Sillysoft Forums

[B-Ron]

I understand how it works and the ranking/points per win balance is a nice idea, but really does not work.

Today I won three games and got 0, 10, 0 respectively for each win.
Then I lost one game and got -244.

There is no way that a 3-1 record, regardless of how poor an opponent was defeated, should equal -234 points. Negative 234! This is worse than the BCS!

With so many players playing as "Unregistered" and the seemingly random abilities of the AI players basing points on other's point totals is a mess. The game is nice (minus the frequest crashes and sneaky ways to avoid losses), but the point system needs serious reconsideration.

[Guest]

Although I find this "Up and Down" thing quite amusing I agree with B-Ron on two points :

First, Nobody should avoid loss by quitting before the points are split. Wouldn't it be possible to store player data as soon as one is eliminated? Of course the crash tendancy of Lux is a subject on its own. But, Dustin, given the fact that people are quite lenient since this game is so fun, it's still something to fix as soon as possible.

Secondly, based on the rules you described or is it possible to lose 100 to 200 points between players with less than 200 points of difference? Is it because one player alone can be at loss when others share its points? Then I guess, some algorythm needs some fixing.

Still I'm having some there… Especially when B-Ron loses that much!
Quit the game rolling Dustin

Best regards guys.

[shopi]

By the way, the guest reply to B-Ron's post was humbly wrote by your friendly neighborhood shopi

[dustin]

Version 3.7 should fix the problem of players leaving after being killed to avoid their ranking loss.

I am open to changing the ranking algorithm around. It seems very hard to maintain a score over 700 right now, which isn't the idea.

I could remove the AIs and/or unregistered players from the ranking list. Do you think that that would improve things? I'm not very experienced with designing ranking systems (this is my first one), so all suggestions are welcome.

[B-Ron]

Beaftuful - not sure what an appropriate ranking system is - but I am glad to hear it is under consideration.

Beautiful job on 3.7!

[Gerry]

I think that the huge jumps up or down in ranking are evidence that the system needs to be tweaked. I have spent time in the top five (unjustified) and in the bottom five (also unjustified). I am probably slightly better than average, and if I play enough games, that is where my ranking should be.

Maybe take out the computer players - they seem to skew each game's results. Only add or subtract points based on the human players' relative positions.

Thanks for the work on the new version. When a player leaves a game, usually, but not always, control is offered to the host. Is there a reason?

[dustin]

If the player who leaves is still alive then the host is offered control. If they have already been killed off then the host is not, since there is nothing to control.

Hopefully this jibes with what you see.

[iDye]

just weighing in on the ranking system. I jumped to the top (over 1500) with one game tonight. Prior to that I was like 23 or something. I'm competent, but not that good.
Suggestions: Dump the AI in rankings and put unregistereds in their own seperate rankings (keeping them in the system may spur interest in registering).
Put a cap on upward or downward movement for each game, ie. can't rise or drop more than 50pts for winning/losing a game.



Great game. Keep up the good work. Hate the glitch where non-host player can't place armies or armies don't show, or buttons aren't active.

[logan]

maybe there could be a once a month hall of top 10 so if you made it it stays around in the permanent records, as we're all reaching 1000?
just a thought