[Site] Scoreboard-MVP of the Month

[OliverFA]

I like the idea of having a separate partial scoreboard.

However, I am not sure about the medal part. It could encourage some gamey tactics to score all points just at the end of the month and get that medal.

I think it could be just an alternative partial scoreboard that is always working and has the information of the last 30/365 days. So you could see the all time scoreboard and the partial scoreboard, that would give a notion of how good players are doing lately.

[Qwert]

by OliverFA on Sat Oct 11, 2008 8:31 pm

I like the idea of having a separate partial scoreboard.

However, I am not sure about the medal part. It could encourage some gamey tactics to score all points just at the end of the month and get that medal.

I think it could be just an alternative partial scoreboard that is always working and has the information of the last 30/365 days. So you could see the all time scoreboard and the partial scoreboard, that would give a notion of how good players are doing lately.

Hmmm,you think that one medal per month is to much? So far is delivered 41747 medals.
For MVP you will get 1 medal every month,and these mean 12 medal for year. Now these will be very worthy medal, and these can get only 12 people for one year.
Ofcourse if you want that medal,you must be best these month.

[Assassin07]

sounds great

[Qwert]

by assassin07 on Mon Oct 13, 2008 1:32 am

sounds great

Thanks,

[Thezzaruz]

this would only cause people to purposefully tank their scores before the month in order to get the medal, wouldnt it?

this would not be right, plus the higher scores it hinders and not fair

I agree with both these points. The idea, as it stands, have some big flaws but it might be possible to find solutions to them. Nate's suggestions seemed like a good start tbf.

by Herakilla on Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:24 pm
maybe it is doable to have a second hidden score that resets every month and undergoes the same rules at the standard score? this score would then be the one that the MVP relies on. Make it hidden so then it doesnt take over the score system already in place and to make the MVP a bit of a surprise for those who win

But mine sugestion is that second scoreboard go like regular,only every mont all players start with 0,you have all in page 1.
Where is fun,if you hide scoreboard?

The problem with that is that people wouldn't start at 0 points (but rather at their current points) for the points calculation. And as that means a current high rank will gain less than a low rank if they play the same opposition it is unfair. And this also means that the most efficient way of gaining the medal is for a good player to either create a multi or dump their points and then when starting a new month as a cook make a push for it.

Herakilla (and Nate in another post) are instead proposing that the MVP points are calculated as if every player where a new player every month. That would solve the unfair towards highrankers and points dumping/multi problems and still allow for a comparison of how people have done in the last month.

I get these idea from tennis scoreboard.
Wta ,Atp its a same scoreboard system,you have regular scoreboard table,where you get and loose point(its depend how you play tournaments),and you have year scoreboard,where is collected point for these year. Here you will loose point on month scoreboard,and get in same way like in Regular"all time" scoreboard. Who collect biger number point for recent month he are MVP of these month,quit simple.

Ahh but the ATP points aren't calculated in relative numbers but rather in absolute numbers. And the difference is very simple. With absolute numbers every player gets the same reward for beating a generic opponent, with relative numbers they don't. And this difference is what means that a high ranked player will need to win more matches, or the same amount but against tougher opponents, than a low ranked player and that just isn't fair.

For MVP you will get 1 medal every month,and these mean 12 medal for year. Now these will be very worthy medal, and these can get only 12 people for one year.

You misunderstood. It's not the amount of medals that's the problem but rather that people will want them and the way they are awarded is rewarding unwanted/cheatinglike tatics.

Cam on give me some positive vibes guys.

I really would want to but as you doesn't seem interested in seeing the problems nor take onboard any suggested improvements I can't see why I should.

[lancehoch]

Thezzaruz, I think that qwert is not worried about being fair to the high ranking players. These players are already rewarded by being at the top of the scoreboard. In all likelihood, the person who wins this will begin the month between an SFC and a major. In all honesty though, how many points do people usually gain during a month? I would think the max (most of the time, when people are playing legitimately) is around 300 points (just a guess). This is of course not counting JR's climb back up after he tried to get medals. But, I do not think it would be that difficult for someone around 3000 points to pick up 300 in a month either. If you play 8 player games against similar ranking players, you need to win 3 out of 6 games on the month for 300 points. That seems very doable to me (for everyone except sjnap being that he is 650 points above the next player).

[Qwert]

by Natewolfman on Tue Oct 07, 2008 12:20 am

I think i see what qwert is trying to say...

the new scoreboard, everyone will have 0 points... so how you gain/lose points in THIS scoreboard will be the exact same as its a completely different score

cook with 5 points on big scoreboard starts with 0 in this chart
someone with 5,000 on big scoreboard starts with 0 in this chart

while the normal scoreboard is judged as it is, when they win a game they will both gain the same ammount of points on THIS scoreboard

confusing... but do you know what i mean?

I read Nate post and i dont see what he sugested.

Thezzarus,so far people dont have any sugestion who will improve these idea.
Sugestion like to be invisible board,is bad, and pointles.
What is diferrence to start with 1000 or with 0.
Formula to everybody get same amount of point is also bad.
High ranked player have fear,that cook will be MVP? Nonsence. IF cook lost last 40 games,you think that he will sudenly start wining.

Herakilla (and Nate in another post) are instead proposing that the MVP points are calculated as if every player where a new player every month. That would solve the unfair towards highrankers and points dumping/multi problems and still allow for a comparison of how people have done in the last month.

NOw these is what i say,high ranked player will get more point from cook,more then these rank deserved,because he can not start like new player,and you know that cook play bad,and that some high ranked player will take these advantage to play with cook and to take easy points,like i say in previous post,then will Klobber take MVP award,because he play with low ranked player.

[Qwert]

by lancehoch on Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:05 pm

Thezzaruz, I think that qwert is not worried about being fair to the high ranking players. These players are already rewarded by being at the top of the scoreboard. In all likelihood, the person who wins this will begin the month between an SFC and a major. In all honesty though, how many points do people usually gain during a month? I would think the max (most of the time, when people are playing legitimately) is around 300 points (just a guess). This is of course not counting JR's climb back up after he tried to get medals. But, I do not think it would be that difficult for someone around 3000 points to pick up 300 in a month either. If you play 8 player games against similar ranking players, you need to win 3 out of 6 games on the month for 300 points. That seems very doable to me (for everyone except sjnap being that he is 650 points above the next player).

Probably,but people afraid from cook,i think that these player for month have minus point taken. Everybody must start with same number of point. Only in that way,everybody is equal. If you are high ranked player,if you will you will take small number of point,but you will win more games then cook,who will eventualy all point what he take in one game lost in other 5-6.

[Qwert]

so far 8 yes and 1 no.

[cicero]

so far 8 yes and 1 no.

I'll see your thinly disguised bump and raise it 10 minutes

Let's see this thread live or die on its own merits.

[barterer2002]

it sounds to me like there are two different options being discussed here.

Option 1. MVP is the player who's points increase the most during the month from whereever they start on the 1st.

Option 2. MVP ranking is calculated seperately from normal ranking and on the 1st of the month all players revert to 0 (or 1000 or whatever the starting point is). Points in this system are calculated outside of normal ranking system so in this system you've got someone with 5000 points playing a guy with 500 points. The regular system will give nothing for the win but qwerts new system would give out the usual 20 points for two equally matched players. Thus in the regular ranking its still 5000 and 500 but in the monthly MVP its +20 and -20.

I really like the idea qwert and think that the second option takes away the point dumping aspect since there isn't any reason to do so. It might also encourage higher ranks to play lower ranks more often-risking their overall points but potentially gaining monthly points.

[blacky44]

I think this is a great idea but premium players get to play more games so more wins but also more losses. I think we should keep the old scoreboard and have the MVP scoreboard and also have a premium MVP and freemium MVP. I also think we should have a yearly MVP.

[Thezzaruz]

High ranked player have fear,that cook will be MVP?

Probably,but people afraid from cook

Nope no one is "afraid" of cooks (in general terms) but that doesn't mean that some biased "feel good" prize should be invented to award those that cheat well (even if it's aimed at cooks it will be won through cheating most of the time IMO).

Everybody must start with same number of point. Only in that way,everybody is equal.

Earlier you didn't want to start with the same number of points, have you changed your mind?.
The "0 points" that you proposed will not be the same number for everyone but rather each user will start from their current points.

Actually for the system you propose I think "MVP" is a misleading name, "most improved" or something like that would be a more accurate description. For a "MVP" award something like highest Win % during the month or most opponents beaten would be much better to use as decider.

I really like the idea qwert and think that the second option takes away the point dumping aspect since there isn't any reason to do so. It might also encourage higher ranks to play lower ranks more often-risking their overall points but potentially gaining monthly points.

Spot on, aside from the fact that qwert didn't suggest nor like option 2.

[Qwert]

lets try with these.
mvp points formula-Mvp points/number of games*20=final score
Ranks-------------worth mvp points
Field marshal-----------15
General-----------------14
Brigadier---------------13
Colonel-----------------12
Major-------------------11
Captain-----------------10
Lieutenant---------------9
Sergeant 1st class-------8
Sergeant-----------------7
Corporal 1st class-------6
Corporal-----------------5
Private 1st Class--------4
Private------------------3
Cadet--------------------2
Cook---------------------1
New recruit--------------0
---------------------------------------------
playing with same ranks worth 0 point,these mean if fieldmarshal defeat fieldmarshal will get 0 point.if cook defeat cook will get 0 points.Private games is not counting for MVP.
Its these a fair for all ranks.
---------------------------
example
6 player game

Corporal-5
captain-10
captain-10
General-14
cook-1
Sergeant-7


if general win he will get 33 mvp points
if cook win he will get 46 mvp points
if sergeant win 40
Corporal 42
Captain win 37-10=27(he eliminate same rank)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
General score is (33/1)*20=660 points
Cook score is (46/1)*20=920 points
now we all know that cook have very large number of defeat so these mean if cook next game loose(and these is big chance for these)then hes succes from previou game drops-(46/2)*20=460 points,from other side General who have biger chance to win another game with 6 player and if he take another 33 points he will save hes score and will be better then cook (66/2)*20=660 points.
More win,better score,more defeat,points go down.If cook have in 10 games with 6 player win loose score 2-8(taking 80 mvp points)he will have score (80/10)*20=160 points. General from other side if have win loose score 6-4 with 6 player he will have score (198/10)*20=396 points
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that maybe these formula will be fair for all.Also these prevent that people who play only 1v1 with same persons can be mvp,and only with playing with a large number of player can take more points.

Private game can not be counting,because high ranked player can cheat then,because then will be in advantage over lower ranked players. Only public game is counting for Mvp where everybody play.

What you think of these.

[barterer2002]

Ah yes, I see that option two seems to have come from lozzoni-working from Qwert's original idea. I really do like this part of the idea.

[Hydrargentium]

The only problem I see with that is that the General, who is by rank the best player in the game, can win more MVP points if he wins than either of the Captains, only because there are 2 Captains in the game. Why is that fair?

Any General is going to beat way more officers (Lieutenants and upwards) than a non-com (below Lieutenant) ever could. Under this scheme, the Sergeants and such have almost no chance to get MVP, and the top players have way more chances, especially if they play against others who are one rank lower than them.

I thought the point of all this was to give newer or lower-ranked players a chance to get in on the action, instead of only the elite.

Don't get me wrong, though. I really like the main idea, but I'm wondering how this new points scheme makes the game more accessible to players who haven't played 3000+ games.

Hg

[Qwert]

by Hydrargentium on Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:40 pm

The only problem I see with that is that the General, who is by rank the best player in the game, can win more MVP points if he wins than either of the Captains, only because there are 2 Captains in the game. Why is that fair?

Any General is going to beat way more officers (Lieutenants and upwards) than a non-com (below Lieutenant) ever could. Under this scheme, the Sergeants and such have almost no chance to get MVP, and the top players have way more chances, especially if they play against others who are one rank lower than them.

I thought the point of all this was to give newer or lower-ranked players a chance to get in on the action, instead of only the elite.

Don't get me wrong, though. I really like the main idea, but I'm wondering how this new points scheme makes the game more accessible to players who haven't played 3000+ games.

these is second option.And you only count games for one monts not all games.
These is only a example,if in game two general,and one captain,then situation is opposite,captain will get more point then General.

I thought the point of all this was to give newer or lower-ranked players a chance to get in on the action, instead of only the elite.

These new scheme give very good chance to lower ranked players to have chance to be mvp,but without wining games,you can not be a mvp,i think that these is logical thing. If cook or other lower ranked player constantly loose games,then its normal that these player can not be a mvp. Formula give chance to all player to be mvp,but like i say,you must have best score for one month,only in that way your chance to be mvp is much biger.

[Qwert]

I speak with LAck,and he think that these is great idea

[Jeff Hardy]

all i gathered from the last 2 posts was:

*everyone has a chance as long as they are good

*qwert really wants this to happen


please could someone explain the rest...

[Draconian_Intel]

What I got was this:
First Post: Logically, you can't be mvp if you don't win games, but qwert doesn't think that this system gives anyone a better shot than anyone else. Also, since the scores are reset every month, the scoreboard ranks won't have as much of an effect as some fear, and people will have many chances to get this new rank.
Second Post: qwert talked to lack, and lack thought it was a good idea.

[The Neon Peon]

I love the idea of an MVP of the month, but I do not see why the score system has to be different. Just have everyone start at 1000 each month, and scoring works as always.
a. Why is there a need to change the system, seems fine now? Just sees who can get most points in one month when everyone starts equal with the MVP of the month.
b. If there is no change in scoring = less to program = this gets made a part of the site faster.

A few other suggestions:
1. Anyone who joined after the month has started will not go on the scoreboard. This eliminates point farming, or at least reduces it a whole ton for the MVP scoreboard, will still occur for the actual one, but that is their business.
2. Split it into premium/freemium. Lets face it, the MVP is about getting many wins and fast in one month, a whole lot less chance a freemium can get up there (as it should be), but I would still think it is better to split it.

[Qwert]

by The Neon Peon on Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:26 am

I love the idea of an MVP of the month, but I do not see why the score system has to be different. Just have everyone start at 1000 each month, and scoring works as always.
a. Why is there a need to change the system, seems fine now? Just sees who can get most points in one month when everyone starts equal with the MVP of the month.
b. If there is no change in scoring = less to program = this gets made a part of the site faster.

Nobody say,that need to change scoring,its a same like present scoreboard,only will count present month. I just put 0 score to be on begining of month,but if 1000 will be ok,then i dont see problem with that.

A few other suggestions:
1. Anyone who joined after the month has started will not go on the scoreboard. This eliminates point farming, or at least reduces it a whole ton for the MVP scoreboard, will still occur for the actual one, but that is their business.
2. Split it into premium/freemium. Lets face it, the MVP is about getting many wins and fast in one month, a whole lot less chance a freemium can get up there (as it should be), but I would still think it is better to split it.

1.Sound ok.
2.I dont know abouth that,these will create two mvp scoreboards. THese is for discusion.

[max is gr8]

I think this is a great idea but premium players get to play more games so more wins but also more losses. I think we should keep the old scoreboard and have the MVP scoreboard and also have a premium MVP and freemium MVP. I also think we should have a yearly MVP.

Wait so you're complaining that it's better to be premium...

[Qwert]

blacky44 wrote:
I think this is a great idea but premium players get to play more games so more wins but also more losses. I think we should keep the old scoreboard and have the MVP scoreboard and also have a premium MVP and freemium MVP. I also think we should have a yearly MVP.

Well nonpremium have to play les games and they have les wictory,and les losses,and these is equal with these opservation.
I dont know abouth these two MVP scoreboards,mine think is that one MVP scoreboard is enough.

[lackattack]

The concept is cool... I'd give it a closer look after I finish some work on the tournaments system.