Knights and Merchants.net Forum

Hello KaM fans,
I have an ixea for multiplayer.
What about a score system?
Let me explain, everyone starts with 0 points on the game. After each game the computer will add points toyour score like 100 points for each win and 0 for each lose.
And if the enemy from you quit the game he automaticaly get 0 points and you if it is 1v1 gameplay you win automaticaly.
If you are with more players you can countinue playing if you want or quit and get 0 points.
So you can also see now the skill level of players by looking to their scores.
I hope it is a good idea and it is possible to make for the kamremake editors.
Thanks forreading Killer!!

Too abusable Way too abusable.

A fully working account system will be better than this. A ladder system is often part of that.

I think accounts would be a great addition to KaMRemake which will allow more possibilities and possibly attract more players.

A account system would be nice but the ranking system you describe would be rubbish Also i understood earlier that implementing a account system was a lot of work and the developers would look after that at another time.


If a account system/ranking system would be implemented i think it's better to rank a player to the amount of games he won.

1 game played / 1 win = 100 points
10 games played / 8 wins = 80 points
40 games played / 38 wins = 95 points
384 games played / 217 wins = 56.5 points

This way losing a game would cause your score to lower also clans can demand a certain score before they let a member join the clan. That kind of stuff would make the game even more competitive.

Wolf, I don't like your idea either You know, that's because you can be in a shit team while you are a good player, but nobody can win 1v4 against good players. Actually I don't have any sorts of good ideas to make a ranklist for the Remake that stays "fair" and correct either.

I prefer such a kind of system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system (probably simplified once we are gonna implement it, but still),
And yes Bence you can have a shitteam, but on average it should be around equal and if you are better you should be able to slowly climb (you do state a problem, but is that a reason to put this idea down right away?)
What is a good reason to put this idea down do is some right issues with getting accounts or something like that I heard on the road, I'm convinced once (if) we get accounts, a ranking will be made as well (or am I wrong? )

I wonder why people even care about a ranking. You'll get good players with a bad ranking due to bad luck with allies (leavers/people with less skills than the average noob). A ranking system won't give an good indication really.

Indeed. And actually, there will always be a player that'll be capable to beat you Although not in the line of randoms (no offense )

It always makes me smile when some random guy is "bragging" (well, in a quote sign because to brag you need to achieve something valuable or worthy first) about him being a good player, then he is barely having 30 soldiers on peacetime including militia.

Nowadays skill is determined by the good players, and I think Maths won't tell who is better than who. Gameplay will

I don't think rankings are something important, but if you really have to... We could calculate 3 values after each game:
-military rating - something like: the amount and quality of army produced, divided by PT. Of course, it might need some tweaking, so it's fair to compare different peacetimes, and different army types.
-tactical rating - it would indicate how well did the player use his soldiers, might be just [military rating value] divided by [number of kills, maybe taking notice of the quality of troops killed]
-economical rating - amount of stuff produced, we need to somehow calculate which kinds of wares are more difficult to make.
Then we can take an average of all army values a player ever had (maybe without 3 best and 3 worst ones), same for two other types. Finally we take an "overall" average. So each player would have 3+1 value to compare to the other players.

Good ranking systems are really hard to build. I'd just prefer a normal account system with it's benefits, not even a ranking.

However, IF a ranking is ever implemented, I'd suggest player are scoring points during the game. That way, if you have a bad team, you're still scoring points
by building a large village (lots of resources), training strong units and maybe even butcher a fair number of enemies before you go down.

Well, Tom. The problem with going 1v2-3 (or against even more players) is that there are multiple cases when you don't fight against people 1v1. And a far bigger army will lose far less troops against you, so butchering will be pretty hard. Well, camping is another story (see NI vs RA-1 maybe? ).

Anyway, sado's idea seems pretty nice. Altho why would we divide a small number with a big one?
Rather multiply imo ;D

Standard Rankings don't fit this game -> Lady Algebra is well known for being easy to abuse.

For KaM, if you want a general idea of someone's level... you need to ask people around who has played with him.
I'd say for this game there are 4 tier of players... like A,B,C,D (D is weakest).

But if someone finds this enjoyable to rate... first gather your knowledge and elaborate a new post trying to set common features for each type of player, then you get the first KaM Skilltionary.

I guess any veteran could write a sketch and then we all players "correct/expand it" adding details, etc.
Easy to write, and with some technical value (to make balanced teams in lobby).

Would this satisfy you my dear Killer?

For me absolute not counting players rankings...
Just please dont leave the game, dont be lagger, dont be farmer and try to make army also!
It is a simply rule.

Ranking system would be like "oh you're a low rank, I just kick you".

good that you say that, people won't like to team up with a low rank.
i don't care about low rank or not, but some players do (i am bad maybe that's why)