Logo Platform
logo amplifiers simplified

Who would be interested in a long term MP game and a ladder?

Copied to clipboard!
12 years ago
Apr 9, 2013, 1:05:51 PM
I am not too concerned with how it will work on a larger scale as frankly I was thinking of at maybe 8 to 12 people. However, if you want to be more dynamic you don't need negative or decay just use an average, but in tiers, so for example you have net score, number of games, and average score/game. Maybe your ranking is like average score + number of games/4 or something - or you are in ladders based on number of games we have played.
0Send private message
12 years ago
Apr 6, 2013, 4:21:54 PM
Scrangos wrote:
Is there a way to do 70 pt sowers? :P



I'm a newb but I'd be willing to commit to doing ladder for at least 5-10 full games depending on how often their held.



Holding the possibility of alliances is interesting though since it might get people to drop the endless war trait.




Unless 2 of them have it and they're the most advanced races currently? :P Troll them by winning but being ally-less permanently :P



70 point sowers? more like 100 pt smiley: stickouttongue
0Send private message
0Send private message
12 years ago
Apr 7, 2013, 8:49:47 PM
Scrangos wrote:
I've been meaning to ask.. what is the standard galaxy shape?




Disk or Ovoid is the most balanced shapes I believe with Many Constellations. I'd be fine with either.



@All

I think we should start doing polls to decide things like (bidding vs. not bidding) for the ladder.



I think the following polls should be made:

1) Bidding vs. Not Bidding

2) Hero Balance Mod vs. No Mod

3) House Rules Acceptable As Is

4) House Settings Acceptable As Is



Sound good?
0Send private message
12 years ago
Apr 8, 2013, 3:21:16 PM
Yes - and Ovoid I think is the most interesting for 8 players. There are 9 constellations. 8 for players and an empty one in the middle. You have 2 neighbors + the middle connected by wormholes.



The bidding idea would need to be tried and tested. No reason someone has to pick sowers there are 9 factions. Still 20 points higher and they may be better, you don't know for sure. We could do more (or less) points by modding, otherwise you can't. I don't think that kind of modding is very hard to do, but it will take some time so if you want to do that it may be good to run the bids then create the mod to play next week, where all of the affinities have been adjusted to the appropriate points.
0Send private message
12 years ago
Apr 8, 2013, 4:46:25 PM
I'd rather just put it to a poll, I've had about half of the people I talked to about this tell me bidding and the house diplomacy rules was why they weren't interested. That and the 'score makes people crazy' thing.



Ultimately, for something like this to work we really need a stable stable (yes, that was intentional. Ah, English. Verbs and nouns oh my! :P) of players.
0Send private message
12 years ago
Apr 8, 2013, 5:16:29 PM
I agree, to have a stable stable there should be some freedom for players. After all, the goal is to do what you find fun.



However, everyone and their mother would agree that not all factions are created equal (Ima craver lawwwwwwwwwwl)



instead of bidding, you could create an incentive with different point gains for each faction. That is, winning with a bad faction is worth more points than winning with derp-phons or 23 CP craver fleets.



something like this: split the factions into 3 (or maybe 4) tiers. Each tier gets a different point value for winning.

Sowers, Amoeba, Automatons, Pilgrims (tier 3): 12 pts

Horatio, UE, Hissho (tier 2): 10 pts

Cravers, Sophons (tier 1): 8 pts



or something like that. Have the point values degrade for 2nd place, etc

for 2nd place:

tier 3: 10 pts

tier 2: 8 pts

tier 1: 6 pts



So with this, a 2nd place sowers would actually get more points than a first place craver or derp-phons

This would at least encourage some variety, and allow a crappy race to remain somewhat competitive in a ladder situation.
0Send private message
0Send private message
12 years ago
Apr 8, 2013, 8:13:05 PM
Not a bad idea - suggestion as follows:



Affinity 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th Total

Sophons 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 36

Cravers 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 36

Hissho 9 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 37

United Empire 10 8 6 5 4 3 2 1 39

Horatio 10 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 45

Atomatons 11 9 7 6 5 4 3 2 47

Amoeba 12 10 8 6 5 4 3 2 50

Pilgrims 13 11 9 7 5 4 3 2 54

Sowers 14 12 10 8 6 4 3 2 59



+1 point for 2nd place and after if you survive to end of game. No points needed for allies etc. since the benefit there is it can help you to survive.



sorry the matrix does not properly work. We can discuss, just throwing it out there. I am not really certain what the results would be. I suspect we could come up with a swag and then vote for changes.
0Send private message
12 years ago
Apr 8, 2013, 8:21:19 PM
Another thing to consider is....when and how are matches made?



Is it once a week at a specific time? If so, what happens if people are unavailable.



Is there a sign up sheet, meaning you can play as often as you want? If so, players should get negative points for placing in the bottom half of the game. Otherwise it would always be whoever played the most is at the top. (minimum of 0 points, of course)



Perhaps have one "ladder" game per week. Players sign up, and request a time slot, expecting a 3hr+ game. The problem here is you'd end up with the same players in the same time slots every week.



Some other method? Getting 6-8 players together for long periods of time is difficult. Especially if that group changes with each game.



Any ideas that would be fair? =/

Personally, I think it should be a sign-up, play as often as you want, but with negative points for placing in the bottom half. Of course, the major downside here is you might discourage some players who are stuck at 0 points.



Should games have a minimum number of players? 6-8 player games only, or can we allow 4 player rated games? Should we ban players who quit before turn 20? or just put them in last place for that match?



What about matchmaking? Should we try to pair players of a higher rating together? or just have it be random?



Sorry for throwing out so many things at once, just trying to foresee potential problems smiley: stickouttongue
0Send private message
12 years ago
Apr 8, 2013, 11:06:34 PM
Its why I went with 5-6 & medium with the option for larger games. :P



I think any sign up process, play as often as you want, will work. But I think we may want to do some kind of weighted average if it is an at-will system.



e.g. Score Decay (every time you play a game, you have to wager a point) or something. Maybe toss in a 'only your average score for the week, counts'.



I'm not really considered with optimal score performance for high activity vs. low activity players, honestly. Just more reliable and balanced ES play. I'm sick of beating on newbs and/or quitters.
0Send private message
12 years ago
Apr 9, 2013, 3:28:21 AM
I really like the idea of a score average for the week. That way players can play as much as they want, but playing more doesn't instantly mean more points.



Not a bad idea - suggestion as follows:



Affinity 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th Total

Sophons 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 36

Cravers 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 36

Hissho 9 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 37

United Empire 10 8 6 5 4 3 2 1 39

Horatio 10 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 45

Atomatons 11 9 7 6 5 4 3 2 47

Amoeba 12 10 8 6 5 4 3 2 50

Pilgrims 13 11 9 7 5 4 3 2 54

Sowers 14 12 10 8 6 4 3 2 59





I think it'd be alright to just lump them into tiers like I did. it'd make things much easier than having to look up a table every time.



I think for each game, there should be a host that posts a sign up thread. In this thread, the host should specify the galaxy shape and size, and number of players. I don't think we should limit the map to a single type and size.



More importantly, the host specifies a play start time, and a stop time (probably 3 hours minimum). And it would be a good idea to set up a time to continue play if the game is not finished.



Since ES has pretty bad multiplayer support, we should have guidelines for dealing with situations:



In the event of a desync, which must be confirmed by at least 2 players, the game should be reloaded 2 turns prior. If the game gets to an unplayable state even after a reload, the game can nullified by a majority vote.



If the host leaves, or is just a really really bad host, he should be reported and not allowed to host again. The remaining players can either finish the game, nullify it, or take their scores at the end.



Anyway, in the interest of getting this started, we should nail down a final set of guidelines and open a sign up thread. Hosts can start setting up games when there is a decent sized player pool.
0Send private message
12 years ago
Apr 6, 2013, 3:52:06 AM
Is there a way to do 70 pt sowers? :P



I'm a newb but I'd be willing to commit to doing ladder for at least 5-10 full games depending on how often their held.



Holding the possibility of alliances is interesting though since it might get people to drop the endless war trait.
0Send private message
0Send private message
12 years ago
Apr 10, 2013, 12:09:26 AM
I am not sure why you felt the need to personally attack me for a game, but if you feel that way no problem. I am sorry to cause you any grief best wishes.
0Send private message
12 years ago
Apr 10, 2013, 12:24:12 AM
Whatever you say buddy. smiley: smile



You didn't cause me any grief, you were just annoying, refused to stop talking to me until I blocked you, and then you quit.



I won't be responding further.
0Send private message
12 years ago
Apr 10, 2013, 3:10:28 AM
Feel free not to, because that was not normal behavior. We had no deals and I was playing an aggressive race. I have been attacked immediately by many people (in fact, that happened to Dave and I tonight in the game I just finished). I don't start with condescending insults and swearing everlasting vengeance on them.



If you change your mind, let me know. And yes, the game experience is not enjoyable under those circumstances so I saw no reason to continue.
0Send private message
12 years ago
Apr 11, 2013, 3:01:31 AM
I think this is a cool idea, I would also like to participate in whatever you guys decide.

The bidding does make me a bit apprehensive, perhaps we can all agree beforehand certain advantages and disadvantages point wise for different races.



Like -10 for Sophons maybe.
0Send private message
12 years ago
Apr 11, 2013, 5:41:56 PM
bidding = no go for me



However, you could use a draft instead. Play a initiation round with the same custom faction (differing appearances) and the worst player gets first pick etc. and then it continues in the next round, with the lowest scoring player getting first draft. With this, you could keep the scoring system the same.
0Send private message
12 years ago
Apr 12, 2013, 4:28:34 PM
That is an interesting idea, though it sounds like it would take too many games. Let me think about how that might work, and another issue is "worst player" which may make it a benefit to lose. Or, is it more of a player balance thing? First game = anything goes and you start scoring. Next game, and subsequent games, lowest rank picks first, and so on, only 1 affinity per player.
0Send private message
?

Click here to login

Reply
Comment

Characters : 0
No results
0Send private message