* Richard Shimooka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-02-17 17:37:22]: > There is the question of how would we organize it? What are the settings? I > mean I play generally 2v2s, would those get ranked? Would games at 30% > experience and 5 gpv be ranked? If that is the case would the ranking be > indicative of anything then?
To give the technical reply on that, from the FGS POV... The FGS software itself doesn't tell game servers how to rank the games that are played on it. The patch part of the game server sends key/value pairs back to the FGS backend, and the backend then uses either a standard template (with standard key/value pairs and meanings) to display the data, or custom templates with alternate/additional meanings and key/value pairs. So the way various matches are graded and displayed on the portal depends on the patch to the game server (you could say that certain matches don't get ranked, or that hard 1vs1 settings get more points...) and on the specific templates (if any) that are defined for Wesnoth. So, that's pretty much something you need to decide amongst yourselves. Our architectures makes a lot of things possible, you need to tell us (or send us a patch of) what is interesting for wesnoth in particular, in terms of scoring/ranking algorithms. > Now on to FGS specifically. Contrary to what you might think I don't have > much of a problem with it in its current "limited integration" form. I > think to some degree its actually a positive move. Why so? Because we > already have an un-official ladder thats done by a simple webpage and and > players reporting their scores system. Its mostly played by experienced > players, and its fine. From what I can gather, this would be quite similar > (I may be wrong). Similar, only open source, more automated (players have to report their scores in your current system?), and in the near future with tournament support and so forth. Like I said in my first mail, absolutely no lock-in results of FGS support. If you want to play on FGS, great. Otherwise, don't and everything works the same as before. > By having the scores and ladders reported somewhere other than in > the wesnoth client, and needed to download a separate program, you > remove that immediate compeditive element that could be hurtful, and > promoting better gameplay among serious players. If it works this > way, I think that is a good compromise. It does work that way. While I have no particularly strong feelings either way on your argument of "integrated competition considered harmful", I can say that the FGS may offer the *option* of integrating with games later on, but that it will always remain an option. If you decide as a whole to not integrate (the day it becomes possible), you still get 100% of the benefits of the FGS. > I think there should be other priorities over this as well. I think > a user registration system for all users should be a priority far > before we look into adding a ladder system. We need more instruments > to control the lobby, its a mess now, It could get far worse if we > add a compeditive system to the game. If I may interject... Currently the FGS supports mixed anonymous/authenticated play on a single server, but in the new version we're currently designing, the community admin(s) will have the option of restricting game servers (or the entire community) to registered users only. This would make the authentication you're looking for a part of the community management engine, as it should be in my humble opinion. And while we haven't planned any such features yet, it would be quite easy to add mechanisms to disable user accounts throughout the community, if foul play or attitude is reported. Is that the kind of mechanism you'd be wanting? > Thanks for hearing me out. Thanks for voicing these concerns! While I don't have strong feelings for either side of the ranking debate, I do agree that it is something that you need to work out. I only hope that the FGS will be an acceptable option, once the debate is done with ;) - Dave.
