General Scoreboard/Scoring Discussion

[AuraCraft]

all time would be fair if over time the odds would be the same. the community has been decimated so nowadays its much much harder to get udo's. I really see no reason to honor ppl who chose to leave the community long ago (unless they were staff)
I agree on the idea of annual (or seazonal rather) champs. I won a lot of tournaments last fall, Id probly contend there^^

edit
@brian; I mean these;
Consecutive Defeated Opponents (All Time) - almost exlusively goners
Most Decorated (All Time) 4 goners
Tournament Scoreboard

 

[brianstheman]

I sympathise with cardinals' perspective but it's also a fact that you get a lot of compliments just for achieving high ranks. ppl like to rank high and ppl use rank as a measure of skill level.
I was thinking perhaps paying members should lose 20% less points with a maximum of 37 points when losing against grunts.
Part of the reason why we use this points system is the assumption that the more skills you have the more likely you are to win, the less points you get when you beat someone who ranks lower. but the extent to which this is the case is off.
Grunts are restricted to playing 4 games so most of them play a small selection of types of games (settings and maps) and naturally specialise in those few games whereas the variety of games played by ppl who play a dozen(s) of games at a time makes it harder not to make settings mistakes. E.g. a lot of 23oo points realtimer grunts are experts 12 domainers and they would beat tournament majors in best of 3 on 12 domains 1 path. Or as a cadet I understood the evolved map within 1 or 2 games
now this may seem like pay to win which I loathe, but in fact the dice would still roll the same

and since the title is scoreboard; Id prefer all board to be current rather than all time... why should ppl who quit yrs ago still be on the board? With a shrinking population it's hard enough to get udo medals let alone if the board is littered with quitters

A lot to dissect here. This thread discusses many proposals such as the ones above and other alternatives. I will put down my thoughts on a few items:

1) Scoreboard to reflect current population.
Response:
-The scoreboard is set up to reflect this via tracking logins. See the Wiki for specifics.
-Looking over the top 30 players, I see only one, Linkinpark, who basically played one game in the past year, and it was against an AWOL. But one in 30 doesn't seem like the place is littered with goners.

2) Paying members lose less points
Response:
-Rationale seems to be that grunts become better at certain maps and settings, and thus may be able to beat people who are playing other maps and settings. Well, as someone who plays tons of games on all settings against all players, I say "Bring It!". If I want to be considered the best, I've got to beat everyone. Including those who have developed specialized skills. Maybe I lose to them initially, but in the process learn something new and am more successful in the future.

Further back in this thread, there is a discussion of a more varied Scoreboard, reflective of different maps and settings. So say someone is really good at 1v1, or 12D, you'd be able to see how successful they have been. One issue with such comparisons amongst maps and settings, as mentioned in prior posts, is looking at the competition. Say a player wins 95% of 12D games, but half of those are against Cadets. The player clearly has skill with the map, but how to compare it versus a player who has a 50% win rate, but against Majors. How to make a scoreboard nuanced enough to reflect both wins and competition level requires serious resources.

3) Point loss caps
Response:
-Another topic that is addressed in prior posts within this thread, well broken down by Dalinar. Essentially, point loss becomes exponential, such that a Colonel has to win 8 games against a Cadet to break even. However, point loss caps would also lead to score inflation, as players would still have the opportunity to win just as many points as before, but lose less in the meanwhile. So ranks would constantly have to be adjusted in order for comparisons to remain apt. A Major requiring 3000 points now, would require 3250 the next.

 

[brianstheman]

I agree on the idea of annual (or seazonal rather) champs. I won a lot of tournaments last fall, Id probly contend there^^

Yes, I'd be all in for a Tournament scoreboard reflecting both seasonal and annual winners!

 

[brianstheman]

all time would be fair if over time the odds would be the same. the community has been decimated so nowadays its much much harder to get udo's. I really see no reason to honor ppl who chose to leave the community long ago (unless they were staff)
Consecutive Defeated Opponents (All Time) - almost exlusively goners
Most Decorated (All Time) 4 goners
Tournament Scoreboard

I would think the All Time scoreboards should be exactly that....for all time, to see what can be achieved.
In sports, record books are not erased when a player retires. I do not see the logic in erasing a record when someone retires here.

Especially the Consecutive Defeated scoreboard should remain as is in my opinion. I like looking there and seeing "Wow, someone won 100 games in a row - amazing!".

I would say there could be a Most Decorated (Current) section. To me an even cooler board would be for each map, to see who all time leaders are, and current. Who has most Balkans wins, I'd love to know! I will probably never get to the top for any map, but it'd be interesting to see who did!

EDITED

 

[AuraCraft]

(yes)

Note that Im only suggesting you lose less points against grunts (and gain just as few). You would still lose the same points as usual when playing against commanders and strategists.
Only a (near to) fixed ratio would do what you're describing. (win 30, lose 30 regardless of comparative scores/ranks. before you know it, scores soar)
But losing 37 vs gaining 15 (against any grunt who has less than 2 times your score) still requires a 2:5 winning ratio against grunts, that's 72% to break even. You can't use those odds to make it to general. While you are climbing the ranks, if strategists/commanders join your games, you'll fall back down.
so the ranking scores don't need to be adjusted.
The fix Im suggesting doesn't add up to scores larger than the current higscores; it's only about enough for players not to avoid lowrankers.
Now I'm not sure if 20% less loss of points and a cap of 37 are the exact numbers to achieve what I have in mind, it'll probly be within the range of 10-40% and a cap of 30-45.
I don't agree that one needs to play against grunts and/or lowrankers to be seen as (among) "the best" or pro. It's honorable that you do, but it's not required.

Now this fix Im suggesting may seem self serving, but it's actually benficial to newcomers; In a 4 player game you don't wanna lose 60 points to a cadet so it's more likely to happen that players team up against cadets which is not a warm welcome.

 

[brianstheman]

(yes)

Note that Im only suggesting you lose less points against grunts (and gain just as few). You would still lose the same points as usual when playing against commanders and strategists.
Only a (near to) fixed ratio would do what you're describing. (win 30, lose 30 regardless of comparative scores/ranks. before you know it, scores soar)
But losing 37 vs gaining 15 (against any grunt who has less than 2 times your score) still requires a 2:5 winning ratio against grunts, that's 72% to break even. You can't use those odds to make it to general. While you are climbing the ranks, if strategists/commanders join your games, you'll fall back down.
so the ranking scores don't need to be adjusted.
The fix Im suggesting doesn't add up to scores larger than the current higscores; it's only about enough for players not to avoid lowrankers.
Now I'm not sure if 20% less loss of points and a cap of 37 are the exact numbers to achieve what I have in mind, it'll probly be within the range of 10-40% and a cap of 30-45.
I don't agree that one needs to play against grunts and/or lowrankers to be seen as (among) "the best" or pro. It's honorable that you do, but it's not required.

Now this fix Im suggesting may seem self serving, but it's actually benficial to newcomers; In a 4 player game you don't wanna lose 60 points to a cadet so it's more likely to happen that players team up against cadets which is not a warm welcome.

I am still struggling with why a win versus one subscription class should matter over a win versus a different subscription class.

It seems like the logic is the grunt may be better at certain settings, so they should win less points. How is this any different than a commander class member who is also good at certain settings, and thus sticks to those.

Let's say two individuals play each other today. Tomorrow, one purchases a subscription. They play again; this time one wins more points than the previous game. Subscription status does not increase an individual's level of skill or ability. So why should the scoreboard reflect it?

Bluebonnet is a grunt. He also has been a General. We play 1v1 regularly. Subscribing doesn't make him better or worse.

Presently I have a score well above 4k, and am certainly not eager to lose those points. But changing caps and how points are calculated essentially renders all scores invalid, and would require a reset to zero in order to reflect games won sitewide.

 

[AuraCraft]

Consecutive Defeated Opponents (All Time) - almost exlusively goners
Most Decorated (All Time) 4 goners
Tournament Scoreboard - a few goners

Im not saying that the all time boards should be erased, just archived. (edit, that means you have to scroll down the same page to view old rankings) The scoreboard page doesn't display current medals, only all time.
Sports mostly display current competition scores.
Sure, the all time #1 highscore (e.g. riskpeter's consecutive wins) could still be listed. I just think a lot of current players deserve a spot on the medals / decorations list more than ppl who retired yrs ago.

 

[AuraCraft]

Oh I think there should be an exemption for grunts who have at some point paid for the silver or gold membership
When I write "grunt" I mean ppl who have never paid a dime to play; I think they're getting an amazingly good deal on this site. Obviously in reality, "grunt" includes ppl whose memberships have expired, but I when I wrote the word "grunt" I mean ppl who never paid to get this great MajCom deal, just because I cant think of a word to distinguish the two categories.
so, to be clear once you've paid for membership, the basic perks of ranking and points won per game last forever is what Im suggesting.

I hear pay to win is the new normal in the gaming world. I used to play tribal wars; for a few bucks you get 20% additional resources, that's like rolling sixes instead of fives Now Im glad that's not the case on this site (or is it?) and grunts can have a great free gaming experience, it's just that there have to be some perks and restrictions as an incentive for people to contribute to the site; I'm just not sure these are all the right ones. I would pay the $5 if I could play FF against grunts but they cant join, such a pity, coz it's also a restriction to ppl who do want to play realtime FF.
Among other factors, you get respect for your highscore. Smart grunts make it to major and less gifted paying members don't make it past captain. I can imagine some paying members don't feel it's right to lose lots of points to grunts who don't pay a dime. Id consider not to mention all time grunts on the scoreboard at all, just a thought

 

[brianstheman]

Consecutive Defeated Opponents (All Time) - almost exlusively goners
Most Decorated (All Time) 4 goners
Tournament Scoreboard - a few goners

Im not saying that the all time boards should be erased, just archived. The scoreboard page doesn't display current medals, only all time.
Sports mostly display current competition scores.
Sure, the all time #1 highscore (e.g. riskpeter's consecutive wins) could still be listed. I just think a lot of current players deserve a spot on the medals / decorations list more than ppl who retired yrs ago.

All time lists are all time lists. But I could definitely see more scoring columns, ex. longest win streaks in past 12 months.

Personal wish list for scoreboard:
1) Highest Scoring Average (ex. Player 1 maintains 4000 points 51 weeks, has a losing streak and goes to 3000 for a week; Scoreboard reflects 3980).
-Rationale: Rewards consistently high scoring players. Achieving a high score can make players more risk averse due to fear of loss. If a player feels confident of their ability to maintain a solid score, this board would give a player more confidence that their overall level of play would be displayed.

-To me this board this shows who has ruled the land most decisively for a period of time.

2) Longest Win Streak past 12 months

3) Map win leaders. All time and within last 12 months.
-Potential drawback here is this may encourage a practice referred to in the forums as "newb farming", where a highly experienced player takes on newbies on such maps. Having a healthy point loss possibility helps serve as a mitigant to this.

 

[Bluebonnet]

Got a headache this morning, so may not e the most coherent.

From my viewpoint, most of the suggestions will help drive away future and some current members.

Pay to play? Why dont you say you just want to bribe the sheriff for better odds. It would be a more accurate statement. I also see it driving away new members who are testing the watters but bail when they know their are 2 sets of rules. And hell, if i were a paying member, i would then focus on high ranking grunts. A safer approach for sure.

As for medals and scoreboards, a much safer approach would be adding new scoreboards, not taking them down or changing the rules. I would be making a lot of huge bets if all time records went down the tubes and see how many more old timers quit.

And why isnt all time medal count fair? Comparison, packerhawkeye and aura. Packer has been gone 1 yr and 7 months. Had 2,500 games and 3,700 kills. Join date 2012. Aura, also join date 2012, played more games 4,300 but less kills. 3,300. Packer medals 78, and auras are 72. Packers obviously worked hard through out his carreer on medals and was a killer in games. Why would i want to see someone who started at the same time with a lesser stats on a ALL TIME scoreboard?

All time records are just that. Best of all time. Either you are or you arent.
As for evening out the game and making fair for. Great idea, lets change that in Real Life sports as well. Lets try a marathon, no marathon can be ran with any elveation rise over 100ft across the entire course and no elevation decrease of same 100ft. Weather has to be between 65 and 75 degrees, No rain. Wind less than 5mph across entire distance. Only then shall awards be given since that is the only way to be fair and equitable.

Would you just feel better if we took away all medals and issued a single participation award to everyone? That is fair too and wont hurt anyones feelings.

 

[periwinkle]

:dito: well said blueb ...well said. :congrats:

 

[EasyToKill]

I agree with BlueBonnet.
Adding to the scoreboard with additional categories would be nice, but taking away, Oh, HELL no.

 

[AuraCraft]

Pay to play? Why dont you say you just want to bribe the sheriff for better odds.

DUDE!? this is the opposite of what I wrote.
Gl with your headache, have some ginger tea, then see if you understand what Im suggesting instead of making random assumptions.

I would have no problem to have all time scoreboard side by side with the current scoreboard. The thing is, for each individual ranking it's one or the other. I think there should be a currently active players list for each of those and sure if there's room for more, scroll down for all time lists.

Can you have a decent discussion without ad hominems?
You seem to assume I'm suggesting this only for myself I actually have the community's interest at heart. Just because you miss your friend doesn't mean I'm selfish or a lesser player. The vast majority of games I played were 2 player games, he played far more multiplayer games. If you win 100% of 2 player games you get 1k kills out of 1k games. Packer played multiplayer games; if you win 100% 1k 6 player games, that's 6ooo kills out of 1k games. It's ridiculous to compare the two and it doesnt make my stats lesser. Also, the fact that I started in 2012 like him has nothing to do with it coz Ive been awol longer than active... and my highscore is 1k more than his

 

[Bluebonnet]

Dude! this is what you said. If gold member (those who Pay) have a advantage on points over mere grunts. They lose less when playing grunts vs other paying members.
So if gold, you will achieve higher ranks if you play against grunts vs other golds all else being equal.

So, it is pay to play.
And not fair to grunts.

(yes)

Note that Im only suggesting you lose less points against grunts (and gain just as few). You would still lose the same points as usual when playing against commanders and strategists.
Only a (near to) fixed ratio would do what you're describing. (win 30, lose 30 regardless of comparative scores/ranks. before you know it, scores soar)
But losing 37 vs gaining 15 (against any grunt who has less than 2 times your score) still requires a 2:5 winning ratio against grunts, that's 72% to break even. You can't use those odds to make it to general. While you are climbing the ranks, if strategists/commanders join your games, you'll fall back down.
so the ranking scores don't need to be adjusted.
The fix Im suggesting doesn't add up to scores larger than the current higscores; it's only about enough for players not to avoid lowrankers.
Now I'm not sure if 20% less loss of points and a cap of 37 are the exact numbers to achieve what I have in mind, it'll probly be within the range of 10-40% and a cap of 30-45.
I don't agree that one needs to play against grunts and/or lowrankers to be seen as (among) "the best" or pro. It's honorable that you do, but it's not required.

Now this fix Im suggesting may seem self serving, but it's actually benficial to newcomers; In a 4 player game you don't wanna lose 60 points to a cadet so it's more likely to happen that players team up against cadets which is not a warm welcome.

 

[Bluebonnet]

You also didn't suggest side by side scoreboard for current vs ALL TIME. You chose to have a suggestion that corrupts the concept of ALL TIME to all time IF YOU STILL PLAY.

Ever play stand up video games int he 80's? Where they flashed the top 10 all time scores?
People stuck a lot of quarters in the machine to get in that ALL TIME list. It is a distinct motivating factor. One of the few things that keeps me here is to keep slowly climbing that board and maintaining my position. I worked for years on my medals.

If I were to know it were to disappear as soon as I left, I wouldn't give a crap about what you put in its place to be called a so called all time scoreboard.

You may be trying to have a better playing experience. But all your suggestions seems to hurt some segment of the community. Try thinking of positive ways that wont negatively impact people.

 

[AuraCraft]

Im not saying that the all time boards should be erased, just archived. (edit, that means you have to scroll down the same page to view old rankings)

again, plz quit framing my ideas as something totaly different
Im not suggesting "pay to play." What Im suggesting is for grunts to be able to play more if anything; as I said; grunts should be able not to start FF but to join FF
Im suggesting pay to get a respectfull mention on the scoreboard. pay to play means as you mistakenly interpret my posts means ppl who dont pay can not play at all.
I dont care much about all time rankings, but if you read the whole discussion between me and brian, you'll find I did say I dont object to the existence of side by side rankings, just that current rankings should be prioritized.
Im not suggesting you'd lose your medals dude, that's a ridiculous interpretation of what I wrote.

In fact, despite your best efforts to troll me, we really don't disagree on much of what we're discussing here.
The current UDO rankings make it harder for players to reach all time udo rankings coz its the only udo list available and its rather short; just 25 players' medals are ranked. I bet 25 more active players would like to have their medals listed for the very reason you're describing.
ps reminder; note that by grunts I dont mean ppl whose subscription has ended, but ppl who have never paid a dime to play

 

[periwinkle]

I honestly don't think blueb was trolling you. He is merely stating his opinion . It's ok if he has a different opinion than you...hence why we have open discussion/dialogues. Your posts also have been edited and at the time when the post was not edited, I also interpreted it the way blueb did. We are all here to make the site better and there will be many opinions....and that's good...that means we have more options to work with. I'm sure if sheriff did a poll on this we will reach a good solution ...but keep in mind, you will never make everyone happy.

 

[Redstorm]

++ with periwinkle. Dialogue is good. Everyone should and WILL have their say on these moderated boards. No need for frayed feelings or the like by anybody. Please keep this in mind at all times. While not insinuating that this is happening on this thread please remember that being that "guy" applies to posts here as well.


:beer:

 

[chacha75]

I agree with Auracraft, would make it more relevant to see active info as well.

 

[Bluebonnet]

1. All time medals. Remember the arcade game with top 10 players of all time? I want to come back 10 or 15 years from now and show a grandkid how I wasted my life for 10 years and that I amounted to something at sometime and my record still stands. If awol players are removed and I can’t comeback in 10 years and see if my name is still there, then for me; there is very little in keeping me around here.

2. I didnt mention the scoreboard change you suggested since it is programmed to show current players already. Sheriff shared a link earlier showing the methodology. After last game a player plays, grunts show up for 45 days, non grunts stays for 180 days. If anything I would argue there should be a all time high score for each player scoreboard.

3. Consecutive defeated opponents all time. Already has a version for more recent accomplishments. Top right of scoreboard is consecutive defeated opponents (current). I love this section. In a game now I am hoping to end roosters streak.


4. FF for grunts? I think it should be reserved for paying member. 1. Gives a reason to upgrade membership. 2. It will be a medal/point getter for the old guard. I know I would be waiting in rt to introduce some noobs to the finesse of ff. 4. It will never happen for same reason assassin team games aren’t allowed. It will be a slaughter of the innocents.

5. You are correct on my terminology of pay to play. That is what some grunt referred to it as in a game with me. It is pay to win as you mentioned. I still maintain reducing the risk for paying members playing with grunts is a bad idea. It is entirely unfair to grunts. As for excluding people who have paid for a membership previously. Seems simple enough to code. But what about 5 years ago or so when sheriff gave free gold membership to everyone on the site for 6 months? So it really only affects new members and will be very bad PR with accusations of unfairness. Then people will suspect the dice as well. Which is where I was accused of having “special dice” since I was a gold member and he was a grunt at the time. I just don’t see it happening.


6. I too would like to see the scoreboard expanded. Monthly reports, quarterly reports and more all-time reports. But that takes time and I would prefer it to be saved til after we get new coding. Been waiting 9 years for it. Anything to deter it is a waste of time.

Lastly, definition of trolling. “Make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.” The comparison of you and packers was in my mind valid and not meant to troll. I would rather see all time record for medals than something else. Most medals in a quarter wont work. It is exponentially harder to get medals the higher you climb, so I have no idea how you could fairly code most medals in a quarter or year without a lot of pain to come up with a mediocre measure.
This is a somewhat blunt discussion on pros and cons of what you propose. It is not trolling or bullying.