So, you play a Byond Based Board Game that you decide you like, whatever it might be, and you start playing it regularly. Now you've decided you liked it, though you're not especially good at it. It doesn't matter if you win or not anyway, it's just a board game.
Right?
What if that board game has a ranking system, where if you lose you get put down the list a few noches, and if you win, you start moving toward the top?
The question is, would a ranking system like that be a GOOD thing, to make people want to play to increase their rank, or a BAD thing, because it makes people quit playing because they simply go down the list perpetually.
Maybe some of these games with ranking systems should add the option to host "Rank-Free" games, where wins or losses do not effect anyone's place on the ranking list. That way, people who dislike ranking systems wouldn't be inclined to avoid the game because they're not doing so well on it.
Well, I'm curious what everyone else thinks about ranking systems. Are they good, or bad, or do you just plain not give a hoodle?
ID:154391
 Oct 29 2001, 8:45 am
|
|
|
Oct 29 2001, 9:47 am
|
|
SilkWizard
 |
I personally like ranking systems. I used to play Starcraft on the Battle Net for hours on end, and part of the reason I kept coming back was my desire to increase my win loss record-I had a record of 30-5 and I thought I was hot stuff so I tried some ladder games and lost ten in a row. Maybe you should make it so that a person's first five games don't count, and all the rest do. This would give them a chance to get used to the game before they are ranked. I don't think that anyone is really against having their name listed on a ranking board.
|
Yeah, I think it's all good. I agree that having a person's first five games not count is a nice idea. Though everyone is likely to do poorly on their first few games, so it sort of evens out. My first suggestion is to make it so a game doesn't count if there was more than one player with the same client.address playing. Wouldn't want people playing against their own keys just to move up in the rankings. My other suggestion is that only those who have played 10 games or more show up in the rankings, so you get a nice average.
Z | |
Although I think ranking systems in general are pretty spiffy, I prefer systems that tend to be more for the purpose of giving lots of playing stats (wins, losses, points, game times, that sort of thing) than just trying to merely order players--coming up with a fair ranking algorithm that will satisfy everyone and curb cheating is a monumental task, and despite how well you do, players are going to constantly argue back and forth on who's actually better regardless of what the actual ranking list says. Hence, it makes quite a bit of sense to just show everyone all the data that could be used for a ranking system and let them judge each other's relative worth by their own criteria.
| |
For simple games it's competition that keeps me going. If I can't brag that I rule or claim that I am the ultimate loser it isn't as much fun :).
| |
I used to play an online game called Sanctum, and they had an option to challenge someone to a ranked or an unranked game. This was really nice for trying out new strategy and deck combinations. It was also usefull for new players, as there was no real incentive (actually, a ... disincentive?) for the better players to play the new ones in ranked games. If you won, you got very little credit, and if you lost, you got hammered. This way, newbies got to experience some of the better game strategies, and it encouraged a bit more communication between players.
| |
Flick wrote:
I used to play an online game called Sanctum, and they had an option to challenge someone to a ranked or an unranked game. This was really nice for trying out new strategy and deck combinations. It was also usefull for new players, as there was no real incentive (actually, a ... disincentive?) for the better players to play the new ones in ranked games. If you won, you got very little credit, and if you lost, you got hammered. This way, newbies got to experience some of the better game strategies, and it encouraged a bit more communication between players. Yes, that's precisely the format I follow in my strategy games, except what I call it is a "friendly game". A friendly game is like any other match, except anything you do in the game doesn't affect your totals, whether they are score, resources, money, etc. In other words, whenever you play a friendly game, anything you do is just for fun. I also allow players to customise the minimum and maximum point values of players that can enter their games, so oldbies can play against oldbies and newbies can play against newbies. [edit] Outcentive? ;-) | |