The awarding of point is flawed

[gloryordeath]

I just lost 60 points to privates coz i had bad dice (now im not moaning) but did these privates win with skill or because i had bad dice??

The entire point is that the point system doesn't work on a game by game basis, it works over multiple games.

You may have got bad dice that cause you to lose 60 points now in one game, but then the likelihood is that, at your rank and/or score, you should be able to bounce back and beat that private 10 times to get your 60 points back (or other people with more risk skillz, less times, and you lose less points). If you really can't do it, tough break, you probably don't deserve your rank (and the fact hat you;re losing it to bad luck is fine, if you got it then by good luck).

Thats a pile of crap. unless you play doubles/triples games almost exclusively you get suprememly boned every time you play some low ranked person that gets better rolls. Or they gang up in order to get the points. Its kind of a joke that you have to be selective on who you play just so that you dont lose 50 friggin points to someone while you only gain 8 like in a terminator game. Its retarded!!!!

he's right you would have to good enough to beat the noob or your jacked on points....

[owenshooter]

there are already a handful of players who prey on players who "don't know what they're doing". If the scoring system were changed, there would surely be more, and it would be more lucrative than it is now.

wait.. then maybe we should only change the points for FREESTYLE!!! *snicker*-0

[Simon Viavant]

I'm strongly against changing the point the point system, and it's not because I'm a cook. This way you have to be really talented (or really lucky, actually both) to move to a very high score.

[Timminz]

The scoring system is fine. If you think otherwise, you probably have inflated sense of how good you actually are. Except for a very few of the top players, nobody's score is going to continue to rise forever. Everyone reaches a "plateau", where their score is not going to get past a certain point unless they: a) get better, or b) learn to "work" the system better.

If anything the score cap should be increased. The least anyone can lose is 0 points, which would mean that some one would have to have more than 20 times the score of whoever they beat. The current maximum loss happens when the loser has 5 times the score of the winner. If the scoring system needs changing (which it doesn't, IMO), it should be to remove this discrepancy, or at least bring the two ratios closer together.

[meathead]

I think maybe having a cap of 50 points lost in a game would be a good idea.

[detlef]

I think maybe having a cap of 50 points lost in a game would be a good idea.

I don't shy away from games due to ranks and I think I've lost about 50 points once. I don't see how that's much of a big deal.

[tmclay99]

The scoring system is fine. If you think otherwise, you probably have inflated sense of how good you actually are. Except for a very few of the top players, nobody's score is going to continue to rise forever. Everyone reaches a "plateau", where their score is not going to get past a certain point unless they: a) get better, or b) learn to "work" the system better.

If anything the score cap should be increased. The least anyone can lose is 0 points, which would mean that some one would have to have more than 20 times the score of whoever they beat. The current maximum loss happens when the loser has 5 times the score of the winner. If the scoring system needs changing (which it doesn't, IMO), it should be to remove this discrepancy, or at least bring the two ratios closer together.

The ONLY reason that the top players have such a high score is due to the fact that they abuse the system. Call it what you want but I consider it cheating so i don't do it. You call it working the system! lmao

Either way I don't see how that reflects that they are better players. The fact of the matter is that any noob can join a game and gain 400 points if they are playing higher ranking individuals. Does that reflect that they are good players? or had a good game? Based on some of the stats I compiled.. The majority of players will fall into the 2000 - 2500 point range. This of course is subject to debate but it is based on the fact that most players can maintain an average of 30-35% winning percentage.

[Kaplowitz]

Its a game, who cares?

[tmclay99]

I think maybe having a cap of 50 points lost in a game would be a good idea.

I don't shy away from games due to ranks and I think I've lost about 50 points once. I don't see how that's much of a big deal.

DUDE are you serious? ALL you play are partner games and private games with higher ranking players. "I don't shy away from games due to ranks" get a grip!!! go take a look at your game history lol

[Timminz]

The ONLY reason that the top players have such a high score is due to the fact that they abuse the system. Call it what you want but I consider it cheating so i don't do it. You call it working the system! lmao

I'm just being polite. I think it's stupid that people abuse the points system to get their scores, but I realize that they're not technically breaking any rules, and so, they're welcome to do it. It's cheap, and I lose a lot of respect for players who do it. It's another example of how the points system is flawed (just not in the way most people here seem to think). Increasing the maximum loss would help discourage people from doing it. It wouldn't remove the problem, but it would be a step in the right direction.

[The1exile]

Thats a pile of crap.

nice to see we have some reasonable arguers in this thread, huh.

unless you play doubles/triples games almost exclusively you get suprememly boned every time you play some low ranked person that gets better rolls. Or they gang up in order to get the points. Its kind of a joke that you have to be selective on who you play just so that you dont lose 50 friggin points to someone while you only gain 8 like in a terminator game. Its retarded!!!!

Did you actually read my post? In particular, the part about if you deserve your rank, you should be able to beat them enough to maintain it?

[Fruitcake]

I have a good idea.

If you win, then your score is divided into the losers score, then multiplied by 20. The sum of this is the points you receive.
The opposite is applied if you lose.

A cap of say 100 points is put on the losses to avoid someone like Alangary suddenly becoming a conquerer overnight because he actually turned up to a game and took all his turns. (although the thought of warsteiner or somesuch suddenly ending up with one point and good ol' AlanG suddenly being at the top of the board is not without it's attractions)

The good thing about this system is it satisfies all camps.
1) If you are the type who plays all comers, then you take your chances and if you are good, you steadily rise. You will find your natural level and from this you will know how good you really are.

2) If you are the type who 'hoards' your points by only playing those of the same rank and people, then the likelyhood is you will circulate the same amount of points between you and your opponents, the net result being you effectively stand still at the rank you are while point 'inflation' continues around you, ultimately this would mean a slipping down the board.

3) If you are a cheat and/or a multi, then the likelyhood is some day you will end up playing JR and he will expose you.

4) If you have acolytes who supply you with points through cheating, JR, or someone else, will twig and you will most probably be busted.

The only flaw in this sytem I put forward is when the very senior players, who are exposed as cheaters get to keep their points and rank. I mean, after all, what would new members think on joining, looking at the scoreboard, only to find a few at the very top were in fact cheats! This may lead them to believe that the way to the top was to cheat, because even if they were busted, they get to keep their points!!

[MajorRT]

I have a good idea.

If you win, then your score is divided into the losers score, then multiplied by 20. The sum of this is the points you receive.
The opposite is applied if you lose.

A cap of say 100 points is put on the losses to avoid someone like Alangary suddenly becoming a conquerer overnight because he actually turned up to a game and took all his turns. (although the thought of warsteiner or somesuch suddenly ending up with one point and good ol' AlanG suddenly being at the top of the board is not without it's attractions)

Isn't that what the current formula is?!?!

[lancehoch]

I have a good idea.

If you win, then your score is divided into the losers score, then multiplied by 20. The sum of this is the points you receive.
The opposite is applied if you lose.

A cap of say 100 points is put on the losses to avoid someone like Alangary suddenly becoming a conquerer overnight because he actually turned up to a game and took all his turns. (although the thought of warsteiner or somesuch suddenly ending up with one point and good ol' AlanG suddenly being at the top of the board is not without it's attractions)

Isn't that what the current formula is?!?!

Yes it is. He was being sarcastic, but he forgot to use the [sarcasm] and [/sarcasm] tags.

[MajorRT]

I should have known...pass the Port, Fruit!

[kletka]

The scoring system is fine.

It is nearly fine. The cap of 100 points is fair. However, it buggers me that I can win without gaining any points!!! Hence, I suggest the low cap of 4 points (1/5-th of the standard 20) to make the system perfect



2008-06-07 03:27:53 - volleyball won the game
2008-06-07 03:27:53 - kletka loses 59 points
2008-06-07 03:27:53 - volleyball gains 59 points

[FabledIntegral]

I've lost the maximum 100 points to a cook....

Most high ranks I associate with also don't abuse the system... rarely do I see players playing in doubles, etc. And I also don't really find it abusing the system either. I played in an ELO tournament for an RTS game once and got first place... since it was for money I played nearly everyone I could to try to maintain an advantage, including piss low ranks. I was literally eventually getting +1 per game (their scores were like 800 compared to my 1700 ish), and when I did lose, it would bite me in the ass (new player loss capped at -30). If you do have someone ranked 5000 playing a rank 1000, I don't see how it's any difference if teams are used with two rank 5000 vs two rank 1000, unless people conclude that two rank 5000's are TWICE as likely to beat two rank 1000's as a single rank 5000 would be playing a rank 1000 (or something of that sort). I guess then you could adjust the point system in doubles somehow to reflect it - idk. I'm more so rambling to avoid studying for finals .

[owenshooter]

rarely do I see players playing in doubles, etc.

are you saying you rarely see higher ranks in doubles? that is hilarious if you are. i pretty
much ONLY play doubles, and i love teaming up with guys like big whiskey and blitzaholic
and Aafitz... i hope i am just misreading this choppy sentence particle, but i doubt it...-0

p.s.-point system is fine... it's only a casual online gaming site...

[lancehoch]

The scoring system is fine.

It is nearly fine. The cap of 100 points is fair. However, it buggers me that I can win without gaining any points!!! Hence, I suggest the low cap of 4 points (1/5-th of the standard 20) to make the system perfect



2008-06-07 03:27:53 - volleyball won the game
2008-06-07 03:27:53 - kletka loses 59 points
2008-06-07 03:27:53 - volleyball gains 59 points

This would actually make the system more flawed. If someone gets down to 1 point, they cannot lose any more points. If they did lose 1 point and got to 0, then the next game they lost, they would lose (0/X)*20=0 points and if they did win a game, they would win (X/0)*20=intinity becomes 100 points. But if they lost more than 1 point and went to negative numbers then if they lost they would lose (-X/Y)*20=-Z, so in effect, by losing they are gaining points, and if they won they win (Y/-X)*20=-Z so they lose points for winning. Thus your system breaks with a mandatory minimum points for a win.

[Timminz]

The scoring system is fine.

It is nearly fine. The cap of 100 points is fair. However, it buggers me that I can win without gaining any points!!! Hence, I suggest the low cap of 4 points (1/5-th of the standard 20) to make the system perfect



2008-06-07 03:27:53 - volleyball won the game
2008-06-07 03:27:53 - kletka loses 59 points
2008-06-07 03:27:53 - volleyball gains 59 points

This would actually make the system more flawed. If someone gets down to 1 point, they cannot lose any more points. If they did lose 1 point and got to 0, then the next game they lost, they would lose (0/X)*20=0 points and if they did win a game, they would win (X/0)*20=intinity becomes 100 points. But if they lost more than 1 point and went to negative numbers then if they lost they would lose (-X/Y)*20=-Z, so in effect, by losing they are gaining points, and if they won they win (Y/-X)*20=-Z so they lose points for winning. Thus your system breaks with a mandatory minimum points for a win.

When that happens, the points come out of nowhere. If someone with 1 point teams with someone with 2999, and lose to a team of people with 1500 each, they would lose 20 points, but since the guy with 1 point can't go any lower, the points come from nowhere.

[kletka]

This would actually make the system more flawed. If someone gets down to 1 point, they cannot lose any more points.

Wow, u r smart In middle ages you would be burnt at stake for your satanic knowledge of negative numbers...

My answer to this is that players who reach zero should not be here at all. They are all bloody deadbeats!! If you reach zero, you account should be terminated (even if you have premium). How about this?

[Fruitcake]

This would actually make the system more flawed. If someone gets down to 1 point, they cannot lose any more points.

Wow, u r smart In middle ages you would be burnt at stake for your satanic knowledge of negative numbers...

My answer to this is that players who reach zero should not be here at all. They are all bloody deadbeats!! If you reach zero, you account should be terminated (even if you have premium). How about this?

Oh I don't know...there is a certain frission of excitement when you see Alangary in the opposite team...all of a sudden one is facing a srious loss against a very small win....however, the chances are the other team are pulling their hair out wondering if he will bother to turn up, and if he does, what he will do.

Perhaps, those with zero points should be limited to team games....now that might make them more popular.

[FabledIntegral]

rarely do I see players playing in doubles, etc.

are you saying you rarely see higher ranks in doubles? that is hilarious if you are. i pretty
much ONLY play doubles, and i love teaming up with guys like big whiskey and blitzaholic
and Aafitz... i hope i am just misreading this choppy sentence particle, but i doubt it...-0

p.s.-point system is fine... it's only a casual online gaming site...

Out of the number of high ranks - if you take Brigadier and up - less than half I'd guess play doubles regularly and maybe 3/4 of those that do play doubles actually "abuse" it. People like poo-maker can hold their ground easily in other games, I've played him. His rank might be slightly over-inflated (as he might be around 4000 in reality), but just because he has an inflated score because he's honed in on a particular gamestyle doesn't make it undeserving. Are you suggesting if he wins those games, he simply shouldn't get points? He's already getting like +2 or something, and I HAVE seen them lose a game before, they lose like 65 points to about sergeants, so simply because they are able to win 33 games before they lose a game (which means their score continues to go up), then they still deserve to go up, no?

[Twill]

We're going to be adding some "things" which should help encourage inter-rank competition.

We've also discussed various different scoring options in the Scoring ad-hoc over the past few months, but don't expect any major changes in the scoring system any time soon - there are some much more pressing priorities in front of any score overhaul.

Lets not let this degrade into a high ranker bashing session eh?

Have a bash free day,
Twill

[kletka]

We've also discussed various different scoring options in the Scoring ad-hoc over the past few months, but don't expect any major changes in the scoring system any time soon - there are some much more pressing priorities in front of any score overhaul.

What is so freaking major in changing current
MIN[100, (loser's score / winner's score) * 20]
to
MAX[4,MIN[100, (MAX[1,loser's score] / MAX[1,winner's score]) * 20]]