Re: new ranking calculation

On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 10:14:17AM +0000, Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Jason Short wrote:
> > I also question whether alliances should be penalized in this way. When
> > playing a team game, obviously each team should be counted as a unit
> 
> Scores are averaged for teams, so the winning team achieve a draw among
> themselves.
> 
> > but I don't think alliances are the same thing at all.After all,=20
> > player E had the chance to join alliances as well; doesn't the fact that=20
> > he didn't do so mean he deserved to lose this game?Of course he may=20
> > have had little choice in the matter, but in the long term a good=20
> > diplomatic ability will be rewarded with a higher ranking.

It's not a matter of good diplomacy to say "Hey there is pille lets
gangbang and kill him."

> > Diplomacy is as important or more important than civ-building or war.=20
> > This is true historically as well.Why should the ranking system punish=20
> > diplomatic skill while the others are rewarded?
> 
> Your idea, Jason, is going to encourage all other players to gang up on
> high ranked players in the game, to gain rank themselves. Not workable.
> Especially not now that CVS makes it much easier to do diplomacy.
> 
> My first thought is that allies of a winning player should not be
> penalized by loss of ranking, but neither should it be possible to rise in
> rank by joining games and just opportunistically allying whoever looks
> like is going to win.

Players who are allied with the winner are winner in the game too. They
shouldn't lose points. 
 
> Eventually, we should consider setting up a separate ranking ladder for
> duel games (premade maps, maxplayer 2, diplomacy off), and also one for
> team games (registered teams).

Think having extra ladders for duels, teamgames and ffa is a good idea.
(Duels and teamgames could count for ffa)

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Strub  ***  eMail [email protected]
jb: people are stupid, they don't want to learn.