Dominions 3 Ladder

[Zapmeister]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

If 1 player joins every single ladder match that's up, they'll simply dominate the page, even if they lose every time.

No, if you lose games, you lose points - one for every lower-ranked person that beats you.

Hyperactive players probably do have an advantage since there's a nett positive accumulation of points, but only if they are at least moderately successful.

[GrudgeBringer]

I used to play in an Association called Lead Eaters,

It was essentially a Ladder but it combined different games so that no one on say...Civil War Generals 2 would doinate as it also included q5 other strategy games.

They assigned points for a particular Battle in the game (Bull Run, Gettysburg, ect with the factor being which side they took (as to the strength of the side compared to the other), A draw, Minor victory or a Major victory (like wise - points for a Minor defeat, Major defeat ect).

This worked pretty well (although these games where more Tactical rather than Strategic) and you started as a recruit and worked your way up yo a 5 star general.

I'm judt saying that it could be that Baalz played 5 Noonb and won a Major victory and get 3 points but where if a NOOB won that game he might get 75.

Anyway there would have to be some adjustment but strength of players, Natons , nMap would have to be factored in.

ALSO, standard maps are fine but you need to make sure they all have preset starting positions or it will start askew.

GREAT IDEA though!!

[GrudgeBringer]

Sorry for the sloppy typing, I broke two fingers playing Rugby this week end and its a little rough typing...

[Gandalf Parker]

In the many years of Dom2 and Dom3 this subject has come up many times with extensive conversation. The impacts of maps, scales, mods, ranking methods, neutral judgments, etc.

You might want to do a search and check out some of them.

Gandalf Parker
--
Experts do not enhance conversation.
You can have conversation, or you can have experts.
Possibly conversation among experts if thats desirable.
Your choice.

[LDiCesare]

For information, on the French cyberstratege site, there's such a thing: http://www.cyberstratege.com/forum/v...php?f=7&t=2134 for those who read French and wouldn't know that site.
They limited themselves to 4 player games on a single map, with random nations and random era. I didn't check the scoring system because I can't follow with the rhythm of the games (daily) during week-ends. Anyway the scores are here: http://www.cyberstratege.com/forum/v...php?f=7&t=2211 . It's interesting to notice that after 5 months, 7 games were completed, and all players completed at most 2 matches.
Therefore, I think a system where your ranking depends on your opponents would never work (unless everyone plays for a century or more, or the ladder games are all blitz games).

[Hoplosternum]

Hmm, I think it could work. And it sounds like an interesting addition

But it does depend on people not taking it too seriously. Many of these systems can be 'gamed' but so what? I wouldn't specifically try to outlaw such behaviours until you see them. Do you really think lots of people will drop games on turn 13 just so they can get a cheap point or two? Maybe I am reading the forum wrong but I don't think many will do that. People probably won't take rankings that seriously will they? Do they take the Hall of Fame that seriously?

It would be good to see some form of rankings for the powers. I think it would add to the interest and help to keep people from power picking even more than they do already. QM did a ranking guide a few months back and I am sure you could get a group of people to rank the powers and adjust the rankings as fashions change. That is important too. Remember when Baalz wrote that guide about Maverni? I am sure for a brief period their popularity and perceived strength rose Until everyone realised it was all just a joke and they really were the pits as originally assumed

You could also consider changing rankings based on settings. My feeling would be that LA ermor is far stronger in games that have more provinces per player and it should gain (as most strong powers benefit) from no diplomacy games where gang ups are far more difficult. Rather than banning such powers or games simply adjust the points.

I think you can and should play against the existing rankings. You simply fix the ranks at the beginning of the game. Regardless of how unrealistic they are at that point, or how good a low ranking player has become points wise by the end. The first few games have everyone the same - on zero. But that's needed anyway as the better players need to wrack up the points to take their rightful place on the higher parts of the ladder.

If you do attempt it I would gather a group of admin people who can help to access the nations, work out the points system and make any needed changes (as there will be if you notice abuses, simple tweaking or if you notice it favours passive turtling or some other tactic you don't think reflects who should do well on the ladder).

I would encourage as many games as possible to be ladder games rather than setting strict criteria for joining. Some very heavily modded or team games should be excluded perhaps, but most should be eligible. That way you will gather up the data you need to make it meaningful all the sooner. You want lots of Ladder games otherwise it becomes irrelevent. I think you will also want to make the points system and any rankings you do fairly flexible. You should get plenty of good and bad feedback and encorporating any constructive advice and criticism should go a long way towards making the Ladder acceptable to most. So be prepared to make changes.

Rather than simply start the ladder I would propose your idea / points system in more detail and ask for comments. Get some feedback, and some forum buy in to the idea, and reveal some of the things you won't have thought of before you start. It would also be a way to get some helpers to administer the ladder in place before you start.