.com.unity Forums - MP VS League

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- Multiplayer and AARs (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=145)

- - MP: VS League (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=43514)

Quote:

What I meant was that at the beginning all nations have the same number of pretender points. Each completed game shifts starting points for new games up or down 1 depending on who won.

Control is definitely an issue - I'm not sure the best way to handle that. I'm sure it would be possible though, perhaps with too much admin intervention required.

too complex for my tastes and control is non existent (at least without much supervision as u say)

Quote:

Without some sort of handicap, playing a league where people will naturally want to do well, I think we'd get serious over-representation of the more powerful nations.

that is a very valid point

Quote:

Another option would be to split the nations into tiers that only fight each other. So within EA there would be three tiers, perhaps:

Tier 1 - niefels, sauro, mictlan, lanka, hinnom

Tier 2 - vanheim, abysia, ermor..

Tier 3 - kailasa, yomi, marverni ..

This would keep duels relatively fair, albeit restrictive of variety

that would work but
a) i dont 100% believe in the severe unbalance yet
b) do we really want that much restriction?

i do understand your point though

Quote:

Note that I think players should be limited to 1 duel at a time (within the league) so that we don't get a vast gap in numbers of games played by different players.

that makes sense. non-ranked games can always be played

how about this:

bonus to points added for a win with nations you have played less

and

more points lost if using nations you always use

:)

i think that solves alot. system would have to be worked out but in theory it works.

if you win 100 times with Pythium but never with another then winning with them will not gain u much points at all (even if the opponent is of higher rank.. which would be possible even if he has lost more but uses different races)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DakaSha (Post 700183)

What do we mean by 'a lot' and 'less'? How wide a spread do we consider a proper repetoire for a well-rounded player? And how many games before we start kicking in bonuses or penalties?

Impressions:
I'd say you need a good 20-30 games under your belt before we can even begin to assess if you're using a nation you don't 'normally' use, and even at that point it would be 'hasn't played a ranked game with this nation'.

'a lot' should be a decreasing percentage that kicks in around game 5 (where if you've played ~80%+ with a given race you start getting penalized for using it) and gradually drops to ~20% (which still allows a little less than 1/5 games using a favored race if you really want to use a particular race over and over again). Even 20% might not be low enough. I mean, between age and race there are like 50 choices - I'd expect a well-ranked player to be at least decent with ~30 of them.

--------

On the subject of random - would you be ok with random if you got to pre-emptively veto a few races before a race was generated for you? Ie, you know you absolutely hate playing Bandar Log and Ulm, so you (publicly) veto those before races get randomed, and your random is chosen from the set of all (appropriate - MA in this case) races excluding the vetoed ones. Allowing 2-3 vetoes should be sufficient to keep people from playing races they absolutely loathe.

Quote:

Impressions:
I'd say you need a good 20-30 games under your belt before we can even begin to assess if you're using a nation you don't 'normally' use, and even at that point it would be 'hasn't played a ranked game with this nation'.

'a lot' should be a decreasing percentage that kicks in around game 5 (where if you've played ~80%+ with a given race you start getting penalized for using it) and gradually drops to ~20% (which still allows a little less than 1/5 games using a favored race if you really want to use a particular race over and over again). Even 20% might not be low enough. I mean, between age and race there are like 50 choices - I'd expect a well-ranked player to be at least decent with ~30 of them.

although i dont know about the precise numbers (would have to be discussed) the system seems sound.

Quote:

On the subject of random - would you be ok with random if you got to pre-emptively veto a few races before a race was generated for you? Ie, you know you absolutely hate playing Bandar Log and Ulm, so you (publicly) veto those before races get randomed, and your random is chosen from the set of all (appropriate - MA in this case) races excluding the vetoed ones. Allowing 2-3 vetoes should be sufficient to keep people from playing races they absolutely loathe.

if (due to this threads discussions and players favoring it) we were to use a forced random nation selection method i would say the flip side. that you choose from 3 (or 5) nations that you would like to play and they are randomized.

i would still be for exposed nations before pretender design though.

and im just plain against forced randomization :P
even more so now that we seem to be on to a system that would penalize people who only use a very limited number of nations.

i dont even think that 30 is valid. i see it as having a table loaded with tools and specializing in a few and being fairly decent with the others.

of course if somebody (possibly yourself) is good with all nations and uses them equally often then it WOULD be reflected in his ladder position provided he actually wins now and then :P

i really like the concept of penalizing players who only play a very limited number of nations and rewarding players who can use them all (and i would say that players using lots of nations are rewarded more than the others are penelized for various reasons)

it really is a compromise (although i actually prefer it now that its been mentioned :P ) and solves the old dominions problem of favored nations while technically allowing people to play as they wish

its like choosing to not pay for a dumb browser game and receiving 20% less experience.... only that its perfectly fair as it reflects overall skill and not amount of money one is willing to invest

even dragurs '1 game at a time limit' helps this as playing alot more games to make up for it wont be that possible.

you can be listed high on the ladder.. even at first if your GREAT with a single nation. but you can climb that ladder faster (and remain at the top) if you are good with alot of nations

I would say it is important to know which nation your enemy is going to play so that you can plan your strategy accordingly. Even when the nations are randomly picked you should know what your enemy will play before you design your pretender.

Also the only thing i would forbid are games that put a water nation against a land nation.

why would you forbid water against land? both have the same disadvantage really as long as the map is specifically designed for this type of match

i have to admit im not experienced enough with this situation though. just so far it seemed like it would be fine.

Archiving of ones turn files for the current league games one is playing should also be mandatory simply because its easy to do and wins/losses will be clear in case of disputes

Quote:

Originally Posted by DakaSha (Post 700348)

why would you forbid water against land? both have the same disadvantage really as long as the map is specifically designed for this type of match

Boring game no player will be able to defeat the other one until late game, so the games will be about getting tatarians first.

k. anybody else second this? as said i just dont have enough experience in this matter