Ranking

On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 08:00:09PM -0400, Doug Orleans wrote:
> Shannon Appelcline addresses some of these issues in his latest column:
> 
> http://www.skotos.net/articles/TTnT_156.phtml

I also found this bit on ranking worth noting:

> A better answer is incentivize scoring placement, not just winning. The
> advantage that you do have in online play is that many players are probably
> in your game for the long haul. They'll still be there next week and next
> month. Thus you can offer rankings and make sure that your rankings
> incentivize placement. I've read about an offline gaming club that uses a
> very simple ranking system: the winning player gets a number of points equal
> to the number of players; the next player gets two less than that; each
> additional player gets one less; down to the last place player who gets 0
> (so in a five player game, finishers would get 5, 3, 2, 1, and 0 points). At
> the end of a "season", whomever has the most points, "wins". Our own Gang of
> Four has an even stronger incentive system. Each player gets ranking for
> each game they play. The first-place player gets ranking points for beating
> all 3 other players; the second-place player gets 1 loss and 2 wins; the
> third-place player gets 2 losses and 1 win; and the last-place player gets 4
> losses. Thus, the better you manage to do, the better your ranking does (and
> in fact you can usually improve your ranking with a second-place finish, and
> in rare cases even with a third-place finish.)

--

-- 
Andy <turner <at> arcusdigital.com>

-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal