http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/list/22.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net
I expect many people have seen this happen now, and have also experienced the boredom and frustration that comes with seeing what was an interesting and enjoyable game dehydrated into a dry, point scoring exercise.

Though I've occasionally expressed my frustrations with players on the tables, I'd like to describe the situation more neutrally here: as the current ranking system goes, these deals are understandable alliances for players to make, because they confer definite ranking advantages.

My suggestion, then, is that the ranking system is redefined in such a way that this common, tiresome strategy, which many of us have seen sapping the life and fun from our games, garners no advantage. It seems to me there is a tension in the system between strategic play and playing for the sake of enjoying the game; I believe that with a little tweaking of the point distribution, this need not be the case.

I would very much like to hear other people's thoughts on how these deals have affected your games, how the system might be changed to make them untenable, and whether you also think this would be in the overall best interests of the game.]]> http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/230.page http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/230.page GMT Besides, alliances are all about the map situation at hand at the instance an alliance is offered. Because they are so short term and spontaneous, I don't think they are a threat to the game. It may be a problem for the other players right then, but they are free to alliance between themselves to offset the first alliance. In the end, the map will be restarted in 10 mins and the situations and alliances will be changed as well. I don't think this is an unbalancing problem for the game. And if you find a pair of players always ganging up, you don't have to play with them.]]> http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/238.page http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/238.page GMT http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/243.page http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/243.page GMT
If you want to see a change, make some concrete suggestions that would incorporate the changes you want. Right now the admins have a scoring system that works fairly well. You need to give them a reason to change(as you have) and a possible path for that changes to follow(only vaguely at this time). That makes it easier for them to consider changing something that already works reasonably well. They wouldn't have to put as much effort into it.

I'd like to just keep it simple, but I would like to see what you guys (oggz and tradwolley- and anyone else) would suggest for an alternate scoring system.

Don't forget that changing the scoring system would toss out all ranks people currently have. Not sure if people would be happy with that. Of course they would have to work for their rank again and thats the fun part for me anyways... ]]> http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/244.page http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/244.page GMT
[b]Decaying rank[/b]- over time if a player doesn't play any games, decay their rank a certain percentage. Maybe 1-3% each day. Thats not a huge drop, but it would encourage people to come in and play a little every so often... and it would work with my next suggestion..

[b]Limited rank slots[/b] - At the lower ranks, up to say master sergeant let unlimited number of players have the rank. Once you get above that, allow only a limited number of each rank,decreasing the number as the ranks go higher. Tie that back to the decaying rank and your leader board will stay an active leader board, earning and keeping their rank. Those bars and leaves will really start to mean something then. And every one of them will have a big target on his back from the lesser ranks. But thats as it should be. They have to earn their rank every time they play.

Might have to limit points lost by high rank when going out first to an alliance of lesser ranks so they will not be afraid to play with players with a much lesser rank. ]]> http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/245.page http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/245.page GMT
I find it interesting that we're presenting alternate points of view. Looking from your position for a moment, although players are free to refuse these deals, I find it disheartening how rarely that happens. Why do you think this is? It indicates to me that rank, for all I enjoy it, and I really do, is also detracting from the game by being something of a fool's gold.

Perhaps if the points systems were to remain unchanged there could be a way of recording that certain players do frequently band together. Or even a second ranking, awarded to from each player to each other at the end of a game, of how enjoyable it was to play with that person. I'm painting with wide brush strokes again and leaving the details to find their own way into the conversation.

On a more concrete note, and building on one of the points you raise, I would prefer to see any changes made to the system done a way that doesn't delete the current ranks we've earned. This is how changes to the mechanics are generally done in MMORPGS, and I like the general understanding in those communities that the game is evolving while it is being played.]]> http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/246.page http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/246.page GMT

Kdice attempts to solve this problem with the introduction of domination points, which are calculated as a placed rank (in each game), based on your average size through the game relative to others. I'm not sure this is the best solution; but certainly deserves mention. The effect of this system is to reward players who obtained, and then maintained a large 'empire' in the game. I think this is less applicable to the system here because of the freely available land, though who knows.]]> http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/247.page http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/247.page GMT http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/250.page http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/250.page GMT
One thing I'd like to point out is that I view the in game scoring (alliances, domination points, etc.) as a separate issue from the overall rank and leaderboard presence (as commented on by sittingDuck).

If there is interest in discussing both, I'd suggest a separate thread for the overall ranking.]]> http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/256.page http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/256.page GMT
This would lead more players to alliance if they were losing to a single strong player. Alliance could be enforced so that allies could not attack each other until the alliance was called off. Alliance attack restriction would not end until after the alliance breaking player had their turn. This would make a disadvantage to ask out of an alliance.

Oh, another thought... maybe think about allowing alliance squares to count as joining squares for players with disjointed squares. They don't get to count their ally's squares for extra armies, but the ally squares could connect their own spread out squares.

Perhaps also consider allowing allies to pass armies to one another. Maybe at the map transfer percentages, maybe only half that.

Perhaps make allies permanent. No leaving an alliance except feet first.

Just listing some ideas that came to mind. none of which will really solve the second place issue with a single player in a dominant position just picking out his second place preference. ]]> http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/260.page http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/260.page GMT
I think we could work up a trial scoring system, just to see if it would work. Might need the admins to implement it alongside the regular one and report both for a while to see how the results turn out. Its their game... we're just along for the ride...

riser and rnd - is it ok if we try to work on some actual formulae for a new scoring system? I don't want to step on toes or think we're taking over the game. Id rather leave things be than overstep.]]> http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/262.page http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/262.page GMT http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/264.page http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/264.page GMT I see no issue with suggestion, including concrete formulas, being made. The point is to improve the game and make it enjoyable to everyone.

jss,
As far as machine readable format, I'd like to know what information you are interested in. If it makes sense, we could make a page that is accessible to all users containing it.]]> http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/268.page http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/268.page GMT http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/269.page http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/269.page GMT
I think at the very least we should be able to configure teams before hand. And if it is a FFA there should be some statistical analysis done with the scoring at the end of the game.

Points could be adjusted depending if the system determines that it was unbalanced (it's pretty easy to figure out if people were teaming up on one player for the majority of a game).

Thoughts?]]> http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/277.page http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/277.page GMT
Not only do ad-hoc alliances usually form only mid-game to combat a dominant player (meaning that previously the allied players were attacking each other), but also the following comes into play:
- The table layout: this may affect who you can attack, especially if the table does not have many connections across areas
- The play style of the players: some are more aggressive than others, which may result in a player attacking less overall before an alliance is made and more after to weaken the "victim"
- Skill level of the players: more experienced players may have un-spoken temporary alliances that are useful to weaken an opponent and then dissolved when convenient (by not attacking someone, but also not specifically asking to ally)

I am not ruling out such calculations and adjustments, but I think that they would have to be made to address very specific situations only. Anything else is likely to become un-fair and very complicated.]]> http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/282.page http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/282.page GMT
I guess you could try to consider who players attack as part of the scoring system, but thats going to get really hairy to make that part of the scoring system. Some maps are structured so that 2 teams(out of 4 or 5)don't have opportunity to attack each other much. How would you be able to differentiate that from a verbal alliance?

I feel for you Pixel, but I'm not sure there is anything but social outrage to keep that kind of thing from getting to be a problem.

[i]EDIT: D'OH, I didn't see risers post on the second page. As you can tell, I agree with his reasoning. Hey, a 2 page discussion... this is getting warmed up![/i]]]> http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/284.page http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/284.page GMT
Reflecting on that game, which I found surprisingly moving at the time, has lead me to the idea of a [b]peer rating system[/b]. It would work like this: at the end of a game, each player anonymously rates the others on the quality of their play. Rankings could run from zero for an unimaginative, tiresome player, to five for an exciting, creative opponent. These scores would be averaged across all players and all games, and a ranking system and leaderboard could be drawn up.

An advantage I particularly like with this scheme is that someone who plays very well but suffers bad luck on the dice could still be justly rewarded. As could players who make bold, risky moves which enliven the game but cost them territory. And it completely sidesteps the problem of developing an algorithm which can detect these things happening.

It's very different to the current system, and I suggest that peer rating should run alongside it. I don't think it would be right at all to replace the current ranks with something like this; I believe there should also be a place for a more strategic and militaristic approach. This is a game of conflict, after all. But two complementary ranking systems would attract and encourage people who bring a more playful, social tone to the game.]]> http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/285.page http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/285.page GMT
Not only do ad-hoc alliances usually form only mid-game to combat a dominant player (meaning that previously the allied players were attacking each other), but also the following comes into play:
- The table layout: this may affect who you can attack, especially if the table does not have many connections across areas
- The play style of the players: some are more aggressive than others, which may result in a player attacking less overall before an alliance is made and more after to weaken the "victim"
- Skill level of the players: more experienced players may have un-spoken temporary alliances that are useful to weaken an opponent and then dissolved when convenient (by not attacking someone, but also not specifically asking to ally)

I am not ruling out such calculations and adjustments, but I think that they would have to be made to address very specific situations only. Anything else is likely to become un-fair and very complicated.[/quote]

this is very true; i wasnt looking at the big picture. ]]> http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/294.page http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/294.page GMT
Reflecting on that game, which I found surprisingly moving at the time, has lead me to the idea of a [b]peer rating system[/b]. It would work like this: at the end of a game, each player anonymously rates the others on the quality of their play. Rankings could run from zero for an unimaginative, tiresome player, to five for an exciting, creative opponent. These scores would be averaged across all players and all games, and a ranking system and leaderboard could be drawn up.

An advantage I particularly like with this scheme is that someone who plays very well but suffers bad luck on the dice could still be justly rewarded. As could players who make bold, risky moves which enliven the game but cost them territory. And it completely sidesteps the problem of developing an algorithm which can detect these things happening.

It's very different to the current system, and I suggest that peer rating should run alongside it. I don't think it would be right at all to replace the current ranks with something like this; I believe there should also be a place for a more strategic and militaristic approach. This is a game of conflict, after all. But two complementary ranking systems would attract and encourage people who bring a more playful, social tone to the game.[/quote]

I don't think peer review is a great option (honor system rarely works). The new scoring system that everyone is talking about seems more balanced... ]]> http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/295.page http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/295.page GMT http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/298.page http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/298.page GMT
thread link:[url]http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/list/113.page[/url]
]]> http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/300.page http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/300.page GMT
But this still poses problems: People will ally no matter what, even if it's just to take out a stronger player. I think perhaps a great idea for trying to work with this, as Blue Team said, is an alliance status system. But, why have that if people can privately message other's in game? So alliances are possible with every scoring system out there, even in peer reviewed (which doesn't seem to work)

Also, even if peer review worked, what's so wrong with an alliance? That's why i suggest working on a set alliance system, but I have no ideas myself (I just agree with blue)

I think if we try to think of ways to work with alliances [b][i][u]Before[/i][/u][/b] we go changing the scoring system, it would be much more practical. I'm just saying so since not a lot of people seem to be saying much on the forums, so maybe a poll could be taken (?) and more people are joining as they find this game on sites such as digg or other advertisements. Shifts in scoring systems can also really turn players off, if they're not comfortable with it.

I'm just letting you know what a regular john might think, because I'm not knowledgeable in such an area where I could contribute much other than opinion. So, there's my 1cent (I get a tax cut on the other cent )]]> http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/310.page http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/310.page GMT http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/311.page http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/311.page GMT
@tradwolley well if a high rank plays with lower ranks then that scoring is natural. As to the bad starting places, there is some chance that comes into play with this game. Kinda hard to change that fairly. Besides, good players that deserve rank will be able to overcome bad placement more often than lesser players. Thus, if you only look at losing one game due to placement it seems unfair. However, averaged out, the players' ranks will settle where they should be.]]> http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/315.page http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/315.page GMT
I think the best thing is to have a way to check if players are making alliances every game, ie. getting second 5 games in a row, then put a watch on those players and if they are, drop their rank severely.

Also in-game pms are one source of alliances, and with the new solution to it (pms sent to an active player are known about to everyone) is good, but can cause suspission among players even if there is no alliance. I think pms should only be visable if an Active player pms another Active player.

I think that Oggz's idea is good, but you have the problem, like Pixel mentioned, some people have problems following the Honor System- You would end up wiht people following "enemies" around dropping their rating.
However, I think that having a peer rating system for the winner would be a good idea, if you rate everyone, you would have too many problems with complicated scores and really, the winner and maybe second place are the only ones that it really applies to. People get out early before they can be graded fairly.

Those are the ideas I've come up with while reading these 2 pages (Ugg) and listening to your guys' thoughts.]]> http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/381.page http://c0nflict.com/forum/posts/preList/105/381.page GMT