General Scoreboard/Scoring Discussion

[stone123]

Sheriff, do you have any plans to overhaul the way the points system works?

The current system (in my opinion) just does not work fairly, and stops high ranking players from doing battle with low ranked players due to huge points fluctuations, thus causing a divide

 

[Cardinalsrule]

I'm not all that sure that it needs to be changed, unless someone can come up with a better system. If top ranked players are so worried about their points that they won't play except against other people with high scores, that's really their issue. I played 2 (1v1) games against a lower ranked player a few days ago, won 12 points and lost 67. So what? I enjoyed the games.

 

[stone123]

Well i think it does need changing.

I know what you are saying and its the same with me, i still play anyone, but too many people have stopped playing games with others due to this issue.

Its a flawed system anyway, the points system does not reflect the skill level like it is supposed to do.

Solution= a set points system for games.

 

[masterjskye]

stone, I'm with you on that one!! Cards I think it warrants a discussion at least, because it is an issue on this site without a doubt. I wrote something a while ago in another thread, I'll copy it over here since you brought it up
-------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm just going to put it out there that maybe when re-code comes along there could be a discussion about possibly changing the way ranks and scoring work. It's not that the current system does not work, but like you say people know how to game the system. It's more of a "necessity" than a desire for people with a high score to naturally gravitate towards playing other people with similar scores, assuming they even care about points and scoreboard placing. This has created a sort of microcosm at MajCom. To put it bluntly, people are reluctant to enter a game where they could lose 100 points to someone with a low rank.

One possible alternative that is worth looking into as a scoring model is a system where no matter the personal score of the players everyone buys in a certain amount (could be a game setting) and winner takes all. . Games would function like a miniature one round tournament.

Reason for changing? People would join games because they want to play and rank would not be part of the equation, except as an indicator of skill. People would switch from being so entrenched in their little groups of contacts to branching out and really getting the whole site involved. Regulars would play noobs and everything in between, and there would be no reason for decisions in the field such as:

"Okay, I'm going to be eliminated.. should I give the game to the cadet or the colonel... hmm I wonder.."

Dirty? Maybe. Happens? Definitely. This sort of supports people when they get to insanely high places on the board too, if only in a very minor way. I don't really play like that, but it is on my mind when there is a possibility of losing 1oo points.

Another thing that would potentially happen is Real Time would see a resurgance. This is assuming all other site issues currently blighting real time have been solved. The lists of Casual games on the public board would fill up again, instead of everything being done in private. All this should bring new players into the fold quicker and be a positive step for the site.

Reasons against? It might make multi cheating even easier and more effective. Maybe the buy-in feature could be locked at a low number for grunts, a higher one for strategists and a supreme one for commanders. Or, tie it in with unique defeated opponents and say at X kills you can join a game that has a buy in of 10 points, at Y kills 15 points, Z kills 20 points, or whatever values you like. Hopefully things like UDO trackers are on the list for the new site, so people would know what they're at.

People might farm noobs. Unavoidable really, but at least if the UDO system was in place the reward would be low.

A win would net you less than it currently does, but then so would a loss.

This main disadvantage of this system is that it's effectively open-ended. Once you let players loose there's no telling where it will end. Potentially never, which obviously doesn't work. And it would probably work better on a full points reset, which I don't mind, but other people will...

Just some ideas I had... far from perfect ones I'll grant you but I do think this warrants a talk at some point because the scoreboard is pretty warped. People that don't even play the game shouldn't be able to just sit on the top forever either, but that's a different thing!

 

[NewSheriffInTown]

Yeah, Things may change in my mind over time, but once i got a high rank, (which was very recently) I started to think twice about joining a 1v1 with a low ranked player. I've cut down my gaming a lot and I'm thinking of other things now, obviously, but losing 60 or 80 points in a single game was unappealing.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

Well I'm not against having a discussion about it. But when the people at the top of the scoreboard refuse to play lower-ranked people just because they're afraid of losing their precious points, I really have no sympathy for their position. I've been in the Top 10 before (a couple of years ago) but because I play a LOT of games, against anyone who wants to join, I haven't been up there since. Doesn't matter to me, I'm not hung up on my position on the scoreboard. (I'm actually more unhappy about being down to #5 on the CUDO scoreboard, lol)

The issue with people staying on top of the boards and never playing is a different one - that's already on the list to change.

The idea of a 'buy-in' system, game-by-game, set up by the creator of the game, is actually a pretty decent idea. More positives than negatives. That is actually the first idea that I've heard that I would be in favor of changing to.

 

[masterjskye]

As you say yourself Cards, you're not hung up about your position on the scoreboard, which is fair enough. But you must accept that there are players that do care about it and will act accordingly to try and keep hold of the precious. It's like Gollum in Lord of The Rings, even the best of us can be corrupted by the draw of the coveted Top Ten...

This, I believe, is why we see a whole raft of excellent players reaching quite extraordinary scoreboard places, and then just hanging up their boots and calling it a day. They still enjoy the game, but some part of the incentive that was driving them before has vanished or been sated. I can speak from personal experience, I've just had about 6 months with only playing a couple of long games in that time, I'm getting back into it now but I think my reaching a position I was reluctant to lose was a factor, for sure.

If we swapped to a buy-in type system, I'm willing to bet that we would see a huge shift, consistently active players such as yourself Cards would be a Lot higher up on the scoreboard consistently, and not subject to such "yo-yo-ing" around as is now the case.

Change the system to a fair buy in and the site would explode with activity.. and hit the reset switch while you're at it on the proper relaunch!

Let's all go back to cadet school! :marchmellow: No, I'm actually not joking...
​

 

[Cardinalsrule]

I'm not at all in favor of a points reset. Or especially not an entire scoreboard reset. I played a LOT of games to get where I am on the 'most defeated', and I'd be unhappy to lose that. I frankly don't see a compelling reason to 'reset'.

I would vote with you, master, in favor of a 'buy-in' system. That, together with a new definition of what "active" means, and I believe you'd see more activity on the top of the scoreboard.

 

[masterjskye]

points reset is optional, and most people will probably hate it

if it did go to a buy-in system I think we'd need some new ranks created above 6k though, because the same controls that halted excessive points inflation are no longer in place. That is the main stumbling block to this proposal imo.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

or, you could just make the top rank (what is it, "Executive General") stay the top regardless of how high your points go...

 

[Sebrim]

what about a points reset, while all the other stats stay? played games, UDOs, CUDOs etc...

 

[stone123]

With a buy in system it would have to have a limit.

What would stop us 3 say for e.g setting up multiple 3 player games and dumping points onto a chosen one of us and creating a new no1 player. Bit extreme i know but it could happen. Then again i suppose in theory it could happen now.

Cards, i remember you and i discussing this subject a year ago in regards to the points system and a complete `start again from scratch for everyone of us`......if an overhaul of the points system where to be overhauled and implemented along with medals etc, i don`t see any other way of doing it.

I truly sympathise with you in that all your achievements (more than most of us) would be gone, but so would everyone else`s.

Does starting from scratch not interest you one bit? Personally i love the idea, think what a challenge it would be. Getting that 1st new medal etc.

The more i think about the changes the more i`m convinced you would actually benefit more from it than this current system.

Implement the change of players not actively playing for a month getting wiped from the leader board and see regular hard working players at the top. AWSOME

 

[DeadGirl]

I'm not sure a buy-in system would have the intended effect. Take two games with the same amount of players. In one of them all your opponents are low-ranked, in another all your opponents are high-ranked. You would win the same amount of points in each game, even though one would take considerably more skill to win. People who focus on their score would start only playing games with low-ranked players, as opposed to only playing games with high-ranked players like right now. Score still wouldn't be an accurate reflection of skill, because those who chose their games carefully would still have inflated scores, and those who played with everyone would have deflated scores.

I think the problem could be solved by using an Elo system like that in professional chess, where as you play more games your Elo normalises and your score changes less from game to game. You would still lose proportionately more points if you lost to someone 1,000 points beneath you, but whereas if you had only played 10 games you might lose 100 points, if you had played 10,000 games you would lose only 10 points.

As for inactive players retaining their high rank, that can be easily solved by introducing Elo decay.

 

[stone123]

I'm not sure a buy-in system would have the intended effect. Take two games with the same amount of players. In one of them all your opponents are low-ranked, in another all your opponents are high-ranked. You would win the same amount of points in each game, even though one would take considerably more skill to win. People who focus on their score would start only playing games with low-ranked players, as opposed to only playing games with high-ranked players like right now. Score still wouldn't be an accurate reflection of skill, because those who chose their games carefully would still have inflated scores, and those who played with everyone would have deflated scores.


I think the problem could be solved by using an Elo system like that in professional chess, where as you play more games your Elo normalises and your score changes less from game to game. You would still lose proportionately more points if you lost to someone 1,000 points beneath you, but whereas if you had only played 10 games you might lose 100 points, if you had played 10,000 games you would lose only 10 points.

As for inactive players retaining their high rank, that can be easily solved by introducing Elo decay.

The problem is defining a `skill level` with points. I don't think it can`t be done. 1 day i may be on 6000 rank, the next day on 2000 rank. Not a true reflection.

That`s why maybe a fixed points system would be the fairest.

I don`t know. I think we got stuck a year ago trying to come up with a solution.

EDIT: just re read your post Deadgirl...that could be the answer. P.S I like chess

 

[Cardinalsrule]

what about a points reset, while all the other stats stay? played games, UDOs, CUDOs etc...

That would work for me, although I really don't see the need to do that. WHY do we need to reset points?

Cards, i remember you and i discussing this subject a year ago in regards to the points system and a complete `start again from scratch for everyone of us`......if an overhaul of the points system where to be overhauled and implemented along with medals etc, i don`t see any other way of doing it.

I truly sympathise with you in that all your achievements (more than most of us) would be gone, but so would everyone else`s.

Does starting from scratch not interest you one bit? Personally i love the idea, think what a challenge it would be. Getting that 1st new medal etc.

Actually, it doesn't. I'm approaching 5000 kills, and I don't see why I should lose that. And I doubt that I'll ever put together another CUDO streak to match the 82 that I pulled off a couple of years ago. Why should I lose my rack of medals? I just don't see a compelling reason to do that.

 

[stone123]

That would work for me, although I really don't see the need to do that. WHY do we need to reset points?



Actually, it doesn't. I'm approaching 5000 kills, and I don't see why I should lose that. And I doubt that I'll ever put together another CUDO streak to match the 82 that I pulled off a couple of years ago. Why should I lose my rack of medals? I just don't see a compelling reason to do that.

Just found our old convo from last year and someone suggested having multiple scoreboards. Could have an all time record board and a yearly record score board.

This way you get to keep your precious achievements.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

There could easily be more categories added, a section for all-time records and a revolving-recent for, say, the past year. That way I (gollum, gollum) get to keep the precious, and the people on top of the points board could continue to be recognized even if they go inactive.

 

[Bluebonnet]

I am happy enough with the scoring system the way it is. And I have never been above captain. Elo could work, who knows?

If we went back to zero on score, it would make very little difference to me. If you start talking about wiping out my game history and medals I have earned, I would be leaving real quick. It took me years of off and on playing at this site to earn them. I like them, and I want to keep them. And I can't wait for the ones I am owed. I know I deserve an Onyx for Classic Evolved and I want to show it off. THose were 100% Real Time wins darnnit.

 

[Bluebonnet]

How is this, Elo would be difficult to set up correctly unless you had access to the stats and run some regression analysis to find statistical probabilities based on rank.

But what we are trying to do, is say based on the type of game, luck becomes more of a factor than skill. This is why the higher ranks play less 1v1 or simple maps. More is based on luck than pure skill. So the scoring system should factor that in. A 4 person dubs game on Nukes has a lot more skill than a classic mini 1v1. So you add in factors for map size/difficulty. A classic Mini win or loss could be at even odds(Or close to it), where harder games have a larger odds disparity.

Our system I believe is similar to ELO in theory. Why it works better on chess is EVERY single game is exactly similar. So the game board odds do not change. But ours do based on the map and other settings. Thus increasing or decreasing the "luck" factor. What we want to do is reduce the luck factor in the scoring and base it more on skill.

 

[masterjskye]

I'd be happy even if the formula used to calculate score was toned down in some way, somewhere nearer to a middle ground - you still win more from a higher-up but not exponentially more. Maybe also lowering the maximum amount of points you can take from one person in one game. I wouldn't go into different scoring models for different maps because it sounds really complicated. Also, one mans best map is another mans worst, sometimes it just comes down to how much you like the look of the thing!