Why didn't he quit the game against 3 AI players, when he was ask to, to join a new one with the very same 3 people who all supposedly left the game on their own will or by act of GOD like Mr Kipley would lead you to believe?
By the time I saw your post in the lobby asking me to play in your new game, it was already too late to join. I made my posts in the lobby explaining that the game had kicked you three out, but then I went back to playing the game that I was in, and didn't check back into the lobby again for a while. Unfortunately, the main lobby isn't an effective means of communicating with somebody who's already playing a game. If players could visit games in progress and make chats there, that would work better, but that's not the system that's currently in place.
Whats the point of beating three AIs? Higher Rank?
The point is to keep my abandon rate low, as there's a stigma attached to high abandon rates. But I'll admit, yes, I'm having fun trying to raise my rank as well. I'm not so set on raising my rank to purposely game the system by booting other players from my games, but I am interested enough to keep on playing when they get disconnected by other factors not under my control.
We can all look at the logs to make a confident determination of a player's choice in opponents, if we wish to take precious time away from playing our beloved game
My choice algorithm is as follows: If another host already has a game up, I'll sometimes join it, sometimes not. It depends on my ping with the other host, whether I believe they'll host the game to conclusion, and whether or not I feel like putting up with the fact that I won't be playing as orange. (I tend to make mistakes when playing as a different color, as I've gotten used to orange.)
If there are no other games waiting on players, I'll create my own to host. My choice algorithm for allowing players into my games is as follows: I'll let anyone play, unless they have a ridiculously high abandon rate, or if they've never played a tourney game to completion before. I'll let in newbs as well as players that are higher ranked than me. I never avoid stronger competition. On the flip side, I also don't tend to seek stronger competition out, as waiting for the perfect set of opponents is often a long, boring process that I'd much rather spend actually playing the game.
As for AI players, if we've been waiting a while and it looks like it'll take a while to get 4 players, I'll ask the others in the game if they want to go with AI. If anyone vetoes the AI idea, I respect it and continue to wait for humans. If everyone is ok with AI, I'll add it when we get tired of waiting for humans.
I think my game history will provide ample evidence that the above is an accurate summary of how I choose my opponents.
The current ranking system, in its present form, means nothing
I agree with you on this one. In that, the current ranking system is pretty much a reflection of how
much a player plays, rather than how
well he plays. Absolutely, no doubt about it. The fact that I'm high on the list does not mean I'm one of the best players, and I have no illusion that I am. Several other threads have suggested alternate ranking systems that would produce a list that better reflects skill, and I heartily agree that would be a good thing.
Mr. Kipley's logs' that he would like you to view, does show his choices.
Probably so. I haven't analyzed the logs extensively myself, nor would I even know what to look for if I did. And I have no idea if the data within them would back up my claim that the kicking of the other three players happened through no intervention of my own, or not. I posted them just in case they would. And also because you threatened in the main lobby to trash my name in this forum (a threat that you've now carried out), so I felt that it would be in my best interest to be proactive about this situation and present my side of the story as well and as promptly as I could.
His name is now on my list next to Mr Akire1's.
That is, of course, your right. And honestly, I don't blame you... I'd think twice about joining a game by a host that has apparently kicked me out. I won't try and convince you to do otherwise.
To other folks that would shun me, I would attempt to allay your fears by pointing out that I've played
lots of games (obviously, a lot more than most), and this is the
only game where my machine has suddenly kicked out all the human competition, so the empirical evidence would at least suggest that if I am trying to game the system, at least I'm very lazy about it!
I invite either one of this people to play a game with me hosted by a proven player but I will not play when they are hosting.
I
may take you up on the invite, but honestly, your choice to indite me over
one single incident, which can easily be attributed to a network anomaly, and when there's no further evidence that I'm doing anything wrong, leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. If I played again against you, I'd be worried about anything going wrong leading you to trashing my name again. If I lost connection in this new game, would you further blast me for suspicious behavior? It's a risk that doesn't seem to have any associated reward to it, so I'm hesitant to accept it.
