Psychodrama Rankings

Moi

As it stands, the psychodrama rankings are borked. A person who's won 0 matches out of 0 is worth the same number of points as someone who's won 0 out of 5: 1 point per match. So there's nothing stopping you from playing over and over again, racking up points by playing people who are bad at psychodrama.

As a result, it's way too easy to win by just playing lots and lots of matches. This results in people winning, not because they're the best at the game, but because they live in the city with the most psychodrama newbies to gain points against. Normally, I wouldn't care about this any more than I'd care about the same problem in the combat rankings, but psychodrama actually has a prize which makes balancing it important.

In order to fix this problem, I suggest changing the challenge verb to work as follows:

GESTALT CHALLENGE <opponent> TOURNAMNET <points>

where points are the number of ranking points you're both putting up. Everyone starts with 3 points, and if you lose all your points, you are out of that year's tournament and cannot be played for rankings.

Eventru

Iytha said:

As it stands, the psychodrama rankings are borked. A person who's won 0 matches out of 0 is worth the same number of points as someone who's won 0 out of 5: 1 point per match. So there's nothing stopping you from playing over and over again, racking up points by playing people who are bad at psychodrama.

As a result, it's way too easy to win by just playing lots and lots of matches. This results in people winning, not because they're the best at the game, but because they live in the city with the most psychodrama newbies to gain points against. Normally, I wouldn't care about this any more than I'd care about the same problem in the combat rankings, but psychodrama actually has a prize which makes balancing it important.

In order to fix this problem, I suggest changing the challenge verb to work as follows:

GESTALT CHALLENGE <opponent> TOURNAMNET <points>

where points are the number of ranking points you're both putting up. Everyone starts with 3 points, and if you lose all your points, you are out of that year's tournament and cannot be played for rankings.

People are worth more/less points relative to their ranking. Inevitably people in that first tier aren't worth anything.

Moi

No, they're still worth 1 point. Which is the problem. People with more wins might be worth more than one point, but generally they don't play eachother because they don't want to risk losing.

Estarra

Iytha said:

No, they're still worth 1 point. Which is the problem. People with more wins might be worth more than one point, but generally they don't play eachother because they don't want to risk losing.

That's a bug then. The design is if you are high ranked, you get 0 points from winning against low ranks. (It could just be that you haven't hit what's considered a high enough level to see it, though, but we'll look into it.)

Moi

How high a rank are you supposed to be before you can't get points from playing a rank 1 guy? I know 4 isn't enough, and the current champion only has 6...

Iosai

The tiers are based around 10 points, and no-one seems to be playing enough to breach that level. We may have to look into changing things around a bit.

Kiradawea

Personally, I'd prefer people played enough so that there wouldn't be a need for altering the tiers.

I hold much for Psychodrama and want more to play it and play against me.