how do they calculate how many points you win or lose?

[BentSaetherBANNED]

and who is doing all the calculating?
must be a tedious task


(I guess each player contributes 2% of his points total to a jackpot, winner takes all... am I right?)

 

[PackerHawkeye]

http://www.majorcommand.com/wiki/Scoring

Points are assigned to winning and losing players at the end of the game, save in Mercenary games, where points are assigned as players are eliminated.

The formula is (losing player's points)/(winning player's points)*30. Players cannot lose more than 100 points in a game.

In team games, the same formula applies, as the points of team members are added together.

 

[AuraCraft]

Thanks for your answer

I think this formula should not apply to 2 player games
Why?

If lose a game against a cadet, I lose 75 points
(25oo/1ooo) *30 =75

If I win a game against a cadet I get 12 points.
(1ooo/25oo) *30= 12

If I win 6 single players games against cadets I get 6*12= 72 points.
Then when I lose one, I lose 75 points.

So I nearly break even when I win 6 out of 7 (that's 86%) single player games against cadets.

Now that's just impossible


No matter how good your strategic skills are, luck still determines a large part of single player games so you will never win more then two thirds of 1-1 games.

So now I only play the Africa map, where I win 4 out of 5 games, 'coz most people don't know how to use airfields, dropzones and warzones, let alone play a good strategy.
This week I played an Africa game against this guy who had never played the map before. He took a lead of 60 against 30 armies and I won anyway

But actually I think it's quite lame to win so many games against ignorant opponents.
So now I have to choose between points and fun.
If I choose the first, I can't play single player games anymore. If I choose the first, I lose the points I've been fighting hard for to gain.


Ergo
We should invent a new formula for single player games which results in a required 60% win rate to gain points against cadets.


How about we keep the same formula and top it off

W < 40 and >20

W= ((losing player's points)/(winning player's points)) *30
W < 40 and >25

this would result in a required 61,5% of wins against cadets which is fine to me

 

[lh34]

Not a bad idea. I would be fine with a 45 15 cap

 

[AuraCraft]

thanks ...

but actually that wouldn't be fine

With 15 and 45 caps, I'd still have to win 75% of games against cadets to break even
(3x15=1x45)

 

[AuraCraft]

was that a quick reply or what!?
as you see, Im guarding my topic as a watchdog^^

 

[KungFuDuet]

Currently there is a cap of 0-100 points, meaning you can't lose more than 100 points in a single game. If we put a cap on both ends with the currently leader board, it will take a bloody lot of games for someone lets say TheGeneral to get up to the level of Blondo. (first Blondo will lose points at a reduced rate, while The General is gaining points at a reduced rate.) This cap would mean the current leader board SHOULD be rescaled to compensate for a change such as this.

The current system allows people who play against players of around the same level to have a very high amount of points if won, while only losing a portion of that score if lost. That allows people to gain more points to compensate their losses easily.

 

[lh34]

KFD, I understand that but maybe putting a cap lower than 100 and higher than 0 would be better? 2 player games are too hard to win points against cadets even for somebody as low of a rank like me

 

[AuraCraft]

If we put a cap on both ends with the currently leader board, it will take a bloody lot of games ... to get up to the level of #1

This is usually the case in any competition

 

[th-child]

I gave some thoughts to the scoring system myself.

So I nearly break even when I win 6 out of 7 (that's 86%) single player games against cadets.

Now that's just impossible

I agree, it's impossible. After you reach a certain level, you just have to stop playing with random people if you want to retain your points. And this is true to every game, not just singles. I even tried playing 8-players with cadets and even though i'm quite good compared to them, i think on the long run it's bloody impossible to win 1 out of every 2. Not going to happpen.

Everybody realises this, and this has an iteresting effect on the community i think. When I was lower on points I was wondering why I never met with high-ranked players. The answer is because they are playing amongst themselves.
Now that I have some points myself I'm happy to find myelf in that inner circle -- though I suspect there is another circle for <3500 players which is still closed to me. Maybe I'm wrong but that's how I feel it.
And this is exactly the reason why people try to find a "favorite" setting for themselves, and try to win 5 out of 6. I do this myself -- but it's boring, it's like training in the gym, a task you have to do, no pain no gain etc.

This is the purest counter-selection.

Also I think there is a constant inflation in points. I didn't make snapshots of the scoreboard, so maybe I'm wrong here, but I have a feeling that everybody tends to have more points than for example half a year ago, and I think we are all gonna have more points the next summer.
This is not necessarily a problem, but A) i'm not sure this was intentional when setting up the scoring system B) it's going to be more and more counter-selective.

I don't think a scoring system can be "bad" or "good". They just change how the players behave.
If we want an example from sports, professional boxing is similarly counter-selective, and it's working wonderfully, I love it. So imho there's nothing "wrong" with this system.

Still, I'd be in favor of implementing, maybe side by side with this one, another system, maybe the Elo Rating System.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

It's used in chess, and to add a US example, in Major League Baseball I think.
It seems to be a much more democratic, a much less elitistic system, if such terms make sense at all when talking about scoring.

What do you think?

 

[lh34]

I think you are totally spot on here. I remember a couple years ago when AAFitz I believe became the first person to get a crown (major?) and the scores in the top 25 were almost half of what they are now. Coming back to the site a couple months ago it was amazing to see a score above 5000, and I agree, the scores will keep getting higher. People have strategies to only play certain settings and only against players that they can earn a decent number of points against.

The site IMO is becoming almost like a class system. There is a lower class of cadets and privates that play among each other. A big middle class ranging from corporals to majors, which is subdivided further and an upper class above that. I even notice this playing right now, playing against cadets is now nearly impossible to win points. I win as much as I will lose for a 4 player game, and so now I am having to try and avoid cadets in real-time games.

The top spot on the scoreboard is turning into just a place where some player will sit, playing classic massive only and just mastering that game, and earning constant points. I don't know enough about this Elo rating system, but I think the flaws in this rating system have to be addressed.

 

[chesebr3]

Th-child, totally agree with your first three paragraphs. I experienced the exact same thing: I was never able to retain my points until I quit playing against lower ranked players. I will rarely join a game now if the average rank is not an officer. It's also been fun to be accepted more and more into the "inner circle" (especially when I was a colonel for a few weeks!).

I think one reason the points keep inflating is that people play majcom for a while, gain some points from cadets, then lose them all to officers, and quit once the addiction is broken. If you regularly take note of how many players are active on the site, you will notice that the system (or perhaps DevCom) eliminates peoe who don't play anymore. So the cycle just repeats itself as new players start out with 1225 pts and give them away to Blondo, MTR, et al.

I think the current system is fine; I've learned to accept it and use it to my advantage when I can. So I'm especially selective about which games I join when I'm ranked highly.

One thing I do to pick up some easy buffer points is actually to play periodic 1v1 games with cadets, especially if I notice they joined the site a day or two ago. Obviously they won't have gotten used to many of the maps, and one mistake is all you need to make a 1v1
Go downhill fast. Half the time brand new players will go AWOL anyway, and it's an easy cleanup. You can call me cheap for doing it, but sometimes it's the only way to recover some dignity after a big losing streak, even if I only get 9 points!

 

[Cardinalsrule]

And this is exactly the reason why people try to find a "favorite" setting for themselves, and try to win 5 out of 6. I do this myself -- but it's boring, it's like training in the gym, a task you have to do, no pain no gain etc.

+1 to that. I'd rather play a lot of maps, against whoever joins, and not sweat the points. Playing only one setting that you are an "expert" on all the time is boring. As is playing the same players all the time. There is something to be said for playing only against other high-ranked players, you know the challenge will be there, but it also becomes predictable, and again, boring.

When I first started on the site, I was a bit intimidated by some of the higher-ranked players, but it didn't take long to learn that, with the exception of the ONE map that they may be an "expert" on, they aren't any better a player than I am. That is true of newer players joining. I have more medals, and more kills, than anyone on the site, but it is not uncommon to get my hat handed to me by a new (to the site) player.

MOST (not all) of the players in the top 25 on the board won't play games with noobs, they're protecting their points. That's their choice, but its not mine.

 

[AuraCraft]

@th child
I'm very happy with your post and completely recognize the analysis and I'm gonna read that article when I'm fully awake

 

[stone123]

Very valid points above

I think the scoring system should be changed as its not really a true reflection of skill/rank

I can see the theory behind it but lets face it anyone of us can create a new account from scratch and start off as a grunt..but in reality we are way more experienced than a grunt and would/could if we won simply jump up the score board

An eg... a new player wins a 12/24 player game against high ranking players an shoots up too a seargant...is this right??

the points system is based on PLAYER EXPERIENCE AS A RANK when in reality thats not the case for some players

I think a set amount of points per game/number of players should be the way forward and it will be ...in my opinion... an even MORE accurate picture of rank based on this points system

 

[Cagey]

You know, reading this thread, I see that for the most part you're all looking at it from the top down, why not try to look at it from the bottom up?

If a new recruit beats a top brass they should get a big boost. The lower ranks ought to have some reasonable expectation of promotion. It's good for the site. More recruits, more grunts deciding to pay to become specialists, more money for site development, bigger community, more cannon-fodder and future officers.

It should be very very hard to maintain a high rank. If you've achieved a high rank you ought to have to prove you deserve it. And if you start to slip down the ranks, well, try harder, play better, once again you've got a goal to aim for, to retake your crown.

Declining to play the lower ranks for fear of losing too many points is cowardly - resting on your laurels by only playing others of similar rank or maps/settings that you've mastered means you're not really RISKing anything, are you?

Here's a little bit of diplo from a game I'm in (names changed):

02/09/13 15:53:03 TOM: if DICK wins which he prob will then we lose points that's ok but if HARRY wins we lose loads of points as he's only a specialist. so shall we take out Harry and cut our losses or do you think thats bad and unfair?
02/09/13 19:10:58 To TOM: I don't think it very sporting, if his strategy is better than ours then all honour to him, I don't begrudge him the points even if he were kitchen patrol - the better in-game strategy should win, regardless of rank - but don't feel bad about suggesting it, I suggested the same thing* in another game to someone else a while ago but now realise I was wrong to do so.

*I should mention that when I made the suggestion it was to Constantine who didn't reply but from then on allied himself with the ranker. So kudos to him.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

what Cagey said...

 

[stone123]

Cagey i see where your coming from but there is a big problem with letting new recruits beating top brass and gaining big boosts....you really dont know if they REALLY are a recruit behind the GRUNT status...which is what my post was about

I have played loads of games with total newbys and i can tell you some of them new EXACTLY how to play that i would have said they had played hundreds of games before...so my guess is that not all new players are really cadets just experienced player who has joined up again.

i remember When i first started playing here it took me ages to get to 2500 points and i only played real time games..i was always dropping points then going up then dropping again i couldnt work it out why some people stayed at high rank till i realised what you said in your post that people with certain rank didnt play with low rank players they mainly played casual games and could pick and choose

I will be honest since i got to major rank i only play a hand full of realtime games any more which i set up and cringe when low rank newbys join coz i know if i loose my points go way down so yeah it is creating a divide in our community but on the other side can you blame players for wanting to PROTECT their points and ranks as after all it probably took a long struggle to get them

BUT you are totally right that players are not RISKing anything so not challenging them selves...love that line cagey

i still think the points system is wrong and should be a set amount for winning..trouble is how do we start over again unless we WIPE everything and everyone starts as a cadet..start fresh sort of like beta stage 3

 

[Cagey]

I don't 'blame' anyone for wanting to protect their points - as I said to TOM I'd made a similar points protecting suggestion myself, so I understand where the desire comes from and I'm not immune to it myself - in truth it was only when I heard my own words coming out of someone else's mouth that I saw what bad form it was.

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings,
And never breathe a word about your loss:
...
...you'll be a Man, my son!

- Kipling

 

[leagaepr]

The current point system is actually awesome. It automatically keep the experienced players from gaining an unlimited amount of points. The tendencial rise of the points on the scoreboard is more because od the rising amount of active players on the site, I believe. The current system also makes the experienced players play with equal opponents which also makes the games more interesting. Would you really want the leaders to go after newbies all the time? It would be boring. IMHO the current system is PERFECT.