Some ladder thoughts...

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • MattB
    Veteran
    • Mar 2013
    • 1214

    Some ladder thoughts...

    Some thoughts on the ladder (with apologies to Pav)...

    I was thinking that the ladder doesn't really work any more, so I was wondering what angfolk thought about these ideas.

    1> There should be completely separate ladders for different variants


    This seems obvious to me. Combining them makes for nonsense. It just puts Furyband at the top. I could create a variant where every character starts at clvl 101 and claim the top spot instantly. (Well, I couldn't create my own variant, but you get my point).

    2> Furthermore, there should be a separate ladder for each release of Vanilla

    This would serve not only to make it fairer (some V's are harder than others), but also keep things fresh and interesting by encouraging people to submit their characters. The only reason I posted my first character onto the ladder this week (only my third winner, as it happens) was because I was thinking about this post. It had never crossed my mind to do so before now, to be honest. Think how much fun it would be when 3.5 is released and there is a fresh, blank ladder to fill. It would be just like a competition!
    At the moment we have 3,500 Vanilla entries all jumbled together, but separate ladders for ZceAngband, FayAngband and Frazband with 9, 8 and 1 entries respectively. (All brilliant variants, I'm sure).
    This would also filter out all of the dirty and dev versions into some kind of 'other' category, which makes sense to me.

    3> Characters should be sorted by fastest win (then by clevel for non-winners)


    At the moment the top of the v-ladder is fixed for all eternity. Those first people who bothered to xp their characters up to 99,999,999 will stay at the top. If it were sorted by least turns for a win then the top spot, however brilliant, will always be beatable. I should add that I will never be at the top on that criterion as I play very slowly (last win 176k turns), but it would be cool to try and get a higher position on the ladder by winning faster. Yes, this will encourage people to retire the moment they kill Morgoth rather than explore levels 101-127, but isn't that kind of the idea? Get Lantern, kill Morgoth, live out the rest of your life sitting in your kitchen, wearing your Power Dragon Scale Mail, slicing rations of food with Sting and spending your million gold on fine wine from the general store and the odd hallucination mushroom from the black market?

    4> I also agree with what Nick said in another thread that the default settings should be the easiest.

    This would mean that if anyone wants to tinker with the birth settings it's only going to make their ladder attempt harder, not easier.
    Having said that, I believe that the masochists who want to play Ironman should be recognised for their madness. Perhaps the ladder should recognise those options as a separate variant (although I doubt that's possible). Maybe it could simply be a matter of changing the version number in the savefile?

    I don't know if all/any of this is possible but, more importantly, do people want this?

    That's my two cents' worth, and I'd be interested to hear what people think...
  • pav
    Administrator
    • Apr 2007
    • 793

    #2
    1) I agree. Anyway, it's easy to ignore global ladder rankinks mentally, already.
    2) Here I don't agree, it would lead to massive fragmentation. We could settle a middle ground on a separate ranking for each decimal release, ie, 3.0.x, 3.2.x, 3.4.x, ...
    3) I agree, at least for Vanilla current ranking scheme obviously outlived its usefulness. The major problem with fixing this is that older Vanilla releases didn't include turncount in the dump. The minor problem is that you're implicitly encouraging certain playstyle (minimize turncount) -- merely replacing current encouragement of XP grinding, thus only a minor problem.
    4) No opinion.
    See the elves and everything! http://angband.oook.cz

    Comment

    • Derakon
      Prophet
      • Dec 2009
      • 9022

      #3
      Originally posted by pav
      3) I agree, at least for Vanilla current ranking scheme obviously outlived its usefulness. The major problem with fixing this is that older Vanilla releases didn't include turncount in the dump. The minor problem is that you're implicitly encouraging certain playstyle (minimize turncount) -- merely replacing current encouragement of XP grinding, thus only a minor problem.
      The simplest way to handle this would be to default to assuming infinite turns if not otherwise specified. I do agree that such a sort order is assuming preferability about a playstyle that not everyone goes for...but it is one that some people go for, so lacking any reasonable alternatives I think it's a decent default. If someone comes up with an alternate metric for sorting dumps, then presumably it could be added as an option somewhere, your time and interest permitting of course.

      And since I haven't said it anywhere near recently enough, thanks for running the ladder and these forums! You rock, Pav.

      Comment

      • MattB
        Veteran
        • Mar 2013
        • 1214

        #4
        Originally posted by pav
        1) I agree. Anyway, it's easy to ignore global ladder rankinks mentally, already.
        Then why not do away with it?

        2) Here I don't agree, it would lead to massive fragmentation. We could settle a middle ground on a separate ranking for each decimal release, ie, 3.0.x, 3.2.x, 3.4.x, ...
        That's actually what I meant (i.e. 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 etc.). There are already 58 Variants on the ladder, I don't think that an extra entry for each decimal release would significantly add to that.

        3) I agree, at least for Vanilla current ranking scheme obviously outlived its usefulness. The major problem with fixing this is that older Vanilla releases didn't include turncount in the dump.
        All the more reason to start afresh with 3.5 .
        (And what Derakon said)

        The minor problem is that you're implicitly encouraging certain playstyle (minimize turncount) -- merely replacing current encouragement of XP grinding, thus only a minor problem.
        As I said, I don't minimise turncount, but I would still prefer things to be ranked that way. Anyone, even me, could eventually get to 99million XP wielding Grond and the ICoMorgoth, but could I win in under 100k game turns? No way. But one is something I simply can't be bothered to do, and the other is an aspiration.

        And yes, you rock, Pav! Thank you. This forum brings joy into my life.

        Comment

        Working...
        😀
        😂
        🥰
        😘
        🤢
        😎
        😞
        😡
        👍
        👎