Those damn points

[engineerairborne]

Maybe have it both ways. They are making a lot of changes to the ne game engine, maybe make this an option.

Have games that are worth a set amount of points. Sort of like tournaments but with a single game. The individual setting up the game can set the points up to a max of 50 per player in the game or something like that. All other games would use the current point system. Although now that I say that, I can see this abused so it would have to have some thought put into it. But again, I'm just here to have a good time and or blame the dice when it goes wrong.

 

[th-child]

Maybe have it both ways.

Yes, there have been some discussions about this in the past.

I don't really like the current scoring system (for the aforementioned unbalanced scoring), and have suggested the Elo rating system -- which of course only works for duels unfortunately.

But ivan is right, the problem is: what will happen to the current ranking if a new formula is implemented?

I think the solution might be to have multiple different leaderboards, and even "player of the month" and such categories, so everybody could find their motivation.

---

As for my personal experience, I've had about 2650 games so far, and spent most of it (at least 2400 games) in the 3000-4000 point range (in middle rank, so to speak), and the last few dozen games around the top of the scoreboard.

My first observation is that now I think the top scoring players don't avoid playing a lot of games because they have such a high score, on the contrary: they have a high score because they don't play that much. If you don't play that much, your score doesn't melt as fast, and if you have tons of games (like Cards, for example) your score will suffer no matter what.

So I think the "accusation" that top scorers are afraid to play is untrue.

On the other hand.
This system is built in such a way that there are certain incentives to play and win. The UDO, the medals, the score.

Because of the imbalanced scoring, once you get to a high enough level, one of these incentives completely disappears (= you can't win any more points).
My favorite games are 2v2s, and last time dorcee and I opened up 5 (or 6?) games.

On a sidenote: we opened them in the casual lounge available to everyone, so that's about avoiding lower scorers. However, however!, some of them (or all? I can't remember) were fixed force games, which of course are only playable for golden members. So I lied: they weren't available for everyone. Sure enough, somebody sent me a message that I must be afraid of non-premium members. Funny, no?

We won all but 1 of them, so we broke about even points-wise. Now, are we able to win 4 out of 5 on the long run? Sure we are, because we are the bestest everest yaaaay, but can we win 5 out of 5? No.

It's not possible to win any more points at this point. The incentive is gone.

And you sure won't see me play Mercenaries (which I liked very much as a new player), and I wouldn't advise anyone over 4000 to try them. You'll be massacred pronto. It's just the logical consequence of the scoring system.

but I say let's worry less about the ranking, and more about having a good time, one board at the time.

Yes, sure, but let's consider what I said about the incentives.
Let's assume there is a game that if you win, nothing much happens, but if you lose, you'll lose and UDO (and as a consequence, a medal maybe). Would you still pursue these games? I guess with friends and in good company you would. But would you with total strangers? I wouldn't. I don't.

A test that everyone can do at home. If you think somebody is avoiding you because of the score difference, tell them that if (s)he wins you'll give 60 points, and if (s)he loses, you'll take only 15. Play 20-30 games like that and let's see if our perception about score changes. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.

Sorry for the long comment, I hope I made sense.

 

[Bluebonnet]

"We won all but 1 of them, so we broke about even points-wise. Now, are we able to win 4 out of 5 on the long run? Sure we are, because we are the bestest everest yaaaay, but can we win 5 out of 5? No."

Sir, this sounds like a challenge. Shall I get PackerHawkeye as my 2nd and meet you on the Field of Honor again?:marchmellow:

 

[th-child]

Haha, I knew I shouldn't have said that.

Yeah, why not? :ridinghorse:

 

[Sebrim]

As for my personal experience, I've had about 2650 games so far, and spent most of it (at least 2400 games) in the 3000-4000 point range (in middle rank, so to speak), and the last few dozen games around the top of the scoreboard.

Dear th-child, what makes you consider 3000-4000 points the 'middle rank'?? Considering that of the 1528 active users, only 43 are within that range, with another 16 above it, I think the middle range is much more 2000-3000, with everything above that as for the really good players. You might consider 3500 points to be your middle range, but for most of us, that's the highest we can ever aspire to be going

 

[th-child]

Oh, I didn't mean to offend... I keep saying questionable things, I'm sorry.

What I meant is, if the top scorers reach about 6000 points, and we start out at 1200, then the middle is 3600.

But you are right, out of the 32 available ranks, Chief Lieutenant is the middle one with 2475 points. At the moment, there are 125 players above that, so the actual middle is probably even lower than that.

It was a completely innocent remark, and I didn't mean to be condescending or anything like that.

Btw is it possible to know how many people have the Major medal?

 

[once]

id still love to see a sensei score. with exclusive medals attached:

“It’s ok to lose to opponent. It’s never okay to lose to fear" - Mr. Miyagi

 

[Redstorm]

I think the solution might be to have multiple different leaderboards, and even "player of the month" and such categories, so everybody could find their motivation.

Like. Ive brought that up before in the forum as I'm sure others have. My concept would involve keeping a "all time" list such as Top5 or maybe Top10 in certain categories (really I think total points is the only one that cries out for this) while "resetting" the current lists yearly. Some categories could be minimized or otherwise adjusted to render the scoreboard page less busy and so more easily glanced at. As thchild mentioned I think this would be highly motivating for all ranks to climb a yearly top players rank vs an all time players rank pointwise. I would love to see a "wins" (vs UDOs or points) category as well which would recognize winning a game regardless of map or #of players in the game. Not whining or complaining just trying to maximize our majcom experience LOL.

 

[kenjoh]

Sorry for the long comment, I hope I made sense.

I really appreciate very much that you took the time to provide the informed thoughts of an experienced players (because I am just one of the Young Guns).

My inclination would be to adjust the current formula to cut the winning/losing points amount by 1/3. This means that it will take a bit longer to rise in the ranks, but also longer to fall from a higher level once you get there (tournaments also provide a way for players get extra points beyond those they earn in games). The effect of this should be that higher-ranked players would more likely to join games with the middle ranked players, and that is what we are addressing in this thread.

I recently played 1v1 on Classic Evolved with a lieutenant who was playing 1v1 on that map exclusively. I approached him because I thought he would be an interesting person to get to know. I knew the risk and after 2 rounds of bad dice on my part, it was over for me. It was an expensive adventure, and I fell from colonel back to crown major. I would like to play him in a rematch, but another loss would wipe out more hard-played winning points from other games. So for me, I know that the large hit from losing to lower or middle score players is a factor in deciding which games I will play. If the points lost were reduced, it would concern me less. I assume that other higher score players use a similar logic.

I would also consider having a game option where no points would be awarded for winning, no points lost for losing. These could be considered "training" games, and would allow generals et al to mentor newer or low score players at no cost.

 

[kenjoh]

Not whining or complaining just trying to maximize our majcom experience LOL.

I am also very high on improving the MajCom experience. That's why my friends and I created the Young Guns...lol.

I think extra categories would create more interest, especially if they made it possible to highlight players who aren't in the top 200. Like the current winning streak list offers. However, I would avoid annual lists that are based on accumulated wins because that would reward players who play a lot of games at one time. I find that these players can be detrimental to the game enjoyment of other players because they occasionally don't take enough time to make rational choices on their turns.

 

[TormentaBANNED]

According to the level, i think that 3000-4000 points is kind of accurate. I don't need to be diplomatic like th-child because i'm a sad middle ranker too

I edit to say that i would include captains in that rank

 

[Bluebonnet]

Personally, I just play because it is fun.

I start 1v1 in casual and let anyone joy. And even go sit in real time to pick up some action.

I used to join any map any team any anything to chase udo's and medals.

I know of some people who only join tournaments,

Others only play real time for a quick fix

Other stick to casual to stay away from the real time whining.

Other play any game possible cause they like to play and have 40 or more active games.

A few even care only about points.


Changing the point system may or may not get more higher ranks to play noobs. It is an awful big assumption. People care about what they care about.

There are also plenty of lower ranks (captains and such) that are just as good as the "gernerals" imho. They care about things other than points and so their score is lower. Cardinalsrule, ndrm31, empirejeff, jbrenner01, once, kerver73, badelmer, calume,

While the generals are great players. There are other great players around that can argueabbly be better on any given day.

 

[Bluebonnet]

Another thing to consider.

The change would not move a person's average score. Just take a lot longer to make it to their average.

But if there was a lower scoring methdology, a lot less people will have achieved the current high score. I was general for 3 weeks or so based on a amazing streak. if it happened under the new scoring system I probably wouldnt have made it to general.

A lot of general medals, colonel medals and major medals will never have been earned because the streak would not have netted enough points.

 

[palmono]

A parallel issue has arose:
What about we perfect the system of labelling players? Now all we can do is to deem someone as 'honorable' or 'dishonorable', but it would be much more useful to have different labels, at least for personal use/reminder, such as "this guys tends to suicide" or "always half-kill others". It would be good to have such info at hand (for example, changing the player's icon color) when one is deciding whether to join a game or not.

 

[kenjoh]

Hi.

I've been around for over five years, and one thing that bothers me is that higher players are usually too concern of keeping their position. They are reluctant to play with lower rank players, and restrict their participation to closed or team games. I don't know what you think about it, but I say let's worry less about the ranking, and more about having a good time, one board at the time.

Maybe the solution for Palmomo is...

Don't let it bother you.

Just play with those who will play with you, and be satisfied with that. Players in the lower and middle ranks seem to be friendlier anyway...lol. If the generals et al want to avoid playing you in order to protect their high score, that is their right.

I think now, based on the comments I've read, I would leave the scoring system as it is.

 

[micky]

I think now, based on the comments I've read, I would leave the scoring system as it is.

I fully agree

 

[linkinpark]

My inclination would be to adjust the current formula to cut the winning/losing points amount by 1/3. This means that it will take a bit longer to rise in the ranks, but also longer to fall from a higher level once you get there (tournaments also provide a way for players get extra points beyond those they earn in games). The effect of this should be that higher-ranked players would more likely to join games with the middle ranked players, and that is what we are addressing in this thread.

Unfortunately, that won't be true. From a mathematical point of view, it's exactly the same thing as if you'd add 50% to everyone's current scores. Think it through, it really is.
And after that has happened everone is slowly going back to their "natural" score.

 

[ThunderChile]

The points do not affect the gameplay in any ways (excluding Merc games) so it's all the same what they are. Ofcourse it's nice if you have a lot of them, but even more nice would be if you could exchange them for money, then they would have some actual benefit!

 

[kenjoh]

Unfortunately, that won't be true. From a mathematical point of view, it's exactly the same thing as if you'd add 50% to everyone's current scores. Think it through, it really is.
And after that has happened everyone is slowly going back to their "natural" score.

Ok, I've thought it through. Your analogy is too simplistic though. If we added 50% to everyone's scores, then there is actually no change, because we would be in the same position relative to all other players. There would be no "after all that has happened". Nothing would have happened if the formula adjustment changed nothing.

Perhaps, in the long term, we would end up in the same "relative" positions. Presumably that was your point. But if that included having more down-rank play by the generals et al (as Palmono seems to want), then it might be worth making an adjustment.

What would actually happen is that players' scores would rise a bit less when they won, and their scores would fall a bit less when they lost. Over time, there would be a little less movement up and down. But in theory, because the loss of points is less, playing lower ranked players should be a bit less of a concern to higher ranked players. The bottom line is: is it worth tinkering with the scoring formula (much like a Federal bank tinkers with interest rates to influence economic activity) to try to motivate the generals et al to play down the ranks a bit more?

As I said in my last post, I don't think it is worth changing the formula. I don't think it will achieve the motivation of the generals et al that Palmono and I would like to see. Therefore, I say let's just play on as it is.

 

[TormentaBANNED]

About top players who don't play with the lowest ranks, the opposite example is possible too. For example, one of the players at the top now has got there with an amazing streak which includes, with a few exceptions, basically cadets and kitchen patrols. Don't get me wrong, he's one of my MC friends and it has merit to kill 100 cadets in a row (even if they don't know the basics, you can't be very bad and you need some luck, in order to kill so many).

But the point is that some top scorers may refuse to risk points with low scorers, but others can use them to gain easy points too. The absurd obsession with points, cudos and all that may work in different directions.