The M/MU website

[sparrowhawk]

Please let me know if you find navigating around the MU site (not the game itself) easy/difficult, whether you would like to see any new features or existing features changed, etc...

[Ringthane]

Rank please! Like, assigning a rating to a player, based first in %wins, and then on how hard his opponents were - points by win...

[sparrowhawk]

Would this not be addressed by a high-score table?

[Ringthane]

It's a way to put it, yes ;D

[sparrowhawk]

Alternatively/additionally, we could use the ladder approach. ie, you always move up the ladder above anyone you neat. If someone beats you, they move above you. I believe that this is how squash players rank themselves?

[Ringthane]

But what's the point of repeatedly beating someone, under those rules?

[sparrowhawk]

Hmmm... Dunno ;D

[Matija]

Maybe something like Swiss system (I think that's what it's called) where rank received is calculated from the ranks of beaten opponents.

[Old Shendemiar]

I once made HUGE ranking system that had unbeliveable complicated system of calculating ranks...

Here's some ideas that i used in that ranking system:

Each game had a rate according to rank of participating players. (less for newbies and high for quality players)

Winning a high rated game gave more rank than winning a low rate game.

Winners own current rate effected the amount how much he got more. Pro winning bunch of newbies didnt give him much more, but newbie winning pros gave more.

Thats the main guidelines i used, but it had HUGE amount of other features also, like that old wind didnt effect much anymore, negative points for losing, various conditions to wins, that effected the amount received, PER nation settings (winning with coutry that had not used much for winning gave more), complex bonus system (most wins, winning fastest, winning biggest etc game bonus points) etc etc... It's all still online, but it's in finnish...

And it was not just a sum of points received, then those who play much would get more than those who play less but win relatively more. It was kind a relation figure compared to others, so one who had win 100 games could have same rank than somebody with just 5 wins.

www.helsinki.fi/~rjalarvo/arr/arr_1.html

[Freiegeister]

An idea:

Each game type has a victory score.
Win a regicide and you get X points, winning a find the flag would get you Y points.
You would then multiply this by factor of the difference between the respective scores of the victor and the other participants at the start of the game.
Killing an opponent would give you bonus points, again multiplied by the rating of the vanquished over their own rating The killed Lord would also lose the same points. "There can be only one!"

For example:
JY, Ringy, Perun and Andrea play a 4p regicide.
They are respectively on 125, 130, 100 and 120 points.

Ringthane kills Perun and gains 13 points for a kill (10 points multiplied by 130/100)

JY kills Andrea and gains 10 points (10 x 120/125)

JY kills Ringy and gains 8 points (10 X 113/135)

JY wins and gains 16 points (20 x 130/125 x 100/125 x 120/125)

At the end the rankings would be:
JY: 159 (+34)
Perun: 117 (-13)
Andrea : 110 (-10)
Ringy: 105 (+5)

This system accounts for differences between player skills and partly evens the ranking between players who play a lot and those who don't. It also encourages you to play against even or better players.

You could also have rankings for most kills and most victories.

You could also have a best ten victories ranking where each player is ranked on their best ten results, and a Greatest Victories ranking for when a lowely ranked player takes out a high ranked one.

[Perun]

Not bad. But you should add the special check for Fernando - for score to go too much below zero would be humiliating! ;D ;D ;D

But, one thing is wrong here, IMHO. Multiplier for winning a game should be much bigger, say 100. That way it's worth winning.

[Ringthane]

Watch your six before you spread those venomous gates open, dude ;D