|
Post by Death to ALL on Jan 20, 2008 14:34:15 GMT -5
The problem with this ladder, This is the only ladder i know of that you play team games, with random players, this is the one and only fault where all the hate and anger comes from. (when has ctons ever created problems?) Ladder teamers should be for clan games only, or each month you get several captains and they pick teams and compete for clan points on the ladder. The team with the most points at the end of the month is declared the winner. This isnt a difficult system? infact i was working on somthing like this as some might know, but abandoned it when angelonearth declared the new ladder. If the new ladder has been developed to be played with random teams, i fear it has, civ competition is going to suffer.. This is MADNESS!!!! It is not the software nor the administrations job to dictate what type of games should be played. Should team games be for clan's only? Should we then remove all other options from the system? I think not. If we remove all other options from the system, then we only promote more non-ladder games. In the end it is the everyday players that decide what types of games should be played. If the majority of players thought that teamers should only be played by clans, then that would be how it was done. The new ladder however does support both types of games. A clan v clan teamer can be reported and it will adjust both the clan's stats as well as all the players that played. We also allow non clan teamers, where you can just report a team game and it will only adjust the player's stats. In the end which type of teamer will be more popular is up to the players.
|
|
|
Post by geforced on Jan 20, 2008 15:07:58 GMT -5
Okay, as long as there is a decent ranking system for clans, i really like this one, used in older command and conquer games. RN = RO + K(W - WE)
Where :
* RN is the new rating * RO is the old (pre-event) rating * K is a constant * W is the score in the event (1 = win, 0 = loss)
K is the maximum number of points you can win or lose based upon the ranks of the players involved. It can range from 1 point to 64 points.
WE is the expected score derived from the following formula :
WE = 1 / (10 ^ (DR / 400) + 1)
* DR is the difference in ratings between players.
Players will never lose more than 10% of their total score during any game. All players start at 0 (zero) points and can never drop below 0 at any time.At the end of each month the player/clan with the most points is declared the winner, points are reset and new month begins, its nice because you gain more points for playing clans with more points, usally the tougher ones so its more worthwile, and you actually lose points for losing~ i hate this never ending ladder system, there should be monthly winners. edit: example xwis.net/xcl/ra2/?laddertype=1&ladr=clan
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Jan 20, 2008 15:42:47 GMT -5
With the last patch by firaxis in it's final phase and no "Civ5" in the works - what are you all going to do with CivRev when the closest thing you can get to a teamer is an FFA with a limited number of players and a limited stacking of units? (IF IF IF you each play on the same gaming platform as "cross-platform play" won't be available (x-box won't be able to play Wii, etc)
As we begin to transition/move/begin a new ladder on a private server without the benefit of Case's marketing and advertising, I'd suggest you all make "nice-nice" with each other because the pickings are going to get slimmer and slimmer.
Clan games and teamers are and have always been only ONE SINGLE aspect of this game.
Now what?
|
|
|
Post by kurdape on Jan 20, 2008 15:55:57 GMT -5
I was thinking something very simple, like registering with a clan and posting the top 5-10 players in each clan, their ratings average. The clan with the best rating might change several times durring the day. The clan with the most days on top is declared the top clan of the month. I guess this sound kinda amateurish compared to GEF's method, perhaps I just don't understand it, and his is a better way. Anyway, I think we have a great game with tons of potential to work with. There is tons of flexibility too. One other thing, I would love to see an unoffical banned guide. Like the following: Spies banned in all games Byz Banned in all games Medi and further Classical- No planting on Bronze or Horse I would also consider banning oracle in Anc games Liberalism in Medi and Renni Music in Medi Another might be if you loose your only city to a warrior you report all and we scrap the game. As these ideas are more unofficial and can't be enforced literally, we can agree to this set of rules before we start by having the title of the game say something like. Ladder Teamer Ape Rules Ape Ape
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Jan 20, 2008 17:05:07 GMT -5
The new league works off the Glicko2 system for all the skill calculations, in duel, cton/ffa, and teamers, including clan registered teamers. You can read the basics of the system here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glicko_rating_systemresearch.microsoft.com/mlp/apg/FAQ.aspxRight now all clan players are listed by there skill and other stats, so seeing who are the best or worst in each clan will not be hard. Right now Clans are only ranked by there win/loss record with the average skill listed as well. Using the Glicko system on clans as a whole won't work very well as clans that only play the CCC will have there skill level vastly effected by the Glicko systems RD value. We can come up with a Clan specific skill rating system but as clans are an extension of the basic reporting code we would have to redo a lot of code to make this happen, so it's not something that will happen soon as I don't want to delay the release of the league, but the development team will discuss what we can do for clans in the long run. Ideas such as Gefs are welcome. CS
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Jan 20, 2008 17:18:38 GMT -5
As for what games are played and how they are played, DTA, is right, there is no practical way for the Admin team to dictate to the league players what games they must play or must not play....and trying to do so would likely have a worse effect on the ladder than shuffle teamers.
But if people have ideas about how we can effect people's attitudes in a positive fashion with statistics or other passive mechanisms we will be glad to listen to your ideas.
CS
|
|
|
Post by Bantams on Jan 20, 2008 17:28:30 GMT -5
ok heres my final post
1: teamers usually end up wasting 1 hour of my life and get scrapped!
2: gamespy is worse now than it was in wl
3: cu in civ rev maybe
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Jan 20, 2008 17:49:07 GMT -5
If people are doing shuffle teamers because normal teamers take to long, the only way to solve that is if we made rules that took the player/captain selection out of the hands of the players involved.
I'm not sure if this would actually make the situation better or worse, but the player skill on the new league should actually mean alot more than it did on cases.
So in theory we could hard code in the rules that the two highest skilled players will be the captains, and that the next two skilled players will be the next two picked...etc....etc
To me this seems a bit draconian, but it is really what is required then it's a possibility.
Thoughts?
CS
|
|
|
Post by TheBadSeed on Jan 20, 2008 19:47:58 GMT -5
Ok, so, GEF seems to be saying that ladder teamers should be for clans only. I think thats a terrible idea, here are my reasons.
1. Clans are, and should always be a separate entity from the ladder. The CCC is based on clans, but the ladder is not. You can still host clan based games on the ladder, but they definitely should be a requirement.
2. Many people, myself included, don't join clans for various reasons. Personally, I dont because I work weekends and I'm never available for the CCC, so theres no point in my mind of plugging up someone's roster if I can't play in the event that the clans are formed for.
3. This would create negative growth in ladder membership. If people have to be clanned to join ladder teamers, how are newer players to learn, and how are established players to get to know the skills of the unclanned players? Team games are completely different than ctons, occs, etc. and ladder teamers are completely different than non-ladder teamers.
|
|
|
Post by TheBadSeed on Jan 20, 2008 20:14:44 GMT -5
If people are doing shuffle teamers because normal teamers take to long, the only way to solve that is if we made rules that took the player/captain selection out of the hands of the players involved. I'm not sure if this would actually make the situation better or worse, but the player skill on the new league should actually mean alot more than it did on cases. So in theory we could hard code in the rules that the two highest skilled players will be the captains, and that the next two skilled players will be the next two picked...etc....etc To me this seems a bit draconian, but it is really what is required then it's a possibility. Thoughts? CS I think the shuffle teamers are mostly done out of convenience and expedience. Anyone who's ever sat in a staging room getting annoyed at people trash talking, whining about reports from the last game, or who sucks worse than who or who's gayer than who will understand the desire to play the game rather than listen to the drivel. I know plenty of people that would rather leave the game than be captain. I mean, when I'm in a staging room, ranked 4-5, chances are good that I'm top ranked. Problem, though, is that I know, and everyone else in the room knows that there are better players in staging. So, while using ranking might be a good guideline, its not something that should become a rule. There are a million factors in civ that are more or less random, or based on percentages. Your land, your civ, your luck, etc. While I agree that someone's skill is always the biggest factor, its far from the only factor. We've all lost 95% battles, and we've all won 5% battles, and sometimes, those change the course of the game. This isn't chess. If all things were equal between players, and percentages were always reflective of a win or a loss, then I have no doubt that there would be someone with a 90%+ win ratio. It would be boring, though. When was the last time you spent hours each night for weeks and months playing chess? The shuffle is just one more act of randomness and luck. I'd always like to play on balanced teams, but I'd also like to never play with germany and ethiopia vs zulu and egypt in an ancient. However, getting in that situation and adapting makes you a better player. If people want to play the random shuffle, so be it. You always have the choice of not joining that game. btw- Bobby Fisher died a couple days ago.
|
|
|
Post by kurdape on Jan 20, 2008 20:21:05 GMT -5
I agree TBS i would not want people to be kicked from games because they were or were not in a particular clan. I just wanted to see more diversity in the game play. When we play clan vs clan we usually mimic one of the ccc events. As these events cover all eras and many maps we play many different things.
I have never been a big fan of TBG SS games so anything that breaks up the monotony is a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Jan 20, 2008 20:54:38 GMT -5
Well I agree I will never be in favour of team games being relegated to just clans. Clans are a healthy part of the MP community but they are not everything.
Unfortunately getting non-clan team games working is also an issue, I'm not sure why this has been so hard for the Civ4 MP community to come to grips on. In Civ3 running a team tournament was never hard, and while some time was spent in the Staging room picking teams, it was not excessive and people were no so concerned over winning or losing as long as it was a hard fought game. In Civ4 getting any team tournament of the ground other than COT's and the CCC is almost impossible, our TD's can only run 1v1 tournaments to date. And normal ladder teamers are becoming either private games or shuffle teamers since the normal "playground" method of teamers has become so painful because of peoples behavour that they have become virtually extinct. I think this is a sad statement of the maturity level on the ladder right now, and never should have happened in the first place if people treated everyone else with respect.
I don't think that me standing up on my soap box is going to solve this problem I think that only the players can change the trends that the ladder goes threw, players created this situation in the first place and they have the power to turn it around. In fact it doesn't take that many players doing this to have an immediate effect. If a few senior players were to lead the way and show that there are still mature gentlemanly players willing to put good sportsmanship at the same level as competition then we still have hope.
So I challenge everyone to do this, this is your league, it's future is in your hands.
CS
|
|
|
Post by kurdape on Jan 21, 2008 7:46:47 GMT -5
With GameSpy being so bad lately about one in 3 games don't start. So spending 30 min getting people in your teamer, picking teams, picking civs, and then getting eveyone to agree on a map can be time consuming. Then you have a %25-%33 chance of your game not starting. Now you start the process all over again.
On another note, advanced start games look pretty cool. Unfortunately waiting 20 minutes for players to spend their points can be a drag too.
Industrial, Modern, and Future eras are fun too. Problem is you can kill Newbs quickly here with ease. If we are going to play these eras we need to figure out a way to stay alive in the early going. Perhaps a 10 or 20 turn peace start is in order. We are missing out on almost half the game by never taking advantage of these other eras. If you only play TBG SS games you are missing out on %90 of the game.
Ape
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jan 21, 2008 8:20:24 GMT -5
The issue here is rather simple; There are 2 types of people on this ladder:
1) Those that what serious competition from this game, i.e. clan wars, obtianing rank, reports, in depth strategy debates, etc 2) Those that play this as a recreational pass time, i.e. people that are working, maybe have kids - for whatever reason can only spend 2-12 hours a week.
Camp 1 currently represents 15-20% of the ladder but 50-60% of the "game reports" and camp 2 vice-versa.
Camp 2 for this reason wants to get the games started as soon as possible, thus random shuffle with known settings or ctons etc. Time wasted could result in not enough time to play at all.
Neither camp is big enough to fly solo, at any one time in the lobby, thus we have this divide!
Not sure there is a happy medium.
|
|
|
Post by Lestat on Jan 21, 2008 10:53:09 GMT -5
ok heres my final post 1: teamers usually end up wasting 1 hour of my life and get scrapped! 2: gamespy is worse now than it was in wl 3: cu in civ rev maybe Spamtu come back... I noticed gs-budy list is strange. When im Lestat i was unable to add some new budies and budy list refreshed slow. When I was TheGreatVampire i havent probs with GS and budies. Then Im Lestat again and i deleted 50 old non active budies.After deleting Im able to add new buddies but gs and budies list are slow again. I quess number of budies is reason for budy gs probs. If programers put that names in limited memory variable its big prob.
|
|
nicoya1
Warrior
Tourney Director
C4PTD
Posts: 253
|
Post by nicoya1 on Jan 21, 2008 21:18:57 GMT -5
diff is that in civ 3 you caould still win if you lost a player in ur team early. thats why ppl could pick teams quickly. in civ 4 unfornutly if you some 1 early is very very hard to keep up and win
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Jan 21, 2008 22:26:17 GMT -5
With GameSpy being so bad lately about one in 3 games don't start. So spending 30 min getting people in your teamer, picking teams, picking civs, and then getting eveyone to agree on a map can be time consuming. Then you have a %25-%33 chance of your game not starting. Now you start the process all over again. On another note, advanced start games look pretty cool. Unfortunately waiting 20 minutes for players to spend their points can be a drag too. Industrial, Modern, and Future eras are fun too. Problem is you can kill Newbs quickly here with ease. If we are going to play these eras we need to figure out a way to stay alive in the early going. Perhaps a 10 or 20 turn peace start is in order. We are missing out on almost half the game by never taking advantage of these other eras. If you only play TBG SS games you are missing out on %90 of the game. Ape Well GS is one thing that I have little inflence over, but perhaps it's time we started using DirectIP games as the league standard, or even revisted the issue of making Hamachi an offical league system, thoughts? CS
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jan 22, 2008 7:05:26 GMT -5
The problem is not gamespy, and im not sure they people always piont the finger at them. The issue is very rarely connecting ... I connect to games about 85% of the time.
When vanilla civ was first launced i used to connect about 15% of the time,yet we were told time and time agian this is a GS issue. We are still using GS and connection is alot better!
The problem is with games bigger then 6-8 players, there is a 80% chance the timmer will freeze on the opening turn and there will be no vote screen. So to force a vote screen people will keep droping, which works only some of the time. If this dont work, then we rehost, and as ape says, if you have to pick teams, argue, etc etc all over agian by the time the game works it can easily waste 90 mins. Even if you dont pick teams, it still annoying and time consuming.
Another very common problem is "stuck on finishing", when you launch the game, or rejoin the game there is a fairly high chance the game will get stuck on finishing - This too sounds like a game issue rather then a server issue.
Another annoying bug is when more then 1 person tries to join, the game doesnt allow them to ... so you have to go back into the lobby, wait like 30 secs for the game list to refresh and try agian.
At the very least the game needs a feature that allows the host to force a vote screen, i.e. the system checks whose in the game if someone is missing a vote screen appears.
DirectIP has not, or will not, catch on, as these these are game issues and not GS issues, well most of the time IMHO.
These issues also play a major part in the ladder not growing, people are put off by all the waiting around, most the of decent open players i speak to know about the ladder they just cant bare all the waiting about, rehosts etc.
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Jan 22, 2008 9:32:18 GMT -5
Tony I can't really see how the connection issues can just effect ladder games only, the same issues must also effect open games as well. Now being picky about having even teams would be a ladder only phenomonom, but to me as long as it's not as exceesive as it had been, those waits are a reasonable trade off for having a fun game with balanced teams.
Ladder players in the past anyway have always been more educated about connection issues and opening ports etc, and this has always meant that ladder games generally less painful than the average open game.
There will always be people that don't want to take part in the ladder but those reasons are usually social in nature not technical.
CS
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jan 22, 2008 10:58:48 GMT -5
Tony I can't really see how the connection issues can just effect ladder games only, the same issues must also effect open games as well. Now being picky about having even teams would be a ladder only phenomonom, but to me as long as it's not as exceesive as it had been, those waits are a reasonable trade off for having a fun game with balanced teams. Ladder players in the past anyway have always been more educated about connection issues and opening ports etc, and this has always meant that ladder games generally less painful than the average open game. There will always be people that don't want to take part in the ladder but those reasons are usually social in nature not technical. CS Because with an open game, when it freezes on turn 1 you exit to lobby, and join the next one, until one finally starts. They are shuffled 99% of the time and therefore has next do delay, as soon as you get 6/8/10 players. Infact if you dont check in within a minute of having the right number of players the host will boot you LOL. Ladder games on the other hand suffer alot more from these issues, firstly if the game freezes on turn one you "give it some time" after this someone will say "OK host rejoins". When this fails and there still isnt a vote screen the "I'll drop next" scenarios comes into play ... then the next person drops, then the next one, etc etc. At this point a vote screen might come up, if not this time is wasted. This process is repated until the game begins. But some times, as i mentioned above, even if the vote screen does come up you get the "I cant join, im stuck on finishing" problem. Ladder can require too much patience for some peoples liking - But on the plus side, i dont think it has anything to do with ladder management.
|
|