|
Post by mrgametheory on Sept 14, 2007 21:50:42 GMT -5
for the record newbs I got Number 1 playing in 1v1 games and I felt that I should only lose 1st in a 1v1 after holding 1st for 2 months and beating down every player in the 2nd spot in 1v1. i can say i clearly deserved my number 1 spot and I had the right to refuse playing the number 2 in bullnuts random teamers. The reason why 1st is worthless title now is because to many people get the number 1 spot from bulslhit teamer games. If you only recieved Number 1 from 1v1 games it may actually be worth something.
I even started a thread and announced to all that I would be willing to play the 2nd place player 1v1 via an email and a few of the players actually took me up on the offer. its not my fault that 99% of this ladder sucks and they have to rely on a team of better players to get them anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Sept 14, 2007 22:24:46 GMT -5
you mean like giving reports to all your fellow ..A.. guys so the entire clan would be in the top 10 to help make sure you held onto your spot?
"OMG" said emptyGee to the Admins, "That's illegal? Against ladder rules?"
"Yes oh young child it is" said the Admins.
"My bad, I'm simple and don't understand the written word" said the player-publisher player-sports bookie concert promoter kid.
sent via UPS - when you positively absolutely have to ship the kid overnight
|
|
|
Post by Necrominousss on Sept 15, 2007 8:32:33 GMT -5
I was in that game, Chucky, and NOM did volunteer to leave, to his credit. The host made the decision to keep the first player in the game. I still think its just plain goofy in a game with so few regular players to decide that for rank number 1, you can only meet under certain circumstances. I've actually seen several games now that NOM refuses to play in the same game with you. Is this going to be normal? Really, guys, we would all rather play a game with the two top players in it than have to choose between them. You don't get a nice house on a hill for being ranked number 1, so why demand such things? Why not just create a rule that if the two of you play and rank changes, there is an immediate 1v1 afterwords? The host made a terrible decision if that is the case. IMO, he should be penalized for unfairly booting a player. If NOM wasn't up for the challenge then he should have been allowed to leave the game. He isn't required to play if it's not a formal challenge and specifics game preferences meet. But.. booting a player for no other reason than someone doesn't want to play with the possibility of loosing rank? Can a host casually boot anyone he chooses for any reason? I ask you, can this really be acceptable ladder behavior? CS, can we get a clarification of the rules related to host booting players?
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Sept 15, 2007 15:51:48 GMT -5
There is no rule specifically stating that hosts have to let anyone into a game. And I don't think that we could make a rule like that, it would be a "dogs breakfast" to enforce. It maybe of questionable sportsmanship to kick someone for just not wanting to play #2, but there are firm rules in place for the #1 player to follow. If the #1 actually avoids challenges then we will take action as we have in the past. But as long as he excepts the rules(1v1 formal challenge procedures) and plays games often he is within the rules.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cases Rules on Top 10 players:
Top Ten
Because everyone dreams of being in the Top Ten we have some special rules that apply for these users. This keeps the competition for these slots in high gear. Only players who are ranked in the Top Ten need to worry about these.
o Top of the Heap : Everyone wants a shot at #1; consequently there should be a lot of activity and movement in the top ranks of the Ladder. Remember that rank has priority when it comes to challenges. Keeping that in mind, the number one player should play the number two player as often as possible.
o Inactivity : Players in the Top Ten must play at least once every 7 days. If they don't they are automatically dropped five rungs and their inactivity counter is reset. There are no exceptions to this rule.
o Rank Hounding : Players in the Top Ten are expected to be as active after they reach the top ranks as they were before. In other words, if you are playing 20 games a day to make it to the Top Ten and then only play once a week to hold your rank you may be penalized.
o Leapfrogging : Players in the Top Ten should try to play the person ranked directly below them at least once every three days. If you are found to be avoiding challenges that put your rank at risk your account will be penalized.
o Challenges from Different Ranks :
+ Top Ten players must take challenges in order of rank as with other users.
+ Unless you are ranked in the top 25 of the Ladder it is illegal to E-mail Top Ten players requesting a match. Even then E-mail challenges should be reserved for situations in which you have failed in attempts to get a match via the traditional methods. If you receive a mail from a player outside of this range you should reply and gently remind them of the rules.
|
|
|
Post by Necrominousss on Sept 15, 2007 20:57:03 GMT -5
Hmmm, By your statement I'm not sure you understand which side of this argument I'm on.
All I know is, being the #2 ranked person should not be a reason to be booted from a game. It may not be technically against the rules but sure is a shitty thing to do.
The host blew it IMO. Let the player that is afraid of challenge leave next time.
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Sept 15, 2007 21:01:51 GMT -5
I'm not saying I disagree with your point of view, just that there are no rules dictating what host can or can not do in the matter of letting players play or not.
CS
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Sept 16, 2007 5:24:13 GMT -5
This ladder needs some form of ladder decay. The calculations used for determining rank are just far too simple and the system is easily manipulated.
I haven't been playing Civ regularly (as my ISP is being a bastard with the P2P connections), so I'm not on any side of this current debate on the top spot.
Have you considered hiring a programmer CS to create a ladder that would enable us to leave this old one behind? I believe the ladder community is quite competitive, but it's being hampered by old software.
As the Head Admin, I'm calling you out (yet again). Find a programmer that would be willing to do it. If you can't find one amongst the ladder community, can you ask over at CivFanatics or Apolyton? They may be willing to do one for cheap or possibly for free out of love of the game.
This would also require getting a server to host the ladder, which in turn means we'd need money to keep this operating. Somehow CivFanatics/Apolyton have been running for a long while and experience loads of traffic, why can't we come up with a similar solution?
If C4P was not able to fund such an endeavor, but we were able to find a programmer willing to create a ladder, would it not be in our best interests to merge with one of the bigger Civ sites who have a more stable financial base or to maybe even look for sponsorship *hint, hint --- Firaxis*.
I know I'm comparing apples and oranges, but the MP experience of WIC is almost unbeatable. I know Firaxis can't fix all of the networking problems and MP issues, but surely they can provide us with a ladder, sponsor it, maybe even hold tournaments with some sort of prize?
You've got a lot of options. I say F having a small ladder community. The fanbase of this game does not justify having this small of a MP ladder community.
I've given you the ideas, I've pointed you in several directions. Take a brotha tuckin step. Show us what a Head Admin is.
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Sept 16, 2007 14:48:31 GMT -5
Dey, do you really think that I have not already looked at this issue? You have already identified the problems yourself. We do not have a programmer and even if I managed to find one that would be willing to program a new ladder(according to what we want....and determining exactly what everyone wants would be a separate headache) for free, I still have to find a free server.
As far as I know CFC and poly get any revenue for ads, and poly sells "plus memberships" as well. I don't think we could attract that much interest from advertisers until we were already a de facto force in the gaming community. Sites like CFC, Apolytion or Civ.de attract tremendous traffic but they have been around for years, and have large SP fan bases. As far as I remember(and I was a member of the 1st Greek Civ site) These sites initially funded there own costs, and the owners/operators were web programmers as well as Civ fans. We don't happen to have that level of expertise here, nor the financial means to go it alone for a startup.
Yes we could likely become a "hosted site" on some other fan site, I know that Apolyton has done that in the past. But I doubt that the generally anti-MP atmosphere at poly would help us create a significant improvement in our fan base, even if they helped us code a new and better ladder system.
I realize that Civ MP is no were near as good as what other games are like, but that starts with T2/Firaxis, and they historically have not been large MP supporters unfortunately, and even with a large events like Apolyticon, they didn't "sponsor" anything financially, they only gave there free time up to present briefings and a dev vs fan LAN game.
BTW, since you mentioned "decay" I do have the ability to alter the "leapfrog" ratio on C4P, right now it is set at 50%, meaning that you jump half way up to the person's rank that you beat. I can lower that or raise it, if you think that will help I can run a poll on that issue.
I will continue to look at the issue of new ladder software and if I get the chance to jump on something that will actually work for us, I will seriously consider it. But I do not think that people will pay for a new system, even getting people to pay for premium memberships on Cases(which we get a small cut that we use to pay for Plus league service) has always been problematic.
CS
|
|
|
Post by Bantams on Sept 16, 2007 16:12:18 GMT -5
two words douchebag and Mute come too mind CS no offence but why you even reply too them is beyond me! as is this is all we have and I appreciate it as do 99% of the ladder community (1% are Raytards) I too have seached far and all i came up with was gamespyarcade most games are run on cases sorry folks its a fact until Revolutions or C5 comes too a next gen Console online ranking systems are well quite Wank! Bantams
|
|
|
Post by NumberOneMercury on Sept 17, 2007 12:59:26 GMT -5
CS I think maybe changing the gain on ranks to something less than 50% might help...Raising it to something higher would worsen the problem I think since lets face it there is luck in every game, so some noob teammate of mine dies to a warrior in a teamer a rank 10 player becomes rank 5 or so now, with 70% he'd be like rank 3, 90% rank 2, etc. -- And that's assuming there aren't any other higher ranking players in the game. Lowering the gain to maybe 20-30% from 50% may be the best way to acknowledge the randomness of the game within the current system. However, please note my earlier thread on this subject: civ4players.proboards44.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1173286644&page=1
|
|
|
Post by Lestat on Sept 17, 2007 13:06:35 GMT -5
Who are ranks Are they woumans ?
|
|
|
Post by chuckynorris on Sept 17, 2007 14:13:14 GMT -5
wow, pretty harsh post by bantams...
|
|
|
Post by Bantams on Sept 17, 2007 14:43:30 GMT -5
wow, pretty harsh post by bantams... Oh Sorry here have a Beer
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Sept 17, 2007 16:32:12 GMT -5
SWEET! maybe we get another new icon within the next 8 years...
|
|
|
Post by Death to ALL on Sept 17, 2007 17:19:39 GMT -5
post any you want added and maybe I will and maybe I wont
|
|
|
Post by Lestat on Sept 17, 2007 17:53:21 GMT -5
Ok DTA put this icon to plz ...
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Sept 17, 2007 18:06:19 GMT -5
you dance well, LeStud
|
|
|
Post by chuckynorris on Sept 17, 2007 22:20:59 GMT -5
It doesn't matter what you change the percentages to nom. 1%.100%. Either way, you will remain number one because you are just that good. If I were gay and I could have sex with any civ player, it would definately be nom. I think I will change my name from chucky_norris to NOM because you are even more badass than chuck norris. This post MIGHT be sarcastic
|
|
|
Post by Matlowe on Sept 18, 2007 1:44:00 GMT -5
lol
|
|
|
Post by NumberOneMercury on Sept 18, 2007 1:48:00 GMT -5
It doesn't matter what you change the percentages to nom. 1%.100%. Either way, you will remain number one because you are just that good. If I were gay and I could have sex with any civ player, it would definately be nom. I think I will change my name from chucky_norris to NOM because you are even more badass than chuck norris. This post MIGHT be sarcastic I don't think you understand the discussion.
|
|