Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Epic battles


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 Mitthunder

Mitthunder

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 132 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Lieutenant

Posted 01 March 2015 - 06:28 PM

These are my suggestions for future updates:

 

1) Playing with 60, 80 or even 100 pieces instead of only 40. This adds to the unpredictability of the game. Of course the pieces need to be balanced out. Having twice as many of everything is easy enough, but I believe 12 bombs is too much. 8 seems ok to me, but I need opinions in this!

 

2) Spectating other games: it would be entertaining to spectate on the best players! Their pieces will remain visible to the audience. If for any reason the players do not want spectaters they should have the option to turn it off.

 

3) Bigger hiscores. Currently, people who move from the top of the bronze metal into silver lose their ranking because it only shows the top 250 of each medal. Player #250 in silver is lieutenant.



#2 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,137 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 02 March 2015 - 04:14 AM

1) When I was a kid we used to play what we would casually call jumbo stratego. Ironic choice of names but we didn't know that at the time. We just sat the boards side by side and had double of everything. A long time ago someone else came up with a similar suggestion to this also. 2013 archives, found here:

http://forum.strateg...oards-together/

2) You couldn't have RV for the audience or any visibility at all for the audience. It would be a simple matter to cheat if that were the case. Maybe the archived games could be done this way. That would be okay, I think, but people are always going to work about setup cheating, so I'm not sure. I think it would be neat to be able to choose to see one side's pieces or even both, on archived games.

3) Can you believe that once upon a time there were only 27 silvers on the silver leaderboard? I remember posting that and wondering about the day there would be more than 250. I can't find that exact post but here's one just a bit newer where I mention there are 73 silvers at the time. Find here: http://forum.strateg...-ranking-board/

There was not much interest in leaderboard changes then and nothing has changed.
The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#3 Kernel Mustard

Kernel Mustard

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 436 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 02 March 2015 - 07:19 AM

 

2) Spectating other games: it would be entertaining to spectate on the best players! Their pieces will remain visible to the audience. If for any reason the players do not want spectaters they should have the option to turn it off.

 

YES THIS IS A GREAT IDEA!

Although Gary has an interesting point about the colluding possibilities, but honestly I don't think it would really be that big of an issue, because first of all, ppl can already collude if they wanted to in person. 2 ppl could be at one computer playing the same game. 

Second, if someone is chatting someone over the web giving another person tips about what to do, it's going to be kind of hard to describe over a chat system the correct moves for an opponent, and it's going to take valuable time to communicate between each other and the buffer could run out in doing so. I think if pm chatting a player who you are watching your games was not allowed, colluding would happen much less often as both players would have to actually go to an online chat room somewhere else to do it.

 

ANOTHER IDEA that Gary seemed to point out is perhaps if there was an archive of videos, you could select to either watch the videos normally where both pieces are hidden until attacked, or as an RV (remain visible) game. I would like that as I am a fan of watching RV. The only potentially confusing thing is that if in the game someone is watching a player who makes a memory mistake (and they're watching with RV settings), it may seem kind of confusing,  as if the player made a really bad move, but I would think it wouldn't be too hard for a viewer to figure out that it was a memory mistake.


3) Can you believe that once upon a time there were only 27 silvers on the silver leaderboard? I remember posting that and wondering about the day there would be more than 250. I can't find that exact post but here's one just a bit newer where I mention there are 73 silvers at the time. Find here: http://forum.strateg...-ranking-board/

 

WOW only 2 years ago


The earth is a flat plane:  https://www.youtube....dLUm8Db&index=2 Psalm 19:4 - 6, Rev 7:1


#4 Mitthunder

Mitthunder

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 132 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Lieutenant

Posted 02 March 2015 - 02:29 PM

YES THIS IS A GREAT IDEA!

Although Gary has an interesting point about the colluding possibilities, but honestly I don't think it would really be that big of an issue, because first of all, ppl can already collude if they wanted to in person. 2 ppl could be at one computer playing the same game. 

Second, if someone is chatting someone over the web giving another person tips about what to do, it's going to be kind of hard to describe over a chat system the correct moves for an opponent, and it's going to take valuable time to communicate between each other and the buffer could run out in doing so. I think if pm chatting a player who you are watching your games was not allowed, colluding would happen much less often as both players would have to actually go to an online chat room somewhere else to do it.

I didn't think about that, a spectating player can easily send a screenshot to his friend. Spectating games should only be unranked then, just like a friend match. There's just no way to stop the cheating.

 

 

3) Can you believe that once upon a time there were only 27 silvers on the silver leaderboard? I remember posting that and wondering about the day there would be more than 250. I can't find that exact post but here's one just a bit newer where I mention there are 73 silvers at the time. Find here: http://forum.strateg...-ranking-board/

I see, and like Kernel said, that was 2 years ago! It's definitely a problem now. I like all the ideas in the threat, it would be interesting to see which rank I have and how many players there are to catch up on. Now I'm just a nobody! :'(



#5 The Prof

The Prof

    Major

  • NASF Committee
  • 1,431 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 03 March 2015 - 07:12 AM

It would be interesting to see which rank I have and how many players there are to catch up on. Now I'm just a nobody! :'(

 

Mitthunder, you are currently in 13,604th place on the Bronze leaderboard.  You can use the link here to track your progress:

 

http://forum.strateg...ranking-boards/



#6 Mitthunder

Mitthunder

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 132 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Lieutenant

Posted 03 March 2015 - 06:52 PM

Mitthunder, you are currently in 13,604th place on the Bronze leaderboard.  You can use the link here to track your progress:

 

http://forum.strateg...ranking-boards/

Thanks! I don't understand, names are coming up like this and how do I show the leaderboard?

I tried different things but I get 'no items to display'.

fd7d4460_o.jpeg



#7 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,137 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 03 March 2015 - 07:02 PM

Mitthunder, this is not the entire page. What did you sort it on?

One thing that is true is that there are vastly so many more bronze players than silver, it just takes the bronze board longer to function. You can see much easier how it is supposed to work if you change the league id to 2. It will work well for the silvers.
The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#8 papillon

papillon

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 425 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 03 March 2015 - 09:37 PM

that database is great to have, although, it might be running on a Commodore 64 and is sometimes inaccessible. btw, does that number "213,496" in the image mean that there are at least that many accounts registered now? I know it was more than 160,000 at some point last summer.



#9 Mitthunder

Mitthunder

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 132 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Lieutenant

Posted 03 March 2015 - 09:48 PM

It was not showing anything after loading the page and without playing with the settings. I tried again later and now it's working. One thing though, the top players in bronze are marshals and have 599 rating. But in rank 1 and 2 it says bronze spy with over 600 rating. These are probably silver spies that don't belong on the list.



#10 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,137 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 03 March 2015 - 10:00 PM

It's always got some kind of bug in the display.
The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#11 papillon

papillon

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 425 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 03 March 2015 - 10:16 PM

One thing though, the top players in bronze are marshals and have 599 rating. But in rank 1 and 2 it says bronze spy with over 600 rating. These are probably silver spies that don't belong on the list.

This is a result of a "draw" bug. On rare occasions, a draw temporarily results in a "bronze spy" rank. The rating of the player this happens to is not affected (hence their over-600 numbers); once another game is played, the rank properly resets. These players you see listed this way have simply not played another game since their draws. The bug remains kind of a mystery.



#12 The Prof

The Prof

    Major

  • NASF Committee
  • 1,431 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 04 March 2015 - 12:04 AM

that database is great to have, although, it might be running on a Commodore 64 and is sometimes inaccessible. btw, does that number "213,496" in the image mean that there are at least that many accounts registered now? I know it was more than 160,000 at some point last summer.

 

Yesterday when I checked the total number in the bronze list was 221,850.  What I was shocked to discover was that 157,126 of these, over 70% of the total, have a rating of exactly 100.  This must mean the most common experience here is to either never play a ranked game, or play no more than a few games, lose them, and then never come back.



#13 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,137 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 04 March 2015 - 12:46 AM

Clearly we need some serious account deletion going on.
The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#14 papillon

papillon

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 425 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 04 March 2015 - 01:18 AM

Wow on that number, Prof. I wonder if that's in line with user-retention numbers on other free sites.

 

I have one idea on retaining some of those, just off the cuff, so I haven't thought it out:

 

I suspect that there are new players who initially see the "achievements" (I've long since forgotten about those…) and a key one there is consecutive wins. Perhaps a small minority (or, maybe a ton! who knows) of these dead accounts are from users who lost a game, then started a new one on another account to get a streak going. If there were a "reset" stats option, where users could just go back to zero on their own, perhaps this would alleviate some of the dead weight.

 

I don't know if that helps or hurts ELO or what. Just a quick idea.



#15 The Prof

The Prof

    Major

  • NASF Committee
  • 1,431 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 04 March 2015 - 05:40 AM

Wow on that number, Prof. I wonder if that's in line with user-retention numbers on other free sites.

 

I have one idea on retaining some of those, just off the cuff, so I haven't thought it out:

 

I suspect that there are new players who initially see the "achievements" (I've long since forgotten about those…) and a key one there is consecutive wins. Perhaps a small minority (or, maybe a ton! who knows) of these dead accounts are from users who lost a game, then started a new one on another account to get a streak going. If there were a "reset" stats option, where users could just go back to zero on their own, perhaps this would alleviate some of the dead weight.

 

I don't know if that helps or hurts ELO or what. Just a quick idea.

 

I think it is common that a high percentage of new users will just try the experience once.  Metaforge had the same problem.   There was a player who liked to play only against new people, and at one point his stats said he played 842 opponents in the past 12-months.  But at the time there were only about 200 ranked players (you had to play fairly regularly to be ranked).  So there must have been a loss of a high percentage of those new players who never stuck around long enough to be ranked.

 

I don't think the winning streak achievement factors into the numbers I gave.  If a player won several games, lost one, and then started over, his initial account would still likely have a rating over 100.  So this type of account wouldn't be part of the 70% I mentioned.



#16 papillon

papillon

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 425 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 04 March 2015 - 06:15 AM

I think it is common that a high percentage of new users will just try the experience once.  Metaforge had the same problem.   There was a player who liked to play only against new people, and at one point his stats said he played 842 opponents in the past 12-months.  But at the time there were only about 200 ranked players (you had to play fairly regularly to be ranked).  So there must have been a loss of a high percentage of those new players who never stuck around long enough to be ranked.

 

I don't think the winning streak achievement factors into the numbers I gave.  If a player won several games, lost one, and then started over, his initial account would still likely have a rating over 100.  So this type of account wouldn't be part of the 70% I mentioned.

I guess i might have confused myself with my own real point, which is that there would be fewer accounts with records of like, 0-1, since these kinds of players wouldn't be opening new accounts to start over. This 'reset' option would act preventively against some potential dead weight accounts.

 

Then again, the site probably likes its numbers...and of course i don't see something like this happening anyway.



#17 MickM

MickM

    sr. Game Artist

  • Administrators
  • 337 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Spy

Posted 04 March 2015 - 09:10 AM

Clearly we need some serious account deletion going on.

 

I'll discuss the pruning of unused accounts with the team!


Posted Image

#18 Lonello

Lonello

    Colonel

  • Moderators
  • 1,750 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Spy

Posted 04 March 2015 - 10:01 AM

I'll discuss the pruning of unused accounts with the team!

Not sure if that's in the interest of the company :wacko:

 

Would be nice to see a million, regardless.

 

However, as said before, the ranks show like it's programmed on a Commodore 64 or even a Vic 20 (which was my very first computer -_-): I can never see the ranks as it only shows 15 people and loading the next 15 costs about 2 minutes or so :unsure:. So I never look at them. Yesterday I read f.e. Waterfall is still ranked... is he? That's something to discuss with the team then...

 

Also, a million accounts is great if there are a million people behind it. Thus: you shouldn't be able to create a second account, or a dozen as some seem to do. The IP-check would take care of some problems there B)


Lo

#19 MickM

MickM

    sr. Game Artist

  • Administrators
  • 337 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Spy

Posted 04 March 2015 - 10:12 AM

Not sure if that's in the interest of the company :wacko:

 

 

Quicker servers with less unneeded data is always in the best interest of the company!


  • DEATHHAMMER and Cannan like this
Posted Image

#20 Lonello

Lonello

    Colonel

  • Moderators
  • 1,750 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Spy

Posted 04 March 2015 - 10:24 AM

Quicker servers with less unneeded data is always in the best interest of the company!

 

It would be nice to commercialize the fact you have 1.000.000 users too ;).

 

And indeed... the server must get faster. Does an unused account take much data then? I'd say: put them in an archive, never to be checked again by the server until the owner resurfaces...


Lo




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users