Points and Ladder Rankings

[genghisknows]

POINTS, the elephant in the room.​

Other than the quality of the maps, I personally find the competition on this site a factor in my choosing to play the games on this site. In most sports, games, and other competitions, good play is recognized by POINTS, awards, or rankings.

Why do the coders and players, who oversee this website, keep prolonging the agony by not reinstituting the POINT system as soon as possible? All other (superfluous) peripherals are meaningless to me, IMHO. In addition to actual game play, the most fun is watching yourself and others move up and down the POINT and Ranking Ladder. “Participation ribbons” should be reserved for small children and those who are not suited for real competition.

FIX THE POINT SYSTEM, please!

 

[Rare-Breed]

Agree,
I was ready to leave another online risk site and make this site my main home. Was looking forward to playing and meeting new people/players. I have no idea where I'm at points and wins. Just an old Dumbplayer past their prime. sup

 

[bilsi]

POINTS, the elephant in the room.​

Other than the quality of the maps, I personally find the competition on this site a factor in my choosing to play the games on this site. In most sports, games, and other competitions, good play is recognized by POINTS, awards, or rankings.

Why do the coders and players, who oversee this website, keep prolonging the agony by not reinstituting the POINT system as soon as possible? All other (superfluous) peripherals are meaningless to me, IMHO. In addition to actual game play, the most fun is watching yourself and others move up and down the POINT and Ranking Ladder. “Participation ribbons” should be reserved for small children and those who are not suited for real competition.

FIX THE POINT SYSTEM, please!

Number one thing they're working on is points...An update would be nice.

 

[Daniel7]

The update is in the mess, 1st post

 

[Daniel7]

sorry its in roadmap-new server

 

[Saintsman1959]

Ok, someone please help my ignorance, I think I am understanding the points, but the rankings have me puzzled, I just was in a game where there was a captain that had less points than at least 3 of the other players who were listed as cadets. Do the points have anything to do with the rankings?

 

[waldegrave]

Ok, someone please help my ignorance, I think I am understanding the points, but the rankings have me puzzled, I just was in a game where there was a captain that had less points than at least 3 of the other players who were listed as cadets. Do the points have anything to do with the rankings?

Ranks aren't fixed yet and so they don't reflect actual points

 

[genghisknows]

Can we have the word BETA removed from the game site? It is misleading since we now have a playable version of of the game. I think we are past the testing stage.

 

[riskyone]

I think it's very unfair that the guy on top of the leader board only lost 5 points in the game I won a few days ago. My score should be much higher. Not fair that I lose over 50 to him when he wins. That's 10-1 I don't understand why this isn't being corrected. Truly unfair. Signing up for all those games and locking in at private is being that guy in my book. sann is the true leader and deserves that spot.

 

[Stormcat]

I think it's very unfair that the guy on top of the leader board only lost 5 points in the game I won a few days ago. My score should be much higher. Not fair that I lose over 50 to him when he wins. That's 10-1 I don't understand why this isn't being corrected. Truly unfair. Signing up for all those games and locking in at private is being that guy in my book. sann is the true leader and deserves that spot.

Agree. He IS being "that guy" whether knowingly or not. It's going to keep happening as long as anyone is allowed to start that many games per day and scores don't update when games start. And as much as I'd like to see ranks update, that would add insult to injury if it happened before this issue is corrected. General of the High Command should be truly earned

 

[riskyone]

Agree. He IS being "that guy" whether knowingly or not. It's going to keep happening as long as anyone is allowed to start that many games per day and scores don't update when games start. And as much as I'd like to see ranks update, that would add insult to injury if it happened before this issue is corrected. General of the High Command should be truly earned

I just lost 100 points. In one game. The point system is so unfair that it's causing me depression. Try to move up and one game takes you down a 100? that is wrong. I guess I have to look for games that need one spot filled and he isn't a listed player or just pay 1x1 against friends.

 

[riskyone]

braveheart, I'm asking you to drop out of your upcoming games and restart with your proper score. That is a fair way to fix this. Last game I won that you were in. I got 5 points, but the last one you won. I lost 100. PLEASE consider. Just drop out and rejoin with a proper score.
Does this sound fair to all.

 

[MNatt]

There is a way, I think, for the current anomaly with the points system to be fixed. Change the points algorithm so that it calculates points based on players' points ranking WHEN THE GAME ENDS.

At the moment it is set so that it calculates based on points either when the players sign up for the game or when the game starts (it's supposed to be the latter, but I think it's actually the former at the moment). Which means you can end up with players trampolining up and down the points ladder - when you're on a low points score, create/enter loads and loads of games, pocket all the points from them, fly up the ladder, then drop like a stone again once you are having to sign up for games with a hugely inflated points score.

We've seen a few players do that in the last few months - one in particular.

If points are won and lost based on players points at the point the game ends then everything is being calculated in real time, and there's no way of playing the system. (I think - though I'm not sure - that's what they do on D12).

In the meantime, there is a practical way of avoiding the problem with the particular player being referred to above. I've played hundreds and hundreds of games on here over the years, and I don't think I've ever played him/her - or certainly not for a long, long time. I always create/join games which are chance/1or3 moves/border or path re-inf. If you set your filters to that you won't come across him at all.

 

[Stormcat]

There is a way, I think, for the current anomaly with the points system to be fixed. Change the points algorithm so that it calculates points based on players' points ranking WHEN THE GAME ENDS.

At the moment it is set so that it calculates based on points either when the players sign up for the game or when the game starts (it's supposed to be the latter, but I think it's actually the former at the moment). Which means you can end up with players trampolining up and down the points ladder - when you're on a low points score, create/enter loads and loads of games, pocket all the points from them, fly up the ladder, then drop like a stone again once you are having to sign up for games with a hugely inflated points score.

We've seen a few players do that in the last few months - one in particular.

If points are won and lost based on players points at the point the game ends then everything is being calculated in real time, and there's no way of playing the system. (I think - though I'm not sure - that's what they do on D12).

In the meantime, there is a practical way of avoiding the problem with the particular player being referred to above. I've played hundreds and hundreds of games on here over the years, and I don't think I've ever played him/her - or certainly not for a long, long time. I always create/join games which are chance/1or3 moves/border or path re-inf. If you set your filters to that you won't come across him at all.

not sure that would be any better (points adjusting to current player scores at end of game). would you like to play a game against someone that started with 9,000 points and at the end of the game they have 500 points? losses would be very costly to higher scored players. but this is a mess/very exploitable as is

 

[bilsi]

braveheart, I'm asking you to drop out of your upcoming games and restart with your proper score. That is a fair way to fix this. Last game I won that you were in. I got 5 points, but the last one you won. I lost 100. PLEASE consider. Just drop out and rejoin with a proper score.
Does this sound fair to all.

he don't read forums and never replies to chat in games...I'm getting pissed with guys going awol. In a 12D game and only reason the leader is leading is because of that...I need to insist we get PW protection quick. How hard can that be? We had it, re-work it...I'm almost ready to stop playing.

 

[bilsi]

he don't read forums and never replies to chat in games...I'm getting pissed with guys going awol. In a 12D game and only reason the leader is leading is because of that...I need to insist we get PW protection quick. How hard can that be? We had it, re-work it...I'm almost ready to stop playing.

or ban awol players from playing other than 1vs1...like another site does. (I realize this will NEVER happen).
signed,
someone pissed off.

 

[bilsi]

or ban awol players from playing other than 1vs1...like another site does. (I realize this will NEVER happen).
signed,
someone pissed off.

Never an update...

 

[MNatt]

not sure that would be any better (points adjusting to current player scores at end of game). would you like to play a game against someone that started with 9,000 points and at the end of the game they have 500 points? losses would be very costly to higher scored players. but this is a mess/very exploitable as is

Except that if points are calculated on scores in real time, the scenario you've outlined would be virtually impossible - nobody (other than an extraordinary risk-playing-genius) could ever get to anywhere near 9,000 points if points were calculated in real time.

Just suppose a player joins 500 2-player games when his points are, say, 500, and wins 50% of them. Under the current system he will lose a few points in every game he loses, and win several times more points in every game he wins. Net result - he zooms up to 9,000 points.

In the same scenario, if points are calculated in real time based on the points each player has at the end of the game, then in the first few games he finishes he wins more points than he loses. His points total starts to climb. As his points total climbs, the disparity between the points gained/points lost will reduce, and eventually disappear. The player reaches his level. And there is no way to game the system by entering huge numbers of games while a player's points total is low.

 

[riskyone]

Why are we permitting one guy from being that guy. He is that guy. Admin should talk to him. He is ruining this for many, selfish

 

[Sandydirt]

I agree we should fix the point system flaws as pointed out here. Is there a mathematician in the house? (It ain't me!) And if ranks are not linked to points, let's drop them until they do. I also think there should be a limit to number of games a player can have at any time. Does anyone know how many regular players there are, perhaps based on anyone who has started at least three games in the last month?