Points and Ladder Rankings

[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

We have paying members of over a decade. Kickstarters, and I have over 8,000 logged games and this guy is aware of his actions and doesn't care. He is not part of this community. Doesn't participate in the forums. My Honor is 89, with over 400 votes cast. Please bring back HONOR RANKINGS. I think he is dishonorable knowing what he is doing. He laughs in our faces. Until something is done as of now. I will only play games that don't involve that player.

 

[elricsbiscuit]

We have paying members of over a decade. Kickstarters, and I have over 8,000 logged games and this guy is aware of his actions and doesn't care. He is not part of this community. Doesn't participate in the forums. My Honor is 89, with over 400 votes cast. Please bring back HONOR RANKINGS. I think he is dishonorable knowing what he is doing. He laughs in our faces. Until something is done as of now. I will only play games that don't involve that player.

I agree-I win my share but the score rarely moves, very frustrating and makes you not want to play

 

[genghisknows]

Why is everyone slamming "The Guy"?? I would think that all this hoopla caused by him is not his fault, but the fault of the coding. If there is indeed a still active coder on site, why hasn't he/she/them/they fixed this problem? Heck, "The Guy" could be an individual incapacitated in bed, not knowing exactily what is going on. Or, we may have an AI player. So, in conclusion, maybe we all could just ignore his point total and quit worrying about who is on top until it is fixed.

 

[once]

i have not followed any of this closely. this being said, to me it does look like some people have found a way to exploit the point system by locking in multiple games at low scores. the sheer speed with which they go from kitchen patrol to snatching the alltime sitewide highscore from sensadrome (which was pretty hard to fathom to begin with) is staggering. i dont think the aforementioned guy is the only one doing this around here though, just the most successful. it is a shame, in all the years i have spent on this site i have not seen anything quite like it, and i can see how it does kind of ruin the point system for those players who are playing it in earnest - as a way to measure their own success vs their fellow players. and this after all these years of waiting for points to return: pretty sad.
i dont know what the best solution would be, but both limiting game numbers as well as actually locking scores at the start of the games seem good suggestions to me. it would be good for @NewSheriffInTown to weigh in here imo.

 

[waldegrave]

As others have mentioned, this issue is fixed by having the score update in real time, as I believe it had in the past.

In the meantime, here's an unpopular opinion: Braveheart doesn't deserve being singled-out as the problem here. Yes, his score is unrealistically high, but he isn't cheating -- there's no evidence he's fraudulently amassing points by using multiple accounts, for instance. It's being said that he's gaming the system by entering loads of games when his score is low, but if that were true he wouldn't be entering loads of games when his score is high, and we can see he's in many games now with his high score.

He's just extremely active, and he's been playing like this since before points came back. As has happened before, at his current high score he'll have up to 100 points deducted with every loss, while gaining little from a win, and so you'll see his score soon plummet back down. I may be wrong, but in my view his score jumps up and down not from exploitation, but simply because playing a very large number of games under our current system will result in a highly volatile score. Yes, he makes so many games it can be somewhat annoying to scroll past them all when searching for games to join, but you can use filters to find the games you want. Rather than attack him for being so active, we should recognize that active players such as him are helping keep this game alive while the site's issues are being ironed out.

TLDR: Braveheart isn't the problem, the system of not updating points in real time is the issue, and it needs to be corrected. In the meantime, if you don't think Braveheart deserves his high score and you believe you're the better player, you can play a few games against him and take up to 100 points off him each time you win. That's what I intend to do.

 

[riskyone]

Why is everyone slamming "The Guy"?? I would think that all this hoopla caused by him is not his fault, but the fault of the coding. If there is indeed a still active coder on site, why hasn't he/she/them/they fixed this problem? Heck, "The Guy" could be an individual incapacitated in bed, not knowing exactily what is going on. Or, we may have an AI player. So, in conclusion, maybe we all could just ignore his point total and quit worrying about who is on top until it is fixed.

I couldn't care about his point total. I used to play for medals. Now all I can play for is points. How is it fair to lose 100 and only win 5. All he needs to do is drop out of unstarted games. Then rejoin as many as you like with your new score. Hey if being on top is that important to the guy. He will have to drop almost all games to keep it that way. Again, I care about my point total and he is ruining this by not following simple instructions. You want to give him the benefit of the doubt. By all means, but playing at the level he locked in for and making a mockery of the system. I'm not a fan.

 

[riskyone]

As others have mentioned, this issue is fixed by having the score update in real time, as I believe it had in the past.

In the meantime, here's an unpopular opinion: Braveheart doesn't deserve being singled-out as the problem here. Yes, his score is unrealistically high, but he isn't cheating -- there's no evidence he's fraudulently amassing points by using multiple accounts, for instance. It's being said that he's gaming the system by entering loads of games when his score is low, but if that were true he wouldn't be entering loads of games when his score is high, and we can see he's in many games now with his high score.

He's just extremely active, and he's been playing like this since before points came back. As has happened before, at his current high score he'll have up to 100 points deducted with every loss, while gaining little from a win, and so you'll see his score soon plummet back down. I may be wrong, but in my view his score jumps up and down not from exploitation, but simply because playing a very large number of games under our current system will result in a highly volatile score. Yes, he makes so many games it can be somewhat annoying to scroll past them all when searching for games to join, but you can use filters to find the games you want. Rather than attack him for being so active, we should recognize that active players such as him are helping keep this game alive while the site's issues are being ironed out.

TLDR: Braveheart isn't the problem, the system of not updating points in real time is the issue, and it needs to be corrected. In the meantime, if you don't think Braveheart deserves his high score and you believe you're the better player, you can play a few games against him and take up to 100 points off him each time you win. That's what I intend to do.

No you can't. He won't play you 1x1 because that would be a new game and he could lose 100. No he plays games he entered a long time ago and that is what the points are based off. I'm not saying I'm a better player, but I wouldn't pull this stunt. REPEAT you will lose many and he loses a few and that isn't a good system.

 

[riskyone]

i have not followed any of this closely. this being said, to me it does look like some people have found a way to exploit the point system by locking in multiple games at low scores. the sheer speed with which they go from kitchen patrol to snatching the alltime sitewide highscore from sensadrome (which was pretty hard to fathom to begin with) is staggering. i dont think the aforementioned guy is the only one doing this around here though, just the most successful. it is a shame, in all the years i have spent on this site i have not seen anything quite like it, and i can see how it does kind of ruin the point system for those players who are playing it in earnest - as a way to measure their own success vs their fellow players. and this after all these years of waiting for points to return: pretty sad.
i dont know what the best solution would be, but both limiting game numbers as well as actually locking scores at the start of the games seem good suggestions to me. it would be good for @NewSheriffInTown to weigh in here imo.

I also could not believe how high sensadrome got. Him and I got into a disagreement. Didn't let it escalate but never became close after that. He got played in a game by Robinette and I tried to say 2 against 1 isn't fair. She let him do most then she won.
That said. I always respected his score.
Now scores don't mean anything because of people with low morals. Rather points then character.
Yes once. in all the years. This is the worst. Thanks for speaking up.

 

[MNatt]

As others have mentioned, this issue is fixed by having the score update in real time, as I believe it had in the past.

In the meantime, here's an unpopular opinion: Braveheart doesn't deserve being singled-out as the problem here. Yes, his score is unrealistically high, but he isn't cheating -- there's no evidence he's fraudulently amassing points by using multiple accounts, for instance. It's being said that he's gaming the system by entering loads of games when his score is low, but if that were true he wouldn't be entering loads of games when his score is high, and we can see he's in many games now with his high score.

He's just extremely active, and he's been playing like this since before points came back. As has happened before, at his current high score he'll have up to 100 points deducted with every loss, while gaining little from a win, and so you'll see his score soon plummet back down. I may be wrong, but in my view his score jumps up and down not from exploitation, but simply because playing a very large number of games under our current system will result in a highly volatile score. Yes, he makes so many games it can be somewhat annoying to scroll past them all when searching for games to join, but you can use filters to find the games you want. Rather than attack him for being so active, we should recognize that active players such as him are helping keep this game alive while the site's issues are being ironed out.

TLDR: Braveheart isn't the problem, the system of not updating points in real time is the issue, and it needs to be corrected. In the meantime, if you don't think Braveheart deserves his high score and you believe you're the better player, you can play a few games against him and take up to 100 points off him each time you win. That's what I intend to do.

I agree completely.

As I suggested above I think the problem would be resolved by having points calculated in real time by player scores WHEN THE GAME ENDS.

But also you're quite right to say that so far as I can see nobody is breaking any rules. You can't punish somebody for playing by the rules. The problem isn't with the player, it's with the current rules/points algorithm.

One other practical change which would help - on D12 there is a facility to avoid players you don't want to play. Sometimes for whatever reason you come across a player you don't get on with or (like here) who you think is gaming the rules. It works pretty well if you have an option on the player's homepage to 'Avoid'. There's no fuss - you don't need to get into any arguments, you just click the button and that's the last you see of them. And it also means if a player is being a pain, before very long they find themselves short of people to play!

 

[riskyone]

I agree completely.

As I suggested above I think the problem would be resolved by having points calculated in real time by player scores WHEN THE GAME ENDS.

But also you're quite right to say that so far as I can see nobody is breaking any rules. You can't punish somebody for playing by the rules. The problem isn't with the player, it's with the current rules/points algorithm.

One other practical change which would help - on D12 there is a facility to avoid players you don't want to play. Sometimes for whatever reason you come across a player you don't get on with or (like here) who you think is gaming the rules. It works pretty well if you have an option on the player's homepage to 'Avoid'. There's no fuss - you don't need to get into any arguments, you just click the button and that's the last you see of them. And it also means if a player is being a pain, before very long they find themselves short of people to play!

Just lost another 100. When my multi games are over. I want join any for a long time. This guy playing the system is giving me a bad taste. When will PASSWORD games comeback. I would very much enjoy that. Play with the people you want to play with.

 

[MNatt]

On the subject of which score/ranking you use to calculate points, I've had a quick rummage around in the forums of the other risk-type site I play on to see if I could find what they do. I've taken out names etc, but here is a Q&A from their forums on the subject:


"Q: What rating is used when calculating the ratings at the end of a game?
1.The rating which the players had when they ENTERED the game
2.The rating the players have just moments before the game ENDS
3.The rating the respective players had at the time they DIED
4.Other
Why do I ask?

A certain player could start 50 long term games (assume 4 player games - all opponents also at 1000 rating) while s/he's at 1000 rating. The ratings s/he'll win/lose in those 50 games might fluctuate a lot depending on the answer to my question. Even more so because opponents have the same fluctuations going on with their ratings. In the event s/he wins all 50, his/her gains will remain constant (60 rating/game => 3000 in total) - provided option #1 is in effect. Or, they will steadily decrease (when all other variables are kept constant; maybe 2000 in total? (didn't do the maths)) - provided option #2 is in effect. Option #3 makes not a lot of difference for set case - with player 1 winning all games; but in other events it might.

Thanks in advance,


Sergeant Major XXXX wrote:

We use the rating at the time that the winnings are calculated, so that is option 2. There are probably arguments for each of the three options you mentioned, but the truth is that any option but the option we currently use would be much more complicated implementation-wise, and I think the benefits to doing so are fairly minimal."



Although there are aspects of their site which I don't like as much as MajCom, I have to say I've never come across any weirdness with their scoring system like we've been getting on here these last few months. As you see, they calculate points based on rankings WHEN THE GAME ENDS. (And, for what it's worth, the site admin who gives the answer says that is a much simpler option implementation-wise.)

 

[bilsi]

WOW

 

[Hortik]

Congratulations Braveheart .

Personally,
I continue enjoying playing and joining games whenever I want/like, regardless my points or the opponents points .

Let's continue making love instead of fighting for ego-stroking points !

 

[bilsi]

Congratulations Braveheart .

Personally,
I continue enjoying playing and joining games whenever I want/like, regardless my points or the opponents points .

Let's continue making love instead of fighting for ego-stroking points !

you don't get it.....how does he have 15k points?

 

[bilsi]

you don't get it.....how does he have 15k points?

He starts 60+ games

 

[genghisknows]

Ok. Let's look as this scenario: For a player with 15,000 points it would take 120 lost games for them to be toppled back to 3,000 points at the 100 lost points per game maximum.
If the site returned to the original points calculation method, the level of sanity could soon correct itself.

In the How do the points work? WIKI entry, it states: Please note that Points are calculated using the player's score when the strategy game ends, not their score when the game starts.

Anything other than that is a disaster.

 

[Hortik]

He starts 60+ games

Whether I get it or not, it doesnt keep me from sleeping.

If Braveheart found the weak link on the site to win easy points and created 60+ games, which would take a lot of time, and if he wins them all, well than he deserves it no?

Come on, you guys are not new on this site, which make me believe that we all reached adult age right?
My son could rage about things like that because he wants to be the 1st in everything, but that is my son, that is 2 years old

If he gets 20 000 points or he is back to 1000 points, what does it change for you?

Like I already said;

Congratulations Braveheart .

Personally,
I continue enjoying playing and joining games whenever I want/like, regardless my points or the opponents points .

Let's continue making love instead of fighting for ego-stroking points !

Cheers

 

[bilsi]

Play Risk Free - Major Command Risk Online Strategy Game

www.majorcommand.com

WTF? 15 points????

 

[genghisknows]

Looks correct to me, bilsi. Triples: 45 ÷ 3 = 15

 

[waldegrave]

Looks correct to me, bilsi. Triples: 45 ÷ 3 = 15

Is this how team scores are calculated? Shouldn't we be dividing the average score of the winners by the average score of the defeated, multiplying by 30, and assigning each winner those points? In this case, an average score of 1508 beat an average score of 2198, so each winner should gain 44 points, just as in a 1v1 a 1508 player would win 44 points from a 2198 player. I don't see why it should be divided by the number of teammates. Team games should have the same stakes as 1v1. In a 12 versus 12 game each winner will earn very little under this system. If this game was 12v12 the winners would only be awarded 4 points each if the average win of 44 is divided by 12, which doesn't seem right to me at all.