Proposal for Ladder System

[Sarcerok]

My GF, a non-gamer, inspired this idea. I have won my last four games, all by combat, not by coin. I enjoy helping new players but also would enjoy seeing players I have spent so much time helping develop in later games. Even with a relatively small group of testers, I only recognize a few players each game. Those generally know to either assist or oppose me immediately since I have a propensity for victory.

I also take note of players I think are good and those that I think are griefers. This is part of the process of building community. Serial griefers will quickly find themselves opposed and good players will easily find teammates. Why not promote this form of community in CivWorld?

A ladder system could be setup to rank players based on their average score in games (not their total score, as this just encourages people to play lots of or multiple games). Being ranked high enough could unlock "veteran" or "elite" games to join so that good players can play with other good players and enjoy a challenge. Likewise, novice players should get the opportunity to "warm up" with other novices instead of being confronted with experts against which they have no chance. People perform better when they feel that their actions matter.

So a ladder would stratify players based on skill and experience and also at the top the most active players would tend to run into each other more often. I might also suggest that veteran or elite players be allowed to join novice games if they want to hang with new friends or act as guides. I think in these cases a handicap should be applied since those players are at a clear advantage and they don't need to win the game to hang out with friends or help new players. Perhaps an across the board -25% output on all houses going down one step, and a -50% output on houses going down two steps (elite to novice). Put a symbol next to the players name so that others can identify that the player is advanced and experiencing a handicap. Maybe a silver star for one step and a gold star for a two step.

[Telgard]

So more Ladder exp if you win a game while Handicapped? LoL. This suggestion has a lot of win in it.

[Sarcerok]

LOL why not? Imagine you are some hardcore player in a newbie game. Normally you would just walk all over it, and win easily. Now with -50% to everything (don't try research during dark ages, that's a cumulative -100%!) you are not gonna be able to win so many hourly contests or auctions, making rank is harder, and you will have a hard time out producing newer players. How you COULD win is by teaching and organizing the n00bs in your nation, and trying to keep a consistent duke/prince rank in a winning nation. Since you obviously play way more hours than anyone else you probably will win some of the contests. Your personal economic power is limited so the key is making sure your teammates play well.

If you do well here, and still win, yea you deserve full ladder points for that. But not for beating up poor n00bs like in the current system.

[Glinda]

I like this if it would also encourage veterans to help new players. Perhaps ladder standings could also be affected by votes from players?

[Sarcerok]

Voting in games is big in Asia. I was on the design team for the first English MMOG to have that feature, Shattered Galaxy by Nexon in 2001. We have voting in the game now, but it's a bit rough and voting in game here for leader isn't as useful because of the short duration of the games. When I am voted to lead a nation/empire in an Asian game it is usually because I've played enough that everyone knows me and trusts me to make good decisions. Nation hopping also makes voting in game impractical.

I sense that you are suggesting some form of extra-game voting. This seems highly exploitable. What did you have in mind, and what would be the advantage of adding popularity to the ladder rank? You have my attention even if I am a bit skeptical.

[Glinda]

I guess I was thinking along the lines of a "this person helped me" vote, and I wasn't really thinking of it as being out of game necessarily. Not popularity, but more like a "I found this review helpful" mechanism like they have on Amazon and similar.

It occurred to me because of my own experiences in the game, I guess. There were people who kind of took me under their wing and told me how to play better.

[dkk]

I could still see voting useful in this game, especially once longer games exist. The recent changes have lengthened games out quite a bit, and players that are familiar with each other would be able to vote each other in to (and out of) appropriate locations.

Some kind of overall ladder/ranking would be nice, too. Though I'd prefer to see one based on place rather than fame, as the fame score still feels really arbitrary at times, and it can fluctuate a lot between games.

[Telgard]

Some kind of overall ladder/ranking would be nice, too. Though I'd prefer to see one based on place rather than fame, as the fame score still feels really arbitrary at times, and it can fluctuate a lot between games.

It might fluctuate between games but.. over an extended number of games you will see the same 10-20 people are almost always in the top 5% of fame ranks for each set of games.

[dkk]

That's why I'm saying to base the ladder on place, rather than fame. In some games the top scores are pushing 1000, while in others it's difficult to break 400. In fact, I'd argue that some games with lower scores are harder to place well in, because there are more active/experienced players, or the ones that are there are more spread out.

[NickV]

The current system promotes older players teaching new ones. For instance, in my current game, I played civ hopping for the first half, then joined the third or fourth place civ and schooled them on how to do well. Now we're crushing everyone. Of course, the only reason this happened was because I was in a game where I didn't know anyone off the bat. If I did, I would have just made a small, closed civ from the start.

[Telgard]

That's why I'm saying to base the ladder on place, rather than fame. In some games the top scores are pushing 1000, while in others it's difficult to break 400. In fact, I'd argue that some games with lower scores are harder to place well in, because there are more active/experienced players, or the ones that are there are more spread out.

Ahh yes, I misread what you wrote. I'm in agreement with your statement now. lol.

[Sarcerok]

People who consistently place highly do so for a number of reasons. Foremost I would say these are experience, propensity to exploit, and total hours played per day. Once the exploits, like nation hopping, are mitigated then things should smooth out a bit.

The primary purpose of the ladder is to create a system where these hardcore players can continue to find challenge by allowing them to play each other in advanced games. Then the result of a game will not be predetermined, every player will have to work for their rank.

This brings up another issue. Since the first hour that a server is up is so critical for later success, there needs to be a way to stage for a new game so that you can get in when it comes up. Right now you just have to stare at the game screen hoping to pay attention for hours to catch the next new game quickly.

[Glinda]

I definitely like the idea of the option to play in a veteran game, or a game based on your level of skill (based on placing in your last x number of games).

[JingL]

Nice, this is one of those rare threads that most of the core players all agree with each other! Liking the idea as well (haven't people been suggesting that for months?)

[Telgard]

Nice, this is one of those rare threads that most of the core players all agree with each other! Liking the idea as well (haven't people been suggesting that for months?)

Monthes? The game barely came out of alpha a couple of months ago..