player ranking?

[Killer!!]

Hello KaM fans,
I have an ixea for multiplayer.
What about a score system?
Let me explain, everyone starts with 0 points on the game. After each game the computer will add points toyour score like 100 points for each win and 0 for each lose.
And if the enemy from you quit the game he automaticaly get 0 points and you if it is 1v1 gameplay you win automaticaly.
If you are with more players you can countinue playing if you want or quit and get 0 points.
So you can also see now the skill level of players by looking to their scores.
I hope it is a good idea and it is possible to make for the kamremake editors.
Thanks forreading Killer!!

[Bence791]

Too abusable Way too abusable.

[T*AnTi-V!RuZz]

A fully working account system will be better than this. A ladder system is often part of that.

I think accounts would be a great addition to KaMRemake which will allow more possibilities and possibly attract more players.

[WhiteWolf]

A account system would be nice but the ranking system you describe would be rubbish Also i understood earlier that implementing a account system was a lot of work and the developers would look after that at another time.


If a account system/ranking system would be implemented i think it's better to rank a player to the amount of games he won.

1 game played / 1 win = 100 points
10 games played / 8 wins = 80 points
40 games played / 38 wins = 95 points
384 games played / 217 wins = 56.5 points

This way losing a game would cause your score to lower also clans can demand a certain score before they let a member join the clan. That kind of stuff would make the game even more competitive.

[Bence791]

Wolf, I don't like your idea either You know, that's because you can be in a shit team while you are a good player, but nobody can win 1v4 against good players. Actually I don't have any sorts of good ideas to make a ranklist for the Remake that stays "fair" and correct either.

[WollongongWolf]

I prefer such a kind of system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system (probably simplified once we are gonna implement it, but still),
And yes Bence you can have a shitteam, but on average it should be around equal and if you are better you should be able to slowly climb (you do state a problem, but is that a reason to put this idea down right away?)
What is a good reason to put this idea down do is some right issues with getting accounts or something like that I heard on the road, I'm convinced once (if) we get accounts, a ranking will be made as well (or am I wrong? )

[Da Revolution]

I wonder why people even care about a ranking. You'll get good players with a bad ranking due to bad luck with allies (leavers/people with less skills than the average noob). A ranking system won't give an good indication really.

[Bence791]

Indeed. And actually, there will always be a player that'll be capable to beat you Although not in the line of randoms (no offense )

It always makes me smile when some random guy is "bragging" (well, in a quote sign because to brag you need to achieve something valuable or worthy first) about him being a good player, then he is barely having 30 soldiers on peacetime including militia.

Nowadays skill is determined by the good players, and I think Maths won't tell who is better than who. Gameplay will

[sado1]

I don't think rankings are something important, but if you really have to... We could calculate 3 values after each game:
-military rating - something like: the amount and quality of army produced, divided by PT. Of course, it might need some tweaking, so it's fair to compare different peacetimes, and different army types.
-tactical rating - it would indicate how well did the player use his soldiers, might be just [military rating value] divided by [number of kills, maybe taking notice of the quality of troops killed]
-economical rating - amount of stuff produced, we need to somehow calculate which kinds of wares are more difficult to make.
Then we can take an average of all army values a player ever had (maybe without 3 best and 3 worst ones), same for two other types. Finally we take an "overall" average. So each player would have 3+1 value to compare to the other players.

[T*AnTi-V!RuZz]

Good ranking systems are really hard to build. I'd just prefer a normal account system with it's benefits, not even a ranking.

However, IF a ranking is ever implemented, I'd suggest player are scoring points during the game. That way, if you have a bad team, you're still scoring points
by building a large village (lots of resources), training strong units and maybe even butcher a fair number of enemies before you go down.

[Bence791]

Well, Tom. The problem with going 1v2-3 (or against even more players) is that there are multiple cases when you don't fight against people 1v1. And a far bigger army will lose far less troops against you, so butchering will be pretty hard. Well, camping is another story (see NI vs RA-1 maybe? ).

Anyway, sado's idea seems pretty nice. Altho why would we divide a small number with a big one?

might be just [military rating value] divided by [number of kills, maybe taking notice of the quality of troops killed]

Rather multiply imo ;D

[Jeronimo]

Standard Rankings don't fit this game -> Lady Algebra is well known for being easy to abuse.

For KaM, if you want a general idea of someone's level... you need to ask people around who has played with him.
I'd say for this game there are 4 tier of players... like A,B,C,D (D is weakest).

But if someone finds this enjoyable to rate... first gather your knowledge and elaborate a new post trying to set common features for each type of player, then you get the first KaM Skilltionary.

I guess any veteran could write a sketch and then we all players "correct/expand it" adding details, etc.
Easy to write, and with some technical value (to make balanced teams in lobby).

Would this satisfy you my dear Killer?

[thunder]

For me absolute not counting players rankings...
Just please dont leave the game, dont be lagger, dont be farmer and try to make army also!
It is a simply rule.

[Shadaoe]

Ranking system would be like "oh you're a low rank, I just kick you".

[Skypper]

Ranking system would be like "oh you're a low rank, I just kick you".

good that you say that, people won't like to team up with a low rank.
i don't care about low rank or not, but some players do (i am bad maybe that's why)