New ranking system (?)

Why so simple? afraid you would lose against the Bot Roken?

Are you talking to me ???

RoKeN opens a new browser and go and check the actual ranking...

Well, I think we'll talk about it again when you'll be a little better... Not so bad this ranking system

You know what folks?

In fact I AGREE with the majority (what's wrong with me today? ). The idea of this is a game about wining... Second and Loser are the same thing...

Then maybe we should make the system very simple: Why not something like

Loser(s) lose one point, Winner(s) share what losers have lost... In case of a tie losers will have no interrest in making one or the other win... Simple! instead of making losers lose more, winners win less! And after all the game is about winning so they should punished for not being able to win alone

May be we don't need a complex computation about difference in level between winers and losers etc... No more need to check for bugs and why this guy gained only 1.25 against a strong player and 1.7 against a weaker player (should be the other way around, blah blah blah...). You lose: you lose one . you win you win what losers lost! I don't think it will change many things to the current ranking anyhow...

If you check it, it is quite obvious:
- High ranking players are the ones who win more than one game in three...
- Low ranking players are the ones who win less than one game in four...

I entirely agree with Benwa. When we play we just try to win, and don't care about the 2nd or the 3rd rank. In difficult games, it seems logical to take risks to try to win, instead of calculating and trying to finish 2nd. Citadel is a bit like poker in some ways, and if players who take risks loose points in favor of players who just build to finish in a decent position, the spirit of the game is lost.

Regarding the abandoned games, i think that the best would be to fix a maximum response delay, like 1-2 months, then delete the game with a significant penalty for the player who abandoned the game, but no points to the others of course.

I also think that people who explode games without the agreement of other players should get significant penalty. 2 or 3 games i was playing and winning got exploded just before the end, which is quite pathetic.

nicodsa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Regarding the abandoned games, i think that the
> best would be to fix a maximum response delay,
> like 1-2 months, then delete the game with a
> significant penalty for the player who abandoned
> the game, but no points to the others of course.

Well, the actual delay is 1 month... I think that's quite enough !


nicodsa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I also think that people who explode games without
> the agreement of other players should get
> significant penalty. 2 or 3 games i was playing
> and winning got exploded just before the end,
> which is quite pathetic.

I agree with you but in that case, some kind of interface (where other players can say that they agree with the suppression of the game) will have to be written.

sanjuro Wrote :
-------------------------------------------------------
Loser(s) lose one point, Winner(s) share what losers have lost... In case of a tie losers will have no interrest in making one or the other win... Simple! instead of making losers lose more, winners win less! And after all the game is about winning so they should punished for not being able to win alone winking smiley

May be we don't need a complex computation about difference in level between winers and losers etc... No more need to check for bugs and why this guy gained only 1.25 against a strong player and 1.7 against a weaker player (should be the other way around, blah blah blah...). You lose: you lose one . you win you win what losers lost! I don't think it will change many things to the current ranking anyhow...

I think that a good idea to prevent the I-destroy-one-of-your-district-so-I'll-lose-less-points behavior

Check the following ranking system for Gang of Four:

[www.gangoffour.com]

It's similar to the current system but it corrects some of its issues.

the finality of this game, is to win the first place, killing other characters, destroying their districts, stealing their money, etc... the second one is a looser, as the third one, as the last one, and i´ve been the second one several times.
If we reward the second one with xxx points, what are we going to do with the third one in a five players game, not to lose and not to win any point????

The system that Agh sent provides a surprisingly simple answer to that Matilda (as you would know if you had read more carefully the previous posts)... They use a very clever variant of the chess ELO system. If you beat someone stronger than you, you gain many points, if you beat someone weaker, you gain very few or no points... It involves some math in the computation.

In multi player games, you have a one-to-one match against each oponent, so if you make third out of five, you win two matches, and lose two...How much points you get depends on how strong the other four are (if you are stronger than all others you will lose points, if you are weaker, you will gain, if you're somehow in the middle, you will probably gain or lose very little)

If we want to compute how much points we win or lose by comparing winers and losers' raking, I think we whould go for something like this, if only to prevent the I-destroy-one-of-your-district-so-I'll-lose-less-points syndrome.

However if we think only the winner should get the reward (which is probably true in this game), then I think we should forget about complex formulas, and go a simple system, such as the one I proposed up there:

- loser(s) lose one point all
- winner(s) share what losers have lost.

I think we are forgeting the main thing, this is only a game!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Matilda, I hope I didn't sound aggressive, I just meant a friendly joke ...

I fully agree with you it's just a game... That's why when I recieve messages like "Make HIM lose, you will lose less point if I win that if it's him" I think something is very wrong with our ranking system if it encourages this....

It is sad that some players do this kind of compuation... But unfortunately some do! That's why I suggest we change for a system that makes this pointless...

Sanjuro, You didn't sound aggressive at all!!!!

That's what I suggest as the new ranking system :

if ( player == RoKeN ) then +10 points else -10 points ;

Thus :
- The second, third, ... players don't gain any point (except if I'm among them, but that's just a little unsignificant detail) ;
- The I-destroy-one-of-your-district-so-I'll-lose-less-points syndrome is resolved ;
- The abandoned games problem is also solved 'cause the guilty player will lose points.

That's it.
Got a problem ? Ask RoKeN to solve it

Do I wear the black or the blue dress tonight?

The black, my Lady! To suit your hair...

I'll prefer the Cyan one.
Roken, i have two problems i want you resolve me.
The first, i need a lot of resources (money).
The second, i wants to reach the true happyness.
(i have a third one, but it must be resolve myself)

Achiles(X)

Hi everybody.

Currently, it has been a change on top of the ranking. Interesting.

However, Why not to add a new ranking column with the ratio between points/played matches, just to compare how better are the "more than a hundred matches players" than me or someone else.

Achiles you just have got the values.