RANKED MODE

[Spartacus]

Will there be a multiplayer ranked mode? This is a must for me after all these years of Civ.

[blahblahblah]

Sense people had to make their own rules so others wouldn't abuse ♥♥♥♥. I don't see this happening.

[Bouncer]

Ranked? Wouldn't that imply civilization would have to be a competitive viable game?

Cuz it ain't.

[Spartacus]

Any actually useful comments and not just big headed opinions?

[Darkwing]

Originally posted by Spartacus:

Any actually useful comments and not just big headed opinions?

That's about as rude as me saying:
"Any actual useful topics instead of just plain stupid questions?".
And I'm not saying that; I'm too polite.

[Bouncer]

You know what they say. Ask a stupid question get a stupid answer.

[FlareFluffsune]

Civilization isn't that kind of competitive game there would be no point in having such a thing because its very highly likely people are only going to play with friends (I have personally never played a Civ game against some random person on the net.) Why would you waste development time and budget on something that possibly less then 5% of people that are going to multiplayer against random strangers. This also means they will need to maintain servers and a database in order to keep this 'leaderboard' up meaning a constant over-time drain on money and resources keeping this system online.

Originally posted by Spartacus:

Any actually useful comments and not just big headed opinions?

My big-headed opinion is go play a MOBA if you need to inflate your ego with a bunch of arbitrary numbers to validate your online life. Oh wait-- you do, must be why you need to validate yourself.

[Spartacus]

It's nice to see where you stand in a game... and where you can improve... ranking systems help that. It's just a number, relax. There's a reason why the most popular games in the WORLD have ranking systems. You don't have to use them, but I would like to see it implemented. This discuss was a QUESTION to see if anyone knew anything. Not a place to rage at other games and opinions on how bad you get your ass kicked in ranked and can't handle it.

Originally posted by Crymson Fluffsune:

Civilization isn't that kind of competitive game there would be no point in having such a thing because its very highly likely people are only going to play with friends (I have personally never played a Civ game against some random person on the net.) Why would you waste development time and budget on something that possibly less then 5% of people that are going to multiplayer against random strangers. This also means they will need to maintain servers and a database in order to keep this 'leaderboard' up meaning a constant over-time drain on money and resources keeping this system online.

Originally posted by Spartacus:

Any actually useful comments and not just big headed opinions?

My big-headed opinion is go play a MOBA if you need to inflate your ego with a bunch of arbitrary numbers to validate your online life. Oh wait-- you do, must be why you need to validate yourself.

[Porkypants]

If they have the same ♥♥♥♥♥♥ multiplayer code and dont even try to fix it how should there be a ranked mode??!!

[Shin]

Strategy games don't lend well to a vibrant competitive scene. So, no, Civ6 does not have a leader board.

I mean the average game takes at least a couple dozen hours if not much longer. Couple that with the very boring watchability factor and it's clear Civilization as a whole isn't really designed for "competitive play" the way games like Starcraft or Heroes of the Storm are.

In general, leaderboards are used to guage competitiveness in a competitive scene. A scene only develops if people are interested in competitive play. Competitve play is only interesting if it's fun and interesting to watch. Fun and interesting typically can't require 30 hours long games.

So, in the end, there's no leaderboards because strategy games usually don't have vibrant strong competitive scenes.There's only one exception... EU4 has a leaderboard... but no one really pays any mind to it...

[huxous]

I don't think any of you know what you are talking about.

Civilization 6 should have ranked and it would take the game to a whole other level. The fun of the game reaches its full potential by far in multiplayer. A ranked system makes it so that you can play multiplayer and everyone stays in the game. If someone leaves, you are happy because you will go up in rank. As you rank up you will get to play with players that never leave their games (that's how they got ranked up).

I do appreciate your comments "games last too long for ranked" and "people will abuse ranked". But these are ultimately terrible excuses. Like I explained, people will not leave long games, for fear of losing their rank. With simple code the developers could make the games much faster for ranked (but they don't have to). They could even make it so that in Diplomacy you could trade like: "Montezuma would like to invite you on a leaders retreat. You will return Tuesday, December 15th, 2016 at 8:00 pm Pacific. Agree?" You could even include items in the trade because that is dope, and you should be doing dope $H1T.

The hardest part would be "people abusing ranked". The developers can't even get the AI to upgrade their units, I doubt they will stand a chance versus glitch hunters, hackers, and abusers. But if your excuse for not making a ranked game is that people will abuse glitches, or you don't want to have to patch the game for balance, then you are sorry developers.

[Spartacus]

Originally posted by huxous:

I don't think any of you know what you are talking about.

Civilization 6 should have ranked and it would take the game to a whole other level. The fun of the game reaches its full potential by far in multiplayer. A ranked system makes it so that you can play multiplayer and everyone stays in the game. If someone leaves, you are happy because you will go up in rank. As you rank up you will get to play with players that never leave their games (that's how they got ranked up).

I do appreciate your comments "games last too long for ranked" and "people will abuse ranked". But these are ultimately terrible excuses. Like I explained, people will not leave long games, for fear of losing their rank. With simple code the developers could make the games much faster for ranked (but they don't have to). They could even make it so that in Diplomacy you could trade like: "Montezuma would like to invite you on a leaders retreat. You will return Tuesday, December 15th, 2016 at 8:00 pm Pacific. Agree?" You could even include items in the trade because that is dope, and you should be doing dope $H1T.

The hardest part would be "people abusing ranked". The developers can't even get the AI to upgrade their units, I doubt they will stand a chance versus glitch hunters, hackers, and abusers. But if your excuse for not making a ranked game is that people will abuse glitches, or you don't want to have to patch the game for balance, then you are sorry developers.

Well said.