Winner needs at least 4 stars for it not to be a blitz/devastation/butchering etc. but otherwise yes, you're spot on.
Farbs, would it be possible to set up a redirect for the stats site from ch.farbs.org, chm.farbs.org or a similar TLA address? I often access the site from computers I cannot store history on so I need to manually enter the full site address each time. It would also make it easier to guide new users to the site inside the game chat.
I really like the added level of depth the guild system adds to the game, I see a lot of potential for this, and have a few ideas that would hopefully be of the easy to implement nature. RECRUITMENT The guild principal should be able to give other members the ability to recruit. this way guilds can grow faster, and we wont have to wait for the leader to get on to do an initiation, this would boost guild participation as well. Guild Challenge Guild Members should be able to challenge for elo. (like a stake), you can only use your own contribution points, cannot be a conscript, and cannot be in negative contribution. Conscript matches Conscript Matches would place the loser in the winners guild until they can fight their way out: Upon requesting the casual battle with a member of the capturing guild, if the battle is refused, they will be automatically freed from the guild, if they win the battle they leave the guild carrying a small sack of gold. However they can only attempt to flee the guild once every (X) amount of days. A conscripted player would remain affiliated with his original guild, for the purposes of scoring matches and reverting players to original guild after fleeing the Conscriptors. When a conscripted player fights a member of his true guild, the match will be scored as if non-guilded. High Scores I would like to see some type of precautionary measure in place to stop people from quitting accounts after gaining contribution, just to restart another account leaving their guilds score artificially inflated. I am not aware of this having happened but I can see potential for abuse. One way you could do this, is by resetting guild contribution after (X) months inactive.
Hi Farbs, how hard would it be to get the scenario name in the guild history pages? EDIT: as in, for each battle record on the history pages, to display which scenario was fought.
Tiny update: Changed "decimated" to "devastated". I can't remember who pointed out that "decimated" was the wrong word, but I'm guessing it was Kalin. Now on to more substantial changes...
Hey, this is cool. I downloaded the Found Guild scenario. loaded it, and created the game. I go into the map and there's no victory point or monster or anything. How does one win the scenario?
There should be a victory point, in front of you at the other side of the clearing, in front of the red pedestal. Stand on that, pass to win the round, and you'll have a new guild. Welcome!
While we're asking questions: is it possible for a guild principal to grant themselves a title? Or give a title to a guild member when they're not online?
Nope on both counts This is by design though rather than a deficiency. To gain a title someone else has to think you're worthy of it, and since the name of the player who awarded the title is publicly visible in the history that player is seen as personally backing it. Titles can only be awarded to players who agree to the battle because that ensures that the player wishes to accept the title. Otherwise you could scrawl all kinds of horrible things on each other's profiles. Feel free to ask me questions about this stuff any time by the way! Oh, and if anyone has ideas for the title and story behind the November season I'd love to hear 'em. Also December, January, February...
Thanks, got it. There's no indication on the map, but it worked. Same for dissolving a guild. Thanks for all this, and the quick reply! Awesome!
I unleashed a new eSports-inspired theme today, which should better reflect the competitive nature of the site and be a bit more legible with its sans-serif fonts. Also made the season champions page a little more ostentatious because hey, that's what it's for! Suggestions and criticisms very welcome.
Some ideas I had: 1. It seems that this could be used for player run events, such as tournaments. 2. I'd like to see a championship belt kind of mode, where whoever beats the champion in ranked play becomes champion. (and then keep track of successful defenses, the title lineage, # of times as champ, that sort of thing.)
1. Yeah, I started out in that direction a while ago and got the nice people at Challong to extend their API for me. I should really finish building that bridge there. The idea was that you could invite [META] to be an admin on your Challong tournament, and then it'd verify and post scores in the score brackets. I never quite finished it though. I'm also starting to wonder if I should just build the tournament bracket displays myself via SVG and host them on META locally. Arg. So many things I could do... 2. That does seem like a good idea, but I've been avoiding it for fear of discouraging play. Basically, if you have the belt you have no incentive to keep playing. Like you suggested though, I could score people on # of wins while holding the belt. Yep, that makes sense. Hrm...
CH Season 2: King of the Hill - earn a magnificent chest (or victory point, or whatever) for every three wins while holding the belt - you lose the belt if you don't play a match within 2 hours - when belt is lost by inactivity, it reverts to the AI
@Farbs So I was looking at the Win Rate board. It seems dominated by new-ish players. Maybe it would be improved slightly (a better representation of the top players) by making a minimum of 100 games to qualify for the board since we have so many new players these days? Just a thought.
Hmm, maybe yeah. I have to set the limit somewhere, but maybe 50 is too low. Bear in mind that there are plenty of other players who aren't on this chart due to not having played recently. What do people think - 50 or 100 game minimum for the win rate leaderboard?
I didn't realize there was a recency requirement too. I just lean towards 100 as it seems out of balance that half the players on the list have played between 50-100 games and the other half fall between 100-2900. It's so easy to get an inflated win percentage early in MP. But it's just a thought, as long as there's a recency requirement at least it won't get clogged with players who quit playing after 60 games.
Replace win rate leaderboard with a scoreboard that assigns players scores that are a function of both win rate and games played?
