Arvcran
Worker
Tourney Director
Remember the purpose of CIV / BtS is enjoyment, entertainment, and hobby!
Posts: 181
|
Post by Arvcran on Oct 14, 2006 17:10:44 GMT -5
When playing team ladder games I'd like for there to be a different method of choosing a captain.
Historically, captains are being chosen by rank.
In an effective ranking system this would equate to choosing the 'more successfull' player. In reality most know that rank does not necessarily and often does not reflect this as there are obvious better choices within the staging area.
I do see the benefit of deterring players from obtaining or keeping high ranks that are not effective captains. But sure there must be a better way of handling this.
I would like to suggest we use either a quick voting standard or chose by win% and/or skill standard rather than using the current choose by rank standard.
The quick vote is essentially having two players 'elected by majority vote (simple).
The use of stats may be my second choice but surely combining win% and skill rating is better than using rank? Even using one or the other may be a better reflection of a player's 'success rating' than using rank.
I leave it to you to deliberate these ideas and hopefully come up with a better standard than we currently have.
|
|
|
Post by DustyDragoon on Oct 14, 2006 21:58:54 GMT -5
Don't really understand the problem here. If a person does not wish to captain for whatever reason, I don't see why the others in the game could not agree on another captain. Got to agree with Arvkran as to the fact that the ranking system is not the best indicator as to who would be the best leader. When I played the civ 3 ladder teamers, quite often I was picked to be captain purely on my rank. But most of the time I declined due to the fact I was not comfortable picking people that I was not sure as to their skill in playing a teamer. In order to have a good game you needed not only someone all could trust to lead but also someone knowledgable of how a teamer needs to be run. To force a player to take a leadership role and one that obviously he/she is uncomfortable with may ruin the game. Also if players are resetting their rank (and I am by no means saying they shouldn't) because of the fact they are that uncomfortable with captaining, this is not helping the game either as now you do not have an indicator for the person that is captaining. Just my thoughts
|
|
Arvcran
Worker
Tourney Director
Remember the purpose of CIV / BtS is enjoyment, entertainment, and hobby!
Posts: 181
|
Post by Arvcran on Oct 14, 2006 22:08:42 GMT -5
Yes - good point about captaining when you are faced with unknown players and very little stats to measure them by.
|
|
|
Post by churchill1 on Oct 16, 2006 19:35:51 GMT -5
I don't like the captain by rank system either. Sometimes it makes fair captains, but only half of the time or so. Voting on it might work, may be we could try that.
|
|
|
Post by tamijo on Oct 17, 2006 4:50:14 GMT -5
I seen this too often Highrank is the best player second rank is a medicore player highrank get first pick, he pick the second best player (or even better than him, but with low rank) second player get 2 picks, but only medicore players left. You might now be able to guess the outcome !
|
|
|
Post by tamijo on Oct 17, 2006 4:51:59 GMT -5
Even shuffle is more fair, noone can intentionaly get a sure win on shuffle. Is down to luck. But offcourse can become extreme unfair
|
|
Arvcran
Worker
Tourney Director
Remember the purpose of CIV / BtS is enjoyment, entertainment, and hobby!
Posts: 181
|
Post by Arvcran on Oct 17, 2006 7:45:00 GMT -5
I seen this too often Highrank is the best player second rank is a medicore player highrank get first pick, he pick the second best player (or even better than him, but with low rank) second player get 2 picks, but only medicore players left. You might now be able to guess the outcome ! Sounds like you agree with having a vote or using some other 'measuring' criteria such as skill or win %?
|
|
|
Post by Bantams on Oct 17, 2006 8:17:06 GMT -5
Surely the Guy with the most wins or the one you know as a very good captain in the past should be the Captain if it cant be decided on Rank alone thats my opinion anyway Or just go shuffle if all are pretty good players in the team I prefer this to waiting 2 hours to pick teams anyday
|
|
|
Post by Speaker on Oct 21, 2006 4:19:56 GMT -5
It already takes too long to pick teams when the two highest ranks are automatically captains. Trying to come to consensus on who the "best" two captains would be will only extend staging time. I'd rather spend my time playing the game, not haggling over teams.
Shuffle is a poor option, in my opinion, because Civs must be random. Random civs, in most cases, = lame.
|
|
|
Post by churchill1 on Oct 21, 2006 7:45:00 GMT -5
It already takes too long to pick teams when the two highest ranks are automatically captains. Trying to come to consensus on who the "best" two captains would be will only extend staging time. I'd rather spend my time playing the game, not haggling over teams. Shuffle is a poor option, in my opinion, because Civs must be random. Random civs, in most cases, = lame. Well I think it's such a shame that when there are clearly 2 players that are better than the others in the staging room that people can't agree they should be captains. That is mind numbingly obvious IMO. And I agree about random civs. But shuffle is such a cool novelty, its crazy fun. And it makes the game more interesting somehow if u are a civ u totally wouldnt choose. Course u might get screwed from time to time but it's still fun.
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Oct 22, 2006 0:34:41 GMT -5
two captains. # 1 and # 2 . # 2 makes two teams of the non captain players. #1 chooses what team he would like to captain- aka Elrad style. Not so tough folks.
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Oct 22, 2006 16:33:15 GMT -5
Well I think it's such a shame that when there are clearly 2 players that are better than the others in the staging room that people can't agree they should be captains. That is mind numbingly obvious IMO. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Someone you think is a great player someone else may think is just a good player. My picks as a captain could be totally different from someone else's placed in my same position. In the end, when Captain 1 gets the last pick, and Captain 2 gets 2 of the top 3 non-captain players ... things should balance out pretty well. A team of 2 or 3 All-Stars and a couple of marginal players has about a 50/50 chance of beating an all around pretty solid team with maybe only 1 All-Star but at max only 1 marginal player. Isn't a 50/50 chance what we're striving for here with even teams?
|
|
|
Post by churchill1 on Oct 22, 2006 17:14:42 GMT -5
I take your point, but sometimes it is abundantly clear to everyone.
|
|
|
Post by swissy on Oct 28, 2006 6:36:17 GMT -5
Shuffle is a poor option, in my opinion, because Civs must be random. Random civs, in most cases, = lame. Random civs are not required for using the Shuffle teams. I've played many non-ladder teamers with shuffle teams and picking civs. Once played a 4v4 on TBG where the other team was two Shaka and 2 Ghenghis. And you are correct, random civs in a teamer is lame. Nothing makes a crappier game than having team one being Shaka, Cyrus and Julius, and team two being Medhed, Mao and Roosevelt.
|
|
Arvcran
Worker
Tourney Director
Remember the purpose of CIV / BtS is enjoyment, entertainment, and hobby!
Posts: 181
|
Post by Arvcran on Oct 30, 2006 9:33:01 GMT -5
Well I think it's such a shame that when there are clearly 2 players that are better than the others in the staging room that people can't agree they should be captains. That is mind numbingly obvious IMO. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Someone you think is a great player someone else may think is just a good player. My picks as a captain could be totally different from someone else's placed in my same position. In the end, when Captain 1 gets the last pick, and Captain 2 gets 2 of the top 3 non-captain players ... things should balance out pretty well. A team of 2 or 3 All-Stars and a couple of marginal players has about a 50/50 chance of beating an all around pretty solid team with maybe only 1 All-Star but at max only 1 marginal player. Isn't a 50/50 chance what we're striving for here with even teams? Mookie I am not certain I follow your logic here. (based on my premise of rank does not equal better player) If the first captain has higest rank but is clearly an average player compared to the second ranked and legitimate captain player then the 2nd team will have a huge advantage - no?
|
|
|
Post by churchill1 on Oct 30, 2006 11:41:20 GMT -5
If the first captain has higest rank but is clearly an average player compared to the second ranked and legitimate captain player then the 2nd team will have a huge advantage - no? Exactly. And it's so easy to solve if the players in the staging room have just an insy little bit of common sense. Sometimes they do and it makes for fair teams and a fun game.
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Oct 30, 2006 12:43:33 GMT -5
If someone that most everyone in the staging room feels is unqualified to be a captain happens to have one of the highest two ranks, then by all means someone else should volunteer to act as the second captain. To force someone else to be a captain is just silly ... I see players asking to pass on being captain so often that to try to force someone else (who probably doesn't want to be captain either) isn't fair.
In the end, if you feel that you're going to get a raw deal by having a weaker captain in the game and you're going to get stuck on his or her team, then by all means step up and volunteer to be a captain.
|
|
|
Post by churchill1 on Oct 30, 2006 16:40:01 GMT -5
If someone that most everyone in the staging room feels is unqualified to be a captain happens to have one of the highest two ranks, then by all means someone else should volunteer to act as the second captain. To force someone else to be a captain is just silly ... I see players asking to pass on being captain so often that to try to force someone else (who probably doesn't want to be captain either) isn't fair. In the end, if you feel that you're going to get a raw deal by having a weaker captain in the game and you're going to get stuck on his or her team, then by all means step up and volunteer to be a captain. Yes that's ideal. But as one of the best players in the room I feel it's your duty to cap, so you should be volunteering. You know that if you do it will make the fairest teams - isn't that what people want?
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Oct 30, 2006 18:41:28 GMT -5
We've already discussed the problems of coming up with "fair" teams. It's hard to agree upon who are the two best players in the game, it's hard to make two teams that are completely balanced, etc. We do the best we can: the first captain gets the last pick in an attempt to even things out.
We've picked teams in this manner for nearly a year now and it seems to be only very recently that a handful of players have been crying very loudly about it. Back when I was a newer player, if I had a high rank I sucked it up and captained, even against some of the best players on the Ladder at the time. You get high rank, you captain, simple as that. If you don't want to captain, don't get a high rank. Like I said, if you don't feel that a captain is suitable for a game you're in, volunteer to replace him or her, don't try to force it upon someone else.
The two highest ranks are the two captains for a reason -- everyone (except captain 1) in the game gets a shot at moving up on the ladder. If you want to tell me that rank means nothing, then fine, keep saying it -- however your actions illustrate the completely opposite point. If rank means nothing, then playing a game with teams that may or may not be completely balanced shouldn't be an issue -- if you lose, no big deal, you don't care about rank, right?
Finally, I've played on so many teams where people cry so hard that there's no way we can lose, and guess what, I've lost a lot of those games! And in contrast, many times where my team is clearly at a disadvantage skill-wise (in my opinion), we've been able to pull out a victory. Even 100% RNG in Civ4 can lose, so ...
I'd appreciate it if everyone would stop crying about who the captains are. There are a lot of great players on this ladder who are qualified to captain against anyone. For whatever reason, a handful of them bitch and moan every time they have to captain against certain other players. I for one am sick and tired of it, and it has really taken a lot of the enjoyment out of the game for me.
|
|
Arvcran
Worker
Tourney Director
Remember the purpose of CIV / BtS is enjoyment, entertainment, and hobby!
Posts: 181
|
Post by Arvcran on Oct 30, 2006 21:57:02 GMT -5
I'd appreciate it if everyone would stop crying about who the captains are. There are a lot of great players on this ladder who are qualified to captain against anyone. For whatever reason, a handful of them bitch and moan every time they have to captain against certain other players. I for one am sick and tired of it, and it has really taken a lot of the enjoyment out of the game for me. You made some good points Mookie! On the one above: The reason I posted this thread was to suggest a method to replace or add a way of choosing captains to avoid the arguments. I would rather see more people enjoy the games than take them so seriously IMHO. Rank is not meaningless, but it is not a true indicator of who, out of the few that are in the staging area, are best players for captaining. I am merely throwing an idea out there to make a simple vote of 10 people to choose the two captains if the rank method yields some controversy. Does that not sound reasonable? Ultimately I just like being able to play teamers with good players and have a competitive chance to use the strategies and tactics to achieve a victory - having a respected and competent captain goes a long way to-wards that goal. Having said that no one should 'force' anyone to be captain if they are not willing. Why? One would ask, because they are supposed to enjoy the game too!
|
|