Knights and Merchants.net Forum

SUMMARY

Peace time is awesome.

PRESUMPTIONS
Let's say the purpose of a multiplayer match is to
*find out which of the 2 players (teams) is stronger
*have fun while doing so.
And lets also presume that one player's skills are more or less equal in all areas of the game: town building, unit choice, army maneuvering etc. The differences in areas are not that big afterall.


POINT 1: In this case, longer games end with the same result as short games. Furthermore, the small difference in skill will get bigger as the game procceeds, since the better player has more workers, more production etc. And these more workers and more production results in even more workers and stuff. Thus the better player will only grow its advantage as the game gets longer. Thus for a less skilled player, shorter game is more likely to end with a victory.

POINT 2: Ironicly most beginners want "1 hour no rush" and other methods of making games longer. And thus longer game, even though it ends most likely even worse, is more enjoyable for unskilled players. Otherwise they would not ask for these rules. In a longer game a beginner spends smaller percentage of time being destroyed. Instead of actually finding a way to not lose that 30 minute game people tend to say you can't attack me for 30 minutes, I was not ready. Not considering that the difference in power just grows in time. Rules that make games longer are frustrating for people who tend to win a lot of games very easily, since winning easily is as boring as being utterly destroyed.

Therefore, the longer the game the more needed is a system for finding reasonable opponents . Unless game is inherently broken in case of a rush, rules that prevent early agression just make games longer. IF the game is not broken in sense of rushing (KaM might be) such rules are enforced by players who refuse to learn fast strategies. A player may claim that playing the fastest possible strategy does not fit his personality and constant rushing is boring. Games being oriented only on rushing are indeed a bit lame.

POINT 3: However, the rushing problem is not solved by introducing a no-rush period. The principle is same: who-ever has most power at the end of truce period wins the game. So players just rush at the moment truce ends, instead of rushing from the first second of gameplay. In fact they do rush from 1st second of game play, they just rush for different things and focus on military slightly later. Either case, faster player wins.

**********
As showed above, with given presumptions
1. the same player wins whether the game is long or short. So longer games don't serve deciding who wins.
2. If the game is not inherently broken in sense of rushing, the no-rush periods make game less enjoyable for more skilled players.That is the case unless there is good system of finding equally skilled opponents.
3. The no-rush periods also do not favor players who don't like playing as fast as possible.

=> the no-rush rules are required only if there is no way to find good opponents or if the game is inherently broken in sense of rushing. An example would be if there is only one effective way to rush anyone ever and it cannot be countered. Like militia with no peace time.

Since we have both cases in KaM, peace time is awesome However a need for such measures speaks of a problem.

I read everything thinking it was written by GWB!!

Now I realize it was written by batoonike.

My favourite set-up is 50 minutes.

You speak of a problem... do you also speak of a solution?
whats the point in saying there are problems here, problems there, but not knowing how to solve them?
It seems to me you are saying that peace time is bad, but no peace time is also bad... correct me if i understood wrongly.

I think it would be good to play matches against equally matched opponents and let the game facilitate this. The host could set the skill level for their lobby from 1-4, then if I start a lobby with 4 skill level noobs would (hopefully) not join it. Similarly I wouldn't join a lobby with skill level 1. These skill levels could be shown as an icon, maybe 1-4 stars (in a square) depending on the skill level.
Empire Earth - The Art of Conquest uses a system like this. I've never played it online though, so I don't know whether it works well.
What do people think about that idea?

I had difficulty following what you wrote. I also disagree that players always rush after peacetime ends, I've played games with no combat for 10-20 minutes after peacetime ended. In those games we used longer peacetime (60+ minutes) meaning that everyone had time to build good defences so you couldn't easily rush in anyway.

I agree with any sort of "Level Identification"... however the thing is how to categorize someone?
[1-2-3-4 painted squares? from a windowed square] -> it's nice, since looks simple.

I have a couple of names, since i have uploaded 6 replays so far... still new players come and others go,, so it would be endless Player Testing... imagine doing this if it were "Age of Empires 2 Conquerors" -> no way... a whole life.

Solution: Players assign themselves a Categorization.
To auto-rate there will be REFERENCES in the main board message (where is written "Happy New Year!" at the moment).
There will be a low percentage of underrated-overrated players, not serious problem really... it happens in all games.

I think these REFERENCES can be discussed here and everyone should aport his "view" about how to difference 4 types of players.
We talk about this Auto-rate Guide and added it when Auto-rating is created for next KaM Remake Release.

I don't want to have player rankings. That means people will do anything to improve their ranking like cheating or hacking, and they will never feel that can have a relaxed game without effecting their rating. It would also require an accounts system. (read our FAQ for why we don't want one of those) These and other issues have been discussed before.

I was not talking about player rankings, I simply meant the host of the lobby can say "this is a lobby for pros" or "this is a lobby for noobs", by selecting 1-4 as difficulty. There could also be a "open for anyone" option where no icon is displayed. Then pro players will only join lobbies marked as 1 or 2, because they won't want to play a boring game against noobs and win easily. Similarly noob players won't join a lobby marked as 3 or 4 because they know they will lose and not have fun.

I understand it... but I didnt talk about rankings either. I was talking about a "self-consideration".

Simply mark yourself as the type of level you think you have. Of course this is meant to be if everyone is together in the same lobby... making different lobbies is NOT good I think since will spread the few players that assist multiplayer.

By the way.. I think that with 1-2-3 stars is enough... come on, what can be more easier to say im "easy, medium, hard" player?
Note: * (asterisk) in the lobby figures as a star -> which is fine.

Personally I wouldn't find it that easy to rank myself. Sometimes I'm pretty good and sometimes I'm a disaster...
I'm still not fond of any systems like that.

I have had bad days too... but in general you know how is your performance.
We can sketch major differences about these Levels...

*> Starter
**> Average
***> Veteran
****> Elite

"Starters" dont build barracks by when PT is over. Dont even CHAT with anyone.
"Averages" will usually make the militia+crossbow army, but will neglect food production and be rather bad using troops.
"Veterans" are average players who wont starve to death and have better micro using troops. Also trade at Market.
"Elites" are usually able to combine Leather+Iron units during match, have greater economy and best map understanding.

Note: I dont use the terms "noob" or "pro". I never liked them due to being over-used.

Wanting to rank yourself seems strange to me, I think I'm really bad in multiplayer, however I do a barrack before the end of the peace time, and I don't do a "militia +crossbow army".
You can't classify people like that with only a few events.

It's a sketch... you can think in a way to difference 4 types (or 3) of players. Write your suggestions.

The one I made is preety simple, but everyone "understands" what I'm giving as example. Remember your Multiplayer matches.

Starter: 0-6 pts
Average: 7-10
Veteran: 11-14
Elite: 14-17

------------------------------------
Skills:

Build barracks/army by end of PT: YES [3 pts]
Chat: YES [3 pts]
Fast Army: Slow[0] Medium [1] Fast [2] pts
Troop Diversity (for late games): 1 pt
Great later game Economy: 2 pts
Awareness (careful if people don't sneak into your base, kill your bowmen from the back, etc): 0~2 pts
Doesn't have Crisis': Sometimes[1pt] Never[2pt]
Good at using Troops: 0~2pts



My own Rating: 13. Rank = Veteran

Well I dislike the whole idea of ranking

Using cayckroyd's system, I'd come up at 12 points, while I'm definitely not a good player. I think a system like that is difficult to make work for everyone.

maybe balance it a bit and add a few more "Skills"?
anyone has a suggestion