Questions and answers

[Hylis]

Reducing the number of steps is maybe a good idea. 0-60, 40-90, 80-100 can be an option. More especially that modes are more diverse in Shootmania.

There will also be something like beginner servers, like in Canyon, to welcome the new players more easily, with special rules and maps.

I am surprised to not remember the "several times" you said we discussed it. Anyway, if you can apologize for this and your language, you are welcome.

[Hylis]

The two things you suggested in what you wrote was the Sunrise ladder of 2005 (negative points) and the boost compatible server of 2006 somehow (anybody with anybody up to the top) It is hard for me to explain why I don't want to go 7 years, but there are good reasons. We still have the tshirts: all official.

To try to explain a little: we have to reduce the number of server owners on top of the pyramid and ask for some rules in order to avoid boost. If we let anybody enter a 100K servers, then the slots can be taken by people that would award no points to top players and would be the same effect as a top players going on a 0 - 60K servers for them, but with the trouble of having hundreds of 100K servers in order to welcome anyone who like. Moreover, people on 100K servers would callvote kick the lower ranked players because they can't get enough points beating them (it would be like if in a sport, anybody can challenge the top 100 anytime to eventually get the glory of winning, but for the latest to be obliged to play against him) It would become the equivalent of the "all off please..." of 2005.

The number of steps can create confusion and division, but there are not only some key points to take into account, like boost and counter-logic fact that a player that is #1 would win a significant amount of points when beating the #100 000 for example.

"would be better to avoid boosting with some rules in the script" is hard to moderate if you let players do their own scripts. With Titles, it is easier, but you seem to ignore the dedication of boosters to boost. Either you have a server owner that is honest and with rules that are in par with others, either you have random people that would look to optimize the number of points won on any match. And if you say that any maps should do, I doubt that the very popular LOL maps would be good representatives on top of the TM ladder, for example. And finally, for Trackmania, we had this Sunday afternoon since players from any part of the world can join to dispute the top 100 places, even if the time is still uncomfortable for west coast and Australia. On Shootmania, because of the ping, we may have to creation NA division and SEA division if the Euro becomes to predominant and get the most points out of the system just by being boost indirectly all together. It would be better for time schedule and global community fairness.

Do not underestimate the system, I saw you used words like 'shit' & 'stupid', but I doubt you are speaking like you would do in a normal situation and it can even be insulting. thanks.

[Akbalder]

For me, the LP requirement to enter a server have been annoying:

- I used to play Canyon, on a nice server, for only half an hour at night. There were only 3-4 players left so I couldn't win many LP. The server owner decided to change the level of the server. I couldn't go on it anymore and I stopped playing Canyon.

- On Storm, most of our team players have 60k LP but some players only play one time a week and have very few LP. We have to choose between not winning LP or not letting our friends come to play with us. Even if LP are kind of useless (the more you play, the more you win), it was fun wining them.

I'd like to be able to continue wining LP without excluding players. The LP requirement may be ok for the top competitive servers but not for regular servers.

[Hylis]

Each time you would let somebody with a very low amount of LP enter, then you will win 0 LP against this player. It was somehow the same with the All Official, where players where kicked out of the server if they were not going official. We can have 0k to 70K servers, but you may have this happening again: if 25% of the players on the servers are in the good range, then you would win 25% of ladder points. I know it is better than nothing, but you may have some players to complain about other players being there only to win big amount of LP if they win, and have the others win nothing if they win against them. If you transpose this scenario to ELO, it would mean that you can lose points, but that you can not win. It is more blurry than that, and it is why it may work. It may also create bad behaviors of people that would either ask other players (which would simply be fixed by setting a minimum 'on demand') or having to leave the server because of only 15% of players provide them points, slowly making a 0-70K, a 0-60K, for example. The slowly progression of the minimum is a little motivation for lower ranked players to try to reach their level in order to challenge others, have the auto-balance work and others things better.

You know how much we care at having a good mood online, and people that are not playing the game, in both meanings, are more difficult to handle for either moderation purpose or ranking purpose.

[Hylis]

I think people play for the ladder, or they would just have to enter 0-60K servers. But maybe there is a line that is the big difference between 0 point and 1 point, let say. The good aspect of our ladder, is that if you do not win a lot of point on a match, you would progress slower, but then you would win more point next time since you are under your level. It is complicated to express, but it is what makes the loss of points useless. If you always go halfway to a door, then you will never reach it. The speed of the progression is the key: you can always progress and never reach a place that is near you. If you combine that with the fact that there is a weekly loss of points for top of the ladder, then you pretty much arrive on a system that if you do not win, then you played for nothing while the others are progressing. I think that in tennis, you do not lose points when you lose, you just don't win. There is also a limit of number of matches, but the time factor makes the game more playable on a variable scale. If people would not enter server where they win 0 point, it would be a little the same with servers where they win 5 and lose 5 somehow. Even if it is far, there would be something in their mind that tells them that they have played 2 matches for nothing, combined.

It was not a small test with Sunrise, but it was the way the ladder was handled for months, from the release to the extreme update I think. People where losing points when losing matches. Even more with team system, I would not suggest to do that, unless we want to see some insults online. For a more fun aspect, if you are disturbed during a match, have to go AFK for 20 seconds, then it is less a worry also. I really believe we made a good move on this on 2006 since it creates a cooler atmosphere.

So, my suggestion is either to test with less steps, either to test with user-defined restriction for the bottom of the range, so people can make 0-70k servers or 40-70k as they wish. At the moment, I think I prefer the later version, since it enables more steps to educate players to top ladder rules.

and thank for your words

[Hylis]

fyi points are loss at every step of the ladder that is required

on each Monday morning

Top 100 are 90K+
Top 1000 are 80k+
Top 10000 are 70K+

etc.

the #100 has exactly 90K
the #1000 has exactly 80K

etc.

you seem more to want the opneing of botton limits than the reduction of number of steps in the arguments you are giving, even if you suggest the reduction of number of step. ESWC was more about having no limit under. With a limit on top, it prevents boosting. The limit under was put to prevent people being annoyed by low level taking some slots to servers were player were happy to play for the ladder.