Scoring system: underlying rationale

[coolname]

I just read up a bit on the scoring system (all the ranks in the Wiki look nice; http://www.majorcommand.com/wiki/Ranks). However, I think it will be quite hard to get >3000 points.

From the Wiki: formula for points: (losing player's points)/(winning player's points)*25.

Everyone starts at 1225. I guess the overall average (of all MajCom players) will be 1225. So to get high ranks, there need to be a lot of munition inspectors.

I have to think it through, but intuitively it seems that getting a really high rank is very hard. And a sense of making progress, improving, might be a big driver in (keeping) playing.

My question: what is the underlying rationale of the rank-levels? How many munition inspectors (<600) need there be for a colonel (>3450) to appear?

 

[Badorties]

Getting to a high rank will be difficult and there will be fewer people at the top than at the bottom.

One thing you need to take into account is point inflation. Let's say 10 cadets join and all lose 100 points then leave the site, that is 1000 points they have 'given' to other players. If 100 or 1000 cadets do that than it really inflates the pool of points that active players are going for, making it easier to get higher in rank. For this reason, I don't expect to see maybe people above 3000 for several months.

Also, our tournament system will allow point buy ins, so you can give up 5 of your points to enter a tournament and win 50 (if there are 10 total players). This will allow higher ranked players to an additional incentive to the regular wins.

But it's all something thats based on formula that can be adjusted if we see that people are stagnating at a certain rank level.

 

[coolname]

THanks. It seems you have put a lot of thought in it. But it also seems you expect quite some churn (10 cadets dropping out fairly quickly). Judging by the number of AWOLs I see in my games, that seems like a good assumption.

 

[Timminz]

The ranks seem to include way too high a score for this stage in the site's existence. It will be years (if it ever happens) before someone gets to 6000 points.

 

[ghost]

not necessarily Timminz.. since our site offers mercenary games, so long as you take out at least 2 people in say an 8 player merc game, the opportunity for advancement and point increment is much more possible then just playing a standard game.

 

[ORBOTRON]

I like how it is. Keeps it competitive and gives talented players that happen to be new to the site the incentive and chance to move close to the top. It's kinda discouraging when you join a new site and there's already 50 people who have played a million games and achieved the rank of super mega awesome godlike general person, and half of those people aren't even active, they can just sit their in their glory. I think medals and awards should be for lots of games played and various achievements, keep the rankings close, limited, and competitive.