Ranqed games at nq.

[N0QUITTERSULTAN]

We at NQ are developing a beta version of FFA-RANQ. From today a beta version will be up and ready to test out. Many good players are testing it so we think this will be fun To RANQ FFA we have set up a system(scores,stats) that will be introduce the day we start. In RANQ the rules will be decid by the users of this system(shift is allowed as default) and we make them as we go. If you want to contribute on making RANQ-rules you can suggest here: http://forum.noquitters.org/index.php under the RANQ section

For joining this new group RANQ plz contact one of the officers in RANQ :
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/RANQ

We at RANQ(NQ) are welcoming everyone in trying out this new type of gaming

RANQ-players

 

[N0QUITTERSULTAN]

Beta is up.. JOIN RANQ group on steam to participate in developing RANQED version of FFA games.

 

[PrimEval]

Here are my ideas for RANQ.

During the first season we should NOT try to "fix" the game with all manner of rules (ie no use of this or that mechanic, no building wonder x). Instead we should keep a list of all the "undocumented features" and "abusive" strategies, I hope that posting these in one place will help level the playing field and reduce some of the feelings of unfairness as we saw over "shift-moves" (ie everyone will know what they are and how to use them).

Quitting for any reason is a concession, you may concede at any time. To discourage quitting(ie quitting frequently to roll a better start/civ), each loss will result in loss of points. Here is my proposed score system.
In a 6 player FFA:
The first to quit/concede or be eliminated loses 2 points.
The second to quit/concede or be eliminated loses 1 points.
The winner gains 3 points.
All other players' points do not change.
If the game ends with a score screen rather than by concession, loss of points is never determined by score, players still in the game will not lose points.

Collusion to rig the scoring system is not allowed (eg, no pre-determined team play)

If the game crashes or a player drops, you must reload from the most recent stable save, hot-joining by a dropped player is allowed only if the dropped player agrees.

Unstable games may be scrapped by agreement of all players.

If a player drops without admitting defeat, assume they had technical problems and regroup in chat, allow reasonable time for them to reappear. Of course they may concede in chat too, however they should conceded in game to avoid disruption.

 

[N0QUITTERSULTAN]

Here are my ideas for RANQ.

During the first season we should NOT try to "fix" the game with all manner of rules (ie no use of this or that mechanic, no building wonder x). Instead we should keep a list of all the "undocumented features" and "abusive" strategies, I hope that posting these in one place will help level the playing field and reduce some of the feelings of unfairness as we saw over "shift-moves" (ie everyone will know what they are and how to use them).

Quitting for any reason is a concession, you may concede at any time. To discourage quitting(ie quitting frequently to roll a better start/civ), each loss will result in loss of points. Here is my proposed score system.
In a 6 player FFA:
The first to quit/concede or be eliminated loses 2 points.
The second to quit/concede or be eliminated loses 1 points.
The winner gains 3 points.
All other players' points do not change.
If the game ends with a score screen rather than by concession, loss of points is never determined by score, players still in the game will not lose points.

Collusion to rig the scoring system is not allowed (eg, no pre-determined team play)

If the game crashes or a player drops, you must reload from the most recent stable save, hot-joining by a dropped player is allowed only if the dropped player agrees.

Unstable games may be scrapped by agreement of all players.

If a player drops without admitting defeat, assume they had technical problems and regroup in chat, allow reasonable time for them to reappear. Of course they may concede in chat too, however they should conceded in game to avoid disruption.

NQ have the most experience on FFA with all features involved, and community miss a rank system for this. therfore we have started developing a system for this.
Shift moves and all "abusing"of mechanics will be allowed.
Trade (lux, RAs, OBs, gold) is always allowed.
Obvious COLLUSION (pre-determined teamplay) will NOT be TOLERATED.
Gifting cities to other players when facing a certain death is not allowed.


for more info ill se you in RANQ chat or ask me or follow post at NQ-forum

 

[NQ_carls13]

Well we've been talking about getting RANQ up and running for half a year now!! Finally we have something to build around.

I have same concerns as CIV with current scoring layout. Lots of games end with a concede to a player with huge lead. So what if that player doesn't agree to concede because they want to go for another victory type?

I have a couple ideas:
i) make all victories worth the same amount of points.
-my problem with this is, it will just turn into another cpl where players spam cities and rush war to make for quick games and more of them. NQ has been based around diplomatic ffa's so naturally our ranked version should compliment that.
ii)we can simply say too bad you shouldn't have gotten such a big lead.
-this will make ppl think twice about killing another player if it means they will have insurmountable lead. Making for a more balanced game, Although i don't think it is fair to fault a player for having a good game

I like the idea of making the harder victories worth more points. I suggest we make science and domination worth 3 points apiece and move diplo up to 5 points. That way the difference is not as much.
With regards to conceding: I think before a certain era (modern) players can concede without the leader having a say in it. This will mean more late game play allowing more chance for other victories. After the modern era players can concede but the leader must agree aswell and if he has another victory in mind the game goes on. Causing other players to work together which comes back to the NQ backbone, diplomacy.

The minus points mentioned in the other post can come into play but not as mentioned. NQ = no quitting so allowing ppl to quit would go against the reason this group was created. I think the irrelevant civ rule should stay in place. Meaning if all players agree civ is irrelevant to the game they can go but I propose they lose 1 point for this. Points are going to be hard to come by so giving ppl negative 1 or 2 points for playing and losing may be a mistake. The odds of winning are 1 in 6 and 50% of those wins will be worth 3 points so mathematically a player will be lucky to break even after 6 games played and will most likely be -2. Now unless we have a starting value for all players(which make things more confusing imo) some players will be playing in the negative.

I think think the only negative point value should be given to a player using irrelevant civ rule. Another reason would be if say we play serone next game he has lead with a culture vic already. So naturally players will team up to put him out first so he loses 2 points. This could fall under collusion because an outside factor is impacting the game before it begins.

 

[PrimEval]

For anyone who is reading this and is confused by NQ_carls13, his is a cross-post from http://forum.noquitters.org/viewtopic.php?f=18&p=2640&sid=55fd40d5218c9d25d8c8d3fdf800faa4#p2640

Right now my primary disagreement with NQ_carls13 and N0QUITTERSULTAN's ideas is that I believe concession should be unilateral, whereas they think "quitters" should be banned. Concession that requires agreement of all players can make sense in a traditional NQ (no quitting) game with no point system. However I believe a point system like I proposed above is sufficient to discourage frivolous quits and reward players who stick it out.

I'd like to hear from the other founding members of RANQ. Do you want games where all the other players need to agree that you can concede?

What about others who play multiplayer, or single players considering multiplayer? Would you be more likely to join a ranked game if you could concede at your sole discretion?