General Scoreboard/Scoring Discussion

[Bluebonnet]

Even changing the formula should require statistical analysis to determine the probabilities ratios to apply to the formula. If done correctly, all you have is a more proper scoring methodology between ranks on any given map. And it could be correct the way it is.

Higher ranks till may avoid some maps where their advantage is deemed to be less due to less skill needed to master it.

As you noted, people do have preferences or weaknesses in games. I am always killed on the Great Britain Map. Get a data set of thousands of games and you can run a regression on the whole.

So either way an analysis should be done, otherwise the methodology is based on opinion which may or may not be correct. And those who covet points will still play more complex maps. And it really isn't any more difficult to weigh map type than to weigh the ranks. In fact, weighing the maps correctly is just as easy as weighing the ranks. Same methodology is used, you are just plugging in different data points.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Rethinking the scoring for 'real ' games

I just lost a heads up game to a cadet and it cost me 75 points! Now heads up is often a coin toss and the drop or first turn can determine the game. So why would I ever want to play heads up against a low ranked player? Moreover, barely any high ranked players will play real games for this very reason, but many members want to come here for an immediate fix, not a move every other day. Until this scoring system is sorted out, the game is losing an opportunity to get more members involved in live games and enhance the number of long-term users.

I am not suggesting the scoring needs to be changed for the longer formats, but in real time, particularly in heads up, to encourage more established players to get involved, the risks have to be less in terms of points loss.

 

[dudeiamgood]

What's heads up?

 

[Swashbuckler]

A two-player game.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

If you don't like the current system, perhaps you could propose something better? Bitching about what we have but not giving a better alternative is pretty much a waste of time, yes?

 

[Bluebonnet]

I don't think changing the scoring system will dramatically increase the numbers going to RealTime. Even then you still have the map styles and game types which higher ranks prefer to even out the odds of first turn. Or that you have less "friendly" games in RT than you can find in casual. Many factors keep people out of RT, not just scoring.

Personally, I stopped worrying about score a LONG time ago. It interferes with concentrating on having fun. I have been a major. I could prbly stay a major longer than I normally do or even hit colonel for a day, but it means changing the games I like to play in order to protect my score. Forget it.

I just started playing RT again. Only thing keeping me out of it more is a mroe secure system and a better way to go to next turn when the oppenent bails/

 

[Bluebonnet]

And think about it. Unless you change the scoring system to a straight win/loss ratio for points, those who care about their score still won't hit up real time.

They have it down to a science on increasing their odds for increasing their score and protecting it. Unless the scoring is changed where it is beneficial for a General to play constantly against a corporal, they won't do it.

 

[Swashbuckler]

If you don't like the current system, perhaps you could propose something better? Bitching about what we have but not giving a better alternative is pretty much a waste of time, yes?

Cards, no it isn't a waste of time, it is pointing out a problem which is costing the site members. It isn't my site, nor am I paid to improve the site. This is a suggestion thread and my thread suggests we look at the scoring system for live, two player games. Why do you have to be rude and use derogatory words such as 'bitching'?

However: Why not set up a game which could be described as a friendly, where points are not at stake, allowing those who want to play and enjoy a game anytime they want the opportunity to do so? This is better than not playing at all. I am guessing some new members find there way here, like I did, looking for a live game of Risk, and that is not always available because so many members avoid RT and then the rookie leaves, believing the site to be unable to offer the game they want to play.

Or change the scoring system for live player games, perhaps halving the points gained and lost or more.

As gtivan suggests perhaps the scoring system isn't the only thing that keeps players away from RT, but it certainly is making me less inclined to play RT here, and that means I may look elsewhere to get a quick fix.

On his point re: the non-use of RT by players who care about their score I disagree! You can care about your score and want to play and have fun. I care about my score, but I still want to play RT games. I am not playing RT to enhance my own score, but to have fun, but I won't play if it kills my score.

 

[Dalinar]

There are two alterations I'd like to see. I'd like a system like swashbuckler suggested where we can play just for fun - no points.

Second, I'd like a system where we can turn the multiplier for (rank(p1)/rank(p2)) * 30 down or off. Either that or the ability to add a small 0-15 point bet per game. I'd play more real time, but my break even rate against 1500 players is an 80% win rate. I'm not obsessed with my points, having fun interesting games is a lot more important. But I'd rather not feel I was making a donation if I wanted to take the first seat in an RT classic evolved 1v1.

This also why I'm careful about what game modes/maps I open 1v1 publicly - something I don't think that anyone really benefits from.

 

[masterjskye]

I agree with a lot of what has already been said.

100 points is too much to lose in one game. What about lowering the maximum amount you can lose to 50 points. I think that would be more palatable.

 

[namelochil]

I have a proposal that doesn't require changing anything.

Why don't players create a second account for playing fun games? In order to do this above board, we would need to have some rules about naming the second account, so it's clear that's what it is.

So, for example, if I were to create a 'just-for-fun' account, my name might be: namelochilTWO (or something like that)

And maybe we would want to insist that players post the name of their second account on their profile page.

And, obviously, there would be a very strict rule against joining the same game/tournament with more than one account.

 

[champig]

I see an issue with you guys proposals :

- for fun games : i recently made it to general, i like it like that, introduce that just for fun games and i might only join games against people in the top 20 to ensure i don't lose too many points and win a decent amount when i win.

- for reducing the lost points : if you reduce the points a lieutenant loses to a cadet, then you have to reduce the points a cadet will win by beating a lieutenant. it will make it very hard to climb the ladder for low ranks.

we've all enjoyed the big points that allowed us to climb where we are now. good players that have had a bad beat might just stop playing if you take away the hope for them to win big ...

- for double accounts : same issue than with fun games, high ranked might stop joining games where there are lower ranked players thus giving them a tough time to climb the ladder

i might reconsider my point of view in a few days when i'll be down to captain

 

[Cagey]

No Double Accounts.. thin end of the wedge, Man, too easy to abuse, would lead to constant bickering and accusations. It's Rule One and for good reason.

A simple option during game set up to turn off ther scoring would do the trick, like you have Public or Private you could have Friendly or Competetive.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

No Double Accounts.. thin end of the wedge, Man, too easy to abuse, would lead to constant bickering and accusations. It's Rule One and for good reason.

A simple option during game set up to turn off ther scoring would do the trick, like you have Public or Private you could have Friendly or Competetive.

A big +1 for that

 

[namelochil]

Really? Even if the second account was clearly demarcated?

I think maybe you guys are being naive. I'm sure tons of people have second accounts. Wouldn't it be better if it were regulated?

Same argument for drugs.

Slippery slope. blah blah.

It's tricky to make an argument about thought structures, insofar as those structures, as such, inform thought.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

I think maybe you guys are being naive. I'm sure tons of people have second accounts. Wouldn't it be better if it were regulated?

And if they get caught, they get banned. I really doubt if "tons" of people do.

 

[namelochil]

By "if they get caught" you mean "if they get caught cheating." I agree. If someone is playing against herself in order to bump up her score, that's cheating. She should be banned. But I'm not convinced that having a dedicated and clearly demarcated second account constitutes cheating.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

If it was allowed by the management, it wouldn't be cheating. But right now, it is. Overall, I think making a game setting to allow for "pointless" games would be easier and cause less issues.

 

[namelochil]

Maybe you're right. I know nothing about programming. My impression has always been that it's not necessarily 'easy' to change the game settings parameters, insofar as this would require some sort of re-coding. But simply changing the rules about second accounts is something even I could do, since it would presumably just involve typing out new rules.

 

[rob6483]

A simple option during game set up to turn off ther scoring would do the trick, like you have Public or Private you could have Friendly or Competetive.

I'm thinking that in this scenario, it's important that medals, CDO's, and that stuff also get switched off too, otherwise everyone will be sporting all kinds of new bling after playing a few dozen friendly games.

I like the idea of a Friendly setting on the surface, but while it would make it easier to keep high ranks, I think it might also make it harder for lower ranks to climb up if the higher ranks just play each other competitively and only play friendly otherwise. (It's a really nice feeling to see positive points in the triple digits added to your score when you beat someone of much higher rank!) The 100 point cap for lost points seems to do a fair job of regulating disaster for highly ranked players. If you reduce that cap, sure, people will keep their ranks more easily, but the scoreboard is going to explode! Back when I first started, making Corporal was enough to land you in the top 100 and I think the high score was in the 3000 range. There's been some substantial growth in the points arena over the last couple years!