Well, I hope we switch to the new system in good time. Right now, it still needs some "bake time". When Ryan's back from vacation, it'll be back to bug-fix mode.

Pete Fitz 526/7 823 0 0
Bang 103/7 513 0 0
Stackhouse 11/7 114 100 0
iVtec 10/7 72 100 0
phife 0/7 41 2500 0
Losanda 0/7 19 10000 0
cookmeister83 68/7 119 500




LOL, Who fucked up the TEST server?!

Doesn't really matter, because the games still work. It's just the counts of players that don't. It has stopped noticing when people leave, so the counts only *increase* and never decrease. If you leave and return 5 times, the count of watchers goes up by 5.

Like I said, doesn't affect the games, though. It's just hard to know how many people are sitting without going to see.

the whole donating pts thing needs to be capped somehow.

Agreed int.

I agree with Int. Donating points could really be abused when this server goes live.

As I already said on a table yesterday, including a new feature could cut this problem down a little:

What about group scores? Several people (5-10?) can join groups. Think of "clans" or "guilds". With a seperate group highscore you wouldn't need to donate points anymore, since the group's points would all add up and compete in the group ranking.

Of course someone might still wanna be first in the "individual" highscore, but I think for a lot of people the group score could become the new main goal. Remember the "cabal". If there was this new feature, the counter-ally could group and try to kick it from 1st place.

There would have to be a smart rating system tho. A group with one really good player (who got donated points and leads individual highscore) and some weaker ones should not be placed as highly as a group of some weaker but equally strong people.

As I posted that idea in the chat, there were several players, who thought this to be a good idea. I don't know yet, haven't totally thought this through, so I'd be glad to hear what you guys think.

The obvious benefit: In order to place well on the group highscore, you'd have to cut back on donating points, since you'd want every group member to be strong, not just one single person.

The obvious disadvantage: I don't know how this would change gameplay on a board when there are several group members playing. I think there is the big chance, that group members would pga all the time.
So maybe it should be prohibited for more than 1 member of any group to join the same table. (Or create special group tables with 6/8 player)

The biggest problem with team play is that it will lead to even more elitist attitudes, and for the most part, there's only one really strong core of regulars ("us") whom already have a really bad name for themselves as it is, and "we" would already be the strongest team because, well, we know how to play as a team.

A new ranking system similar to gpokr would mean there would be less elitism in a sense that there is no longer classes of players. For instance a person with high elo needs only play a few games to gain rank. Whereas in the new system, it won't be like that.

The only flaw I see is that it'll become way more addictive, but maybe that's not a bad thing?

Hey int: Remember when you quit?

In addition, I want LUCK, integral, rnd, and CoMik on my team. Dibs.

Down for the count at the moment.