or forced to go to family weddings. I suspect many people will play a lot of games when on holiday, or otherwise free, then fewer when they're busy.
Choosing which are killer armies and which are hopeless (Option 3) would be very difficult. Apart from the problem of 'who decides?', the effectiveness of a particular army depends largely on its generalmanship; and that is surely covered by player rankings rather than another layer of complexity. As armies are supposed to be of equal strength through points values, any problems are probably best resolved by amending those.
Options 1 & 2 are very reasonable, and add choice to the game. I'd vote for them.

I think your poll is a little biased, in that it does not even present an option for "no rankings system desired".

You are right..that should be an option.

My guess is generally given the lack of comments about this that a rating system and or screening is not really a concern to most players. I personally think a ratings system is good because it could allow matching of more even players should you want such a game. In my experience the best games I have played are the close ones. Ratings system screens on your challenges could work for all levels good and bad. Inexperienced players a little shy of getting thrashed could limit acceptances to lower rated players and therefore be more confident to post challenges which seems to be an issue based on one of the other comments.

The other aspects of the thing I put in there relating to speed of play and finishing games when you initiate a challenge you have no control over accepts them. I'm happy to play anyone in a game with the exception of serial resigners and the one turn a weekers. Serial resigners because if I have bothered to set up an army and a challenge and then start the game I personally find it a little frustrating that 4 turns into it the opponent doesn't like the trees in his way and just resigns without a word. The consistent 1 turn a weekers I'd also rather not play. I understand that's what some people can only commit to and that's fine but I'd rather not play them.

Anyway there wasn't quite the response I expected to this poll so I'll just go back to loony corner and collect the toys I threw out of the cot.

heh, you've probably seen all of the other discussions on this forum about a ratings system, it is a pretty controversial topic!

You're right about the best games being those with "equal" opponents, but it is easy enough to find out who those are via the current system and set up private challenges. Plus it makes things more interesting to get an easy win or a total thumping every now and then.