how cool would it be if there was a server, where it could record you game stats in civ 4...ie ur wins - losses..etc

something like battlenet....for starcraft and warcraft

playing civ4...would then be soooooooooo addictive...plus we could gain an assessment of who was the best in the world!!

It would be cool, but not very informative... (It's easier to assess skill in games like SC and WC). And besides, previous Civs already were sooooooo addictive without it. ;)

There isn't going to be a single, universal multiplayer server. Various people will set up servers for people to play on. However, if they put the right hooks into the Pit Boss server, then it should be pretty easy to build rankings on top, as well as a lot more stuff.

I would be satisfied with just keeping track of wins/losses/number of games played. I have found those 3 things pretty much give you the information you need in accessing someones talent in the game.

Experience has shown you will normally have a tougher game verse someone who is 1243 wins vs. 1200 losses and ranked 200, than against someone who is 20-0 and ranked 10th.

I have yet to see a ladder system which couldn't be exploited by those who choose to do such things.

i agree. Ladder systems allow "gold" memebers to reset stats every week ect. Guarding a top "rung" becomes a game in itself. That Pit Boss will be sorely missed upon CivIV's release. It promised freedom from leagues while keeping statistical information and running games-
Solving the issues of time and quitters is no small thing on Multi-Player.
Pre-PitBoss games may be remembered as "the wild and wooly days".

Experience has shown you will normally have a tougher game verse someone who is 1243 wins vs. 1200 losses and ranked 200, than against someone who is 20-0 and ranked 10th.


Well, obviously that's not going to be very helpful because it does not incorporate any information regarding the quality of the opposition, the margin of victory, and whether there were disruptions in the game (a long hiatus, player substitution, etc.). Any ranking algorithm that only incorporates wins and losses is going to be of little use in actually determining which players are better, but that doesn't mean that all ranking systems are thus useless. Get a good statistics egghead in here and you'd be surprised how good they can be. Or just reuse something from sports.

Well, obviously that's not going to be very helpful because it does not incorporate any information regarding the quality of the opposition, the margin of victory, and whether there were disruptions in the game (a long hiatus, player substitution, etc.). Any ranking algorithm that only incorporates wins and losses is going to be of little use in actually determining which players are better, but that doesn't mean that all ranking systems are thus useless. Get a good statistics egghead in here and you'd be surprised how good they can be. Or just reuse something from sports.

There's a simple way around this.

Use the ELO system.

The ELO system was originally developed for Chess, but is now used in many games all around the world, another very notable game it is used in is Magic: the Gathering trading card game.

The ELO System basically awards you points for a win based on how strong your opponent was (based on his ELO rating versus yours) -- defeating an opponent with a higher ELO rating than you will award you more points because you pulled off a difficult win. Winning against a weaker opponent is not as rewarding because you should have won.

In multiplayer games (more than 1v1) the ELO system would require some modification but it's not that difficult.