Dedicated PTW Players: Discussion

Inverse Icarus · October 30, 2002, 15:38

i'm thinking about rigging up a database in PHP/MYSQL for our dedicated players.

I'm thinking about making it so people have to be APPROVED before they can join (ie myself or someone allows them to join). I was pondering the idea of making it an "open ladder" type thing, but the purpose of this was to get away from cheap tactics / clans, etc, so some sort of "approval" system to only allow selected people in would be essential.

tell me what you think of that.

also, i'm thinking what needs to go in to a user database, so far i have this:

username
password
aim name
yahoo id
msn name
icq #
rating (i'm not sure if this should be a rating given by other players, or something like a ladder rank, wins/loss, etc)
preferred civ
preferred difficulty.

what else would you like to see?

aahz_capone · October 30, 2002, 15:57

preffered strategy (you name it yourself, like builder, warmonger, tech slut, wonder whore...)
Diplomatic status (rogue state, pro-International communtiy, neutral)

and a status that other players playing with you can give, like did they think you were more warmonger when you think you try to be builder...

KingSponge · October 30, 2002, 16:07

I would stay away from any sort of simple "rating" scheme where numbers are involved, like "Joe (3.5/10). Too easily abused and too easily misread.

Instead, I think a list of "Feedback" (eg Ebay's feedback system) from other players would serve as a better gauge where people actually type out a brief blurb about their experience(s) with the person.

This way you get to read what people think and you should be able to weed out the responses from idiots who are just being spiteful, etc.. You can't really do that with a "number" rating system....

Just my opinion.

BTW, I think it's a great idea. Good luck.

werdhertz · October 30, 2002, 16:14

I think feedback would be better too! Also, i think maybe something so they could report if you quit a game, or whatnot, so you wouldnt get stacked up against people that quit in the middle of a game..

Jon Shafer · October 30, 2002, 16:20

Personal comment, favored game type (simultaneous, turnless, etc.), wins VS losses.

I think having strategy would kind of suck some of the fun out of it. Saying "such and such is a warmonger" or "such and such is a builder" kind of gives an idea to someone what to expect (or will trick people when someone gives a misleading description). Either way, it's a bad idea IMO.

Inverse Icarus · October 30, 2002, 16:30

see, when i was thinking about wins vs losses, that makes it more of a "ladder" and less of a group. ladders also are usually 1 on 1, or smaller games.

i'm looking to create this so i could make some games with good people last until the later stages of the game. you know, see a cannon or two :lo:

KingSponge · October 30, 2002, 16:51

Ahh, so you mean more like a Gentlemen's (or lady's) Club where people play the game more casually, ie no rushing, type thing to experience the WHOLE game and not just the first 20 turns... Cool.

Slax · October 30, 2002, 16:57

I think the most important thing to know is a person's commitment to the game, ie, have they ever quit or acted improperly somehow?

ruby_maser · October 30, 2002, 18:14

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
I'm thinking about making it so people have to be APPROVED before they can join (ie myself or someone allows them to join).

I don't see how you could actually approve someone... maybe I'm wrong though. What criteria (other than a hunch) are you gonna have that you could go by?

If you set up a system that allowed to people to make comments, what is to stop some sore loser from posting remarks that would damage someones reputation? I would hope we were all Civilized ( pun intended

) but there are gonna be hurt feelings because games won't start on equal footing locationwise or, nice as someone was, they wouldn't trade you a vital tech /resource /whatever that you don't have, etc, etc.

I think a general rating system would be necessary to prevent people from getting in over their heads with more experienced players. What incentive would you have to stay in a no-win situation? I can already see myself typing in "Please kill me! I only have one city left and you have 101! And don't give me that line about how war weary your people are. Why do you torture me?!!"

Franses · October 30, 2002, 18:49

I very much like this idea. Especially the part where you get to know whether people are likely to play to the end (if not in clear lost position of course). I am not afraid about sore loosers because we will know very fast who these people are that provide false information.

A kind of rating system would be nice. Something like "played 5 games, won 4" would be sufficient to start with. After a while we will know who are the good players by hearsay. Rumours go around quickly enough.

MarkG · October 30, 2002, 18:50

uber, a friendly suggestion: dont start coding just yet

Inverse Icarus · October 30, 2002, 19:09

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG
uber, a friendly suggestion: dont start coding just yet

noted friend

Oerdin · October 30, 2002, 21:15

Battlezone already does something very similiar to this and is availible for free. Just FYI...

MarkG · October 30, 2002, 21:17

who mentioned money?

Jon Shafer · October 30, 2002, 22:00

Not money, just... mugs...

Inverse Icarus · October 30, 2002, 22:04

what, FREE MUGS?

punkbass2000 · October 30, 2002, 22:36

This siunds like a good idea to me.

Robert Plomp · October 31, 2002, 12:44

During the Civ2MP period I thought about such a database system (of course not in PHP but in Lotus Domino)

Things that are needed to make it work:
info per user:

- avg approval rate given to others. (if this is low, this person can't be token seriously. If someone has a rate below, say 6, more approvals below 6 are not accepted.)

- game-log per session, who attended, who showed up all the time, who did not show up x times.

as Markos said, I wonder if such a sytem will widely be used. You can use it of course for a limited group of people who prefer long diplo games, and want to know who's trustable.

You can use the system as well to organize games, ie. by letting people fill out the time-ranges they are available.

If you want to do it in Lotus Domino, I can be a big help.

CyberShy

DAVOUT · October 31, 2002, 14:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Franses

A kind of rating system would be nice. Something like "played 5 games, won 4" would be sufficient to start with. After a while we will know who are the good players by hearsay. Rumours go around quickly enough.

You know the rating system used worldwide by the chess players; every players signing up in his local club receives a capital of 1100 points; each game played in competition results in the winner earning some points which are lost by his opponent. The world ranking is done this way; the top players are around of 2700 pts.

Rating the behaviour is a totaly different thing. If early quitting is the worst thing that can be made, would not it be enough just to count them? Mr So and So has commited early quit in 47 instances out of 52 games started. Mr Bob has commited early quit in 2 instances out of 77 games started.

The problem is that early quits have to be declared by the victim(s), recorded independantly with the possibility to be contradicted by the culprit.

SanPellegrino · October 31, 2002, 16:38

well, maybe I'm just too naive in those things, but the easiest would be a battle.net like account: games, wins, losses, disconnects et voilà. There is also a ladder system with chess-like ratings for those who want to compete.

NeOmega · November 9, 2002, 05:20

I am more for the e-bay system..... that way nasty thingsa could be said like "he quit after he realized I was going to recapture my 5 catapults!"

or nice things like "he finally conceded defeat after I had captured 5 cities in four turns"

or even nicer things like.... "don't play this dude unless you really know how to play"