An alternative Metaverse ladder?
from 
Stardock Forums
Stardock Forums
During my recent meditational retreat, I considered the issues raised by having players competing on a single individual board but playing at a variety of difficulty levels. My apologies if this idea has been raised before, but I haven't seen it, so here goes.
The problem is deciding how a player completing games at say, Simple, can possibly 'deserve' to stand beside a Maso player at the top of the table. It is a problem of perception, as well as of scoring formula. Many players have, in other threads, suggested weighting combinations and indeed these are in the offing with upgraded versions of the game.
My feeling is that no weighting system, no matter how complicated, can overcome the 'quality vs. quantity' component of gameplay. Even if one were to give a Normal victory one point, and a Maso victory 100 points, they could still conceivably stand next to each other on the table if the Normal player put in enough games. Seeing Simple, Tough and Maso players on the same board compares apples with oranges with pears. These players are all playing very different games.
I don't expect a ladder for each difficulty level in the game; I though it might be possible to coalesce then in the following manner (the boxing analogy is purely illustrative):
cakewalk + simple + beginner = "Flyweight"
normal + tough + challenging = "Middleweight"
crippling + painful + maso = "Heavyweight"
The beginner might work their way up through the flyweight division, perhaps winning that and advancing to middleweight (at any stage, when desired). If desired and good enough, they could even take their turn at the heavyweight division, which would attract the most prestige. If you just wanted to make a career out of being the flyweight Metaverse champion, you could just do that happily without comparison to the middle- and heavyweights.
Also, your score at heavyweight would not be affected by the time you had put in as a flyweight - scores in each division should be UTTERLY independent, calculated only on the basis of the number of games you have scored in THAT division. You could always go back to flyweight and experiment with strategies without disturbing your heavyweight rating.
This only has relevance for those players wishing to submit to the Metaverse. The GAME remains unchanged - only the processing of scores submitted to the Meta is different. Empire scoring would remain an aggregate, unchanged from the current system. Accessing the metaverse might show you the top three from each division, and clicking on the relevant division would take you to a continuous list for that division in the same way the main list does now. I'd be interested in anyone's 2BC?
The problem is deciding how a player completing games at say, Simple, can possibly 'deserve' to stand beside a Maso player at the top of the table. It is a problem of perception, as well as of scoring formula. Many players have, in other threads, suggested weighting combinations and indeed these are in the offing with upgraded versions of the game.
My feeling is that no weighting system, no matter how complicated, can overcome the 'quality vs. quantity' component of gameplay. Even if one were to give a Normal victory one point, and a Maso victory 100 points, they could still conceivably stand next to each other on the table if the Normal player put in enough games. Seeing Simple, Tough and Maso players on the same board compares apples with oranges with pears. These players are all playing very different games.
I don't expect a ladder for each difficulty level in the game; I though it might be possible to coalesce then in the following manner (the boxing analogy is purely illustrative):
cakewalk + simple + beginner = "Flyweight"
normal + tough + challenging = "Middleweight"
crippling + painful + maso = "Heavyweight"
The beginner might work their way up through the flyweight division, perhaps winning that and advancing to middleweight (at any stage, when desired). If desired and good enough, they could even take their turn at the heavyweight division, which would attract the most prestige. If you just wanted to make a career out of being the flyweight Metaverse champion, you could just do that happily without comparison to the middle- and heavyweights.
Also, your score at heavyweight would not be affected by the time you had put in as a flyweight - scores in each division should be UTTERLY independent, calculated only on the basis of the number of games you have scored in THAT division. You could always go back to flyweight and experiment with strategies without disturbing your heavyweight rating.
This only has relevance for those players wishing to submit to the Metaverse. The GAME remains unchanged - only the processing of scores submitted to the Meta is different. Empire scoring would remain an aggregate, unchanged from the current system. Accessing the metaverse might show you the top three from each division, and clicking on the relevant division would take you to a continuous list for that division in the same way the main list does now. I'd be interested in anyone's 2BC?
