Rating system reworked - proposal

[Tensegravz]

How so, I still see it that red gets the larger numbers first, as that player goes first. However, I do see that cumulatively, it can put red at a larger disadvantage over time, assuming all men are played on open territories. If lopdo's idea were to be implemented, it has to be made up somewhere else... maybe.
Turn one: 2, 3
Turn two: 4, 6
Turn three: 8, 12
Turn four: 16, 24
Turn five: 32, 48

Pumpkins !!! and red trouble is over

[Ozserf]

EFFACÉ

[>(FM)<]

There still will be lot of luck involved, but we can't get rid of that completely.

*groans*

[BeatlesFan]

I like the idea of Rated Games as an option - with others being "unrated".

I also like the recommendations for dealing with FTA.

I am unclear as to why the rated games mode would have to be 1 v 1. If X number of players (2 to 8) all knew it was a rated game we go in knowing random starting order still impacts us - Why does it have to be 1 v 1? I like everything else in the suggestion.

[Lopdo]

It is supposed to be 1v1 because that tells you more about skill than 6 or 8 player game where you start last, there is simply too much luck involved when you play with more players. Also secret allying, multi-accounting and stuff like that would be eliminated, which are important things for ranked games

How so, I still see it that red gets the larger numbers first, as that player goes first. However, I do see that cumulatively, it can put red at a larger disadvantage over time, assuming all men are played on open territories. If lopdo's idea were to be implemented, it has to be made up somewhere else... maybe.
Turn one: 2, 3
Turn two: 4, 6
Turn three: 8, 12
Turn four: 16, 24
Turn five: 32, 48

I think that this would be fine, as each player get more units than the other one, it is not about second having more units every time (he does, but so does the first player)

[BeatlesFan]

I understand your point about the 1v1 and you are correct about the general reasons. You also asked us for our opinions.

I agree that if I purely look at someone else's rate it could be influenced by all that you say.
However - I would like to play a ranked game against several of the top players in the game at the same time. In general I think I would enjoy that more than 1v1 matchups.

I also think cheaters and multi-accounters would still inflate their own rate with 1v1 matchups - this would not stop them. I can see them purposely playing a series of 1v1 against themself or their friend just for rate - letting the top account win every match. It would stop them from secret ally for sure and their multiple accounts would mean nothing when playing against a real opponent - I get that.

Also - Clans would likely enjoy rated matchups against other clans with more than 1v1 as an option (they still will but as unrated...)

It is your decision - and I agree it is an improvement - so yes it is a good recommendation. It is just my opinion that it is not necessary to make 1v1 the only option for rated games.

[Lopdo]

Looks like I forgot to mention that ranked matches would be random, you never know who you get (it will be someone with rank close to your own) so you can't play with your friend. I will also lock out people with same IP so they never end up in the same match.

I can understand you would like to play with multiple players but I want to make this right and something will have to go.

I will try to think about clans wars and how they could work with multiple players. It would be nice to have some official ally system in 2v2 matches (like ability to cross ally's regions etc) but that isn't something I want to do. Not yet anyway

[BeatlesFan]

100% YES to your proposal

[Ozserf]

EFFACÉ

[Ryankill]

It better work good this time, I was resetted to 1500, surrendered 1st in 8 players game and had -58 instead of the cruel -100.

Better. Still, after I just got -2 at 1440 for a 3rd place = wrong.

Any guests?