MP: VS League

[DakaSha]

sorry but basically i find most of that mute simply because this is when it comes down to it supposed to be fun... and i think most players have fun when they play races they like and feel like playing and less fun when playing races they dont like (or simply dont want to play). your just forcing restrictions on decisions. if i think of an awesome pythium strategy then i want to use it. and not wait 18 games until i randomly get them

still:

again your just contradicting yourself. you use starcraft as an example (i seriously do not know why) but you ignore the fact that some players are ranked high due to their specialization with a single race.

whats wrong with being ranked high due to using a single race? i DONT WANT to play with MA ulm as i find them boring (for now). but my only way to be considered a good player is by exceling at them to the point of being able to pay them on the flip of a coin... no. that would just ruin the game for me because its no fun.

the chess analogy is uhm... yeah...

I can decide on play according to my player much better if i know his race then if i "know" his playing style (which is quite far fetched in a game this complex). decent players arnt going to go for a bless when the nation doesnt warrant it. unless they want to throw you off guard. again this would only be possible if both nations were known from the get go.

i also stated early in the thread that stats on players would be nice (how often a player wins with a specific race).. so if you think somebody sucks because they dont like a nation you can point the finger then (which i too would do.. but id respect their choice 100%).

If races were unknown until encountering them (as in wesnoth) id be somewhat more accepting of forced random nations... but only somewhat.

smallish maps are a must. hands down

i cant see whats wrong with letting the player decide if he goes random. (which you use as an example)

id even say whats the problem with two seperate ladders? im just not going to manage the random one as i would this one. you could do that and all would be well :P

[DakaSha]

how about this:

bonus to points added for a win with nations you have played less

and

more points lost if using nations you always use



i think that solves alot. system would have to be worked out but in theory it works.

if you win 100 times with Pythium but never with another then winning with them will not gain u much points at all (even if the opponent is of higher rank.. which would be possible even if he has lost more but uses different races)

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by DakaSha

how about this:

bonus to points added for a win with nations you have played less

and

more points lost if using nations you always use



i think that solves alot. system would have to be worked out but in theory it works.

if you win 100 times with Pythium but never with another then winning with them will not gain u much points at all (even if the opponent is of higher rank.. which would be possible even if he has lost more but uses different races)

What do we mean by 'a lot' and 'less'? How wide a spread do we consider a proper repetoire for a well-rounded player? And how many games before we start kicking in bonuses or penalties?

Impressions:
I'd say you need a good 20-30 games under your belt before we can even begin to assess if you're using a nation you don't 'normally' use, and even at that point it would be 'hasn't played a ranked game with this nation'.

'a lot' should be a decreasing percentage that kicks in around game 5 (where if you've played ~80%+ with a given race you start getting penalized for using it) and gradually drops to ~20% (which still allows a little less than 1/5 games using a favored race if you really want to use a particular race over and over again). Even 20% might not be low enough. I mean, between age and race there are like 50 choices - I'd expect a well-ranked player to be at least decent with ~30 of them.

--------

On the subject of random - would you be ok with random if you got to pre-emptively veto a few races before a race was generated for you? Ie, you know you absolutely hate playing Bandar Log and Ulm, so you (publicly) veto those before races get randomed, and your random is chosen from the set of all (appropriate - MA in this case) races excluding the vetoed ones. Allowing 2-3 vetoes should be sufficient to keep people from playing races they absolutely loathe.

[DakaSha]

Impressions:
I'd say you need a good 20-30 games under your belt before we can even begin to assess if you're using a nation you don't 'normally' use, and even at that point it would be 'hasn't played a ranked game with this nation'.

'a lot' should be a decreasing percentage that kicks in around game 5 (where if you've played ~80%+ with a given race you start getting penalized for using it) and gradually drops to ~20% (which still allows a little less than 1/5 games using a favored race if you really want to use a particular race over and over again). Even 20% might not be low enough. I mean, between age and race there are like 50 choices - I'd expect a well-ranked player to be at least decent with ~30 of them.

although i dont know about the precise numbers (would have to be discussed) the system seems sound.

On the subject of random - would you be ok with random if you got to pre-emptively veto a few races before a race was generated for you? Ie, you know you absolutely hate playing Bandar Log and Ulm, so you (publicly) veto those before races get randomed, and your random is chosen from the set of all (appropriate - MA in this case) races excluding the vetoed ones. Allowing 2-3 vetoes should be sufficient to keep people from playing races they absolutely loathe.

if (due to this threads discussions and players favoring it) we were to use a forced random nation selection method i would say the flip side. that you choose from 3 (or 5) nations that you would like to play and they are randomized.

i would still be for exposed nations before pretender design though.

and im just plain against forced randomization :P
even more so now that we seem to be on to a system that would penalize people who only use a very limited number of nations.

i dont even think that 30 is valid. i see it as having a table loaded with tools and specializing in a few and being fairly decent with the others.

of course if somebody (possibly yourself) is good with all nations and uses them equally often then it WOULD be reflected in his ladder position provided he actually wins now and then :P

i really like the concept of penalizing players who only play a very limited number of nations and rewarding players who can use them all (and i would say that players using lots of nations are rewarded more than the others are penelized for various reasons)

[DakaSha]

it really is a compromise (although i actually prefer it now that its been mentioned :P ) and solves the old dominions problem of favored nations while technically allowing people to play as they wish

its like choosing to not pay for a dumb browser game and receiving 20% less experience.... only that its perfectly fair as it reflects overall skill and not amount of money one is willing to invest

even dragurs '1 game at a time limit' helps this as playing alot more games to make up for it wont be that possible.

you can be listed high on the ladder.. even at first if your GREAT with a single nation. but you can climb that ladder faster (and remain at the top) if you are good with alot of nations

[Hadrian_II]

I would say it is important to know which nation your enemy is going to play so that you can plan your strategy accordingly. Even when the nations are randomly picked you should know what your enemy will play before you design your pretender.

Also the only thing i would forbid are games that put a water nation against a land nation.

[DakaSha]

why would you forbid water against land? both have the same disadvantage really as long as the map is specifically designed for this type of match

i have to admit im not experienced enough with this situation though. just so far it seemed like it would be fine.

[Hadrian_II]

Originally Posted by DakaSha

why would you forbid water against land? both have the same disadvantage really as long as the map is specifically designed for this type of match

Boring game no player will be able to defeat the other one until late game, so the games will be about getting tatarians first.

[vfb]

Originally Posted by Hadrian_II

Boring game no player will be able to defeat the other one until late game, so the games will be about getting tatarians first.

DakaSha and I played MA Van vs MA R'lyeh on Silent Seas. He retired in turn 31 because he got bored, but I force hosted the game twice after he retired, and he got killed by dom death in turn 33.

I wasn't bored. And not a Tartarian in sight, not even a Bane Lord.

Admittedly, the map favors the land nation, and also a blood sacrificing land nation is probably going to stomp any water nation even with equal land/water territory, if you take dom 10 (I did).

[DakaSha]

Archiving of ones turn files for the current league games one is playing should also be mandatory simply because its easy to do and wins/losses will be clear in case of disputes