Scoreboard Discussion

[ORBOTRON]

Resign button, -NOT.
It is inevitable that cheaters WILL join this site. The leader-board WILL eventually become a joke, just like all of the other Risk sites. Try to keep this in mind as you ponder new rules and such.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. While it's obvious that cheaters will join, I don't take it for granted that we're going to let them make a mockery of the site. There are quite a few mechanisms and people at work weeding out abuse and erasing it's mark. We're always open to suggestion on how this can be accomplished more efficiently, but heartily resist any notion of a defeatist or fatalistic outlook.

 

[zspBANNED]

Thanks for sharing your opinion. While it's obvious that cheaters will join, I don't take it for granted that we're going to let them make a mockery of the site. There are quite a few mechanisms and people at work weeding out abuse and erasing it's mark. We're always open to suggestion on how this can be accomplished more efficiently, but heartily resist any notion of a defeatist or fatalistic outlook.

I feel like you spent way too much time on that answer. How many rough drafts did you make for this answer?

 

[mapguy]

Thanks for sharing your opinion. While it's obvious that cheaters will join, I don't take it for granted that we're going to let them make a mockery of the site. There are quite a few mechanisms and people at work weeding out abuse and erasing it's mark. We're always open to suggestion on how this can be accomplished more efficiently, but heartily resist any notion of a defeatist or fatalistic outlook.

I do not expect that you will be (intending) on letting them make a mockery of the site. I believe that a variety of measures (have and will) be taken to thwart such activity. Sorry if my remarks seem a bit "defeatist", but, I have been down this road before, in a galaxy far away. A galaxy called Cesie. Maybe if I get the time later I will post a link to a debate or two, that goes to this subject.

Suffice it to say, I believe that it is impossible to have a truly honest LEADERBOARD, if you allow players to pick their opponents. Nowhere, (to my knowledge), do you see such a circumstance of player manipulation. Imagine what Sports would look like under this mode of operation.

Being able to pick who you want to play with is cool, but, those games should NOT be used to calculate or determine rank. Only through a "league" type system, one that picks your opponents, can you have an honest Leaderboard.

The "Official" games would be set up in a way that pits players of the same rank against each other. Only these games would effect a players rank. You would still be allowed to play unofficial Pick-up games like now, but 0 points are exchanged.

I look at it like this, I am for a system more like Professional Boxing, and less like Professional Wrestling. Like boxing a player must fight his way up the ranks playing better and better opponents as he climbs the ladder. At the top of the ladder you will find the best players, not the best cheaters.

 

[Badorties]

The scoreboards best defense is diffusion. Where as on other sites there is one and only scoreboard, and thus one and only stat that matters (points), here there are many, and we have lots more scoreboards planned. So de-emphasizing points is one step to a less monotheistic atmosphere.

but there will always be cheaters. The key is to reduce their numbers, not implement futile solutions to eliminate them.

We have other clever ideas in the pipe which will identify and mark players with less than savory gamesmanship.

 

[ORBOTRON]

It sounds like you consider players who follow the rules and simply play maps/settings they are good at, cheaters. Is that your opinion?

 

[Badorties]

For the record.

cheating = using multiple accounts, secret diplomacy/collusion. not allowed.
bad gamesmanship = farming new players on particular maps and settings. allowed, but not cool*.


*we reserve the right to penalize bad gamesmanship in the future.

 

[ORBOTRON]

Sorry, Bado posted before I hit the button to post. My question was for Mapguy

 

[mapguy]

It sounds like you consider players who follow the rules and simply play maps/settings they are good at, cheaters. Is that your opinion?

No that is not my opinion at all. My opinion is that it is all a matter of odds. By that I mean, you can deduce a lot from applied odds as to how many cheaters out of a given number of players you will likely have. Be it one out of every 10, 100, or 1,000. The number will be small I imagine, but when you get say 50,000 players, that small percentage of cheaters is large enough to take up the majority of the 1st. page of the leaderboard. (IE; CC).

My point goes to more than combating cheaters, it also goes to the fact that players will forge friendships, and thus will unintentionally observe secret diplomacy's and such. It is only natural.

As for playing certain maps and settings, well we all have our own preferences, but if you allow players to pick their favorites, the scoreboard is diminished in a sense. If a player is only good at one type setting, on only one map, then no matter his record, he should never be seeded as a top player.

The players with the top ranks should be the best all-around players of the site. If you can not play a certain setting very well, then it behooves you to learn how to play it. I think that you will find that those settings that you least like are the ones that you have not taken the time and effort to learn.

I have made most of my points from my favorite three maps and settings. There is nothing at all improper with playing the rules, but we should be honest here. This type of system is designed from its conception to be a "farming" game. That is, find one thing and do it better than the rest. I think that there is a lot to say for the player that learns all of the maps and settings. This player in my mind should wear the top rank.

Let me give you a brief summary of how this alternative rank system would work.

As a new player stars his carrier here at MC, he would be assigned to games that are on simple maps and settings. These games are set up between other newbies, and they are 1V1.

As the player learns, his skills will rise above his peers, and he will soon a crew enough points, to advance in rank to the next level. With each new rank, more and more difficult maps and settings will be introduced.

This type of system also has other aspects that are nice. For one, I can envision a lot fewer AOLS in every rank, (save the bottom).

 

[ORBOTRON]

well, a quick fix to part of the problem would be to rotate the scoreboards on a regular basis . I'm not going to argue if you want to make "MOST DECORATED" the first board on the page every 2 or 3 weeks. And I certainly won't argue with the idea that someone who is more well rounded (translates as more medals on this site) deserves more recognition, haha

I recognize that farming is lame and needs to be limited, I've come up with a few suggestions on that issue, and would welcome yours. I also think the system you propose is novel and based on sound thinking, unfortunately it would involve a fundamental redo of the entire system here.

 

[zspBANNED]

Easyyyyyy fellas. What might appear to be farming, just might not be. That will be my only response to this for now.

 

[mapguy]

well, a quick fix to part of the problem would be to rotate the scoreboards on a regular basis . I'm not going to argue if you want to make "MOST DECORATED" the first board on the page every 2 or 3 weeks. And I certainly won't argue with the idea that someone who is more well rounded (translates as more medals on this site) deserves more recognition, haha

I recognize that farming is lame and needs to be limited, I've come up with a few suggestions on that issue, and would welcome yours. I also think the system you propose is novel and based on sound thinking, unfortunately it would involve a fundamental redo of the entire system here.

I am not really arguing the merits of any particular leaderboard. Different leaderboards are great, they are merely a list of the best at one thing or another. What I am talking about is Rank specifically. Ones rank should only reflect the level of achievement. In this proposed system you only play against players of the same rank. This means that you can not farm newbies, and if your skill is up to par you will be promoted up in rank. If you find yourself in a position where you no longer are winning most of your games, then you will have found your true level of skill. It is really quite simple and straight forward. It is easy to understand, and WILL produce a ranking structure that is honest and accurate.

You may not be able to pick your opponents, but you would be allowed to pick your team. This would be the exception to the rule as you will (in team games) be allowed to play against players of different ranks. Your team will be pitted against other teams that have a similar average rank. You would still be able to play everything that you can now. But, only official games are where points are exchanged. On that note also take notice that players put up the same amount of points. So this means that you will win or loose only that amount. None of this rubbish of putting up 50 to win 10 points.

Lets face it this system now is not dis-similar to every other Risk site out there. People want to play with family and friends, and that is cool, but those types of pick-up games should not have anything to do with your official rank. To do otherwise is only making it a farming game. And while some types of farming are more obvious than others, it is all the same in the end.

My main contention here is that the players at the top of the ranks should be the best players. They are not just good at one or two tricks, they can do it all. Medals are what you want to look at to ascertain who is the best at one thing or another. But those things are proven through the random game selection in the Official games protocol. One can NOT just play only those types of games.

As for needing to do a whole revamp of everything here, ...well, no not really. Like I said, nothing changes for all games that are NOT OMC games. But it would involve a whole bunch of coding and what-not to implement a different "Scoring/Ranking" system.

 

[Thunderous]

I am not really arguing the merits of any particular leaderboard. Different leaderboards are great, they are merely a list of the best at one thing or another. What I am talking about is Rank specifically. Ones rank should only reflect the level of achievement. In this proposed system you only play against players of the same rank. This means that you can not farm newbies, and if your skill is up to par you will be promoted up in rank. If you find yourself in a position where you no longer are winning most of your games, then you will have found your true level of skill. It is really quite simple and straight forward. It is easy to understand, and WILL produce a ranking structure that is honest and accurate.

You may not be able to pick your opponents, but you would be allowed to pick your team. This would be the exception to the rule as you will (in team games) be allowed to play against players of different ranks. Your team will be pitted against other teams that have a similar average rank. You would still be able to play everything that you can now. But, only official games are where points are exchanged. On that note also take notice that players put up the same amount of points. So this means that you will win or loose only that amount. None of this rubbish of putting up 50 to win 10 points.

What you are more talking about is a giant, epic tournament (which would be cool) or a spearate leaderboard ( could be option for people to join, where you are pared up with people your own rank). Problem with just your idea on its own is some people may just want to play people on they know (family, friends and work colleges in casual game), but still exchange points and have some reward for winning a game against their friend.

 

[zspBANNED]

If you find yourself in a position where you no longer are winning most of your games, then you will have found your true level of skill. It is really quite simple and straight forward. It is easy to understand, and WILL produce a ranking structure that is honest and accurate.

Haha I used to think about something exactly like this during my CC years. But the fundamental problem with this is that it will only work for 1v1 games...b/c imagine how this would work for 10 player free-for-all games. If there were 10 of the exactly same skilled players, you'd have a 10% chance (1/10) of winning every 10 player game you play. If you're playing 9 noobs (who play and don't actually awol), do you think your chances will dramatically sky-rocket of winning? It'll probably be a 12% chance of winning..the more players, the less "control" you have of possibly winning.

So regardless of the rank of your opponents in these big games, it's not like you're just going to win a heckuva lot more often and improve in rank...

 

[mapguy]

Haha I used to think about something exactly like this during my CC years. But the fundamental problem with this is that it will only work for 1v1 games...b/c imagine how this would work for 10 player free-for-all games. If there were 10 of the exactly same skilled players, you'd have a 10% chance (1/10) of winning every 10 player game you play. If you're playing 9 noobs (who play and don't actually awol), do you think your chances will dramatically sky-rocket of winning? It'll probably be a 12% chance of winning..the more players, the less "control" you have of possibly winning.

So regardless of the rank of your opponents in these big games, it's not like you're just going to win a heckuva lot more often and improve in rank...

I would like to respond here, but I am not following you.

 

[zspBANNED]

You are not more likely to win in a 10 player game against low-ranked players than high-ranked players. So much luck/shit is involved in those games that a player wont "move up the ranks" any faster if he was playing low-ranked players than playing better players.

 

[mapguy]

What you are more talking about is a giant, epic tournament (which would be cool) or a spearate leaderboard ( could be option for people to join, where you are pared up with people your own rank). Problem with just your idea on its own is some people may just want to play people on they know (family, friends and work colleges in casual game), but still exchange points and have some reward for winning a game against their friend.

People can still play family and friends, but they can only win or loose points in an OMC game. If they like they could play as teamates in OMC games, and win or loose points.

 

[mapguy]

you are not more likely to win in a 10 player game against low-ranked players than high-ranked players. So much luck/shit is involved in those games that a player wont "move up the ranks" any faster if he was playing low-ranked players than playing better players.

wtf ?

 

[zspBANNED]

If you find yourself in a position where you no longer are winning most of your games, then you will have found your true level of skill. It is really quite simple and straight forward. It is easy to understand, and WILL produce a ranking structure that is honest and accurate.

Reread your own quote. Now tell me exactly how this will work. How many games does a player need to win to advance (think about this only in terms of 10 player games) to the next rank. How will a player actually gain points, and how will the lose them? How will they fall back in the ranks?

 

[mapguy]

Reread your own quote. Now tell me exactly how this will work. How many games does a player need to win to advance (think about this only in terms of 10 player games) to the next rank. How will a player actually gain points, and how will the lose them? How will they fall back in the ranks?

Ranks would still be determined by points. Everyone in the game would put up 30 points. Winner take all. -or- Like I saw in another thread the idea of having an option, of splitting up the points between top 3 finishers in the game.

 

[zspBANNED]

wtf ?

Whoa there bud. If you want to play this game, we can play this game. Explain your "genius" idea some more and how it will actually work...and then I'll rip it apart.