General Scoreboard/Scoring Discussion

[Dalinar]

I think the underlying the underlying problem in that the winning point multiplier is nonsensical mathematically - it in no way matches the reality of how risk games work. The point difference grows exponentially where one's win rate against lower ranked players clearly doesn't.

The break-even win rate for a 3600 player to maintain their score 1v1 (the math is the same for more players, it's just clearer 1v1):
Against a 3000 player: 59%
Against a 2400 player: 69%
Against a 2000 player: 80%
Against a 1200 player: 90%

A 90% win rate? Even a 70% or 80% win rate 1v1 is pretty ridiculous. Risk involves too much luck, and the multiplier severely distorts the rankings. Instead of rewarding skill, it rewards playing the system. People on the high end become either become careful who they play with, or you end up in a rank that doesn't really represent how good you are (Cards and Chilly come to mind there, among others). Should people really have more points because they're careful about who and what they play, rather than how well they play?

The multiplier is clearly a system that was pulled out of someone's ass - I'm sure "(person one's score) / (person two's score) " was probably a quick way to set up the code that was somewhat fair. There are around two lines of code governing scoring, and they really should be fixed.

Changing the multiplier to (person 1's score) / (average score) would do wonders, though weighting the average in favor of the player with the lower score might be appropriate. Regardless of the system used, it should match the way the game works.

 

[Cagey]

Well... I play mainly 10 and 12 player games against a range of opponents including enlisted men, and recently I won a 10 player game and was awarded 155 points (an average of 17.2 points per defeated opponent). Prior to the win i was on 4705 points and with the win that gave me 4860 points. (I routinely check my points tally before and after a win because of the dissapearing ponts bug). Now that should have given me a rank boost and got me my shield back, but when i looked a couple of hours later my points tally was back to 4705. I was all set to post on the "dissapearing points" thread to claim the points back, but then I checked my recon and archived games tabs to get my facts straights - and discovered that in the meantime I had been defeated in two other 10 player games, losing 88 points in one and 67 points in the other, or 155 points in total. In other words, playing 10 player games I needed to win one in three just to maintain position.

That being said one might think that I would rail against the current scoring system, claiming it's unfair. But I'm not. I think it's fine* just as it is. If a cadet beats a general they should get a big pay off. If a general beats a cadet they should just get a token prize. It's tough at the top, and it should be.

As for manipulating the system... I'm not even sure how one would do that - we all play the same rules don't we? I tend to join or start those maps and settings that I'm good at - play to my strengths - because those are the games that i enjoy - doesn't everybody?


*and dandy

 

[Cardinalsrule]

Well, I thank Dalinar for the kind words regarding how "good" I am... lol.

Thing is, it's nice to have the rank and all that, but I'm not really playing for that. If I was, I'd have to limit myself as to which games I joined (and started.) I really don't want to do that. If I see a game that has potential to be a good one, I don't want to have to stop and think about how many points I potentially could lose. I play for fun... I'm resigned that I'm a high enough rank that I lose more points than I win in any given game, just part of it. I'm sure Chill man would say basically the same thing.

I do like my spot on the "most decorated" and "most defeated" boards, though. :evil:

I'm not at all sure that the system needs changing, I'm content with it as it is.

 

[Malpot]

I would just like to point out how I (and I think most of the others) made it to General. The tourneys. You win big on some of them and your points explode.

I don't like the double account idea, because then the people at the top of the list will just sit on their points and not play (i.e. iLoveNessa?). For that reason I don't like the friendly games idea either... Part of me really wants friendly games, but it would let people horde their points.

As for how to deal with the real time games being a PITA, I usually have a couple of friends commit to a time at night, and then we play a regular 24 hour game while we are all on it. If someone needs to take care of the kids for a moment or a phone call comes it is not a big deal. And at the end when you need to take 20 regions, you don't have the 5 minute cap. And we can always 'pause' the game and resume it the next evening to finish it.

However, I wouldn't mind the idea of lowering the points lost ratio *slightly* or capping it at 50 points instead of 100.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Bluebonnet]

I kind of like Dalinar's thoughts on it. We have the stats, based it off of average win ratio.

Not a keen fan of no points in a game. I have seen where people create games to practice and go AWOL. Same concept. Just encourage them to do that.

Otherwise all we are doing is attacking the symptoms. As Malpot said, a lot of people play tournies for their points. Or stick to hugher levels of play. That will never chnage cause it gives them a advantage in their scoring.

Look at defferred troops. Created to allow some freedom for newer players who may not log in enough and still keep them active in the game. I don't know if I have ever seen it used for it's intended purpose. I always see it when people want a cheep shot at their deploy. Biggest cheap shot there is as far as i am concerned.

Games with no points are the same. People will only play point games if they think they can win and add points. It will mess things up a lot more than what it already is.

 

[Dalinar]

I think we're all pretty much on the same page. It should be harder at the top. No one wants to make it difficult to move up, but I think the current system actually does that to some extent. Somewhere around 3000-3600 there's a no man's land that people have a very difficult time getting above. I think it'd be a bit easier if the people in the top 20-50 played more games, but as Malpot said, quite a few got a up there through tournaments. They can then sit there by playing few games and picking them carefully (which means either you do the same or you don't go up, if you're equally good).

There's also a basic point about the scoring system - what should it tell you? If you look at the ELO systems for chess or even League of Legends, they give you what % of games a person at a score should win against another person across all skill levels. That means the scores give you a real measure of how good people are, but the current system doesn't come close to that. I think that's what the site should move towards.

I also think it might make the site a more fun because it'd encourage and allow more carefree gameplay. I'm not very good at assassins so I don't enter assassins tournaments. It's a bad bet up front for me, it's probably going to be a bit painful, but I'd probably join an occasional one if I wasn't risking 100 points on top of the already a bad bet. Points aren't everything, but does anyone not think that it sucks to take that large a hit because someone got lucky? There isn't a good reason for it to suck THAT much..

I don't think there are that many people like that try to maximize their points at all costs (and I don't), but this does influence decisions at the margin in a way that's definitely bad.

 

[th-child]

I agree with Dalinar in everything on this topic.

I guess the purpose to have a scoreboard at all would be to have an indication of skills. In that regard, the current one is not very useful -- I assume we can agree at least on this, right?

I'm not saying we should abandon it (the ranks are quite fun I think), but as Dalinar put it: somebody probably just came up with it off the top of his head, and imo it's not working really.

I'm quite sure that nobody expected the inflation of points for example. As the new players keep losing their points to the pool, the scores gets higher and higher. When I first got the crown, I was the 32nd on the scoreboard. The 32nd today is Torwin with 3234, so in this 1.5 or 2 years we all got higher with about 230 points. It's not much, but the trend is there, and A) in 2 years the top 20 players will be all generals B) it widens the gap for the newcomers, which means the scoring system hurts them two.

Also please consider the social dynamics -- if you care about your crown/bird/star, you have to start to choose your opponents. I remember how difficult it was for me to get accepted in the regulars' games with the players who already had higher scores. This definitely hurts the newbies -- that's why there was a need for cards to come up with the "high man/low man" games. If we don't play random people regularly, because we have more to lose, we won't coach them either.
(And avoiding lower scored players hurts the high ranked, too, as it makes the medal hunting more difficult.)

And what about the mercenary games? Those used to be my favorite, but I can't join them anymore. Anyone who sees my birdie or occasional star will jump on me. Not because they are mean, but because that's the rational behavior. So imo the unbalanced scoring totally kills this setting, which is a pity.

If you don't like the current system, perhaps you could propose something better?

Well, cards has a fair point here.

As I said before, the scoreboard should indicate the skill level, but in the case of this game, ONE scoreboard can't do that. Duels and big games, team games and non-reinf, escalate and flat rate -- they are very different, and I think we should have a different scoreboard for each of them.

Why don't we borrow ideas from other games/sports?

ELO-scoring is perfect for duel-type (1v1, 2v2, ...) games, while we could have a tennis ATP-like system, too. Your points disappear after a year, and instead of buy-ins for tournies there could have been grand slams, etc.

I think when it comes to badges, medals and scoring options, the more is definitely the merrier, and some new categories in the scoring could really shake up everything. Unified scoreboard for clans? Top list of the best escalate players? Just think about it.


I'm not sure how easy or difficult it would be to implement something like this, but some daydreaming surely doesn't hurt, right?

 

[Cardinalsrule]

Just as general FYI, on Conk it's winner/loser times 20 as opposed to our 30.

 

[Fieldmarshall]

I would like to point out something i noticed since getting up on the rankings , I have never seen twenty off the top thirty players on the rankings play a game. After a reasonable amount off time they should lose points for inactivity it does not seem fair to the players who actually play . We should want to reward players for playing seems they are rewarded for not playing which is wrong , facebook games gives you points for loging in and playing a similar idea would be a great idea.

 

[NewSheriffInTown]

We already have a rule for that.

It's been talked about in the forums here - https://www.majorcommand.com/forums...rd-Dropoff-Rules?p=65290&viewfull=1#post65290

And in the blog here - https://www.majorcommand.com/blog/features/changes-to-scoreboard/

and here - https://www.majorcommand.com/blog/uncategorized/scoreboard-poll/

 

[Bluebonnet]

At least 20 of the 30 play on a very regular basis to my knowledge. You just have to know where to find them.

A lot play most of their games in tourneys where you can get some big points.

Then their is a small click that like to play against their friends and rarely travel out into casual games. They are well above my skill sets, playing it more like chess than just a normal board game.

A few in the top 30 take on anyone and everyone in casuals. (dorcee, th-child, and dalinar to name only a couple)

Actually, i think the top 30 is playing a heck of a lot more "regular" games nowadays. We used to have a lot more generals back 6 months ago. They are still in the top 30, but have dropped. The only way to drop like that is by playing the rank and file which i do appreciate. They have a lot of knowledge to pass on and it makes for some fun games.

There a few of them I have never played or seen out. But i dont hang up in their circles to know if they play regularly or not.

Just click on their profile and you can check out their games.

 

[legionbuck]

Flag officers are usually only playing each other....with one or two exceptions...

 

[Tyro]

As someone else who has recently had a nice rise up the rankings I had a look at the current scoreboard. And not just the usual narcissistic "whoa, look at me, aren't I doing well?" lingering look.
I think I have a different experience: I have played in games with all but 2-3 of the current top 30. And of the ones I haven't played with some are grunt status and so have many less games on the go and it seems perfectly reasonable that I haven't played against or with them.
I play a lot of tournaments, I find the singles play is generally of a very high standard and a good test. I think this is where I meet most of them. And I am lucky enough to be included on a few invitations from players that are all of similar rank so the points at stake make it very worthwhile to win. Indeed, I think it is these games that are solely responsible for my current rise as I have won marginally more than my fair share and so my score is currently boosted. 6 weeks ago I had 1000 points less as I was losing more than my fair share. Well, what I consider my fair share
So, in my mind, the top of the leader board is full of people who are active players. And I am all too well aware that there are many, many players lower in the rankings to me that I would want on my team because I think of them as better tacticians and players. The scoreboard is far from perfect, but I think it performs a function. And (given my current top 30 status) I think it is fine.

 

[BadElmer]

I don't feel like any of them are hiding from me. I think I've played most in tourney play (just drew 2 top 30's in a mercenary game) and several otherwise. I think the rule removing inactives from the list is plenty. As someone who may log in more than most, I don't really want to be rewarded just for playing. Although imperfect, our weighted scoring system is much fairer than many ladder systems I've played in (which are often loaded at the top with those that only play the most).

P.S. Of course something must be wrong with the system currently as my score is not representative of my play. It's almost like I was punished for all those games I lost.

 

[BadElmer]

I might suggest getting in the tourneys 7 Vidas and High Stakes to those wanting a shot at some big brass. A lot of Top 30 in there (I count 11 in Vidas and 9 in Stakes) and a lot of 1v1 play. That's about a 29% chance that you'll pair against one of them in one of the first rounds if you join both.

 

[namelochil]

All those "Top 30" bastards are just afraid of the rest of us. Cowards all of them.

 

[BadElmer]

All those "Top 30" bastards are just afraid of the rest of us. Cowards all of them.

I find that the Top 11 are the worst.

 

[PackerHawkeye]

I've played 25 of them by my rough estimation within a past couple of months.

 

[FLAGG]

I am too busy to have a ton of games going on. I usually try to have 2-5 games going - and play those games well. I am happy to have crept into the top 10 again, but I have never been able to break 4,000 points. One reason for this is that I often have one of my open games being one I join, or start and leave open for anyone to join.

If you have a high rating, it takes a lot of wins to make up for one loss against a lower rating. But I like to meet new people - so I keep doing this. I like flat rate games, which keeps me from joining a lot of tournaments.

I often have a doubles 2x2 game going with AAFitz or another partner. We usually open this game up to any challenger.

So right now I have 4 games going, and 2 of them only move ever couple days. I follow the games. But don't make a huge number of actual plays in a day. I don't think I should be penalized for my play.

I think you should only drop off the board if you are NOT playing at all, for a period of time. And the site has things in place for that.

So I would say all is fine.

FLAGG

 

[B1G4NF]

As the current No.4 player on the leaderboard, I think it's a little unfair to suggest that we, "The Majcom Elite", have achieved/maintain our rank and leaderboard position, by anything other than the accumulation, over time, of knowledge, wisdom & experience!

Take a look at my profile...

B1G4NF
General
Active Since: Sep 11, 2011

Rank: General
Class: Commander
Score: 4078
Honor: 72(232)
Diplomacy: 1000(0)
Games: 1935
Turns Taken: 25164

Opponents defeated: 2138
Current streak: 0
Longest win streak: 49
Longest losing streak: 22

Now I'm extremely proud of those stats, mostly, because I know how much time and effort I put in to achieve them. I spent my first couple of years on the site, learning my craft (taking an awful lot of bad beats!). There is great value in defeat, because it teaches you how NOT to win! I have learned a great many lessons, that quite frankly, lesser ranked (or rather lesser experienced) players have yet to learn!

I don't avoid playing games to maintain my rank and position. I play less games, so I can give each turn, in each game, the thought and consideration necessary to win!

I have won 4 tournaments this year I think and rose from a Lieutenant to a Colonel in a very short space of time. That run included a 23 win streak! I'm in a couple of live tourneys right now and registered for another shortly before finding this thread.

So... to ALL aspiring top 30 players... We, "The MajCom Elite" did not arrive at our positions by accident! We earned them!