How about a ladder?

[GKar]

How about a ladder like the one for the first WaW? Is it too early for that? Or was it a bad experience when done for WaW? I think it's a great tool to see who's playing PBEMs and to get a little competition going. Most rules and "formalities" could be taken directly from WaW I guess, only the point system would need a rework.

[rjh1971]

I was thinking just about the same thing, this last days.

Jan would you organise it as well?

[JanSorensen]

I have been considering it but havent done anything yet partly to let people learn the new game first and partly because I dont play as much as I did in WaW.
 
If I do run the ladder I expect the posting process should be made less complicated though - so I would probably do away with posting both when the game is started and when it ends. While thats good because it lets you score a win if your opponent vanishes in the middle of the game it also meant alot more work. I would probably also skip the requirement that all players in multiplayer games need to post instead asking that atleast one playing from each side posts. Again, not quite as tight but less work as it was often a pain waiting for the last of 4 people to post.
 
Alternatively, we should look for one of the sites that specialize in running automated ladders. It might not be possible to have quite as complex as scoring system that way, but maybe thats not a significant loss.
 
Anyway, what do others think?

[GKar]

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

Alternatively, we should look for one of the sites that specialize in running automated ladders. It might not be possible to have quite as complex as scoring system that way, but maybe thats not a significant loss.

I agree. Having an automated ladder would mean less hassle for everyone in the long run, and it should be 100% up-to-date automatically.

Just counting wins, draws and losses would be enough for me, although the more the better, of course. Perhaps someone around here knows a good tool for that?

[Lebatron]

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

Alternatively, we should look for one of the sites that specialize in running automated ladders. It might not be possible to have quite as complex as scoring system that way, but maybe thats not a significant loss.

Anyway, what do others think?

That has already been provided. Its hosted by wargamer.com. Just use the link Battleleagues, which is located just below Opponents wanted. All you need to do is sign up to be a member of the Wargamer (its free) and its services would then be available. There is also an Opponents wanted section just below the link for Battleleagues, but in the past ours has always worked well for me. But if you want to reach out to others that don't visit this forum, that's the next best place to look.

[GKar]

Sounds fair enough. I just registered there, they want to know more personal information than what's really necessary in my opinion, but well - who will check the accuracy?

[christian brown]

OK, I'm signed up (something tells me playing for a real live win, and taking my time is not going to be so fun.)
So, who's up for a ladder?

[GKar]

I would join. [:)]
I'll ask my PBEM partners about noting the results on the wargamer's score table. Maybe we could even get a point system going fast enough? There is a possibility to post points additionally to the mere result (win/draw/loss).

[christian brown]

Original: GKar
There is a possibility to post points additionally to the mere result (win/draw/loss).

A definite must, since there are 3 levels of Victory, I reccommend  1  point for Marginal,  3 points for  Substantive and 5  for  Decisive.....feedback?

[GKar]

ORIGINAL: christian brown

1 point for Marginal, 3 points for Substantive and 5 for Decisive.....feedback?

Not bad, but I would put them closer together: 1 Decisive = 5 Marginals is a bit too much in my opinion.
How about 2 / 4 / 6? And should there be a penalty for losing?

[Willburn]

Any of you guys consider the fact that who you play kinda influences if you win or not. you might win 100 games in a row but if your playing someone very bad is that as good as victory as someone playing someone very good?

[GKar]

The ladder wouldn't be about bragging (well, not for me anyway), but to see who is playing actively and to get an impression about the skill level. I'd take a better scoring system any day, but this would be much more complicated for everyone to handle.

[neveS]

ORIGINAL: Willburn

Any of you guys consider the fact that who you play kinda influences if you win or not. you might win 100 games in a row but if your playing someone very bad is that as good as victory as someone playing someone very good?

I think if you play the same person 100 times and beat them 100 times, then you deserve to keep rising in rating since your opponent is (presumeably) gaining in experience and thus (presumeably)you as well since you continue to win. Likewise, if you play somebody better than you 100 times and continue to lose, then you probably deserve to fall in the ratings since you're probably a hopelessly bad player [:D]

[Lebatron]

I think the point values as suggested are missing an important fact. That is, that even games that end in a draw should give both players points. In this way play will be rewarded, even when it's a draw. The only time someone should not gain points is when they lose. I haven't studied how the ladder works over at the Wargamer, but I'm guessing that it's probably Chess like. A 1000 to 2000 range is kind of typical for Chess. Anyway, if there is a way to modify the score based on your victory level, I think the numbers below will be a good starting point to debate.

Based on a 1000-2000 point system( see pic from the Wargamer) and players starting with 1000 for their first game.

Draw +10 points for both players
Marginal (+-)20 points
Substantive (+-)30 points
Decisive (+-)40 points

I chose higher points than what I seen other games give, because I see a major tendency at this site that noboby makes Captain. If your going to have a rank structure, as the pic shows, it makes sense to actually score games so that someone could make General don't you think? For someone who is really good and has a long streak of wins they should be able to rise by several hundred points. Hence some real beef to my suggested numbers.

[neveS]

Ive always felt that for these types of community geared services for a particular game to become popular within the player base that the barrier to entry must be pathetically simple. Invariably, this means being built into the game's front end with a lobby feature of some kind that makes the signing up for games and the score reporting, etc all automagic. Play be email games would be much more popular because they'd be so accessible. Click 'network' select the type of game (e.g. play by email) then select the type of game (e.g. Total War) and which countries you're willing to play and the service automagically gets you set up with the first game available that is filled and meets all the conditions.

Whenever the game loads, if you have any pending matches it'll check to see if the other player's turns are up and if so downloads them and you can go into your second turn... maybe even sending you an IM and/or email when its ready.

It'd be a relatively simple bit of code since there's very little user initiated actions. There's no real time chat within the lobby, its merely a blind match making service and for ladders it'd be easier to pair players of similar rank up with one another. Essentially players just submit form data and the server does its thing. You could even add ability for players to include messages to one another within the turn file as players wouldnt have to know each other's email addresses... they'd only know the registered handle. And the bandwidth would be miniscule. Somebody at Matrix could run it on a 56k modem if they had too <grin>

Anyway.


EDIT: matrixgames could even push advertisements down to the lobby dialog... (hey, im just trying to grease the rails here.)

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: neveS
Ive always felt that for these types of community geared services for a particular game to become popular within the player base that the barrier to entry must be pathetically simple.

For the ladder, I would personally much prefer to see it hosted somehow by Matrix on this forum. It would be cool if Matrix had a automated ladder system for registered forum users.

This is the place I come for WAW:AWD related stuff, and frankly I just don't have any interest in going to another website. I guess the issue I see is that I feel there should be one place for the "AWD community". I don't feel like looking in multiple places to see what is going on with AWD.

[JanSorensen]

There are indeed pros and cons to different ways. I doubt we can get Matrixgames to host something (right noiw) though that would indeed be nice.
&nbsp;
Pro: Its right here and we get it just like we want it including statistics of whatever kind we want.
Con: Its never updating as fast and it the moderator stops updating its bad.
&nbsp;
Personally, I dont terribly favor a system where people are prone to lose too many points. Its already likely to push people away if they lose games - having them go into negative points only makes it worse.
&nbsp;
No matter how we run the ladder I would prefer something like:
&nbsp;
Decisive Victory: +60
Substansive Victory: +40
Marignal Victory: +30
Draw: +20
Marginal Defeat: +10
Substansive Defeat: 0
Decisive Defeat: -20

[GKar]

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

Decisive Victory: +60
Substansive Victory: +40
Marignal Victory: +30
Draw: +20
Marginal Defeat: +10
Substansive Defeat: 0
Decisive Defeat: -20

Agreed on the point system above. It has the nice side effect that the point total for both sides is +40 always, which makes it easier to remember.

I'd like to see a Matrixgames based solution as well, but I doubt we would see it in time, if at all. I'm not prone to register on yet another site either, but wargamer.com isn't some dubious mini-site looking for our cash after all, it's one of the biggest sites (or the biggest?) for games like WaW.

I think we should get the ladder going as soon as possible in order to have something to show the new players. I'll be reporting at least two of my PBEMs when they're finished (which will still take some time though).

JanSorensen, I guess we can count on you for a sticky once the rules and procedures are clear? [:)]

[JanSorensen]

I am happy to post a sticky, certainly, once something is finalized.

[Lebatron]

Personally I think a marriage between this community and the Wargamer site would be ideal. Since a link is already provided up in the top section it basically makes it more official. This will help to keep the AWD community from getting fragmented. We don't want that. The Wargamer site is very well established and is without a doubt the best place to increase our games exposure to others. Thus helping sales. Take a look at the Gamers Network subsection of the Wargamer. Notice the features. Game of the Month(vote guys, make our game #1!), most popular game requests, game reports etc etc. It would be easy with the number of people here playing WAW or AWD to put our game in the spotlight for a change. It's time something fresh made an impact over there.

Now back to the scoring debate. First of all I got a question. Since I never used Battle Leagues before, can we even adjust the numbers as discussed? It seems you can from looking at it, but I didn't carry through to really find out.

Jan, I think your right, we should even reward a marginal loss with some points. I like it. It falls in the point range I suggested so that the full scale will be used, unlike all the other ladders. They are stuck between 1000-1100 because they unwisely choose to reward victory with to few points per game.

I like it as is, but its been pointed out that in Chess you score more or lose less if your opponent is at a different skill level. We could optionaly add a secondary score adjuster that takes into acount rank(once some are at Captain and above). For instance you beat someone thats a Captain that has a 1300 score. Its your first game and your at 1000. Since he's one level above you, you get an additional 10 points for your win. If you lose, you lose 10 points less than you otherwise would. Basically I'm saying 10 points per rank difference. Any comments?