Forum
Frustrations from sitting at the kids' table
|
Cal Ripken wrote
at 1:29 AM, Saturday October 6, 2007 EDT
Big Jumblies said something in another thread about how there used to be a "separate adult kdice" before the scoring change. I had never really thought of it that way, but I think it really is a clever way to describe one of the biggest disadvantages of the new scoring.
I think with the elimination of the old 2000s and that the scores reset every month so there is no way to keep a high rank, you not only lose the closeknit community of the old tables (I know this point has been discussed already a lot so I wont any further), but another severe disadvantage of the new scoring is not just losing the small group, but having to deal with the open mass of the lower tables every month. I didn't really mind it last month after the initial scoring change, but having to do it again this month has really exasperated this annoying difference. The subpar play, poor sportmanship, and seemingly random alliances on the lower tables have started to make the game less fun...even with the almost tedious need to rebuild your score every month aside- I really could just do without having to continually play with people who rely on calling everyone "fag," "gay," or other immature/vulgar insults. Is it a coincidence that the old 2000s lacked this poor attitude? Could this problem be amended someway with the new scoring? Or, is this just something that anyone would have to deal with in an online gaming community like any other (Halo, Starcraft, etc...)? Not sure how to solve the problem, but I thought I would sort of vent/try and see what others think. |
|
dmb wrote
at 1:45 AM, Saturday October 6, 2007 EDT ELO is the best solution for that, IMO, but since Ryan doesn't want scoring based on ELO, how about this: track ELO like before, but keep the score based on the current system or something close to it. Use ELO only for entrance to tables - perhaps just use it at the beginning of each month to qualify people for entrance to tables at the next higher level. That way you would run separate sets of competitions. The kids and poor sports would be stuck at the lower levels, and newbies would work their way up through them.
|
|
greenoaks wrote
at 1:32 PM, Saturday October 6, 2007 EDT i have played almost 340 games since the scoring change and i have not once sat at a table where people are calling everyone "fag," "gay," or other immature/vulgar insults.
|
|
kdicefreak wrote
at 2:56 PM, Saturday October 6, 2007 EDT elo keeps the top players at the top and it's hard for anyone who is developing skills to crack - it's a glass ceiling.
the new scoring system elminate that problem and enhance the social aspect of the game. jpc4p - your comment assumes that there are no subpar play, poor sportmanship, and seemingly random alliances in the top tables. I beg to differ. For one thing, they seem to have non-random alliances - and i would refer that as close to a PGA. however, i understand that your 'birds of a feather flock together' mentality. one solution would be to allow those who donate money access to exclusive tables. |
|
Big Jumblies wrote
at 2:22 AM, Sunday October 7, 2007 EDT It wouldnt be so bad if the formula was something like 1/(rating rank + 100) or something, that way scores wouldnt climb so high just because a player has top ELO
|
|
|
azala wrote
at 2:59 AM, Sunday October 7, 2007 EDT jpc4p:
1) I don't really find too much explicit vulgarity or immaturity. On the other hand... 2) What I do find is a whole lot of "kdice immaturity", where players make grossly incorrect decisions tactically and diplomatically - which ends up making your professional "correct play" not really as rewarding as it would be in a pro-level game. 3) It's interesting you bring up Starcraft as an example of an open gaming community. I play SC a lot, but exclusively Use Map Settings maps in relatively narrow interest ranges - when playing within this narrow scope, I run into the same people who obviously have similar interests, and I have a much better time than I would in the melee game style, where I would end up playing with a bunch of random folks. Point being, the effect of a close-knit social network cannot be underestimated. 4) I like that phrase, "The Kids' Table". It's an apt description of what goes on nowadays. I'm in favor of reducing table anonymity, for example maybe mutual-friend-only tables. |
|
§ilverfox wrote
at 3:02 AM, Sunday October 7, 2007 EDT Kdicefreak hit it on the head. jpc4p, your old 2000's tables were simply the clique of people who became friends and then help each other attain the high ranks and keep them.
Any newcomer reaching those ranks through legitimate hard work immediately found themselves pga'd as an "outsider". All the "elite" 2000 people would gang up on them. This actually still happens even with the new system. Been a victim of it myself and watched others be a victim as well. Personally I LIKE that Ryan is trying to break up that clique of people; or at least separate them from the general populous of causal players. That clique of people will always pga regardless of the scoring system, but this way it is every so slightly easier for a new face to show up in the ranks of the top 25. Already I've seen new faces there. For the record, you'll find the immature fools no matter where you go. I like Kdicefreak's idea of private tables for donors. The only problem with it would be the extra coding required to make that happen. I'm not getting the impression Ryan does this as his day job... :) |
|
|
azala wrote
at 3:20 AM, Sunday October 7, 2007 EDT silverfox:
"2000's tables were simply the clique of people who ... help each other attain the high ranks and keep them." Not entirely true. There is (and probably always will be) a small subset of them who ally frequently on the basis of friendship. "Any newcomer reaching those ranks through legitimate hard work immediately found themselves pga'd as an "outsider". All the "elite" 2000 people would gang up on them." Not true. Aside from end-of-the-month ranking scrambles and a few pretty obvious 2-3 player PGA's, as an outsider I didn't feel ganged up on because of my lack of connections. "Personally I LIKE that Ryan is trying to break up that clique of people; or at least separate them from the general populous of causal players." Clique members and newcomers aren't mutually exclusive. I'd encourage a system that respects the value of both kinds of players. "I like Kdicefreak's idea of private tables for donors. The only problem with it would be the extra coding required to make that happen. I'm not getting the impression Ryan does this as his day job... :)" Couldn't agree more. |
|
aliaiactasunt wrote
at 5:44 AM, Sunday October 7, 2007 EDT I have played kdice for almost a year now and have experienced, I think, any change there ever was.
I can only say that those complaining loudest about the "crazy" playing, insulting, preallying "mass of the lower tables" were just people who got lucky to climb up and stuck there because of ELO. Including me. I never thought I would say that, but this new system as it is works perfectly. With the latest change (more points in one game) it even got worthwhile to use diplomacy again. Grats Ryan! |
|
|
kdicefreak wrote
at 11:45 AM, Sunday October 7, 2007 EDT see i am not a freak.....i actually have some consstructive suggestions agreed by others.....
|
|
|
§ilverfox wrote
at 4:13 PM, Sunday October 7, 2007 EDT Hi Azala,
with respect to the exchange: "Any newcomer reaching those ranks through legitimate hard work immediately found themselves pga'd as an "outsider". All the "elite" 2000 people would gang up on them." "Not true." I'm speaking from personal experience here. I'm afraid it is very much true. |
