Are you tough enough to be the "King of the Hill"? - Page 79

Slynky · #**781** April 27th, 2003, 08:56 PM

Well, it's certainly not my "baby". I guess I'm just a relic from the old days when a ladder meant you could challenge either the person directly above you or the one above that one. The idea was to gain a rung on the ladder. Or two rungs.

So, I'd be curious to know what kind of ladder system would allow more than one game at a time? And if a person wins, don't they usually take the place of the person they beat? So, what would be the point of playing more than one person at a time when the game that REALLY counts would be the person you are playing that is highest on the ladder?

Of course, maybe ladder has changed its whole meaning from what I have known a "ladder system" to be for the Last 30 years...

geoschmo · #**782** April 27th, 2003, 09:26 PM

Slynky, I'll have more details when the time comes, but it's a little different than what you remember. You move up by beating those above you, but you don't switch with them, you move up half the distance between you and them. So playing two games beating the player farther above you would have more of an impact on your position, but both would affect it. And what maters is the positions at the time the match ends, not begins. The only time you switch places with someone is if you beat the person exactly one rung above you.

You move down the ladder by losing to the player immedietly below you. Losing to someone farther down doesn't affect your placement. You also move down by being passed by people below you beating those ahead of you. You also move down if you don't play a certain number of games. You can't be a ladder hog.

Multiple player games are done by each person reporting a loss to each person still in the game at the time they are eliminated from the game. Losses to multiple players are reported in order starting with the highest ranked player on the ladder, irrespective of position in the game at the time.

Team games can be done by each member of the losing team reporting a loss to each member of the winning team.

Geoschmo

primitive · #**783** April 27th, 2003, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Primitive, you are not the reason I am giving up on running this. You were by no means the first or the loudest complainer. And I completely agree with you on your level of frustration over feeling ignored by EMPerror. Your issues was merely the straw that broke the camels back for me. I have just got my fill of arbitrating all the little disputes for what was supposed to be a fun little thing.

Thanks Geo.
That makes me feel a little better.

It was never my intention to help kill of the KOTH league. I just wanted to inform that I would not waste my time continue playing the current game. A ladder system, where games going nowhere don't take you out of actions for months at a time sounds like a better idea.

Keep up the good work, I'm off on vacation

Slynky · #**784** April 27th, 2003, 09:40 PM

"You also move down if you don't play a certain number of games. You can't be a ladder hog."

Does that mean a person MUST play multiple games? Of course, what's a ladder hog?

"Multiple player games are done by each person reporting a loss to each person still in the game at the time they are eliminated from the game. Losses to multiple players are reported in order starting with the highest ranked player on the ladder, irrespective of position in the game at the time.

Team games can be done by each member of the losing team reporting a loss to each member of the winning team."

Sounds complicated (and more time-consuming than KOTH...especially when one figures you can have more games going (needing to be started and managed) with 29 ((just using an old figure)) players in a ladder than ever in KOTH).

However, slow player problem still hasn't be addressed and THAT was one of the main complaints in KOTH. People playing too slow. While I agree that being able to play multiple games would alleviate that some, I certainly don't want to play with someone who responds to a turn every other day. I don't like having to spend 5 or 10 minutes trying to remember what was going on a day or two earlier.

Also, if a person is in a game (or 2) and receives a challenge, what if that person doesn't have the time and says no? Is he penalized?

I know you said there are more details and I apologize for being a bit anxious. But, for a person whose cup is already full, it seems you're getting ready to start somthing that will take even more time. And potentially have the same complaints due to slow play.

Just my opinon...I have an *******, too...

geoschmo · #**785** April 27th, 2003, 09:51 PM

Ah, but what you don't know is there is a free web based league service that I plan to use that does all this automatically.

It will have functions for people to join the league, and report losses. And it will automatically calulate the rankings.

You don't have to be in multiple games, you just have to finish X number of games every Y number of days/weeks/months. I can configure that to whatever people think is fair.

No, it wont eliminate the problem of slow play completely. But we can set up some regs. Like your suggestions that all games have to be 72 hour auto turns, and 3 missed turns means you lose, and stuff like that. But if you are in only one game and one of them is only doing a turn every 3 days you are very unhappy. If you can be in 3 or 4 games at once you don't care so much if one of them is slow.

There will be rules about challanges. When they have to be accepted, that sort of thing. It will be the source of some dispute, but it will be codified so if anyone doesn't follow them I wont have to make a judgement call. I will just say, "You agreed to it when you joined".

Geoschmo

Slynky · #**786** April 27th, 2003, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Ah, but what you don't know is there is a free web based league service that I plan to use that does all this automatically. It will have functions for people to join the league, and report losses. And it will automatically calulate the rankings.

You don't have to be in multiple games, you just have to finish X number of games every Y number of days/weeks/months. I can configure that to whatever people think is fair.

No, it wont eliminate the problem of slow play completely. But we can set up some regs. Like your suggestions that all games have to be 72 hour auto turns, and 3 missed turns means you lose, and stuff like that. But if you are in only one game and one of them is only doing a turn every 3 days you are very unhappy. If you can be in 3 or 4 games at once you don't care so much if one of them is slow.

There will be rules about challanges. When they have to be accepted, that sort of thing. It will be the source of some dispute, but it will be codified so if anyone doesn't follow them I wont have to make a judgement call. I will just say, "You agreed to it when you joined".

Geoschmo

Well, that sounds promising. I've seen some really good ones that service the MechWarrior leagues.

And, upon further reflection, I suppose people who are known for being slow will not get many challenges

.

On the other hand, I guess there could possibly be more games and that, I assume, requires you to stay busy setting them up.

geoschmo · #**787** April 27th, 2003, 10:31 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Slynky:

Quote:

On the other hand, I guess there could possibly be more games and that, I assume, requires you to stay busy setting them up.

Nope. I wont be the game owner for these games. The players will get a game owner themselves, or one of them will be the owner. Of course if anyone asks me to I would probably do it, but I wont be neccesary for th equation. Once the game is completed the loser would report it directly to the league site, not need even to communicate that to me.

Geoschmo

tesco samoa · #**788** April 28th, 2003, 01:11 AM

I am in. When the new one starts up... I like stuff evolving... Always thought that Koth was a stepping stone to a ladder system.

I have enjoyed the 1x1 games.

I do realise that I am not that good at them.

Better at the RP games...

Nodachi · #**789** April 28th, 2003, 01:16 AM

No problem Geo! I understand that you have a lot to keep up with between this, that, and the other.

Have I thanked you lately for all your hard work? If not, consider yourself thanked!

Asmala · #**790** April 28th, 2003, 07:19 PM

The new ladder idea sounds great, but I could host the KOTH if there is still enough interested players. Setting up the new ladder will take time so at least KOTH could be played until we can move to that ladder.

Any comments? Are there still players who want to play KOTH (in addition to me)?