SS-D
Auto-translated
A clear picture is emerging, and that's good.
1. Regarding the rules about maps and limits that players will use – there's no need to impose restrictions like "large" or "small," or difficulty levels. Let the players agree (any map, any difficulty). Why limit and narrow the circle of people? The strongest will win anyway, and that's the point.
2. Regarding the selection of points:
- If there's no selection, the player with more time will be first, and if they win consistently, that's fine. If they don't win consistently, then no. You could say they're playing against the same player – the number of such games will limit the points – with each game, the winner receives less and less (I plan to start with 10 points for a win + a bonus - a bonus based on the player's strength, and with an increasing number of games against the same player, the winner receives 1 point for a win (minimum)).
- If there is a selection, the player who plays and wins more will still have more points.
3. And the main question is whether games against each other are mandatory. Mandatory games shouldn't be enforced – this isn't a tournament. Here, we need to rely on the players' sense of responsibility and willingness to play with everyone. Otherwise, what's the point of the game, and why did they sign up for the ranking?
Lack of time isn't a problem – a percentage ratio of wins and losses will also be tracked.
If a strong player has little time, let those with many points go ahead, and you'll get more. And I think bonuses will be awarded in such situations.
1. Regarding the rules about maps and limits that players will use – there's no need to impose restrictions like "large" or "small," or difficulty levels. Let the players agree (any map, any difficulty). Why limit and narrow the circle of people? The strongest will win anyway, and that's the point.
2. Regarding the selection of points:
- If there's no selection, the player with more time will be first, and if they win consistently, that's fine. If they don't win consistently, then no. You could say they're playing against the same player – the number of such games will limit the points – with each game, the winner receives less and less (I plan to start with 10 points for a win + a bonus - a bonus based on the player's strength, and with an increasing number of games against the same player, the winner receives 1 point for a win (minimum)).
- If there is a selection, the player who plays and wins more will still have more points.
3. And the main question is whether games against each other are mandatory. Mandatory games shouldn't be enforced – this isn't a tournament. Here, we need to rely on the players' sense of responsibility and willingness to play with everyone. Otherwise, what's the point of the game, and why did they sign up for the ranking?
Lack of time isn't a problem – a percentage ratio of wins and losses will also be tracked.
If a strong player has little time, let those with many points go ahead, and you'll get more. And I think bonuses will be awarded in such situations.
SS-D:smile17: