Scoreboard Discussion

[zspBANNED]

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.

What happens when someone gets so good that they have like 1200 points more than 2nd place has. Then what?

 

[Thunderous]

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.

What i think you should be sugesting is seperate leaderboard. this could be where play choose to join this leaderboard (kinda like a giant ongoing tournament), and is where you are randomly matched up against players with a similar rank (as zsp is saying this could only realy work with 1v1's or tream game with only 2 teams) people can still set up games and verse family and friends or any player of any rank and SHOULD still win/lose points but this would just be registered on the current casual leaderboard.

 

[mapguy]

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.

Well, I pretty much gave you the nut shell of the idea. If you feel the need to crack it open, then just ask me some questions about the system. I have done considerable amount of pondering this, and I do not think that there is a thing, that I have failed to take into account.

 

[mapguy]

What happens when someone gets so good that they have like 1200 points more than 2nd place has. Then what?

Are you serious ?

Since any ranking system is a pyramid structure, the very top will have only one player. That is why towards the top of the rank board 2 or three or more ranks WOULD be pitted against each other.

 

[mapguy]

What i think you should be sugesting is seperate leaderboard. this could be where play choose to join this leaderboard (kinda like a giant ongoing tournament), and is where you are randomly matched up against players with a similar rank (as zsp is saying this could only realy work with 1v1's or tream game with only 2 teams) people can still set up games and verse family and friends or any player of any rank and SHOULD still win/lose points but this would just be registered on the current casual leaderboard.

I disagree with Z. about this only being good for 1v1. His argument here is nonsensical. To say that a persons odds of winning a 10 player game is the same if he plays newbs or skilled masters, is failed logic. ...Sorry but it is.

 

[mapguy]

What happens when someone gets so good that they have like 1200 points more than 2nd place has. Then what?

Z, have you ever seen this on any other risk site, where the gap between 1st. and 2nd. place was so vast ? -Never happen in a million years.

 

[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...

You are so wrong here friend.
I do not know where to begin.
First, Odds are a means to predetermine outcomes. While we may not be able to see the future, we can predict things using the math of probabilities.

To say that your odds of winning a 10 player game against newbs is no better than against Vets, is to say that, the game is ALL just plain luck, and skill has a determining factor of 0.

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.

What you are really saying here is, 10 player games are nothing more than a crap shoot, and any skill is next to meaningless.

 

[zspBANNED]

I did not articulate what I meant very well. The point I am trying to make is that the more players, the closer your chances of winning to the probability of all players being the same (10% in this case).

So yes, in a 10 player game, you have just as much of a chance as everyone else. If you were to play 10 games of 10 player games against people of average rank of say...corporal. How many of the ten games do you think you will win? You'll probably only when 1, 2 if you're lucky.

And against vets, yes, a 10 player game is a crap shoot, ESPECIALLY if the card sets are escalating. It's all a matter of the cards, the timing, who does what when, etc.

In the future...try not posting 843 posts in a row and not just type up what random ideas come in your mind and post quick reply.

 

[zspBANNED]

Let's just avoid the obvious flaws in your system and get to the important matter at hand.

Let's say there comes to be a player who gets highly ranked who absolutely hates playing on most of the maps. He/she has absolutely no fun on those maps and just simply enjoys playing on one or 2 particular maps. He makes it to #1 now. He/she has to either be forced to play all the maps with different settings to actually be allowed to be #1? That player has to play maps that he absolutely does not want to play on now?

 

[giuppi]

This is an interesting reading, congratulations to all who take part in it. I personally think mapguy has some very valid points here, namely that

a) the leaderboard should probably reward the best all-round player rather than the best 'specialists' on specific maps/settings combinations (i add, we can create specific scoreboards for specific maps/settings in addition to the general leaderboard)

b) it just makes sense to consider the idea that only specific games (the 'official' ones) should count towards the general leaderboard. Games where you pick your opponents&settings should still give you points for specific scoreboards, but should not be valid for the general one

c) the system in its current form is liable of farming practices and other forms of bad sportsmanship; Bado says bad behaviors are and will be taken care of, and i trust him. It just seems to me a system like the one mapguy has in mind is intrinsically protected against this specific form of cheating, without having to implement checking policies.

I don't have problems admitting that I select the games I join based on who is already there. If I manage to avoid some big shots and challenge only newbies, I have good chances to raise my score. When I take part in tournaments, where I don't get to select my opponents and the settings, I almost automatically lose points. It annoys me to no end, but come on, it's only fair.

Now, I confess I haven't thought much about all the implications of a system like the one mapguy is suggesting, so there may be some big drawback that I just don't see now (but if there is, it will come out in this discussion, I'm sure). But let's imagine there is no such a drawback. How can we implement it without having to re-code the whole MC?
As Thunderous said, it's easy: just create a new tournament, a permanent one, which implements mapguy's suggestions (games based on ranks, opponents randomly picked, all settings on rotation, etc.). And replace the current Points Leader scoreboard on the Scoreboard page with the scoreboard of this tournament. If a tournament can be created that way (which I don't know) the problems is solved without any need of additional coding.

That said, let me be clear that:
a) I like MC as it is now!
b) I haven't experienced/observed any cheating and the only one time i had suspects of a borderline case of bad sportsmanship, I called it out in the specific game itself, and it was resolved in the most civilized manner
c) I have no experience whatsoever with MC's ancestors, clones or competitors. I don't know what happens/happened there and I don't care
c) I trust Bado, the coders, the designers, the other contributors, the volunteers and the community here to ensure this site remains an enjoyable and challenging divertissement.
So I don't feel the need to change anything.

I'm just saying, mapguy has a point.

 

[mapguy]

As Thunderous said, it's easy: just create a new tournament, a permanent one, which implements mapguy's suggestions (games based on ranks, opponents randomly picked, all settings on rotation, etc.). And replace the current Points Leader scoreboard on the Scoreboard page with the scoreboard of this tournament.

Yes, and if you replace the word "Tournament" with the word "League", you would be approaching what I have in mind.

 

[Incandenza]

Well, I have the advantage of having had this exact same convo a few times in the past, so let me just cut to the chase here with some general observations:

1. I personally would be strongly disinclined toward mandating people to play particular games and opponents if they want points.
2. In my experience, farming in an even lightly regulated environment is considerably less of a problem than people make it out to be. For every farmer, there are ten people for whom beating the crap out of noobs gets really boring after awhile. That being said, instituting some common-sense obstacles to farming remains on the to-do list.
3. Configuring a scoreboard based largely on how someone got to #1 risks ignoring the hundreds and (eventually) thousands of other people on said board.
4. In particular, limiting the game options of high ranks because people might not like how they got those points seems unfair. For instance, zsp's point about a potential large gap between #1 and #2 is valid, as I've seen that very situation on the Conk. Surprisingly often, as it turns out. And the distance between, say, #1 and #10 can be quite large. Why force everyone at the very top to keep playing the same extremely small group of people for points?
5. Using a persistent tournament isn't a bad idea, but implementation of such would be basically impossible and probably unfair. Plus it ignores the fact that for a large number of users, MajCom will be a relatively casual pursuit, for whom the idea of joining a persistent tourney would be a turn-off.
6. Also bear in mind that farming can often be in the eye of the beholder. Certainly there are cut-and-dried cases of players persistently preying on brand-new players, but there are also plenty of situations that aren't.

If anyone would like to continue a discussion on farming in particular, I started a thread here. I'd definitely like some specific suggestions from you guys, since all of you are obviously putting some thought into trying to make this a fairer game.

 

[mapguy]

Let's just avoid the obvious flaws in your system and get to the important matter at hand.

Let's say there comes to be a player who gets highly ranked who absolutely hates playing on most of the maps. He/she has absolutely no fun on those maps and just simply enjoys playing on one or 2 particular maps. He makes it to #1 now. He/she has to either be forced to play all the maps with different settings to actually be allowed to be #1? That player has to play maps that he absolutely does not want to play on now?

A couple of things here.
1.) I doubt that a person that makes it to the top ranks under this system will "hate" any maps or settings, as he will have mastered all of the various maps and settings, and thus NOT have any such hatred.
2.) he is not forced to play anything. he can simply play pick-up games to his heart is content, on whatever map and settings, that float his boat. But when it comes to His official league rank, he will have to take his place on the battlefield with his peers. He will have to play on a variety of maps and settings. This is the place where his likes and dislikes do not matter.

 

[mapguy]

@ Incan,

1. I personally would be strongly disinclined toward mandating people to play particular games and opponents if they want points.

If they want "points", they would have to earn them by beating players that are among the same skill level or seed. If they show superior skill, then they will be promoted in rank. They will then find themselves among a higher caliber player, and must beat these players to advance. Sooner or later he will find himself at a rank that is a true representation of his skill. He will need to master these more advanced maps and settings that come with the rank before he can advance to the next level.

2. In my experience, farming in an even lightly regulated environment is considerably less of a problem than people make it out to be. For every farmer, there are ten people for whom beating the crap out of noobs gets really boring after awhile. That being said, instituting some common-sense obstacles to farming remains on the to-do list.

I believe that any system that allows players to pick and choose opponents, maps and settings, IS a system that at its core, is one of Farming. It allows for players to game the system. My proposed solution will all but eliminate any gaming of the system. This includes multies, gangs, and farmers.

3. Configuring a scoreboard based largely on how someone got to #1 risks ignoring the hundreds and (eventually) thousands of other people on said board.

I do not understand this part. What kind of scoreboard are you talking about ? Are not all scoreboards made in order to show ranking.

4. In particular, limiting the game options of high ranks because people might not like how they got those points seems unfair. For instance, zsp's point about a potential large gap between #1 and #2 is valid, as I've seen that very situation on the Conk. Surprisingly often, as it turns out. And the distance between, say, #1 and #10 can be quite large. Why force everyone at the very top to keep playing the same extremely small group of people for points?

I do not advocate for the limiting of game options for high ranks. Just the opposite. the limits are placed on the lower ranks. For instance, the new recruit will only play 1v1 on the smallest maps. This way the very high AWOL rate that is common for New recruits, will be contained within this intro level. So it follows that team games at this level would be out of the question.
Also that stuff about "Conk" I do not know about. But, Large point gaps in this system would not be an issue.
About playing the same small group of players, The group would not be small if it is set up where there were levels. The first level would include only one rank, -New Recruit. the second level could include the next 3, 4, or 5 ranks, and so forth through the ranks to the top. I would set it up to where it worked out in such a way that the top 2.5/5% of registered players would be in the top level. That is 500-1,000 players for a membership of 20,000.

5. Using a persistent tournament isn't a bad idea, but implementation of such would be basically impossible and probably unfair. Plus it ignores the fact that for a large number of users, MajCom will be a relatively casual pursuit, for whom the idea of joining a persistent tourney would be a turn-off.

I will have to get to the rest later. nity-nite.

 

[zspBANNED]

A couple of things here.
1.) I doubt that a person that makes it to the top ranks under this system will "hate" any maps or settings, as he will have mastered all of the various maps and settings, and thus NOT have any such hatred.

Uh..I actually have made it to #1 and guess what, I hate classic mini ESPECIALLY for 1v1 games. Whoever goes first will win (if both players know what they're doing). If you care for a longer argument about this, I'd be happy to prove this later.

2.) he is not forced to play anything. he can simply play pick-up games to his heart is content, on whatever map and settings, that float his boat. But when it comes to His official league rank, he will have to take his place on the battlefield with his peers.

Playing your friends who might happen to have a lower rank then you for no points at all would be lame. Incredibly lame. At least to me, I wouldn't even want to play those games b/c they don't mean anything and like Inca said, it would be so lame just playing the same 4 players (you said top few ranks: me, fitz, madsanders, robinette, and orbo) in the games that actually matter. In. Cred. Ib. Ly. Lame. Many (if not most) wouldn't playing any "pick-up games to his heart is content" b/c those games don't matter for anything, so why waste the time to play them?

He will have to play on a variety of maps and settings. This is the place where his likes and dislikes do not matter.

Hahahah do I even need to respond to this?

 

[zspBANNED]

4. In particular, limiting the game options of high ranks because people might not like how they got those points seems unfair. For instance, zsp's point about a potential large gap between #1 and #2 is valid, as I've seen that very situation on the Conk. Surprisingly often, as it turns out. And the distance between, say, #1 and #10 can be quite large. Why force everyone at the very top to keep playing the same extremely small group of people for points?

Mapguy, pretend I wasn't on the scoreboard. So now look at who'd be #1 and who'd be #2 (Fitz and madsanders if that was too difficult). Look at the point gap. Point proven.

 

[mapguy]

Mapguy, pretend I wasn't on the scoreboard. So now look at who'd be #1 and who'd be #2 (Fitz and madsanders if that was too difficult). Look at the point gap. Point proven.

HAHA, That point gap was produced by the current system. So the point proven is that maybe instead of trying to rip me up, you would afford some energy into really trying to understand what I propose. It is NOT some far out scheme that I have dreamed up, but simply a ranking system that practically every sport I can think of uses.

 

[ghost]

HAHA, That point gap was produced by the current system. So the point proven is that maybe instead of trying to rip me up, you would afford some energy into really trying to understand what I propose. It is NOT some far out scheme that I have dreamed up, but simply a ranking system that practically every sport I can think of uses.

let's remember though...
this is not a sport, it's a game...
game and sports, while similar, are vastly different.

i do think you purpose an interesting idea..
i just don't know that to implement it into MC is a good idea..
it could surely use some tweaking and valid brainstorming from other players/members...
if nothing more.

 

[SG]

Still thinkin' bout all this thread, and the several good points written down, but:

1.) I doubt that a person that makes it to the top ranks under this system will "hate" any maps or settings, as he will have mastered all of the various maps and settings, and thus NOT have any such hatred.

a) I HATE mini, just as Z. Coz it's all about luck, and I'm not a very lucky bud. (And I'm not here for "luck" games)

b) I'm not so into team-game. Don't wanna mess up things for my partners, or be pissed off by a partner ruining our game with stupid moves.

c) I will NEVER play 1vs1 on massive against Z or AA. Much too specialists and strong for me. (Or I do it to learn some things, aware I will be surely kick down good)

d) I dunno if 6th is high-ranked enough for you to make my point, but if not, let's say I plus Z on this.


And for the farming thing... I'll go to Inca's thread.

 

[mapguy]

let's remember though...
this is not a sport, it's a game...
game and sports, while similar, are vastly different.

i do think you purpose an interesting idea..
i just don't know that to implement it into MC is a good idea..
it could surely use some tweaking and valid brainstorming from other players/members...
if nothing more.

Games are indeed a member among Sports. And while different from physical competitions, are structured just as any, and all, other competitions.

Chess for example. It is structured in a way that uses "classes" as a way to run the show. At the top of this class structure is the Master Class. They do NOT play against the low class players. They have to play amongst their peers to determine their own position. In their words The Grand Master of chess can NOT just set back and choose to play only amateurs. To be called the best, he must beat the best. He must beat them on an even battlefield. In this game that would be -not just on favorite maps and settings, but every map and every setting.