|
Post by Earl Harewood on Nov 1, 2007 12:27:23 GMT -5
Well, if were taking ideas still, heres two cents. The only problem I see with this Earl is if your first out in a Cton style game and the person who reports wins, how long do you have to wait to verify your game? Anybody from a Free For All match can report it, but they MUST MUST MUST first check to see if it has already been posted. If there is a double post of the same match then either player can delete theirs. A warning message which says "Please check that this match hasn't already been reported before filling out this form" would be a good idea I suppose you could have an inbox when you log in that would automatically message you saying something like, "You have unverified matches waiting" Then provide a link to the match waiting to be verified with the option to challenge. That could work as well if it were possible. Also, for this to work you would assume that the player who played, plays everyday or he logs onto the ladder site in a 24 hour period. Under our current system matches need to be reported within 24 hours of the match ending, what i suggested is no different, if someone plays a ladder match they have to report it end of story. I fail to see how you managed to make any kind of argument as to the contrary. I like the idea of an inbox on the website similar to Private Messages on a forum.
|
|
|
Post by Earl Harewood on Nov 1, 2007 12:50:01 GMT -5
Just had an amazing idea, the Host of the game should be encouraged to be the one to fill out the report which everyone else then needs to verify. Having one designated person for filling out the report before the match starts would fine too. The report doesn't neccessarily need to be fiuled before the game so long as it's filed pretty soon after, if one person doesn't file it then another person from the game can also.
|
|
marr
Worker
Posts: 169
|
Post by marr on Nov 1, 2007 14:40:27 GMT -5
Maybe I am not understanding by what you mean of varifying?
Example, your playing an ironman, so the host of the game has to be the one who fills out the report? Is this before or after the game? If its after, would we have to wait till the end of the game to varify it?
|
|
|
Post by Earl Harewood on Nov 1, 2007 15:28:49 GMT -5
In your example any person in that ironman can fill out the report, let's say the first person to be eliminated filled out the report. He would then go to the website, log in, click on "report match" and then click on FFA. He would then select how many players participated and sort them into two columns, those that he beat and those that beat him, in this case all players beat him so he only fills out the one section. the match is posted to the board and all other participants have to log in and verify the result. (spurred by a notification email) They in turn have to fill out who they beat and who beat them and they can also upload their end screenshots.
that clear things up for you?
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Nov 1, 2007 16:40:57 GMT -5
Anybody from a Free For All match can report it, but they MUST MUST MUST first check to see if it has already been posted. If there is a double post of the same match then either player can delete theirs. A warning message which says "Please check that this match hasn't already been reported before filling out this form" would be a good idea Well, i guess it isn't hard to make an automatic check if a game with exactly the same players was reported recently.
|
|
|
Post by Earl Harewood on Nov 1, 2007 17:17:15 GMT -5
"A game consisting of the exact same players has been reported within the last 24 hours are you sure you wish to continue?" Sounds good to me
|
|
marr
Worker
Posts: 169
|
Post by marr on Nov 1, 2007 22:54:00 GMT -5
Things are cleared up for me Earl, thanks. Good idea btw.
|
|
Slaughter
Settler
God save the screen!
Posts: 48
|
Post by Slaughter on Nov 2, 2007 2:57:19 GMT -5
In your example any person in that ironman can fill out the report, let's say the first person to be eliminated filled out the report. He would then go to the website, log in, click on "report match" and then click on FFA. He would then select how many players participated and sort them into two columns, those that he beat and those that beat him, in this case all players beat him so he only fills out the one section. the match is posted to the board and all other participants have to log in and verify the result. (spurred by a notification email) They in turn have to fill out who they beat and who beat them and they can also upload their end screenshots. that clear things up for you? i was rather thinking to really have only 1 report for the whole game. why would you need every player's report about who he beat and who beat him? with the final standings in the one and only report at the end of the game by only one player you can see who beat whom easily if the report shows the full placements. something like 1. player A 2. player D 3. player B 4. player C 5. player E shows everything needed to calculate all missing parts. in a 5 player cton that would save 4 reports and 16 confirmation emails/messages (i'd rather not like to explain it for a 6 player epic with 10 benchmarks ). still thinking about how many confirmations are needed to have the match results counted, i was thinking about half of the players on the opposing team or half of the total players in a cton/ffa/epic - i guess in a 5 player cton with one player reporting it would be enough to have a confirmation by 2 of the 4 other players, but not sure yet. and to clear the wins/losses thing up, you only get 1 win OR loss for the whole cton, in the above example player B won't get 2 wins and 2 losses, but only 1 win OR 1 loss depending on his skill gain/loss. let's say player B is not really high skilled and player C, E are both very high skilled players who just had an aweful day losing badly. if now player A, D are also lower skilled than C, E player B will gain more skill for this cton than he loses, in that case this cton is counted as a win for him. if you switch skill levels and player B now is high skilled and all other have low skill, his 3rd place would certainly mean that he loses more skill to player C, E than gaining from player A, D what makes up for a loss for him. in theory there can also happen a situation with really extreme skill values, where a super high skilled player (like 3000 skill) would even lose skill if he wins a cton against 4 supernoobs (with 300 skill each). those unrealistic and extreme examples will be filtered with the global rule that first place always gets a win (and gains skill) and last place always gets a loss (and loses skill). i eventually post some more info on the actual skill calculating mechanism later. and thanks for your help, your ideas are really good - keep them flowing. we will try to consider everything and get a good overall solution, but we may not be able to integrate everything mentioned into the final product. regards, slaugh
|
|
|
Post by Bantams on Nov 2, 2007 7:32:44 GMT -5
a downloads section for all the mods and maps and patches on the main page would be cool
|
|
|
Post by Earl Harewood on Nov 2, 2007 9:54:19 GMT -5
I was rather thinking to really have only 1 report for the whole game. why would you need every player's report about who he beat and who beat him? with the final standings in the one and only report at the end of the game by only one player you can see who beat whom easily if the report shows the full placements. That sounds rather more sensible than having a crapload of verifications and email notifications. So long as it is a rock solid system then all is good in the land of Harewood. Still thinking about how many confirmations are needed to have the match results counted, i was thinking about half of the players on the opposing team or half of the total players in a cton/ffa/epic - i guess in a 5 player cton with one player reporting it would be enough to have a confirmation by 2 of the 4 other players, but not sure yet. That sounds like a great addition in my view it was one of my earlier ideas but i decided against mentioning it so it seems we are on the same wavelength here. Perhaps we can have a system where an email notification is sent once the match is reported and included is a link to the gameboard where they have a limited period of time to dispute the match, say 3 days? and to clear the wins/losses thing up, you only get 1 win OR loss for the whole cton, in the above example player B won't get 2 wins and 2 losses, but only 1 win OR 1 loss depending on his skill gain/loss. let's say player B is not really high skilled and player C, E are both very high skilled players who just had an aweful day losing badly. if now player A, D are also lower skilled than C, E player B will gain more skill for this cton than he loses, in that case this cton is counted as a win for him. if you switch skill levels and player B now is high skilled and all other have low skill, his 3rd place would certainly mean that he loses more skill to player C, E than gaining from player A, D what makes up for a loss for him. in theory there can also happen a situation with really extreme skill values, where a super high skilled player (like 3000 skill) would even lose skill if he wins a cton against 4 supernoobs (with 300 skill each). those unrealistic and extreme examples will be filtered with the global rule that first place always gets a win (and gains skill) and last place always gets a loss (and loses skill). i eventually post some more info on the actual skill calculating mechanism later. Sounds like a brilliant idea to me, this will truly make the ladder ranking system reflect the nature of civ4 and will be fair and closer to the truth great work. I look forward to picking apart the individual mechanics of the skill system. and thanks for your help, your ideas are really good - keep them flowing. we will try to consider everything and get a good overall solution, but we may not be able to integrate everything mentioned into the final product. You're welcome One last thing, I have a request to make. Would it be possible to have a seperate "ranking" system alongside the skill rating system. This would award exp on a sliding scale for wins and will penalise exp for bad behaviour. This extra statistic would help in identifying veteran players and help people find suitable players for a sub. It would also be a little prestige thing where you will have a rank like "General" or something and then have a little symbol which represents that rank which will get increasingly impressive over time. People love cool little images lol just an idea
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Nov 2, 2007 13:45:02 GMT -5
i hope u guys make it so that if ppl can't rank hog by only playing 1 game a week with topped ranked people. What would suck more then seeing a noob in the top 20 is seeing the same people in the top 20 that hardly play at all cause they don't want to loose there spot. I could see a clan in the future trying to keep all the high ranks to themselfs. I hope this don't happen.
|
|
Raven420
Settler
...quoth the Raven, "Nevermore!"
Posts: 1
|
Post by Raven420 on Nov 2, 2007 15:02:08 GMT -5
I've got my own 2 cents to add here: One page that allows someone to report a match 'that caters to all game types' (i.e. teamer, cton) leaves no room for future game types that may arise. When we were playing civ3 ffa, did anyone see 'cton-style' coming? Just thinking of leaving some room for growth, without locking everyone into the same few game types. Interestingly, I am drawn to the idea of the host 'registering' the game on the ladder website before launching. The host would be responsible for choosing the type of game (cton, 3v3v3, duel, etc) and the number of players or teams involved. The game will be assigned a number (game ID?) and a link could be generated, so the host can give the other players either the game ID or the link itself. The other players will click the link or search by game ID, then register themselves as players in this game, much like what occurs with tournaments on case's now. Once all players have registered, the host launches the game. I like Hare's idea of one person being responsible for making the report. I think it should either be the winner's responsibility for filing the report. All participants would need to verify/agree with the report before it takes effect and officially posts to the ladder standings. This will ensure that reports are not made willy nilly whenever, and all players in the game agree. If there IS a disagreement with the way a game was reported, there should be an option on the report page to email an admin (optionally to upload a screenshot as well) with what the dispute is, what the reporting error is, or why the player disagrees with the report. The winner will definitely be there until the end of the game, and hence will know ALL the standings (who beat who, in what order players were eliminated, final point standings). In the event of a teamer, one person on the winning team will be chosen to file the report. Since the game was set up previously, and was assigned a game ID, it is easy to track. Clicking the 'Report a Match' link should give you a field to put in the game ID and report the standings. Once the report is made, all participants (except the poster) can get an email notifying them that they need to verify a report. This email can contain the link to the game they need to report, saving them time for having to search for that specific game by game ID (which they could also do). Players have 24 hours from the timestamp on the email to verify the report. Optionally.....should players fail to verify the report within 24 hours (or no disputes have been filed), then the game could be 'accepted' and the official standings become reflected automatically. Reports cannot be disputed any later than 23 hours 59 minutes after the initial report is made by the winner. This gets the Admins off the hook for having to do non-reports This, of course, undermines the entire 'players must verify the report' system... however, NOT DISPUTING a report could act as consent that the player accepts the report that was made (since they would be notified by email and therefore 'know about it').
|
|
|
Post by Earl Harewood on Nov 2, 2007 20:54:04 GMT -5
One page that allows someone to report a match 'that caters to all game types' (i.e. teamer, cton) leaves no room for future game types that may arise. When we were playing civ3 ffa, did anyone see 'cton-style' coming? Just thinking of leaving some room for growth, without locking everyone into the same few game types. The only thing i can think of which would need a different reporting system would be a one-sided teamer, e.g. 4v3 or 5v4. we should prepare code for this eventuality also. Other than that there isn't anything we could possibly come up with imho. Interestingly, I am drawn to the idea of the host 'registering' the game on the ladder website before launching. The host would be responsible for choosing the type of game (cton, 3v3v3, duel, etc) and the number of players or teams involved. The game will be assigned a number (game ID?) and a link could be generated, so the host can give the other players either the game ID or the link itself. The other players will click the link or search by game ID, then register themselves as players in this game, much like what occurs with tournaments on case's now. Once all players have registered, the host launches the game. I too like the idea of having the host set up the game on the website before the match, and i believe that only people who are logged in on the website can be added to a game, this would prevent people who aren't around having their skill ratings leeched from in cooked reports. It would also mean that you could see how many ladder players are online and searching for a match at any particular time. so you could think "well there's nobody around i probably wont get a game maybe i'll go play SP" lol Another idea Raven and I have just discussed is the host setting up the match and the winner of the match finalising the results. What will happen then an email notification will be sent out to all players apart from the winner who finalised the match, and they will need to verify the results with a 2/3rds majority being needed for the match to be reported to the ladder. So the general procedure for all ladder players seeking a ladder match would be that they all need to log into the website first. Could be a bad idea because it requires EFFORT something that people playing civ4 are seriously lacking.. I have great fears that people will just reject it out of hand without even giving it a try. P.S OMG CLAN RANKINGS hell yes HELLL YEAHHH please implement a clan ranking system that will take an average of all a clan's skill ratings and then rank them, so having too many crap players dragging your skill rating down would be a bad thing. Also some extra clan statistics like how active clans are as a whole or favourite game types etc
|
|
|
Post by Death to ALL on Nov 2, 2007 20:57:23 GMT -5
i hope u guys make it so that if ppl can't rank hog by only playing 1 game a week with topped ranked people. What would suck more then seeing a noob in the top 20 is seeing the same people in the top 20 that hardly play at all cause they don't want to loose there spot. I could see a clan in the future trying to keep all the high ranks to themselfs. I hope this don't happen. I don't remember the exact numbers right now, but we have put in a system to reduce players skill level for being inactive. It is harsher on the top X number of players and lessens up some after that. It also has a bottom limit on what it will reduce to, so if you have to take some time off for a while you will be at the bottom of the ladder, but not completely screwed with a 0 skill point level.
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Nov 2, 2007 22:00:55 GMT -5
i hope u guys make it so that if ppl can't rank hog by only playing 1 game a week with topped ranked people. What would suck more then seeing a noob in the top 20 is seeing the same people in the top 20 that hardly play at all cause they don't want to loose there spot. I could see a clan in the future trying to keep all the high ranks to themselfs. I hope this don't happen. We plan to build in a "skill fade" system that lowers a persons skill after being inactive for a set time period, to deal with that issue. CS
|
|
Slaughter
Settler
God save the screen!
Posts: 48
|
Post by Slaughter on Nov 3, 2007 7:52:00 GMT -5
a downloads section for all the mods and maps and patches on the main page would be cool that's a good idea, i will definitely add such a section (not sure yet if registered members will have access to upload things too - but i guess it will only be accessible by admins). One last thing, I have a request to make. Would it be possible to have a seperate "ranking" system alongside the skill rating system. This would award exp on a sliding scale for wins and will penalise exp for bad behaviour. This extra statistic would help in identifying veteran players and help people find suitable players for a sub. It would also be a little prestige thing where you will have a rank like "General" or something and then have a little symbol which represents that rank which will get increasingly impressive over time. People love cool little images lol just an idea something like we have for our clan page? ;D well, basically it's not really hard to implement such a ranking, but i see some problems with people trying to destroy other people's reputation. i will bring this to discussion though, but i think this will be one of our last issues to solve, sorry. i hope u guys make it so that if ppl can't rank hog by only playing 1 game a week with topped ranked people. What would suck more then seeing a noob in the top 20 is seeing the same people in the top 20 that hardly play at all cause they don't want to loose there spot. I could see a clan in the future trying to keep all the high ranks to themselfs. I hope this don't happen. like CS and DTA already said there will be a purge system for being inactive similar to that at cases. but the main problem at cases was that you can only reach the top by playing and winning vs #1, if the top player refuses to play you, plays other players so they get you off rank #2 or only plays low ranked players to avoid getting purged, it was impossible to kick him off the hill. with our new skill based system you can reach #1 even if you don't play him directly but other high ranked players and rank #1 does not, since you will gain more skill for your wins as #1 does for playing low skilled players ... at any time you will reach his skill value and bypass him in ranks. rank hogging will be alot more difficult or even impossible over a longer period - or you must be really awesome One page that allows someone to report a match 'that caters to all game types' (i.e. teamer, cton) leaves no room for future game types that may arise. When we were playing civ3 ffa, did anyone see 'cton-style' coming? Just thinking of leaving some room for growth, without locking everyone into the same few game types. i can't imagine what will come in the future or with civ5, but since the page is new and self developed from the first bit, we can change things at any time and add new game types whenever it's needed. once details about new game styles are provided we will start working to implement them. with full access to the code and the server we are able to adopt to any changes that come along and don't have to rely on a static system provided by cases or other league hosting services. Another idea Raven and I have just discussed is the host setting up the match and the winner of the match finalising the results. What will happen then an email notification will be sent out to all players apart from the winner who finalised the match, and they will need to verify the results with a 2/3rds majority being needed for the match to be reported to the ladder. So the general procedure for all ladder players seeking a ladder match would be that they all need to log into the website first. Could be a bad idea because it requires EFFORT something that people playing civ4 are seriously lacking.. I have great fears that people will just reject it out of hand without even giving it a try. it's not decided yet, but we tend to have half of the other team's players in teamers and half of the other players in ctons confirm a match, in teamers i think it's not needed that your own teammates need to verify a match (so a 4v4 would mean 2 players of the opposing team need to verify the game) and in a 5 player cton it should be enough if 2 out of 4 players beside the poster confirm the match. the period after when the report is accepted automatically is not set yet, but if no player 'disputes' the report it will be added to stats after a short time. i guess 24h is a bit too less time since sometimes a match can be reported a bit later (even if it should be reported immediately) and people from different timezones might only be able to verify it next day or have any real life issues so they can only verify it the day after. i think a period of at least 48h or even 3 days should be reasonable. an option would be that players who have open verifications can't report another match themselves. P.S OMG CLAN RANKINGS hell yes HELLL YEAHHH please implement a clan ranking system that will take an average of all a clan's skill ratings and then rank them, so having too many crap players dragging your skill rating down would be a bad thing. Also some extra clan statistics like how active clans are as a whole or favourite game types etc the new league system will of course support clan rankings, which stats are stored is not fully decided, but i think taking every clan member into account is not really what we want - clan rosters fluctuate too much and might not be updated regularly. also we don't want the clan standings to be a ranking of clan member's individual skill but rather show the overall team performance. imho a clan should not be measured by their best or weakest players, there is enough flaming about 'noob' clans or 'elite' clans and we should not 'penalize' clans that bring new players to clan gaming. regards, slaugh
|
|
|
Post by stetson on Nov 3, 2007 11:49:50 GMT -5
Looks exciting so far! I will say this should be much better than the ranking system from Case's Ladder. (Seems ridiculous to me that you don't ever go down from losing a match). I do think using rating systems similar to the Chess or Tennis rating systems would be a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Nov 3, 2007 13:34:12 GMT -5
Looks exciting so far! I will say this should be much better than the ranking system from Case's Ladder. (Seems ridiculous to me that you don't ever go down from losing a match). I do think using rating systems similar to the Chess or Tennis rating systems would be a good idea. We studied at length all the popular rating systems, unfortunately the good chess/checkers systems are still designed for 1v1 games only. so we had to adapt some of these ideas to a game that is much more complex than that. Slaughter will explain how we are running our skill system when he gets a chance. CS
|
|
|
Post by civerdan on Nov 3, 2007 14:12:45 GMT -5
The chess/checkers system doesnt work because rating is so streak dependant as a result. Losing just 1 teamer will plummet your rating.
|
|
|
Post by Death to ALL on Nov 3, 2007 14:59:13 GMT -5
Unless I take a shot at it first. The skill system we have setup currently. We have setup a ante system for this. For each match reported all the players ante in a percent of their skill. This percent is currently set at 10%. This is the same for all game types. The points are then redistributed out to the players base on how they finished. In the case of teamers the points are redistributed to the team as a whole and then evenly split between all team members. The current distribution table is as follows. The numbers on the left are the number of players and the numbers across the top are the placing you finished in. Some examples: A DuelPlayerA - Skill 1500 PlayerB - Skill 1200 They both ante in 10% of their skills for a pool of 270 points(150 + 120) If PlayerA wins: PlayerA - Skill 1500-150+181=1531 PlayerB - Skill 1200-120+89=1169 If PlayerB wins: PlayerA - Skill 1500-150+89=1439 PlayerB - Skill 1200-120+181=1261 From that example you can see you get more points for beating someone higher then you do if lower. Now a Cton/FFA PlayerA - 2500 PlayerB - 2000 PlayerC - 1700 PlayerD - 1200 PlayerE - 1000 The pool in this match is 840(250+200+170+120+100) The players finish in the following order 1 PlayerD - 1200-120+277=1357(win) 2 PlayerB - 2000-200+227=2027(win) 3 PlayerE - 1000-100+168=1068(win) 4 PlayerA - 2500-250+109=2359(lose) 5 PlayerC - 1700-170+59=1589(lose) This example showed also how wins and loses are counted. If you gain you win if you drop you lose. The teamer is done the same way with everyone giving 10% of their skill and redistributed back and then divided evenly between the team members. The epic also takes 10% but instead of giving back all at one time the entire pool is divided by the number of benchmarks and the points are given out based on placing at each benchmark.
|
|