Ladder

[darthdroid]

I think it's worth a try.

[Falconer]

There are two types of ladders: 'honor based' and 'game embedded'. The latter is obviously not a possibility, but honor based is pretty widespread.

Honor based basically means two people playing, one wins and the other one admits his defeat. Registering your win/loss is the only thing that needs to be done for a ladder.

So what you need is a challenge post, someone to accept the challenge, playing the game, then the winner registering his win and the loser acknowledging. Someone trustworthy needs to keep tabs of all the wins and losses, et voila, manual ladder.

How to run/do that, you can work out yourselves, you're intelligent poeple otherwise you wouldn't still be modding and playing Railroads!

[bokeTHK]

Hola Bob.
Aqui estoy (I'm here)
No entiendo nada pero visitare este chat.
(I dont understand noyhing, but i login this chat every day).

Salu2.
Bye

[Burlington_Northern_3140]

There are two types of ladders: 'honor based' and 'game embedded'. The latter is obviously not a possibility, but honor based is pretty widespread.

Honor based basically means two people playing, one wins and the other one admits his defeat. Registering your win/loss is the only thing that needs to be done for a ladder.

So what you need is a challenge post, someone to accept the challenge, playing the game, then the winner registering his win and the loser acknowledging. Someone trustworthy needs to keep tabs of all the wins and losses, et voila, manual ladder.

How to run/do that, you can work out yourselves, you're intelligent poeple otherwise you wouldn't still be modding and playing Railroads!

Ok I will keep track of wins and loses. Could there be a new forum for the ladder posts and replies? I will start posting a chart showing who is winning or losing if you want. That would easily be edited and kept up to date.

[darthdroid]

The only other problem I see is the use of multiple names, many players do this, I've caught them. For example, I caught one named "rr" cheating (excessive station moving-and if you don't know what that is, don't ask).
He ran from the accusation and changed his name to "MAD1" most likely to mock my name "Bob the Lunatic". lol.

Anyway, is there anyway that IPs can be checked to verify this?

Here's my suggestion to avoid other problems: Another thing I notice a lot of is players who refuse to admit defeat, they'll call you a cheater or say bridges aren't legal or that you got a lucky starting point, etc.

So down the road, to avoid the starting points argument, I recommend that all matches are based on best 2 of 3.

To start however, I would argue that it might be hard to get the same 2 together 3 times in a row, so let's just record every 1 on 1 match where the loss occurs.

Now to avoid people refusing to admit their loss (ie integrity problems) I recommend a referee. We set up our rules, and the ref actually stays in the game with the other 2. The ref cannot be bought and cannot build or act. But is merely there to see what happened and indeed act as a judge on any issues that arise.

This would be easy as the rules could be easy. I think the fewer rules the better (like UFC). The only 2 rules I recommend are:
1/ No taking advantage of the major online glitch. I again refuse to say what it is for fear of it being used in mass amounts but I would certainly be happy to show the judge what it is. Frankly though, it's simple, if someone suddenly makes 4 million out of the blue in about 30 seconds....they used this major glitch cheat.

2/ No excessive station moving. This again would be explained in detail to the judge.

These are both excellent rules to avoid ridiculousness and I really cannot think of anything else that would be an actual cheat, so i think anything else is fair game completely. (tracksneaking, bridgebuilding, stealing, pirating, etc.)

These are my recommendations and if BN's up to it, I recommend he be the first judge of the matches. He cannot be bought, so it's not really like he has to watch, he just comes back in 20 minutes and reads the game, recording the event log in case of a claim of one of the 2 cheats would be recommended.

Doing what I argue here would keep things very simple, objective and so on. A judge is only necessary because again, many players will want to inject THEIR version of the rules or some just refuse to admit they lost, and the winner shouldn't have his/her time wasted by these folks. The judge can be the objective guy that says:

A/ Did anyone cheat? (if they did, they forfeit)
B/ Did anyone quit? (if they did, they forfeit, even if they are far ahead, assuming one will win is arrogant, we've all seen someone come back with major odds against them. A win requires they actually buy out the opponent and only THEN may they exit to lobby and be declared winner)
C/ If A and B are both "no" then who won?

BN or the judge then records it in a separate post of his....and perhaps the administrator/s can set it up so that so no one else can comment on that particular thread (again we don't want the option of people arguing with the judge, etc.) So it's a single post open for modification ONLY by the judge and he/she just continues to edit it after each match.

Then records start being compiled.

Taking note who played, and who won, then each player begins developing a record, like a boxer. This of course may get developed further as we try it out.

Anyway, as I said, I think once a handful (10 people) start getting records and rankings start appearing, again I'd reiterate, that some kind of more complex formula must be developed perhaps for points. I don't think a guy who avoids the good players and only plays noobs and thus has a large perfect record should be higher on ladder than a player who only challenges the nastiest players but has a smaller record, etc.

So we all start with equal standing, but start getting ranked (ie A beat B who beat C who beat D) or whatever. When one person clearly has beat the most people on the ladder, they would begin to arise as the champ, and so on. And from this, the formula could start being developed.

Let me know what you think (whoever wants to add their thoughts) also BN if you'd accept the idea of being judge under the simple parameters I recommended (you'd be sworn to secrecy on the nature of the 2 cheats!!, we don't want that falling into the wrong hands). And any thoughts especially from others who've seen ladders for similar games.

thanks, hope we can put this together, it would be fun!!

Also, would any modders join in and be part of the ladder?

And, if You want to be on the ladder also BN, I could judge those matches, or someone else who knows the 2 cheats, I know a few that do.

And if someone uses one of these 2 cheats, they are penalized for it, (not just losing match but losing points for violating the rules, or if they buy the judge lol).

Looking forward to further discussion from BN, Snoop, and Falconer....who seems to think I'm intelligent enough to mod lol lol rofl

[darthdroid]

One last thought: earlier there was a discussion about cheating via changed XML code. While the argument varied between "it can be done" to "but it would change it for everyone"....just to be safe, the JUDGE would host all match maps. I would also argue that the person challenged gets to choose the map. (if we move to 2/3 matches, then the challenged player chooses maps 1 and 3, and the challenger chooses map 2). Just some additional ideas to make this fair and workable.

Ah...just thought of something else: Crashes. I think personally it's pretty obvious to discern a crash from a quit (on a crash, the game freezes, someone drops then the game resumes VERY FAST to catch up with time) but I've seen players deny quitting and claiming it was a crash....so this is the only actual subjective duty the judge would have. Crashes are not losses nor wins, but merely bad luck and we restart as though it didn't happen.

I would also say that anyone who knows the 2 cheats is eligible for judging a match...for example if BN wanted to challenge me, we'd need a 3rd judge. 3 judges would be enough though I think as that covers all scenarios.

[darthdroid]

I would also say this: The rules I've suggested are those generally accepted by the advanced players who should not be constrained by the ignorance of players with lesser skill.

However, let's say this ladder thing works, we could also come up with different "belts" or whatever. For example: "The courtesy ladder"....this is one where no stealing is allowed, and perhaps a different set of rules apply and different judges are in the match, etc.
This way all players would have a tournament that fits their "beliefs in SMR" and have fun with the ladder concept.

I think it's a good idea, and I don't want people thinking the rules are geared toward this group or that.
But I do think the ladders too should be ranked: The one with the FEWEST (heavy weight) rules is the highest ladder, the one with the MOST rules is the lowest ladder (lightweight).

BUT any player can place on ANY ladder (to also keep things fair, they just have to play by the rules of each ladder when competing on it)

Looking forward to input from others.'

[Burlington_Northern_3140]

I think that, instead of points, you should imediatly play the lowest ranked person and then work up from that point as far as you can. Judges would also have a hard time finding a time to be in a game with two other players and that could cause problems. Users could establish a basic Idea of how they want to play the game and play the game themselves. They could then post the results if one claims that someone was cheating the games results wouldn't be recorded on the ladder and then the knoledge that someone was accused of cheating would be stored with the person who accused them of cheating's user name. If I get a list of about five comlaints, then I or someone else could be a referee. If they were cheating, there name would be removed from the ladder. If they were having problems with crashing and lag, they would be marked with a different color on the chart and any ladder user can just skip that person until the referee or I can play the game against him without any problems. His name would then be changed back to the original color. If someone doesn't arive to a game or respond, they will be marked with a different color and have to ask to be able to use there current position on the ladder and then I will change the color back to the original color of there name.

This is a example of the chart:

1. Name1
2. Name2
3. Name3
4. Name4
5. Name5 They were either cheating or having problems with crashing.

[darthdroid]

That sounds good, but how do we establish the original ranking? Having them work up from the bottom sounds like a good idea though. What do you think of the different types of ladder idea I had?

[Burlington_Northern_3140]

If we have more than one ladder things might get a bit confusing. Although It would be possible. If someone is posting there results of a game for a ladder they could name which ladder that is in there post. Then I would be able to post there place in there category properly.

The first ranking would be by two people the winner is in first place and the loser is second place. If a newcomber wants to join they chalenge second place. If they lose, they are in third place. If they win, they are in second place and the other player is in third place.

[darthdroid]

Makes sense BN, So you will be the record keeper to start with?
Let's draw up a set of rules then and try to get it going.

[Burlington_Northern_3140]

Ok. I will set up the rules and post the ladder with everything that you and I have said and post it.

[darthdroid]

As far as the "no cheating" rules, I believe they needed to be worded carefully:


1/ All stations must have one entry track touching the green circle that surrounds the city (an entry track is a piece of track in front of station (or behind) that creates entry for train to the station). And it is THAT piece of track that must touch the green circle (one or more of the 4 entry tracks must be touching or inside the green circle).

2/ NO use of the major "lag glitch" shall be allowed.

Violating either rule constitutes an immediate forfeit.

Note: In BOTH cases, the accusing player needs only to take a screen shot to prove either rule was violated and a win should be easily awarded and on rule #1, I'd say "3 strikes and you're out" (kicked off ladder) and on rule #2, one strike and you're out. With this in mind, rule play rules are now covered (nice and simple aren't they?) and that only leaves scoring and ladder and participation rules.

I'll leave that to BN.

[Burlington_Northern_3140]

I'll add that

[Burlington_Northern_3140]

The ladder is at http://www.hookedgamers.com/forums/view ... =31&t=3081.