Dominions 2 : Rankings and Tourneys ?

BF_Napoleon · #1 April 26th, 2004, 11:57 AM

@Yossar :

1on1, FFA and Team games...everything :-)

Tris · #2 April 26th, 2004, 02:23 PM

Hmmm...

Zen - I like designing rules systems, so if you want I can put some thought into a tournament ranking system. To me it sounds like the guys at battlefields have their stuff together about things like this, so I'd be tempted to go with them, but the offer is there.

Others - "Ganging up on leader" isn't a problem. The whole point of the game is that you are trying to become THE god. If the best way to do that is to take down the most powerful guy, you should do it.

The "All beat the leader" is a big problem in games where in the game there is only one winner, but the situation the game is portraying could allow for more than one.

Eg - Playing a game of Medieval European politics and battle with friends. Two people allied, and pretty much took over the entire continent with a well timed backstab. In 'reality' they are both winners, they now each control half of Europe, and are strongly allied witht the other half - competely capably of stopping the other families (now minor houses, rather than rulers of nations) from ever getting a foot back on the throne.

In the game one was forced to attack the other, as the other had a few points more gold, and so would win the game.

This doesn't happen in Dominions. Any way to be Last one standing fits perfectly with what the game is about.

BF_Napoleon · #3 April 26th, 2004, 07:15 PM

Hey Tris !

Yes you are right, we at The Battlefield have a WORKING ladder / tourney engine. It took a long time to code a working one.

But we need the help of the players to create a Dominions 2 ranking.

So how about you join our team and we can start creating a D2 ranking ?

I mean, we have the infastructure, its totally free to all, its working pretty fine. Coding a totally new one would Last to long, i am speaking out of our experience about that.

So how about that ?

sergex · #4 April 26th, 2004, 08:07 PM

Another problem I can think of is collusion between players. When you get a Free for All and a few of the players collude to not fight each other until they eliminate the other people, it's unfair to those others. Even without a planned collusion I would still be less likely to attack someone I'm friendly with than someone who is a stranger.

Unfortunately there is no "teams" setting for Dom2. It would be nice to set up a team game where you can set up allied nations at the beginning and set it to an allied victory. You'd be able to travel through your allies' territory as if it were your own and be able to attack provinces together. I think that would be a huge test of strategy and teamwork for a tournament structure.

However, barring that, you will probably see a lot of "pre-teaming" in the FFA games. Perhaps 1on1 would be the best way to go for prize tournaments. If you have a 5 man FFA and 3 of the people are good friends then the other 2 don't even have a slight chance to prevail.

And on the subject of having timeley games, is there a way to set it so the game Lasts X amount of turns and at the end each person's provinces are totaled and that determines the victor? Say, the game will Last 70 turns and then the players get ranked based on how many lands they've won.

[ April 26, 2004, 19:09: Message edited by: sergex ]

alexti · #5 April 27th, 2004, 12:23 AM

I'd think that ranking of the standard games would not work well (due to possible pact and alliances). However 1x1 or team games (2x2, 3x3 etc) should work well. Essentially, the important requirement is to have only 2 parties at the start and one winning party in the end. As a ranking system, Elo rating system (like in chess) should work fine. In principle, there're only 2 main requirements for the ranking system to work. The total of Ratings of all participating players should not change after the game, and the increase of the rating for the win should be greater if one defeats stronger player. To extend the system for the teams, the total winnings should probably be divided equally bewteen the players in the winning team (the amount of winning would depend on relative total Ratings of opposing teams).

BF_Napoleon · #6 April 27th, 2004, 09:50 AM

Well, a FFA can be a problem, but shouldnt be. Even players that know each other can be fair players.

From my side of experience, FFA games are fair mostly. Sure there are always unfair players but what can we do ?

ONE GOOD thing we have at the site is that you can COMMENT games and your opponents ! You can say for example : Dont play him ! Unfair ! Or write some sentences about how the game went. So other players can see what happened in the game. The game becomes transparent for the community, so unfair players can be found very quick, unfair team games will become public.

Norfleet · #7 April 27th, 2004, 10:02 AM

Well, that all depends on how you define "fair". Two players that know each other likely have an understanding of exactly how the other will behave, and will be less likely to provoke the other into premature and potentially undesirable violence. That alone can amount to implicit collusion. On the other hand, it's far from sound strategy to attack everyone you see like a slavering Zebranky: You're simply much more likely to try peace with somebody you already know, than somebody you have no experience with and probably distrust as a result.

So what defines "fairness"?