Scoreboard Discussion

[ghost]

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.

that would be a matter of opinion, like most things.
not everyone is about to see things the same way, nor feel so adamantly as you about it.
accepting that, we move on to argue that.. while Chess is a remarkable game of not only skill but wit..
it is still, a game. and thus, not a sport.. using it as a comparison gives little to the argument...
other then to further affirm what i've said.. risk is a game, not a sport.

 

[Incandenza]

It seems to me like mapguy's whole concept is an attempt to be able to point to one person and say "they're the best player on MajCom." IMHO this is simply not possible (and I don't even think it's all that desirable). There's a world of difference between "who's number 1 on the scoreboard" and "who's the best player", and the latter question can't even be answered with specifying map and settings. Some of the really badass people here aren't even very high on the scoreboard because they've only played a handful of games. Basically there are so many variables that there's no one "best" player. It's like asking who the best player in football is. You might have an opinion, but it's basically impossible to quantify the relative value between such disparate positions. They're all playing the same game, but the skillset for a quarterback is very different from that of a running back from that of a linebacker, etc.

More to the point, this element of compulsion doesn't sit well with me. If someone wants to come here and play only 1v1 games, because that's what they enjoy, I think it's crazy to say to them at some point "hey, nice going with the 1v1s, but you won't be able to win any more points unless you play some 6p escalating, even if you hate it." And I think mapguy is taking the definition of farming way too far, with this idea that "if you only play desired settings you're a farmer at heart."

 

[ghost]

It seems to me like mapguy's whole concept is an attempt to be able to point to one person and say "they're the best player on MajCom." IMHO this is simply not possible (and I don't even think it's all that desirable). There's a world of difference between "who's number 1 on the scoreboard" and "who's the best player", and the latter question can't even be answered with specifying map and settings. Some of the really badass people here aren't even very high on the scoreboard because they've only played a handful of games. Basically there are so many variables that there's no one "best" player. It's like asking who the best player in football is. You might have an opinion, but it's basically impossible to quantify the relative value between such disparate positions. They're all playing the same game, but the skillset for a quarterback is very different from that of a running back from that of a linebacker, etc.

More to the point, this element of compulsion doesn't sit well with me. If someone wants to come here and play only 1v1 games, because that's what they enjoy, I think it's crazy to say to them at some point "hey, nice going with the 1v1s, but you won't be able to win any more points unless you play some 6p escalating, even if you hate it." And I think mapguy is taking the definition of farming way too far, with this idea that "if you only play desired settings you're a farmer at heart."

well put Inca, excellent examples...
i also agree about mapguy's definition of farming.. he's far from center in terms of it. as i said in the other thread...

it's great to want to evolve the game of risk, but let's do so in a way, that isn't controlling the community.. it's in my experience, sites that make too many rules in regards to game play.. lose the interest of it's players. simple, to the point.. that's what the people want.

 

[giuppi]

More to the point, this element of compulsion doesn't sit well with me. If someone wants to come here and play only 1v1 games, because that's what they enjoy, I think it's crazy to say to them at some point "hey, nice going with the 1v1s, but you won't be able to win any more points unless you play some 6p escalating, even if you hate it." And I think mapguy is taking the definition of farming way too far, with this idea that "if you only play desired settings you're a farmer at heart."

I don't think mapguy is saying that the system SHOULD tell you what to play against who, you could still play whatever you want, just certain games will get you points towards the general leaderboard, and the rest of the games won't.
Also, in your example, if you like to play only 1vs1 or only specific settings where you excel, should you legitimately be the overall points leader? Probably not. It would make more sense to have settings-specific scoreboards.

 

[ghost]

I don't think mapguy is saying that the system SHOULD tell you what to play against who, you could still play whatever you want, just certain games will get you points towards the general leaderboard, and the rest of the games won't.
Also, in your example, if you like to play only 1vs1 or only specific settings where you excel, should you legitimately be the overall points leader? Probably not. It would make more sense to have settings-specific scoreboards.

setting specific scoreboards imo, would do nothing but complicate people. there's just far too many options for gameplay to have a scoreboard for each possible combination of settings. i see where you're going with this.. and in part agree, the scoreboards could indeed use some work... but a scoreboard for each setting.. seems a little excessive. and would only aid in confusing 'risk newbs' further.

 

[zspBANNED]

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.

Yes, this much is obvious. But tell me, mapguy, using your system, are you saying it's impossible for someone to just rise a ton of points ahead of the rest of the pack? (Actually with your system, it prevents players from rising too high b/c it's possible to be 3 ranks higher than the other players, thus preventing them from playing games that "matter."

There's a world of difference between "who's number 1 on the scoreboard" and "who's the best player"

Ah, well it's a good thing the current person who's ranked number 1 fits both of these criteria

 

[mapguy]

Yes, this much is obvious. But tell me, mapguy, using your system, are you saying it's impossible for someone to just rise a ton of points ahead of the rest of the pack? (Actually with your system, it prevents players from rising too high b/c it's possible to be 3 ranks higher than the other players, thus preventing them from playing games that "matter."

Sorry but I do not understand this.

 

[zspBANNED]

Sorry but I do not understand this.

I can no longer discuss things with the....

(ghost you were right, this not insulting people thing is becoming more difficult).

Let me break this down for you, mapguy. I made the point that there already is a huge point gap between 2nd and 3rd (of if you eliminated either fitz or me, the point gap between 1st and 2nd would be large).

You said that's a byproduct of the current scoring system.

I'm asking you, with the scoring system YOU are suggesting (read carefully), are you saying it's impossible for there to be such a point gap?

...I went on further to say that the only reason there wouldn't be such a point gap is b/c your system prevents the top player from playing anymore point games [games where they can actually earn points (where they are playing people of the same rank)]. They could get to a point where they are 3+ ranks ahead of 2nd place (you said the top few ranks would play each other) and aren't able to play anyone b/c no one is close enough to play them...but if they did play, the first ranked player would be putting up a heckuva lot more points up then say..the 6th place player if the top 6 would play.



...



But this is by far the least important argument at hand right now. I think Inca has brought to the forefront everything that's worth being argued.

 

[ghost]

it made perfect sense to me, minus his poor grammar and typo's.

he meant "tonne" not "ton"...

 

[mapguy]

that would be a matter of opinion, like most things.
not everyone is about to see things the same way, nor feel so adamantly as you about it.
accepting that, we move on to argue that.. while Chess is a remarkable game of not only skill but wit..
it is still, a game. and thus, not a sport.. using it as a comparison gives little to the argument...
other then to further affirm what i've said.. risk is a game, not a sport.

ghost,
Cumon man, A sport IS a game. Can you name me one that is not ?
The only difference in the two is that sports tend to be physical activities, while games are more cerebral in nature.

A simple pick-up basketball game at the local park, is just a game. It becomes a Sport when you start keeping track of wins and losses over time, in order to determine ranking. To do this properly you would need to set up some kind of structure, a tournament of sorts. You would not simply just chalk up wins and losses of off the cuff pick-up games. Also, you would not pit teams against each other that are of different classes. (the big kids will be undefeated against the small fry).

The simplest and easiest structure would be a bracketed pyramid one, that pits winners with winners, and losers with losers.
This MO works well for any sport or game.

Your insistence that this is a game and not a sport, is not following the argument. It does NOT matter in this discussion whether Chess is a sport or not.
Its inclusion into this conversation was clearly meant to show that sports and games are both measured and scored in the exact same ways and means.

Back to the debate- OK hon ?

 

[Shepherd]

sorry, I know this is completely off-topic, but some friends of mine and I have had a decade-long argument over the difference between a sport and a game. I agree that a sport is a type of game, but as it is a sub-set a game is NOT necessarily a sport.

Our favorite definition of a sport is something that tests a skill or skills that would be useful if trying to escape a pack of cannibals - running, shooting, throwing things, hitting something or somebody really hard, jumping over things, climbing a tree, driving a car fast, etc. As I can't see how playing MajorCommand well would help you get away from zombies in the street or head-hunters in the jungle, I'd say this is a game.

OK, back to the topic at hand. Anybody who is a fan of college basketball here in the states may be aware of the RPI rankings. RPIs take into account won-loss record, opponents' records (strength of schedule), and the strength of schedule of your opponents. Our scoring system does that to some degree by giving more points for defeating higher-ranked players, but like any system it's imperfect. One idea would be to create n RPI-like ranking system in addition to straight scores.

It would also be cool to have ranking systems on each map, for each game setting, and a league-like ranking system just for players of a certain rank class - showing every Major's win-loss records against all of the other majors. But my concern would be rankings bloat... you start ranking everybody for everything and the numbers become meaningless.

 

[mapguy]

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.

The scoreboards best defense is diffusion.

Yeah, I kinda like the sound of that. I have been following the various discussions related to medals, ranks, scoreboards etc. I am picking up an a common theme. One that, I believe, goes to an attempt to "give them what they want". This goal is one that I can get behind. Although, the answers to the question of what they want, may not actually be what you first might think.

I am thinking of little diddy that goes "Its the journey, not the destination".

Peoples "wants" are various. medals/scoreboards are perfect vehicles to give them what they want. But to keep the path of the "journey" clear, you must build up a beacon that everyone can look up to. In my mind this beacon or destination. should be a professional and honest ranking system. Not one that relies on unofficial pick up games at the park. I am thinking more Super Bowl, or Stanly Cup etc. I am of the belief that cheaters can be stopped. You can cut them off at the knees if you create a scoring structure that eliminates any and all ways "to" cheat. And at the same time it is possible to create your beacon of truth that all can look up to as the honest truth.

 

[mapguy]

sorry, I know this is completely off-topic, but some friends of mine and I have had a decade-long argument over the difference between a sport and a game. I agree that a sport is a type of game, but as it is a sub-set a game is NOT necessarily a sport.

Our favorite definition of a sport is something that tests a skill or skills that would be useful if trying to escape a pack of cannibals - running, shooting, throwing things, hitting something or somebody really hard, jumping over things, climbing a tree, driving a car fast, etc. As I can't see how playing MajorCommand well would help you get away from zombies in the street or head-hunters in the jungle, I'd say this is a game.

OK, back to the topic at hand. Anybody who is a fan of college basketball here in the states may be aware of the RPI rankings. RPIs take into account won-loss record, opponents' records (strength of schedule), and the strength of schedule of your opponents. Our scoring system does that to some degree by giving more points for defeating higher-ranked players, but like any system it's imperfect. One idea would be to create n RPI-like ranking system in addition to straight scores.

It would also be cool to have ranking systems on each map, for each game setting, and a league-like ranking system just for players of a certain rank class - showing every Major's win-loss records against all of the other majors. But my concern would be rankings bloat... you start ranking everybody for everything and the numbers become meaningless.

All of the various scoreboards that you speak of, can and should be available, They should be reflected in this game as your Medals, ribbons, and commendations. ...And yes you should be able to view the stats and rankings for ALL of these various Medals. So yes, we should have every scoreboard imaginable, but they should not have anything to do with your RANK.

 

[Shepherd]

All of the various scoreboards that you speak of can and should be available, They should be reflected in this game as your Medals, ribbons, and commendations.. And yes it should be able to view the stats and rankings for ALL of these various Medals.

Agreed. Being able to pull up, sort, and compare a wealth of statistics would be far more interesting than dozens of one-dimensional scoreboards. We'll eventually get to a point where people who care about a certain stat can find it, and those who don't care don't have to be hit in the face with tons of data.

 

[ghost]

i've responded to you, vis a vie note. as an attempt to keep drama minimal on the boards...
this is the only part of that response necessary for public consumption:

allow me to define the word "sport"

sport (spôrt, sprt)
n.
1.
a. Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively.
b. A particular form of this activity.
2. An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively.

true, one moves their hands while playing chess.. it is still however, not qualified to be called such. this said, risk is a similar 'game' that could be misinterpreted as a 'sport'.

 

[Shepherd]

iAn activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively.

Like I said, something that tests your ability to survive being chased by zombies.

Rule #1: cardio...

 

[mapguy]

i've responded to you, vis a vie note. as an attempt to keep drama minimal on the boards...
this is the only part of that response necessary for public consumption:

allow me to define the word "sport"

sport (spôrt, sprt)
n.
1.
a. Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively.
b. A particular form of this activity.
2. An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively.

true, one moves their hands while playing chess.. it is still however, not qualified to be called such. this said, risk is a similar 'game' that could be misinterpreted as a 'sport'.

I have already told you that this is not an argument about what is, or is not a sport. I do not see why you are continuing on with this. If you know of some substantial difference in scoring and/or ranking between Sports and Games, then I can converse further along these lines.

FTR, I am not trying to shove anything down anybodys throat, and I have no illusions that this idea will be adopted. This is BETA, I am not here as some kind of yes man. I am not going to take a poll before I take up a position on anything. So, what you see is what you get from me. I do not mind it if you or anyone else wants to debate my stance on any issue. But please do not take anything I say personally.

 

[Badorties]

So what we ARE doing, and have planned for sometime is to have what we are calling a Command Score. It's actually listed on peoples pages right now, just not implemented.

Basically it is a weighted score that factors in a great many things like, variety in settings, variety in opponents, etc. This will go at the top of the scoreboard in a prominent place and hopefully will be embraced as a go-to metric for skill, IN ADDITION to points.

I'll be starting up a task force soon to help calculate this metric.

 

[Badorties]

Like I said, something that tests your ability to survive being chased by zombies.

Rule #1: cardio...

LOL!
one must be prepared for the zombie apocalypse Shep! always!
you never know when it's going to happen!

 

[mapguy]

So what we ARE doing, and have planned for sometime is to have what we are calling a Command Score. It's actually listed on peoples pages right now, just not implemented.

Basically it is a weighted score that factors in a great many things like, variety in settings, variety in opponents, etc. This will go at the top of the scoreboard in a prominent place and hopefully will be embraced as a go-to metric for skill, IN ADDITION to points.

I'll be starting up a task force soon to help calculate this metric.

Interesting. So let me get this straight. Command Score seeding, WILL be the measure of skill, and your Rank will be the measure of ? (how well you game the rules ?)

This sounds like something that I could get behind. At least there WILL be an attempt at measuring all around skill. I think this is wonderful. Where do I sign up for this task force ?