Moderator: Community Team
If you want to play a real time game and don't get the right number of players then you can abandon the game since it hasn't started yet. Then just start another one later.Twill wrote:LOL agree with you there Lack -
But....
The first turn of every game should be 24 hours - what if you create a 5 minute game, wait for 6 people to join, but leave because it takes 5 hours for them to join....you miss your first (and probably every subsequent) turn because people didn't join.
Great idea. Have some public comments for each game to inform others what the expectations are for the game.Twill wrote: OR
The other option is to have a "we will start in x hour y minutes, please be here" to coordinate people being on at the same time - again, the 24 hour first turn would do that just fine.
I agree with Lack above, 12 hours or 5-15 minutes, anything in between makes no sense, and by the way solves this problem.Twill wrote: OR
The other option is to have any number of minutes per turn (i.e. user selectable) but require a "cerfew" time where no moves are allowed. I.e. 1 hour turns with no turns between 10pm and 11am to let people sleep.
I disagree with a pause button. Gives too much power to the game creator.Twill wrote: OR
have a "pause" button that any player can select to go do laundry or eat or, heaven forbid, use the "facilities" or something. This should be an indefinate pause, but after 24 hours, the other players have a resume button - if the person does not come back, they can all choose to pick the game back up (with a 1-2 hour lag time to get everyone there)
just some thoughts
Twill
But at the moment with the current scoring system the people at the top of the scoreboard aren't necessarily the most skilled.lackattack wrote:Your score is intended to reflect your skill
How does the current scoring system not show who is the most skilled. It takes skill to win and if you win you get more points and if you get more points you move higher on the ranking.But at the moment with the current scoring system the people at the top of the scoreboard aren't necessarily the most skilled.
They might be but it's difficult to tell.
Take a player who wins on average 60% of the games they play and another who wins 90% of the time. The 60% winner can easily have a higher score simply by playing more games.moz976 wrote: How does the current scoring system not show who is the most skilled. It takes skill to win and if you win you get more points and if you get more points you move higher on the ranking.
Whoa, slow down dude!! I didn't say the existing system sucks! In fact I think it's kind of helpful. But as I just mentioned above I don't think it shows who is the most skilled.Tr0y wrote:Aphid what do you propose for a new scoring system?
Just saying the current one sucks isnt constructive.
Aphid wrote:Take a player who wins on average 60% of the games they play and another who wins 90% of the time. The 60% winner can easily have a higher score simply by playing more games.moz976 wrote: How does the current scoring system not show who is the most skilled. It takes skill to win and if you win you get more points and if you get more points you move higher on the ranking.
Lets say for example that a win is worth 100 points on and a loss is 20 points off your score and the starting score is 1000. After 10 games the player who wins 90% of the time would have a score of 1880. If the 60% winner had played 20 games then they would have a score of 2040.
This is how a less skilled player can have a higher score.
I've played 9 games and you have played 12.seraphesy wrote:
whoa...
how many games have you played?
In the 9 games I have played there has been 38 players. Of the 29 non winning players the average score deducted has been 20. If you play a game with 6 players and 5 of them lose about 20 points each then the winner will gain about 100 points. This is why I used these numbers previously. I know that if you have a higher score you win and lose at a different rate but if you are a mid-ranked player these have been the numbers that I have seen.seraphesy wrote:
The more skilled player you beat, the MORE points you get.
If you play low rank people, and u lose, you will lose MORE points.
your scenario above assumes that you get a flat points per win. that is not true.
a player who wins 60% of the time vs average players, his rating will stabilize after a while, and it will remain the same no matter how many games he play.