General Scoreboard/Scoring Discussion

[Tapeworm]

Hah! Nobody is ever going to accuse me of being inaccessible.

 

[Dalinar]

I actually think he's somewhat right, you're going to see a lot fewer colonels and generals if you're not at least in the top 75-100. As I've harped on elsewhere, it's because the point system is too punitive for large score differentials. ThChild's score yo-yo'd from something like 4000 to 3000 to 4000 again over some months, and I don't think he went from being the 6th best play to the 60th and back to 6th.

My score is recovering somewhat now after a bit of a lower patch (for me). I should say, I just started up a 1v1 with Merel again who I enjoy playing a lot. I had stopped our games for a while because we're fairly evenly matched and didn't want to drag down her score because mine had taken a dive. If the scoring system got an overhaul, I'd be happy to open up more 1v1 games for anyone to join.

As to the actual suggestion.. While I don't think it's a bad idea, I don't think it's particularly needed. We could have something like a seasonal score board at some point, but I don't think it's the underlying problem.

 

[LordAdef]

Hey Dalinar! The things, most of us come here to have fun! I lost sh!t loads of points in our doubles against ThChild and Dag and went back to Sargent. But you know what, I would've played that game again because that of fun!

I do understand the point some of the tops make. Maybe the ones more popular playing around us have this "let's have some fun" mood I was talking about. The medals are already there... No one will say Card didn't achieve all he have because of points. Same for all we respect. The swing in points happen in all ranks.

My cents, not very enlightening but anyway... cheers

 

[Dalinar]

Lord Adef, respectfully, I think you need to climb a bit higher to appreciate how the points work. I think you'll get there, and you may then experience the special kind of frustration that is losing 100 points to someone who plays like it's a cat using the mouse. We all play for fun, but some of us enjoy competing on the scoreboard as well. Even if we don't personally care as much either, it's also not fun to know you're draining someone else's points because of the lopsided scoring system.

The fact of the matter is, I could teach my 6-year-old enough in an hour that she would expect to win points from playing anyone in the top 20 in a 1v1 (even delayed) because of how the scoring system works. I think that's a problem, and it should be fixed.

For me, I have more than enough games that I enjoy among friends that I rarely join public games. I might also enjoy seeing new faces across the table, but since I have to essentially hand over points to do it and it's not that much more fun, I don't. I can only speak for myself, but I would play a larger range of players if the scoring system were fairer.

 

[Bluebonnet]

Still sticking to the other side of the therom Dalinar. I wholeheartedly agree to be in the top 30, you guys are masters at the game. But as you pointed out, some restrict themselves to protect their scores. I agree losing points in 1v1 sucks. I have been playing some real time and 1v1 in the last couple of months and I dropped. It sucks losing to kitchen patrol when they have the drop.

So lets think this through. MajCom totaly re does the points system to some approved methodology that is "fairer". First thing that should be done is elminate every single persons score and rank and start back at ground zero. Current scores are based on current methodology. Once we change we will be in a more fair system.

But, we already ahve people who achieved great success under the old flawed system. This will be a distinct advantage in starting positions for the new methodology. So they have to eb reset back to ground zero like any other person just joining the site.

Now, they work for months or years to gain their scores back and be in the top 30. I will lay odds right now if they dont play 1v1 now for entertainment, they will not do it under any new methodology of scoring. Odds are still not with them. The advantage to the top players is their abilities and logic. Game maps and number of opponeents on a map play into this. It is a simple mathematical formula, the more players on a larger map, the greater the odds are for skills to win over luck. So you still won't be playing 1v1 cause a 6 yr old can beat you given the right circumstances and you will want to protect your newly acquired rank.

 

[namelochil]

It is a simple mathematical formula, the more players on a larger map, the greater the odds are for skills to win over luck.

I think your math is different from my math.

 

[Dalinar]

You have to get more into the math to start talking about the details there. I don't think I'd need to avoid 1v1 to protect with kitchen patrols to protect my rank under a potential system - especially not nearly to the degree I need to now. The problem I've outlined elsewhere is that the change in win rate needed to break even grows exponentially. At 4000:3000, you need to win 1.78 games for every loss, at 4000:2250 it's 3.16 wins to a loss, and at 4000:1500 it's 7.11 wins to a loss. I still have yet to see any justification for it.

People talk in the abstract about "it should be harder when you're at top", which I wholeheartedly agree with. Exponentially harder though? That's simply not how the game works. There's too much variance in winning because of the dice and the drop.

As I've said elsewhere, I think the current system was not created after deep thought about game mechanics and how it would affect game formation in the community. It was taken from Conquer Club when the site was made, and they seem to have gone "hmm, it should be harder at top.. let's multiply the points by the score ratio". Inertia is the only thing going for the current system.

There are quite a few different methods of changing the scoring system that would change it from being so lopsided. Take the square root of the ratio rather than the ratio as a multiplier. Cut the number of points won from 30 to 15 or 20. Adjust the base score from 1250 to 2000. The first two should be a matter of adjusting a few lines of code.

You also don't have to reset the scores. What I would do is calculate the difference between the current score and 1250, divide by 5, add that back to 1250, and you renorm the scores so people have their current positions without a need for a reset.
Basically, 3000 -> ( 1250 + (3000 - 1250) / 5) -> 1500. Someone at 2000 would end up at 1400. I just made that up, adjust the dividing factor by whatever seems appropriate to the change made with the scoring system.

 

[Bluebonnet]

I think your math is different from my math.

So do I, i suck at multiplayer.

 

[Bluebonnet]

Okay, say you find a formula to make the initial system of battling ranks more fair. Say it is the ELO formula for ranking chess players. It still wont get people who covet their score to play RT 1v1.

In chess, as in your assumptions. It is all based on the ability of the player. In chess that is easy cause everyone plays on the same square board and have the exact same starting positions. The only deciding factor is who goes first.

On majcom, it is different. We have 2 factors. Skill Level of Player and Skill Level of Map/Settings. In 1v1 12 domains is not the same as Classic Evolved or Classic Mini.

Will a person with a high score be as willing to get into a 1v1 battle with any random player on Classic Mini? Nope, because less skill is involved on Classic Mini over 12 Domains. Same theory can be applied to 1v1 vs a 8 person escalite game.

There are different complexities to each map and setting. People who care about keeping their score and rank in the top will not just jump into any game even if we tweaked the scoring methodology. Unless of course your tweak it towards the difficuty of the map and settings as well.

What are the odds of a top 30 player losing to kitchen patrol in 1v1 on 12 Domains vs the odds on Classic Mini? They are different. Guaranteed. Therefore, it is not plausible to assume a change in behavior will occur.

 

[Cagey]

To respond to the OP - I think your impression of the top players is skewed, when you say I have never seen twenty off the top thirty players on the rankings play a game I take it you mean that you haven't played a game with them - clearly they all do play, you only have to open their user pages and check the current games list to see that. The thing is a lot of the top players play mainly or even exclusively invite games which is where when when the game is created the creator invtes all of their friends list. I'm not talking password/private games, these are open to all, but if the friends list is large then the games fill up fast - a couple of hours - and don't stay on the join a game page for long. If you've got a large friends list you also get a lot of invites.

I've checked out your user page and there's a marked deficiency in the friends division. So, you know, make a few friends, maybe the cool kids will let you play with them.

 

[th-child]

The matter of the scoreboard comes up from time to time, and I still agree with Dalinar. It's skewed, and as just vaguely indicates skill, maybe a bit useless, and hurts the community.

I think I said elsewhere that probably the best idea would be not to change it, but to expand it. Hence, players who achieved something on this scoreboard might keep their ranks, while the other scoreboards would open up for others.

I think gtivan has a fair point how the different maps and settings make different games. For example, I'm not sure how ELO system could be used for multiplayer games.

But why not have a list for the best duellists (in ELO system), the best double players, the best players for every different map and setting? With total points won and winning ratio? Best player of the month?

This means a lot of different lists, but I know we all enjoy browsing our medals and rankings on the current lists. And I guess all the data are already there in the database. I'm not sure how much work it would be to collect and organize the data and present it in a meaningful manner, but boy, it would be awesome.

 

[Dalinar]

What are the odds of a top 30 player losing to kitchen patrol in 1v1 on 12 Domains vs the odds on Classic Mini? They are different. Guaranteed. Therefore, it is not plausible to assume a change in behavior will occur.

I'm glad you elaborated, the first part is completely true and I have to agree with. The odds will never be even on the two, and someone who wants to maximize their score will be better off playing 12d 1 border.

However, on the second, you make an assumption that I disagree with - that I or others fit our gameplay only to maximize our score. The only person I understand to have done this was ILoveBadDice who would in fact only play on 12 domain, 1 border, flat rate, 1v1. For the rest of us, there are a number of factors - I think most of us value novelty and would like be able to play new people and give new people a chance to take a shot at colonel or general if they want to. Changing the scoring system would change decisions at the margin, which is where most decisions are made.


Th, I think that's a great suggestion. I'd love a duelist list, I know you and Dorcee would love a 2v2 list, and there are plenty of others who might like a small escalate list (3-7 players), and a large list for 8+ players. However, I don't think it changes the calculus on playing open games since one still stands to lose as much if that scoring system worked the same way.

On an ironic note, after my first post in this thread, I got put in a 1v1 with Fieldmarshall for the Massive tournament

 

[NewSheriffInTown]

Total real-time: 169743
Total real-time 2 player (1v1): 100466 (59%)

Total Casual: 72602
Total Casual 2 player (1v1): 27037 (37%)

 

[Dalinar]

Total real-time: 169743
Total real-time 2 player (1v1): 100466 (59%)

Total Casual: 72602
Total Casual 2 player (1v1): 27037 (37%)

Thanks for the stats Sheriff. That's a lot higher than I would have guess - 1v1s are more than half of all games overall. It looks like the scoring system and first turn advantage are bigger problems than I thought. It's also more likely a change to the score system would increase the number of high rank/low rank score matches since it's most lopsided in 1v1s.

 

[Chilly]

Personally (so just speaking my ideas into the collective forum space, not reflective of anything Sheriff/Marcos have planned):

I would like to see scoreboards evolve into a competitive blind ladder where you can't earn points for them unless you sign up to play one without knowing who your opponent will be. Playing on a team would require two (or more) people to register as a team and then sign up as a team.

Dalinar is working on something now that I think might help alleviate first mover advantage. Having a blind signup would force higher levels to play lower levels (though some parameters can also be set so newbies don't get stomped, or vets ambushed for lots of points).

Something like:
60% of games are against opponents within 20% of your score
20% of games are against opponents within 21-40% of your score
20% of games are against opponents within 41-60% of your score

This limits some of the complaints from higher level players about losing too many points in a 1v1, but still gives lower levels a real and continuous method to move up without being locked out of playing higher ranked.

However, a few things will happen.

* The scoreboard will experience some chaos and some people who have been comfortably in one spot will wind up moving up or down.
* Further development of multiple scoreboards should take place to reflect a ladder system
* Bars should be set that require a certain number of games completed every week or month to stay on the ladder scoreboard
* It could mean that the realistic bounds for scores might change and the ranks readjusted

 

[namelochil]

I agree with all of you that the scoring system could use improvement. But I would like to take this opportunity to say that I'm very happy mereltje89 has been in first place for these past few months. She is, in my experience, a very strong candidate for "best player on the site." The only other time I felt satisfied with the top-spot-holder (at least, from the perspective of skill level) was when ILBD had it.

I like the idea of the top player being significantly better than the pack. Like Serena Williams or young Tiger.

 

[Bluebonnet]

On the topic of scoreboards and less on total score. Going off of th-child's idea and chilly's. I like them.

But what about an all time Muy Head Honcho scoreboard. I am of the belief you can't be crowned King of majcom unless you play all game variants and maps. Fixed rate, Assassin, team play, 1v1, multiplayer singles, etc. Can you be a champion without playing fixed force? Or never stepped foot into a team game? Or never took a win on assassins?

So pick the smaller scoreboards, once built out. And choose a set of 5 or so boards that will make up the best player. You would have to have played 20 games with some sort of matrix on playing all levels of players. The last 20 games payed on any scoreboard make up a winning %. Average out the winning % of all boards to determine who is boss.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

I like gtivan's idea. And, going back to what namelochil said, I think that mereltje89 would be much higher on the "muy head honcho" scoreboard than ILDB would have been. ILBD was a one-trick pony. Top of the class by far at it, for sure, but never stepped out of the comfort zone. Strictly 1v1 and almost exclusively 12domains. From what I see, mereltje89 plays a lot of different maps and settings and excels.

I like the idea of coming up with a "all around best" scoreboard, but it'd take some work developing the metrics for it. That would probably be it's own thread.....

 

[Dalinar]

Wow, Chilly, it never crossed my mind, but that's a really great idea. I'd like a blind ladder system like that.

How would you run map choice on that or would settings be random? I know maps are random in Starcraft, where I believe it works well, but I'm having trouble thinking of analogous way to run it for majcom.

 

[Chilly]

Wow, Chilly, it never crossed my mind, but that's a really great idea. I'd like a blind ladder system like that.

How would you run map choice on that or would settings be random? I know maps are random in Starcraft, where I believe it works well, but I'm having trouble thinking of analogous way to run it for majcom.

I think I would set it up so that each map has an equal chance to be picked, then each player gets to favorite three maps (which gives those maps an extra chance) and strike out three maps (which would remove one chance for those maps). So, once a pairing has been determined, up to six maps could be removed from the random selection and up to six maps could have an extra chance (or 3 maps could have 2 extra chances). Of course, if one side struck out a map that the other favorited they would just cancel each other out. If the community agrees, we could pick a basket of standard maps and start them with an extra chance.

As far as reinforcement options. You can pick your preferred method (Anywhere, Path, Border) and number (Unlimited, 3, 1, None). If either agrees with the other person, use that. If they are different, then randomly pick (but I might make the None option slightly less likely).


*** Again, these are not official majcom positions. Just me thinking out loud. No idea what the programming on this would entail ***