forum.freeciv.org

The scores.

You would want to see the 5 first players on in-game score to ranked to tier 1, the next 5 to tier 2...?

We can try that but since the scores are visible in any case, it remains to be seen what kind of effect this will have.

Regarding cities, I have a drastic solution that may displease some people, but it actually makes sense: disable pumping cities with Migrants and Settlers. It's basically an artificial action that has no grounds in reality. It makes sense if you are playing Warcraft, but not if you are playing Civilization.

About Warriors, it's a bit paradoxical to have them for a longer period becaue "people want cheaper units" and then obsolete them with local killers such a Musketeers. Either obsolete them with Phalanx or with some other cheap and weak unit in Gunpowder age. Or even turn them into Explorers or Caravans something. Maybe this doesn't make sense at a first glance, but if a Warrior unit survived till this age, they would be called the Swiss Guard.

wieder wrote:The scores.

You would want to see the 5 first players on in-game score to ranked to tier 1, the next 5 to tier 2...?

We can try that but since the scores are visible in any case, it remains to be seen what kind of effect this will have.

No tiers. Simply, line up players by their rank, one by one. Yes, it will happen that someone will want to smash everything around him to get higher on the table, but effect will not be linear: in most cases he will have to smash a lot to move a little - and maybe decide that it isn't worth it - or smash a little in order to move a lot. But it may be much more worth it to actually attack the one just ahead of you (if you can) just to put him below yourself, than hitting less powerful targets.

No problem in obsoleting warriors once you can build phalanxes. We can do that.

With score ranking you mean that the player with best score is 1st, the 2nd is the one with the 2nd best score...? Not sure if I understand it.

Removing the migrants would solve some problems but that would also limit the options the players have. This would also not solve the city building issue with smaller cities and with a small citymindistance. I'm trying to figure out how I could exploit this if I would play a game like that.

wieder wrote:ith score ranking you mean that the player with best score is 1st, the 2nd is the one with the 2nd best score...? Not sure if I understand it.

Er... what?

Removing the migrants would solve some problems but that would also limit the options the players have.

Not asm much as citymindist is limiting.

This would also not solve the city building issue with smaller cities and with a small citymindistance.

It would make it less drastic.

Player A score 1000
Player B score 900
Player C score 800
Player D score 700
Player E score 600
Player F score 500
Player G score 400
Player H score 300
Player I score 200
PlayerJ score 100


How would you rank the players?

I think we have some noise in communication I'd rank them the obvious way. But for any possible FUTURE ranking, I wouldn't use the score (1000, 900 etc.), but the rank (A is 1, B is 2 etc.)

For example, the table could look like this:

A 1000
B 901
C 900
D 899
E 800
.
.

Then, still giving points based on RANK (1,2,3...) and not score (1000, 901, 900, 899...) would create better and more interesting results and give more motivation for particular kind of play.

Right... So the first in score would be 1st, 2nd in score would be 2nd and 3rd in score would be 3rd...

The order of the ranking would be based on score and the actual score wouldn't matter any more than that.

Correct

I think we are using both the words "score" and "ranking" with two different meanings each Hence the confusion

Maybe have a look here to make sure what I had in mind:

http://forum.freeciv.org/f/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=75565

I've given up on LT Web scoring... for obvious reasons ... but the idea is still there.

Yeah, indeed

Let's see how this works out.

Btw, how does one "win" or end the web based multiplayer games? Sorry if I have asked that before. Can't remember it really.