@ lifeinpixels,
you are correct but you need to play at least 30 games a month to be able to qualify for the D12.
I see no reason to change this.
So if and when you get a high rank, if you want to keep it of course you could by not playing anymore games.
But I'm pretty sure that even the most rank-obsessed players will still want to play games even if it means there ranking could drop.
@ tramadol,
I've only played a couple of same time games precisely because of all the problems.
Until and if they can be resolved I see no reason to make a new ranking just for that type of game.
Most decent players who's computers are not fast enough will stop playing that type anyway.
So unless it is fixed this type of game will simply vanish.
Of all the same time games that I've played on the internet the only ones that worked where the ones that had complex rules for when 2 or more players attack each other simultaneously.
Usually it's something along the lines of "the player with the biggest army has precedence over the other players".
Risk was never made to be played simultaneously and it shows, I think it will be very hard to make this work and nearly impossible to keep the cheaters and suicidebunnies at bay.
I understand the potential appeal of trying to make this type of game work but I'm afraid they have opened pandora's box with this 1.
Win ratio is not the be all and end all of obtaining a high rank.
The vast majority of the games I play are 8 or 9 player games and if I'm doing well I win 1 in 4 games I enter.
And I'm consistently in the top 30 I think, because of the rank-dodgers I can't be sure how high or low my rank is exactly
There would be no reset after a 100 games, what happens is that when you play your 101st game the points ( if any ) you won from the 1st game you played are replaced with the points ( if any )you win in the 101st game you played.
The points from the 2nd game you played are replace with the points of the 102nd game when you finish that 1 and so on and on.
At all times your ranking points = to the points you earned in the last 100 games you've completed.
This is what I mean when I say this would introduce pressure in a way there isn't now.
For example: between the 40th and 55th game you played you where never defeated, you won every game you played.
When you start the 140th game you know you have to win the next 15 games just to stay even.
This is how the ranking system in tennis works and it makes for a more exiting and dynamic ranking system.
It also has other effects: lets say the 40th game you played and won was a 9 player game with high ranking players and you won 150 points that game.
If the 140th game you play you enter a 2 player game with a low ranked player the best you can hope for is to win and get 20 odd points.
So you've won but the 150 points are now replaced by 20.
It gets even worse if you won the D12 ( this than would be the equivalent of the slams in tennis ) because you earn an extra 250 points if you win ( if I'm not mistaken ).
@ lifeinpixels,
you are correct but you need to play at least 30 games a month to be able to qualify for the D12.
I see no reason to change this.
So if and when you get a high rank, if you want to keep it of course you could by not playing anymore games.
But I'm pretty sure that even the most rank-obsessed players will still want to play games even if it means there ranking could drop.
@ tramadol,
I've only played a couple of same time games precisely because of all the problems.
Until and if they can be resolved I see no reason to make a new ranking just for that type of game.
Most decent players who's computers are not fast enough will stop playing that type anyway.
So unless it is fixed this type of game will simply vanish.
Of all the same time games that I've played on the internet the only ones that worked where the ones that had complex rules for when 2 or more players attack each other simultaneously.
Usually it's something along the lines of "the player with the biggest army has precedence over the other players".
Risk was never made to be played simultaneously and it shows, I think it will be very hard to make this work and nearly impossible to keep the cheaters and suicidebunnies at bay.
I understand the potential appeal of trying to make this type of game work but I'm afraid they have opened pandora's box with this 1.
Win ratio is not the be all and end all of obtaining a high rank.
The vast majority of the games I play are 8 or 9 player games and if I'm doing well I win 1 in 4 games I enter.
And I'm consistently in the top 30 I think, because of the rank-dodgers I can't be sure how high or low my rank is exactly ;)
There would be no reset after a 100 games, what happens is that when you play your 101st game the points ( if any ) you won from the 1st game you played are replaced with the points ( if any )you win in the 101st game you played.
The points from the 2nd game you played are replace with the points of the 102nd game when you finish that 1 and so on and on.
At all times your ranking points = to the points you earned in the last 100 games you've completed.
This is what I mean when I say this would introduce pressure in a way there isn't now.
For example: between the 40th and 55th game you played you where never defeated, you won every game you played.
When you start the 140th game you know you have to win the next 15 games just to stay even.
This is how the ranking system in tennis works and it makes for a more exiting and dynamic ranking system.
It also has other effects: lets say the 40th game you played and won was a 9 player game with high ranking players and you won 150 points that game.
If the 140th game you play you enter a 2 player game with a low ranked player the best you can hope for is to win and get 20 odd points.
So you've won but the 150 points are now replaced by 20.
It gets even worse if you won the D12 ( this than would be the equivalent of the slams in tennis ) because you earn an extra 250 points if you win ( if I'm not mistaken ).
