Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
I'd hate to see a system like this lead people away from different and interesting choices in terms of nation, strategy, pretender etc in order to boost their ranking.. One of the nice things in this game is the diversity of choice people take, if we start really monitoring performance this way competitive spirit will tend to push people towards safe choices. What's that, Sauromatia, Niefelheim and Mictlan already taken? No thanks.
|
I did think of this, but its really only an issue if people start taking it too seriously. Even so, one way of mitigating it would be to control the order in which signups get to choose nations, with lower-ranking players allowed to choose first. In fact, with that system in place, there's probably no compelling need to ban overpowered nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
We might also find that while people are generally happy to play with whoever, they might start being choosy.. will a top player want to jump into a game full of new players who will all jump on him year 1 to get the bonus points?
|
The top post explicitly acknowledges this. If you're the top player, don't expect to remain so for long
And if you stay out of games for fear of being dumped on, you'll soon lose your top spot anyway - the scoring system is not zero-sum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
As an aside, given that games take months, and that players' scores will change through that period, do you calculate ladder points based on starting, time of death or finishing rankings?
|
For reasons of practicality, all scores would be calculated at game end, based on the state of the ladder at that time.