Clans and Multiplayer - new system? (recommendation)


#1

After looking into how clans function and playing multiplayer for some time a few thoughts came to me:

It would be nice to have Multiplayer work with a “league” concept. Right now in order to see how we rank amongst our friends we need to form a “clan” and then challenge our friends in the clan. It would be nice to have leagues and clans be separate concepts.

Right now I join different clans, not because I necessarily want to be their friends or work with them, but because I want to compete in the multiplayer ladder and challenge their AI directly without searching through 10k players. Obviously this may change later down the road, but it seems to me the main reason to join a clan from the game standpoint is the multiplayer aspect.

It would be nice to have clan vs clan tournaments. Where a clan could elect to choose 5-20 of its members to compete against another clan or open ladder (equal spots on the other team).

Proposal for a League definition:

A ranking system set for a time period where players in the game compete for a prize or recognition.

In this way we now have a League object that can rank different entities, { clans, players, teams }. The league would have a shape similar to the following:

  • Start date / time
  • End date / time
  • Competition Type { “team”, “clan”, “player” }
  • Award (based on the current campaign achievement system, “Beat Shaman CPU”, “Complete 10 Levels” for example)
  • gems
  • experience
  • equipment
  • <String> (for any competition awards like 40k or in game avatar)
  • Ranking Type { “general”, “top-wins”, “tournament” }
  • General: The current ranking system
  • Top Win: A n(n-1)/2 solution where you are ranked for( wins/total opponents ) each vs game is played once for every combination of games. 10 players would thus require 45 games.
  • Tournament: Based on random seed you are paired with another player. The games run best out of “n” games and the winner moves on. To resolve the issue of uneven members on a team, the “odd player out” would compete against the last completed game champion. So if there were 7 players on side, the winner from game 5-6 would play 7, thus eliminating the odd count in the first round.
  • Rounds: <number> (this would allow one to play the best of 3 against another player before moving forward)
  • Level AI = [ ]
  • Award (shaman CPU is an example)
  • Position (fixed seed, or position assigned to the level AI avatar so that a skill level can be established, this can also be the AI to beat for tournament entry)
  • image
  • name
  • code
  • Team Size <number> ( max size for each team, 0 = unlimited )
  • Force equal teams: yes/ no
  • Expires on date (allows for clearing space in the database)
  • Randomly seed games

For a ladder with 10k players a “Top Win” scenario would require ~50 million simulations, so to start a multiplayer tournament with that many players under “Top Win” could be problematic. However over time, if you only ran a players games in the “simulation” mode this becomes a much more favorable way to rank.

I am nearing 1 milliion simulations and only nearing ~1k personal games. It would be much faster if I just simulated all of the 31k games needed to challenge each opponent for each side of red and blue in Cavern Survival. In fact 31k games could be simulated in a few hours using the very effective farming method.

If someone cared about ranking they would simulate until they had played each AI. In this way, one could actually see where their AI was failing without having to run so many other games. For those 18k or so players that were more casual (Cavern Survival) and didn’t want to play more multiplayer, they would just stay where they were. Participation = Ranking. In this way one person is not penalized for having to run the majority of matches. And everyone is incentivized to “play multiplayer” to rank themselves. This would also guarantee a match against the “Shaman CPU”.

In the current ranking system, I can create a basic AI in a ladder like Cavern Survival and just farm for a month to rank myself in the #1 spot. As the majority (18k?) players are not really playing multiplayer, as much as they are coming up with a solution to defeat the “Simple CPU” to get their gems and move on to the next Campaign level.

Linear positive trend based upon having the best gear in the game. Not based on advanced AI.

I would even go so far as recommending that the “game mode” and “multiplayer modes” be separate. In the game mode you would challenge a 5 computer CPUs and receive awards based upon defeating each level. Like one does in the levels that can be played over again. To complete the “multiplayer” level or VS level, you would simply have to defeat all the available AI’s. You would then have a link to the multiplayer “ladder” where you could submit code and pit your skills against real players for a global ranking.

From what I can see so far in playing multiplayer you don’t get ranked when you fight a player or AI directly, its only through random simulations. So being able to play the Shaman CPU in the multiplayer screen, doesn’t have a direct in game benefit. Obviously if there is no one in the ranking, then sure, having something to compete against is nice. But this seems to have a very limited use.

 


 

Player vs Player would allow you to challenge another player for “n” rounds where each player would be able to update their AI and go again. The one who wins would be the one with the most rounds.