PBW League Idea...

[dogscoff]

I like the idea of not recrding losses, but it could lead to a problem if you have a "ranking multiplier": If you can play anyone in the league, all the ppl at the bottom will want to play the ppl at the top to have a chance of winning the rank multiplier. With no "punishment" for losing, there will be no risk and so no reason not to keep pestering them.

Unless you introduce the "only two games count" system between each pair of players...

Now my Brain hurts

[solops]

We would all like to know what kind of players are signed up for a game so that gross inequities are avoided and so that you can get the competitive level you desire. A Ratings system could promote increased participation as well, or maybe not....

I contend that any system you improvise will affect the game community detrimentally. Years ago I played a PBM (US snail mail) game called Nuclear Destruction. I was good, one of the 10 best in the world according to the Ratings system in place, which involved points for winning, ties, + points for those dead ahead of you and - points for those who survived you). But what happened was that people began playing the game for points, not necessarily to win. The better players also found themselves targetted for early elimination by those hoping to advance themselves. This is not an environment I would care to be in.

[tesco samoa]

Tracking is quite easy...

Challenger Player must submit that they are playing a game and who it is against...
When the game is over the Winning player submits that they have won the game.

The stats are up dated..

I love stats... So I could keep track of the stats... What ever stats people would want to see. Such as history vs each player etc...

I have all the software available to do this stuff.

Databases,,, spreadsheets etc...

Updates could be run once a week or month or bi-weekly etc...

What ever people wanted.

On the subject of challanging people below/above you...

If you lose your score would be adjusted per ranking and score.. that way the punishment/benifit is little score increase or a little score decrease..

If a player is currently playing a game they could refuse to play that challenge. That way the player would challenge other players...
As i have seen on other ladders..
Current games could be listed .... so you would know who is playing...

And this system could be used for the two player games as well... That way you know who you played and who is currently open for a game.. who you can challenge...

Or even combine the two now my head hurts

Either way i like those two systems... I see merits in both of them...

About Game Play

Geo I think Pre-Designed Standard maps would be the way to go.

10 two player maps.... That way there is some variation... and an equal footing on startup.

A couple of Tournment Maps if you wish for 3 or 4 player games...

[TerranC]

Ladder systems have it's merits and faults.

Merits would be it's fun, it would get people into that gaming spirit, it would vitalize PBW even more...

the faults would be that people with high Ratings would get it into their heads, constant bickerings about how the other player cheated, more hacks and cheats, and even some clubs that might seek to completely destroy beginners so that they might stay up in the charts.

[Ragnarok]

I would very much like to see a ladder system on PBW. Would make for more incintive to play.
I'm a fan of 1 vs 1 games so that would work for me. At the moment I'm trying to think of how these different systems would work and which one would be best. But knowing my brain that'll take awhile to figure out.

[Rollo]

mano-a-mano games rock and are IMO the best way to handle a league or ladder system.

Rollo

[spoon]

I'd play in the league... and here are my opinions on the matter:
- Only 1 vs 1 games.
- Only track wins, losses, and win/loss ratio
- Only count the first game you play against someone for total Wins and Losses (this would ensure that people keep playing against new players)
- Use seasons. Declare two winners at the end of the season: Most Wins and Best Win/Loss Ratio. If it isn't the same person, then those two could duke it out for the Supreme Crown Of Devastation and Destruction. (and obviously, you would need to have a certain number of games played before you can qualify for the best Win/Loss title).

I think that a ranking system only works well when a lot of games are played. Since SE4 can be so time consuming, trying to squeeze in a valid ranking system will likely only lead to frustration.

-Spoon

[Master Belisarius]

Something like that was done some time ago for SE3 (most old players would remember the Borg Collective!).
Think that would be good keep the system simple.
Like others suggested here, I go for 1v1 game, keep a track of victory/loses, and believe that should be not mandatory accept a challenge.

[LazarusLong42]

Oooh... Laz Posts to the Shrapnel Boards. A rarity nowadays

OK, my thought on this has always been that a modified Elo ranking system would work best. The actual specifc mathematics can be worked out later, but the basic gist is this:

When you join the ladder, you have a ranking of 1000. You gain points when you win, based on the rank of the player you played against. So, if you're at 1000 and beat someone with rank 1200, you gain more points than if you beat someone with rank 800. This is similar to the ranking system the US Chess Federation uses.

This also allows for multiplayer games, through a couple of different algorithms. I'd be willing to help work out the exact algorithms, and also help write up automation for the web.

Eric/LL

[Gozra]

Neat Idea but each game would probably need to be played under the same settings in order to have the rankings mean something.
And what would be considered a win?
I would suggest several diffrent 'Leagues' one for 2 player, multiplayer, team player, 5000, 3000, 2000, ETC.
Try to have something for everyone.