For tournament winners.
Discuss
SUGGESTION: Hall of Fame
Moderator: thunderchero
-
ruthlessferengi
- Multiple Tournament Champion
- Posts: 880
- Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 2:00 am
- Location: GMT- 5
Totally agree with sentiments here. Would be a great idea and perhaps you could extend the idea a bit, to include beaten finalists (and perhaps with my vested interest) semi-finalists, not in the hall of fame, but in some sort of points system that would indicate form.
Maybe a silly idea, but wouldn't be too difficult as it's done in most sports anyway.
Regards
Pigman
Maybe a silly idea, but wouldn't be too difficult as it's done in most sports anyway.
Regards
Pigman
Missing the days of the cases ladder ranking mickar?mickar wrote:I agree with hall of fame.
Also, has there been any discussions about ladder rankings?
This would be good too. It would also show the credit of other players that Pigman suggests, using a points system. However, I do think the hall of fame should be for winners only, that's the point of a hall of fame.
Hi RSE_Chris
Just wanted to be extra clearon my take, that's all.
Regards
Pigman
I totally agree and to be fair, I made this perfectly clear in my post.This would be good too. It would also show the credit of other players that Pigman suggests, using a points system. However, I do think the hall of fame should be for winners only, that's the point of a hall of fame.
As you can see, I wasn't suggesting that anyone but tournament winners be included in Hall of Fame, but that you had a points or ranking system running side by side, so that others who do well in tournaments, but don't win (there can be only one winner) still have some added interest and incentive to play well.Would be a great idea and perhaps you could extend the idea a bit, to include beaten finalists (and perhaps with my vested interest) semi-finalists, not in the hall of fame, but in some sort of points system that would indicate form.
Just wanted to be extra clearon my take, that's all.
Regards
Pigman
this may be a silly question but.......
what exactly is a ladder? is it like a league table? if so do you get x amount of points for a win ,do you have a set number of players ,do you play a certain number of games against different players?
i wasn't around in the msn days ( computer wise
)but it sounds like a hell of a good thing. can someone please enlighten me
cheers
what exactly is a ladder? is it like a league table? if so do you get x amount of points for a win ,do you have a set number of players ,do you play a certain number of games against different players?
i wasn't around in the msn days ( computer wise
)but it sounds like a hell of a good thing. can someone please enlighten me cheers
for the world is hollow and i have touched the sky....and one day mickar.....one day.....one sweet day......HAS ARRIVED!! HAPPY DAYS 
Not sure if I understand your ladder idea properly, but we had a chess club at school where everyone was ranked on a kind of ladder system.
Lowest rung was pawns, next rung bishops and knights, next rung rooks, next was monarchs (both king and queen deemed equal) and top rung was current champion.
Therefore you had up to 16 pawns (or more if club was well supported), 8 knights/bishops, 4 rooks, 4 monarchs and 1 champion.
The way it worked was that anyone could challenge a person one level above them and the challenge had to be accepted or the challenged defaulted.
If the challenger won then the players swapped ranks, if not then status quo. Once an initial equilibrium has been achieved, it meant that good players had no shortage of games as plenty of people want to knock you off of your perch and take your place, but it also meant that you would be challenged by someone close to your ability so it would be a decent game.
It also means that challenger can see progress as they improve and it can also mean champion is changing all the time.
You would have to allow reasonable break periods for holidays etc, but after a fair limit a player on a higher rank would have to lose it, as the point is to defend it in battle and not to avoid contests.
This could work by having a different competition for each popular version, including Vanilla and then you would find out by sign ups, which Mods people really want to play.
It would be a kind of rolling league competition and could happily run alongside the existing tournaments, which I would view as cup, or knockout competitions.
Just my thoughts if anyone is interested.
Regards
Pigman
Lowest rung was pawns, next rung bishops and knights, next rung rooks, next was monarchs (both king and queen deemed equal) and top rung was current champion.
Therefore you had up to 16 pawns (or more if club was well supported), 8 knights/bishops, 4 rooks, 4 monarchs and 1 champion.
The way it worked was that anyone could challenge a person one level above them and the challenge had to be accepted or the challenged defaulted.
If the challenger won then the players swapped ranks, if not then status quo. Once an initial equilibrium has been achieved, it meant that good players had no shortage of games as plenty of people want to knock you off of your perch and take your place, but it also meant that you would be challenged by someone close to your ability so it would be a decent game.
It also means that challenger can see progress as they improve and it can also mean champion is changing all the time.
You would have to allow reasonable break periods for holidays etc, but after a fair limit a player on a higher rank would have to lose it, as the point is to defend it in battle and not to avoid contests.
This could work by having a different competition for each popular version, including Vanilla and then you would find out by sign ups, which Mods people really want to play.
It would be a kind of rolling league competition and could happily run alongside the existing tournaments, which I would view as cup, or knockout competitions.
Just my thoughts if anyone is interested.
Regards
Pigman
BTW, with our Chess club we had the ranks and owners of those ranks displayed graphically on the wall a bit like a BSP tree (very topical) with the champion as the big daddy, all singing, all dancing, parent of them all, and each layer down as children of each previous respective layer.
This was updated regularly and if you wanted you could try and pick a route to the top by looking for players above you who might be vulnerable to your style of play.
More I think about the idea the more I like it, but you might all hate it.
Regards
Pigman
This was updated regularly and if you wanted you could try and pick a route to the top by looking for players above you who might be vulnerable to your style of play.
More I think about the idea the more I like it, but you might all hate it.
Regards
Pigman
SUGGESTION FOR PYRAMID COMPETITION, all popular Mods
Have now formulated an outline as to how my proposed competition would work running alongside the existing tournaments.
One benefit is that if you are no longer involved in a tournament, you can still play games that have consequences (i.e. almost like friendlies with an outcome).
I would propose to offer sign-up for all popular Mods, with a minimum of 8 players required to make the competition worthwhile.
Where an existing tournament has already been played i.e. recent BoP and FTM tournaments, I would suggest that players are placed in the pyramid, or ranked according to their finishing position in relevant tournament.
If no tournament has been played a draw will have to take place with all players starting on bottom rank and winners of games will move up a rank and this would continue until all ranks are filled from top down. After this the competition would revert to it's normal rules.
Rules Proposal
1. A player may challenge any player from the rank above.
2. A player cannot refuse a challenge. (Exceptions:- Rank can be frozen for up to 5 weeks of the year to allow for holidays and so forth and a player who is already involved in a game does not have to accept challenge until existing game is resolved. In the event of multiple challenges, these are dealt with on a first come first served basis).
3. Games by default are to be played on warzone as no matter how flaky it may be, it's become the accepted option within this community. (Exceptions:- Any other method is acceptable if it has BOTH players mutual agreement, i.e. Hamachi, you go visit each other to play game over LAN and a few beers or whatever).
4. Ranks to be swapped immediately if challenger wins (challenger is promoted and challenged is demoted). If challenger loses then nothing changes.
5. Both players must acknowledge result on topic opened specifically for their Mod competition and the winner at least, must provide at minimum a brief report on the game with details of which empires each played with and some meaningful commentary. (Would be nice if loser also posted, but it's accepted that not everyone likes to report on their losses).
6. Ranking points will be applied on a rolling basis as follows:-
Captain 5 points
Cmmdr 4 points
Lt Cmd 3 points
Lt 2 points
Lt Jg 1 point
These points have no meaning within the specific Mod competition itself, but go towards overall ranking across all mods.
This would have to be live with changes in ranking points applied as and when games are completed and ranks changed.
Player with highest overall ranking total from all Mods currently running, would take rank of Fleet Captain with five pips and overall bragging rights.
But you could be Fleet Captain one day and lose it the next as it can all change very quickly.
As for game starting conditions, I would suggest more flexibilty than existing tournaments, but not so much that games become too long. With this in mind and yet to be specified, I would have a range of starting parameters :- tech level, number of minors, difficulty and so on, that the challenger would be able to select from.
So that you can see what the pyramid would look like I have prepared a sample one based on last BoP tournament finishing positions.
This is just a proposal and can obviously be fine tuned, but who would be interested?
Regards
Pigman
Have now formulated an outline as to how my proposed competition would work running alongside the existing tournaments.
One benefit is that if you are no longer involved in a tournament, you can still play games that have consequences (i.e. almost like friendlies with an outcome).
I would propose to offer sign-up for all popular Mods, with a minimum of 8 players required to make the competition worthwhile.
Where an existing tournament has already been played i.e. recent BoP and FTM tournaments, I would suggest that players are placed in the pyramid, or ranked according to their finishing position in relevant tournament.
If no tournament has been played a draw will have to take place with all players starting on bottom rank and winners of games will move up a rank and this would continue until all ranks are filled from top down. After this the competition would revert to it's normal rules.
Rules Proposal
1. A player may challenge any player from the rank above.
2. A player cannot refuse a challenge. (Exceptions:- Rank can be frozen for up to 5 weeks of the year to allow for holidays and so forth and a player who is already involved in a game does not have to accept challenge until existing game is resolved. In the event of multiple challenges, these are dealt with on a first come first served basis).
3. Games by default are to be played on warzone as no matter how flaky it may be, it's become the accepted option within this community. (Exceptions:- Any other method is acceptable if it has BOTH players mutual agreement, i.e. Hamachi, you go visit each other to play game over LAN and a few beers or whatever).
4. Ranks to be swapped immediately if challenger wins (challenger is promoted and challenged is demoted). If challenger loses then nothing changes.
5. Both players must acknowledge result on topic opened specifically for their Mod competition and the winner at least, must provide at minimum a brief report on the game with details of which empires each played with and some meaningful commentary. (Would be nice if loser also posted, but it's accepted that not everyone likes to report on their losses).
6. Ranking points will be applied on a rolling basis as follows:-
Captain 5 points
Cmmdr 4 points
Lt Cmd 3 points
Lt 2 points
Lt Jg 1 point
These points have no meaning within the specific Mod competition itself, but go towards overall ranking across all mods.
This would have to be live with changes in ranking points applied as and when games are completed and ranks changed.
Player with highest overall ranking total from all Mods currently running, would take rank of Fleet Captain with five pips and overall bragging rights.
But you could be Fleet Captain one day and lose it the next as it can all change very quickly.
As for game starting conditions, I would suggest more flexibilty than existing tournaments, but not so much that games become too long. With this in mind and yet to be specified, I would have a range of starting parameters :- tech level, number of minors, difficulty and so on, that the challenger would be able to select from.
So that you can see what the pyramid would look like I have prepared a sample one based on last BoP tournament finishing positions.
This is just a proposal and can obviously be fine tuned, but who would be interested?
Regards
Pigman
Ok, this is the website that controlled the BOTF ladder back in the day: 'Case's'
http://www.igl.net/newuser/1.html#1
If you look at the ranking system it explains how it was played. If the person at #1 is beaten by the person at #10, then the person at #10 moves up half way to position #5. If the person at #1 is beaten by the person at #2, then they swap positions.
This takes into account all games played. Whereas If you played on the basis of simply swapping positions with your defeated opponent, it is not an accurate reflection on the players ability (they could get lucky for example).
Everyone starts as unranked. The first player to win goes to the top, and the ladder begins from there.
Challenges of opponents above you cannot be refused. If they are, it counts as a win for the challenger.
You cannot challenge the same person twice in a row, until a certain time limit has passed.
You may only be involved in one challenge at a time. Either one you have made, or one that has been made against you.
This encourages games to be played with everyone on the ladder.
As this is a tried and tested model, I suggest this is the way we go forward. Keeping track of player positions is much easier than keeping track of accumulated points, and with the way the ladder is structured, people will still get credit from winning games by their position on the ladder.
I also suggest this is done with vanilla 102 only. Reason being that mods are often changed and therefore would not be a good reflection on the ladder. Vanilla never changes, therefore is very good for this sort of league.
Maybe we can get BOTF hosted on Case's again? Would have to look into it. UPDATE: looking through the website, there is an option to create a league and add a new game (as BOTF is not listed anymore). With that in mind, I'm fairly sure this can be done. Obviously it will depend on the amount of interest, and if anyone wants to volunteer to create it and be the admin (people who control this site / long term members would be ideal). It is also free.
Either way, this is just another option that can be discussed.
http://www.igl.net/newuser/1.html#1
If you look at the ranking system it explains how it was played. If the person at #1 is beaten by the person at #10, then the person at #10 moves up half way to position #5. If the person at #1 is beaten by the person at #2, then they swap positions.
This takes into account all games played. Whereas If you played on the basis of simply swapping positions with your defeated opponent, it is not an accurate reflection on the players ability (they could get lucky for example).
Everyone starts as unranked. The first player to win goes to the top, and the ladder begins from there.
Challenges of opponents above you cannot be refused. If they are, it counts as a win for the challenger.
You cannot challenge the same person twice in a row, until a certain time limit has passed.
You may only be involved in one challenge at a time. Either one you have made, or one that has been made against you.
This encourages games to be played with everyone on the ladder.
As this is a tried and tested model, I suggest this is the way we go forward. Keeping track of player positions is much easier than keeping track of accumulated points, and with the way the ladder is structured, people will still get credit from winning games by their position on the ladder.
I also suggest this is done with vanilla 102 only. Reason being that mods are often changed and therefore would not be a good reflection on the ladder. Vanilla never changes, therefore is very good for this sort of league.
Maybe we can get BOTF hosted on Case's again? Would have to look into it. UPDATE: looking through the website, there is an option to create a league and add a new game (as BOTF is not listed anymore). With that in mind, I'm fairly sure this can be done. Obviously it will depend on the amount of interest, and if anyone wants to volunteer to create it and be the admin (people who control this site / long term members would be ideal). It is also free.
Either way, this is just another option that can be discussed.