Rank system is not for active

[Finite]

Can't afford to spend more time to play, unfortunately... But at least I can say from newbie-perspective that during the 6 months I've been playing I've never opened the ladder pages until now Did not even know we had ladder seasons until I saw the post that announced one was going to end soon.
That said, I do have experience from ranking systems from games like Laser Squad Nemesis, Frozen Synapsis and such, so I think I can contribute to this discussion even though am relatively new in here.

[Igor]

Many players, joined here, probably played other games like this. But here are another units which have different abilities, not the same as in other games. To play is to get understanding of the game.

Last times I looked for a new game and I saw some interesting "dead" games. That means that site of the game exist but almost nobody plays. That is the reason why I think that, before joining and studying a new game , is logical to get information how many active players are in it. The best way to see it is to look at the raiting sheet which is probably face of the game.

[Argammon]

I totally disagree with Igor.

Moreover, I think that the current ranking system is too biased in favor of players who play a lot. Reason? Because usually you win a lot more points than you lose. It is NOT a real ELO system.

Currently, it is ridicules that Igor is on the 2nd place of the ladder with a rekord of 10-11. He should be on place 30 or so.

[Igor]

Application of ranking system is often in sport. In tennis, for example, as far as I know, the one, who gets wins, has growing raiting. Those who do not participate in the competition, who do not play, can not claim the higher ground.
In football and hockey there are no write-downs for the defeat, there is only scoring for winning the match, there is limited number of matches though.
But we have no limits on the game (and it's great), and I believe that the more a player spends games, the more activity he brings and the better for the entire community. Game is primarily players who play.

2 Argammon. I suppose that a half of all your games in 2-nd season are completed on the Hammer Mountain map. And all your 4 games in current season are done on this map, too. Player, who wish to have high reiting and get a high ladder place, must be able to play more maps than one, I think.

[Argammon]

Could we please stay on topic Igor? This thread is not about who is the best player but about the ranking system.

Currently you sit on 2nd position with a record of 10-12. Just make it a pure ELO system and everything should be fine. For most players it is simply impossible to play as much as you do.

[Maze]

Argammon/Igor,

I understand the ladder rating philosophy is twofold and just perfect as such:

- winners rise and winning a game against a stronger player is more rewarding than winning against a weaker player, similar to ELO ranking
- by just playing you contribute to the game's traffic/activity so a personal points pool is built over time from which you get a part whenever you win a game just as a way to say thank you AND to stimulate you to keep playing, also when you are at the top in the middle of the season and would otherwise be tempted to sit and wait till the season is over (= passive defense of your position).

The counting system is of course subject to improvement and looks like the developers are continuously working on this.

Igor,
I disagree with your comparison of football etc: a competition has a fixed number of games and the more you win the higher you rank (Yes, I am aware of the fact that this is a very simplified statement, in soccer e.g. it's not that straight forward as drawing a game also gives you points.)

And forgive me for another point where I disagree with you: I stated some time ago that rewarding only the wins and not counting the losses would make this game a mouse clicking game instead of a strategy game. You replied that people are competitive by nature and proud of what they do. For sure most people are proud of what they do but not all to the same extend and they are not all equally competitive. Look at all those existing games where you live in a city and can build your house, get married, buy clothes and just walk around like in a virtual second life. Or even those games that have a ranking system where you can level up by completing missions (farming, killing, ...) and get points or money which allow you to expand/expand/... but (let's be honest) not much more than just button clicking is involved. You could say that the "virtual second life" games have zero skill requirement and the "button clicking mission games" have a bigger but still very small level of skill requirement and so on, climbing up to more challenging and skill-requiring games up to highly strategic games like Warbarons and higher. The question is then: where do you (read: Warbarons) want to be on this scale? On every point of this scale you will find players and for every point on this scale they are different than the others, from not competitive at all to extremely competitive AND (which is not necessarily the same) from very easy-going / low challenge looking players to strategy/analytics/complexity adoring ones.

Suggestion (nothing to do with above but still on-topic):
Besides the existing ladder system I think tournaments would be a great asset for this game:
- players subscribe (and pay credits, top 3 can win these credits), e.g. 32 players
- needed: a person organizing "on paper" the matches like in a real tournament, unless programs are available to be implemented
- how? 1vs1 direct elimination until the final (and the "small" final for 3rd place, between the losing semi-finalists), either like in tennis by winning just one game or like in snooker with best of 3 or 5 or ...
- maps? e.g. "the lonely island tournament" = only on lonely island, "the grand slam" = on a fixed set of maps
- timing: not bound to a season and everyone finishes his game and the winner waits till the opponent for the next round is known. In a "lonely island tournament" a "Best of 5" is feasible while in a "grand slam" of a mix of small and large maps I would opt for one game only per round.

A well balanced and large tournament could even have a full place next to the existing ladders with following pros:
- playing more or less games doesn't give you any advantage or disadvantage
- no more discussion on who is playing which map(s) and playing only to get points on his pet map(s)
= fixed set of games and maps

[Igor]

When a player is on the bottom or even in the middle of the ladder he gets many raiting points after each win, and in the same time he loses just a little sum of raiting points after a defeat.
Any one who lost many game at the start of the season, lost just little sum of raiting points. Then, being at the second part of ladder, player who starts to win will get big sum of points after winning under opponents who much higher at the moment.
I think it's right. Even remembering how hard it was for me to earn ladder points in previous season, when I was first for a long time.

2. Maze. Question of why players play is not so much practical as philosophical. Yes, indeed, I said a little bit about it in one of my previous posts. I would like to add about the colorful game where the player "lives a second life." This is a very colorful and interesting games, but rather for fun, like watching TV. The graphics in these games is very complex and colorful, it gives a real picture. Graphics Warbarons not as colorful (and this is good, it does not distract from the game), so I think that here there are basically wanting to enjoy the strategic game (as in chess). In Warbarons not have to save the princess from the evil wizard, but rather to beat by sword to an opponent's helm
As for tournaments, this is done in the sport. For example, in football national championships there is championship where all play each other, and there is cup to play to first defeat. In tennis, there is a general rating and there are some tournaments that much. One player can not participate, and the other will participate and get some ranking points. Who will play in the tennis tournament (not one tournament, a tournament series), he gets more rating points and adds them to their final rating.

[Argammon]

As I said the problem is that you win a lot more points than you lose.

Suppose you and I sit on first and second place of the ladder. We then play each other 100 times and both of us win 50 games. The result would be that both our points would skyrocket. That can't be right and is open to abuse.

[Igor]

That's greate when player win more points than he lose. I guess that would be better if active players will be at the top 30 instead of those men who need to raise activity. The more games the higher raiting.

It's really so that if 2 players beat each other many times, their raiting go to be very high.
But how many such cases are know? It looks like no one. May be that's because any abusing can give nothing to player.

[SnotlinG]

You only win more points than you lose as long as you have any "bonuspoints" left. So if you are very active you will run out of bonuspoints and then win/lose will be exactly the same.
This system with bonuspoints is to make sure you still have a chance to compete even if you dont have time to play as many games as the most active players.