|
Post by markweston on Feb 22, 2006 12:00:59 GMT -5
As an argument about the validity of the Rankings, I don't think that really works. Wycombe Wanderers never get invited to play in the Champions League, but I doubt that cheapens the value of winning the championship.
But as a description of the slightly cliquey tendencies of the top ranks of the ladder, I do see your point. Very little of this is deliberate. (There's only one player who I see being regularly excluded from games or avoided by a large number of ladder players). It's pretty natural to want to play the people you know and like, and when looking for extra players to invite those on your buddy-list.
The solution is simply to get onto those buddy-lists, which isn't all that hard once you've played a couple of games with them. Almost all of the top-30 players are regular teamer-players; so all you have to do is see which games they're playing and ask to join. There are a few idiots who actively try to exclude players they don't know - the rest might be a bit rude about assuming that anyone they don't know is a "noob", but will play with you nonetheless. After a few days you're one of the regular team-game players and none of this is an issue.
The time-zone problem is obviously a bit more difficult. My solution is to play until 4am. This may or may not be an option for you.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Feb 22, 2006 12:19:35 GMT -5
Actually There are a million and one threads on the C3c forum about exactly what people think about rankings skill etc etc and none of them are particularly complimentary, in fact of you ask anyone from c3c who's still in CIv they'll tell you preciselyy how much rank means to them and just how irelevant it is. I wonder who the players is that no one'll play with I really don't care who I play with so long as I get a game, I just host regularly if I can't find a game myself. Top rankings have always been cliquey, if it really bothers you that much I suggest you get in with a teamer or two of there's you'll be top 10 in about 2/3 games. Either that or just get top 25 and offer a load of players a challenege in the top 20 they can't refuse without dropping 50 or so rank.
|
|
agent_x7
Settler
Agent of Truth
Posts: 65
|
Post by agent_x7 on Feb 22, 2006 18:25:06 GMT -5
Skill is also flawed, because a first timer gets lucky and beats a top 20 skill and only plays that game in his life, his skill will be astronomical. The number of games played is usually a good determination. Rank is almost impossible to keep, while in a previous thread I mentioned my rank of #21, my rank has already dropped from a high of #19 to #45 in 2 days, it puts people like me who only play on weekends at a serious disadvantage, and helps people like gametheory who constantly play civ every second of their lives.
|
|
|
Post by Atomation on Feb 22, 2006 19:23:39 GMT -5
Although I also can't play more than a few games a week, I feel the way the ladder degenerates rank is good for the health of the game. If people could get high rank and not degenerate much at all for months, then why would they really bother playing? The degeneration system is what ensures more good high ranked games every day.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Feb 23, 2006 14:48:04 GMT -5
Although I also can't play more than a few games a week, I feel the way the ladder degenerates rank is good for the health of the game. If people could get high rank and not degenerate much at all for months, then why would they really bother playing? The degeneration system is what ensures more good high ranked games every day. That's undeniable, you should have to play regularly or fairly regularly to keep your rank, that's the same for any sport/game. But the ranking is still flawed. Skill is also flawed, because a first timer gets lucky and beats a top 20 skill and only plays that game in his life, his skill will be astronomical. The number of games played is usually a good determination. Rank is almost impossible to keep, while in a previous thread I mentioned my rank of #21, my rank has already dropped from a high of #19 to #45 in 2 days, it puts people like me who only play on weekends at a serious disadvantage, and helps people like gametheory who constantly play civ every second of their lives. Agreed but players reset there stats making even this no real indication of anything. If you play in alot of top rank teamers then your skill will be higher than if you don't. Skill is conditional.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Feb 24, 2006 8:49:58 GMT -5
When you do know that you as well may report losses at turn 2 in a teamer? -"Please, no Pacifism on front!" -"Heheheh it's to save on upkeep. When i'll get a religion i'll switch" (of course, he had non-spiritual civ)
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Mar 1, 2006 13:22:45 GMT -5
Tretyakov is surely a good player. He builds courthouses in a capital and banks in a city with 3 gold/turn. I guess that any player who doesn't know arithmetics will not play with me in one team again
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Mar 1, 2006 14:05:55 GMT -5
hey, banks are there to increase gold - if he dont have enough gold he should build banks, shouldnt he?
I latly learned to know a new spezies of team player, the "i m no total noob, but i care nuts about teamplay".
having noob in team u know that there ll be problems, and can try to help him, but if some1 is a total ass and have all units sitting in back cities instead starting to help or counterattack - there s only 1 chance not to go crazzy - die fast and never team with the dude again.
|
|