To Dev: Some systems are missing in this game

[苏立Sully]

The game is all about diplomacy and bluffing. It is for PvP, but the current MP experience of this game is quite basic(just create/join lobby). This is a 40 dollar game and some more polished system is deserved in this game.
1. Progression system: A level system is needed. Get some exp when finishing PvP game and have LVL number on the avatar. This is even better if we can get some decorative items like title, frame, skins etc after we played.
2. Ranking system: get skill points when win vice versa, so that skillful player could choose the high ranking lobby. Also the lobby host could set filter basing on ranking/LVL.

[Nikratio]

I believe what you really want is an ELO rating for SI players that's used for matchmaking. And I agree, that'd be nice.

[Drakken]

I agree, there should be a system of progression and ranking. Probably coming as more people are purchasing the game and coming online, though.

[苏立Sully]

Originally posted by Nikratio:

I believe what you really want is an ELO rating for SI players that's used for matchmaking. And I agree, that'd be nice.

ELO rating and matchmaking is perfect for this. but the player base is not very big so just make the rating visible and the people could join the lobby at his skill level. This is also easier to implement.

[Drakken]

The suggestion was over the Discord server. Let's see how LoG reacts, surely they will come with their roadmap sooner or later.

[苏立Sully]

Originally posted by WingedIncubus:

The suggestion was over the Discord server. Let's see how LoG reacts, surely they will come with their roadmap sooner or later.

Thank you. This game will surely be the game that can be played over a decade if they keep completing and balancing it. Let's wait for their road map.

[Chan]

Hii! Thank you for the suggestion, we're definitely eager to start expanding out SI's potential, though I'm not allowed to say much here naturally hehe. Our focus before this was making sure the product was stable for launch, so now we're out and about there's inevitably more fun to be had.

[Anonymous Bosch]

A rating/progression system would be great, but I recognize it represents significant development resources and this game hasn't made a lot of sales yet. In a game like this with a small player base, I think the next best thing would be any disincentive for abandoning games, and it would be less complicated to do.

I don't mind playing with stronger or weaker players (especially in a game like this where they can be manipulated or manipulate you to your benefit or detriment); what is much more frustrating is playing with five AIs 10 turns in. Asynchronous games like this, played over months, are going to have a high rate of towel-throwers; and if those players are distributed evenly in all games they will detract significantly from everyone's experience. The game is new enough that this probably hasn't been noticed much yet (given the length of async games), but I guarantee it will become a problem if not addressed, and it will cause people to stop playing. Rated play is one way to solve this, but it isn't the only way:

Track game completions/abandonments and then let game creators gate their games to players with a minimum completion rate. This would take minimal effort to implement and greatly improve the experience without limiting game availability to beginners like a rating system can. You could even start players out at 500% or something so they can time-out a few times without marring their record too much.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Originally posted by Xuande:

Splitting the community is not the same as preserving it. As is, I imagine private games and Discord/etc organized games are the collective majority, and trying to segregate the remainder into smaller groups isn't going to work out the way you're implying it is. It'll cause different players to leave instead.

I'm not sure about the majority of games. I don't think we have any data about that. I personally never organize games that way but your speculation is as good as mine.

Originally posted by Xuande:

Players have differing expectations and some of us already struggle to find a proper fit with the existing options. That I can leave a game where one or more players aren't present on Turn 1 is a pro, not a con.

Could we please maintain this game as one not stuck in GaaS (Games as a Service) trappings like ranks, fake visible/real hidden MMR, profile pages with blacklisting, season passes, etc? I imagine the core audience as being an older group to begin with, between the 2009 roots of this project and it being a design rooted in tabletop boardgaming with the advantages of the digital format.

It's a good point and there's a lot to be said for maintaining simplicity.

There's nothing wrong with occasionally abandoning a game. Everyone will do it sometimes, and nobody is suggesting prohibiting it. It's telling that your example for why you would abandon a game is exactly because other people have abandoned it, which is why chronic game abandonment is the single most justifiable criterion for "splitting" players, as I mentioned in my suggestion. I think you're right, that ranked play probably isn't the best solution here. I don't force Elo calculations on my board game night friends; But, if someone got up and left the party in the middle of every board game I invited them to, spoiling it for others, I should and do have the right not to invite them next time, purely out of respect for other players' time and enjoyment.

[Ddraig Lleuad]

I honestly don't think a ranking system would be a big draw. If anything, I can see an emphasis on competitive play driving some people away - even if it's not required, it affects the atmosphere, the nebulous sense of what the game is 'about'.

[Soulda7]

Originally posted by Ddraig Lleuad:

I honestly don't think a ranking system would be a big draw. If anything, I can see an emphasis on competitive play driving some people away - even if it's not required, it affects the atmosphere, the nebulous sense of what the game is 'about'.

My 2cents is I tend to agree with this, a progression system is NOT needed. Just enjoy the game.

With progression implemented you will have people creating alt accounts to beat themselves and all sorts of silly stuff just to artificially increase their rank.

The game would turn from playing for fun, to playing to win even at the expense of others fun.

Without progression players are more inclined just to have a good time.

[Nikratio]

No one said the rank needs to be shown anywhere. Just track it silently and use it for matchmaking :-)

[Ddraig Lleuad]

Originally posted by Nikratio:

No one said the rank needs to be shown anywhere. Just track it silently and use it for matchmaking :-)

Yeah that wouldn't make any difference. People get obsessed with their competitive cred even when a game is only rumoured to have SBMM.

[Scintilus]

I agree with both even better if there are daily and weekly challenges to supplement those who prefer live sessions.