Are you tough enough to be the "King of the Hill"? - Page 50

DarkHorse · #**491** March 13th, 2003, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by geoschmo:
2. Only works for two player games. Not everybody likes two player games. Not everybody does well at two player games.
Geoschmo

I only Lasted for one game for two reasons, one because my project was nearing release and I didn't have a lot of time, but also because of #2 above. This was the first, and probably Last, two player game of SEIV I've played. SEIV seems to lose a lot when there aren't multiple players to add intrigue to the game.

EDIT: No offense to my opponent, Ragnarok is a great person to play with/against

Which leads to my $.02 worth of suggestion:
Maybe have games of 5-10 people and award them points based on finishing position. Then keep track of standings based on a player's total points divided by how many games that person has finished. That way faster players can move forward without unduly disadvantaging the slower players. I think I just made up a word. Anyway, that's my suggestion. Cheers!

[ March 12, 2003, 23:49: Message edited by: DarkHorse ]

Thermodyne · #**492** March 13th, 2003, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stone Mill:

quote:
Originally posted by Cheeze:

King Harley Ra...ummm, I mean....Stone Mill, don't worry. I presented Jobu with a bucket of Kentucky Fried Extra-Crispy. He was quite pleased with the offering.

Do not speak the name "Harley Ra**" That name is forbidden here! And you have a 2% chance (cumulative) of actually summoning him by speaking his name!

And do not think Gecko will fall for your ploy... If your drones do not hit... You will use the "Poison his people with high sodium, fat, and cholesterol" Intel Project!

Harley Ra***? Harley Ra-WHAT-?

Thermodyne · #**493** March 13th, 2003, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Please realize my mind is not made up in this post, I am just considering things and want to get your opinions.

The Koth league has been an interesting experience, and I have learned much form it, but I am thinking it's got some flaws that may be unfixable.

1. Losing a single game send you to the bottom of the hill. A bit harsh? Certainly no fun.

2. Only works for two player games. Not everybody likes two player games. Not everybody does well at two player games.

3. You are in many ways at the mercy of your opponent. If you are playing a guy that is slow with the turns, what can you do? Not much. Complain to me, that's about it. If you and your opponent can't agree on settings, you can't just go play someone else who does like your sort of game. You have to play who I match you against, or one of you forfeits. That kind of sucks.

4. The league page is tedious to maintain, and therefore is frequently out of date. Mea Culpa.

5. You can't play more than one official game at a time. Some people don't like that I am sure.

So here's what I am thinking. We could scrap the current KOTH league and go to a ladder format. I can setup a league on myleague.com that will take care of most of the administration of rankings. The way it works if you aren't familier is everybody is on a ladder. If you beat a guy above you on the ladder you move up the ladder half the distance between the two of you. You move down if someone beats someone above you on the ladder and their half the distance puts them ahead of you.

There's more, but I got to run. Tell me what you think.

Geoschmo

I think it is time for a re-make of a certain forum that we used to play SE3 on.

Thermodyne · #**494** March 13th, 2003, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkHorse:

quote:
Originally posted by geoschmo:
2. Only works for two player games. Not everybody likes two player games. Not everybody does well at two player games.
Geoschmo

I only Lasted for one game for two reasons, one because my project was nearing release and I didn't have a lot of time, but also because of #2 above. This was the first, and probably Last, two player game of SEIV I've played. SEIV seems to lose a lot when there aren't multiple players to add intrigue to the game.

EDIT: No offense to my opponent, Ragnarok is a great person to play with/against

Which leads to my $.02 worth of suggestion:
Maybe have games of 5-10 people and award them points based on finishing position. Then keep track of standings based on a player's total points divided by how many games that person has finished. That way faster players can move forward without unduly disadvantaging the slower players. I think I just made up a word. Anyway, that's my suggestion. Cheers!

Games with more than two people have their problems too. It is very hard to find 10 people that will stick with a game from start to finish. And once a person has the pleasure of being a replacement, they seldom come back for more.

Slynky · #**495** March 13th, 2003, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by geoschmo:
1. Losing a single game send you to the bottom of the hill. A bit harsh? Certainly no fun.

2. Only works for two player games. Not everybody likes two player games. Not everybody does well at two player games.

3. You are in many ways at the mercy of your opponent. If you are playing a guy that is slow with the turns, what can you do? Not much. Complain to me, that's about it. If you and your opponent can't agree on settings, you can't just go play someone else who does like your sort of game. You have to play who I match you against, or one of you forfeits. That kind of sucks.

4. The league page is tedious to maintain, and therefore is frequently out of date. Mea Culpa.

5. You can't play more than one official game at a time. Some people don't like that I am sure.

Geoschmo

1. Seems a bit harsh...and doesn't reflect the game we played as a child...'cause if you were trying for the top of the hill, you didn't always fall back to the bottom. Not sure how to change it, though.

2. Yeah, but 2-player reflects one against one. And not 2 against 1. Or something uneven like that. It's bad enough to get a bad position (system-wise, etc.) without throwing in additional things which may thwart what might be excellent play by an individual. Also, can't quite figure out why someone would be bad at 2-player. Does that mean they only do good when they have diplomacy at their disposal? Which may lead to what I was talking about at the beginning of this me item.

3. Yeah, I'm not sure what to suggest for that. Perhaps the name could be shown in the grid (or ladder) with a number that reflects the hourly limit they will commit to with regularity. Then people could be paired according to that number (or as near as possible).

4. OBE, we say in our office...

Surely there must be another enterprising individual with the requisite skills to provide you some relief. This would me access to the server (gulp) or someone who could also provide the bandwidth.

5. Not sure what this one means. If you mean more than one KOTH game at once, I wouldn't think that would work. So....

Anyway, my two-cents worth. (BTW, I just petitioned to join KOTH).

Gandalph · #**496** March 13th, 2003, 02:18 AM

Quote:

1. Losing a single game send you to the bottom of the hill. A bit harsh? Certainly no fun.

Perhaps fall back only 1 level?

Quote:

2. Only works for two player games. Not everybody likes two player games. Not everybody does well at two player games.

With the number of people in the league, I don't see this as a problem. The 2 player experience is indeed different, but is also quite enjoyable IMHO.

Quote:

3. You are in many ways at the mercy of your opponent. If you are playing a guy that is slow with the turns, what can you do? Not much. Complain to me, that's about it. If you and your opponent can't agree on settings, you can't just go play someone else who does like your sort of game. You have to play who I match you against, or one of you forfeits. That kind of sucks.

Yeah, and the only work around that I see is that players who enter the league have to realize that compromise is expected and appreciated. Either that or come up with hard set KOTH settings for all games.

Quote:

4. The league page is tedious to maintain, and therefore is frequently out of date. Mea Culpa.

I would be happy to help with administration tasks.

Quote:

5. You can't play more than one official game at a time. Some people don't like that I am sure.

Kind of the nature of the beast. Again, if you want to join the league, you accept this.

Just my thoughts.

DavidG · #**497** March 13th, 2003, 02:40 AM

1. "Harsh"?? It's just a game. who cares how far you fall

2. I love 2 player games. They rekindled a somewhat fading interest in this game. I don't think I'd join a multiplayer league

3. If you don't like your oppoent surrender. It's just a game. 'Tis supposed to be fun. Can people really not agree on settings?!!? I think it is fun to play on different settings. And if you really can't agree that's what default settings are for.

4. Well yea. I don't know were you find the time

5. More than one game at a time would lead to those with LOTS of time on their hands moving to the top very quick. Then again see response 1 and 3, It's just a game so who really cares.

Edit - Basically all I want is a place to find a big pool of players willing to play 2 player games. The format is not really that important to me although some way to record your progress does make it a bit more fun.

[ March 13, 2003, 00:47: Message edited by: DavidG ]

Slynky · #**498** March 13th, 2003, 03:00 AM

Well, I know this might be an unpolular and "way in the outfield" kind of response...but that never stopped me from running my mouth.

When I played in MechWarrior leagues (before the cheating got to be too much for me), some people really went all out on a website to show results of contests and battles between clans. I always liked those statistics and rankings. Like chess, you got more points from beating someone more equal to your ranking and less points for whipping up on, well, wimpy clans.

Not that I presume to know what the PBW crowd wants, but if I had to take a guess a what a lot of people might like, it's a way to see where they rate against a lot of other players. Bragging rights (or else crawl in a hole from embarrassment...

)

Seems like (I'm speaking without thinking--so what's new, right?) something like that could be worked out by forcing people to play with a newborn race for each game and then working out a computation based on the experience points at the end of the game and figuring in placement. Then, this ranking (along with other multipliers if appropriate and useable) would be posted. In mechwarrior, the winning team was obliged to report the win and the losing clan was required to "sign off" on it...verification.

Anyway, it's a huge suggestion and a big departure from what is kind of simple and easy to handle (in comparison). So, pardon me.

If anyone is interested, here is a link to see what I'm talking about:

Mechwarrior League Play

(just click on any of the league links and then from the menu on the left, find UNITS and then under it, choose View Units to see the kind of grid I was talking about.)

Cheers!

Fyron · #**499** March 13th, 2003, 03:25 AM

After much thought, I have come to the conclusion that I no longer wish to participate in KOTH. It just is not as much fun as I thought it would be. I hereby officially tender my resignation from KOTH.

Stone Mill · #**500** March 13th, 2003, 03:51 AM

I like many of the comments here... but with Gandalph, I really agree.

Especially about falling back one level.

And Slynky, I think you are on to something with the league rankings... but I think many would argue the fact that your empire score is irrevelant in single player rankings/matches.

It would be great to devise a system based on current rank and the rank of your opponent, and points awarded for victory. www.spring1942.com did this very well for an Axis and Allies league. Not saying that this would be easy, but I could refresh my memory on the calculation they used, and check back in if you are interested...