Ranking system had serious bug. You could see very many marshals or generals and at the same time you can't see enough captains or majors.
Now it was fixed. Don't forget the game is still beta
| Massive Assault http://massiveassaultnetwork.com/forum/ |
|
| rankings http://massiveassaultnetwork.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=2965 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | storm440 [ Thu Feb 09, 2006 11:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | rankings |
it seems that in the few weeks i have been playing i have gone from private to colonel to general and now back to private. Are we now set as to what the ranking scale will be or is it still in flux? |
|
| Author: | Tiger [ Fri Feb 10, 2006 7:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ranking system had serious bug. You could see very many marshals or generals and at the same time you can't see enough captains or majors. Now it was fixed. Don't forget the game is still beta
|
|
| Author: | storm440 [ Fri Feb 10, 2006 8:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
it did seem a little too easy to move up in rank
|
|
| Author: | Placid [ Fri Feb 10, 2006 12:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I also think that games against the AI shouldn't count towards rank. There's one player who told me that roughly 60% of his 400+ games (yes, he has that many already in the beta of MAN 2 alone!) were vs. the AI. He had a score over 2000. Maybe there could be a separate ranking of games vs. AI to encourage people to play solo, but it creates a problem of potential score-padding as it is. Just for clarification, I'm not saying the aforementioned player is trying to do anything wrong, maybe he just likes to play solo a lot... The thing is that anyone with a basic knowledge of the game can consistently beat the AI over and over as time permits... (Of course, one could also pad their score by beating poor human players over and over...but at least they have the option to reject the challenge and/or improve!) |
|
| Author: | storm440 [ Fri Feb 10, 2006 12:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
You know, it was kind of nice being a general with 2 wins, after all, due to my superior game play, they were 2 GREAT stratagic wins so i think i did deserve the promotions! It was all of those other players that got undeserved promotions that were the realy problem
|
|
| Author: | Tiger [ Fri Feb 10, 2006 1:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The victory over AI will not give points now. |
|
| Author: | storm440 [ Fri Feb 10, 2006 1:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
that is going to make for a lot of unhappy players. fortunalty, i am not one of them and am glad that this change has been made. |
|
| Author: | Placid [ Fri Feb 10, 2006 1:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I also found out today that draws sometimes add/subtract points based on the score of the two players involved. I mentioned to a dev that perhaps this should be changed to have all draws give a neutral result (the vast majority of them are to end goof-up situations anyway, such as today when I accidentally sent a 15-minute limit per turn challenge on Wasserland! Ahhh...the default timer got me already! )
|
|
| Author: | storm440 [ Fri Feb 10, 2006 3:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
while i would agree that some draws should be nutral, others should not. I think it is really frustration to be well ahead in a game and then have the game break and have to have it ended in a draw. Now, if the game breakage problem is solved that should eleminate that issue. But i think we all have to take some responsibilty for what we choose. I made the mistake of a 10 min game on a med map when i wanted a longer game but both players do have the same time period so we just played it. |
|
| Author: | Placid [ Fri Feb 10, 2006 3:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well, I agree that when a game breaks it is better to end it as someone's victory if one player is clearly ahead. If it is reasonably close, though, a neutral result is still appropriate. (But of course hopefully games will break no more/much less...) And yes, I would have just played the goofed-up challenge I sent had I known that draws are not currently neutral. I assumed they were as in Glicko in MAN. |
|
| Author: | storm440 [ Fri Feb 10, 2006 4:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
of course, now we get into the discussion of what clearly ahead is. Judgeing from how long a lot of players drag out, what i think, are hopeless games, there clearly is not a clear opinion on what "clearly ahead" is. Another can of worms waiting to be opened
|
|
| Author: | NucLe@r-UFO [ Fri Feb 10, 2006 5:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hmmm. I just finished a game against the AI an hour ago, and it did increase my points. When did they stop counting? I personally don't think that AI games should be excluded from rankings. The AI does present some challenge as a beginner,and are still challenging when you want to play quickly, and try new tactics. It shouldn't be too hard to figure its Glicko rating, from all the games it plays. The important thing is, if the rating system works better, someone who always beats the AI will be rated slightly better then the AI, but they won't climb much higher regardless of how many times they play, until they beat some higher ranked people. |
|
| Author: | Tiger [ Fri Feb 10, 2006 7:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
NucLe@r-UFO wrote: Hmmm. I just finished a game against the AI an hour ago, and it did increase my points. When did they stop counting?
I personally don't think that AI games should be excluded from rankings. The AI does present some challenge as a beginner,and are still challenging when you want to play quickly, and try new tactics. It shouldn't be too hard to figure its Glicko rating, from all the games it plays. The important thing is, if the rating system works better, someone who always beats the AI will be rated slightly better then the AI, but they won't climb much higher regardless of how many times they play, until they beat some higher ranked people. The system was changed again. Players will get points for the victory over AI, but very small, especially, if player has good rating. |
|
| Author: | Bokkie [ Sat Feb 11, 2006 10:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
storm440 wrote: it did seem a little too easy to move up in rank
I'm at place 21 now and I'm a luitenant.. Seems strange to me. After loosing ONE game that ran out of time I went from Marshall to Luitenant. Seems a little too easy to move down in rank... |
|
| Author: | storm440 [ Sat Feb 11, 2006 7:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
you missed Tigers point. ALL rankings have been readjusted to reflect a more realistic advancement ladder. If people are becoming generals after a few games and marshals after a few dozen, there is no real meaning to the ranks. |
|
| Author: | Bokkie [ Sun Feb 12, 2006 6:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
storm440 wrote: you missed Tigers point. ALL rankings have been readjusted to reflect a more realistic advancement ladder.
Ow ok I see. Still like to see wich position other players are on. |
|
| Author: | storm440 [ Sun Feb 12, 2006 10:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I would think that when there are enought players to start an elite division, they will have a list on the man2 site, like they did on the man site. I would think that unless someone has played most of their games against the ai, there position will not change very much, only their rank. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|