Scoring adjustment based on map/setting usage.

[Vartiovuori]

Concise description:

• Adjust the scoring so that playing a single map only nets you less points

Specifics/Details:

• There are currently over 200 maps and thousands or tens of thousands of combinations of different settings. Playing only a single or a small group of different maps and settings therefore does not indicate mastery of the entire game, no matter how high your winning percentage is. I suggest that the scoring system is adjusted so that if someone plays and wins certain map or setting combination for high percentage of the total, their effective score is adjusted upwards for the purpose of determining how many points they gain or lose.
• The adjustment would come to play if the person plays over 5%/10%/20% of their total games in a single map or setting combination, possibly excluding some, like random maps. For every game over 5% the points gained or lost would count double, but only for the purpose of determining how many points they gain or lose on that specific map or setting combination

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• It'll stop people who only play on a single map or setting combination from artificially inflating their total scores so much, thus making the scoreboard more accurate for representing the general skill instead of mastery of certain maps or settings.
• I'm not certain how high the percentage should be. Could be that it should be as high as 50% instead of what I suggested.

[Funkyterrance]

I think this is an interesting idea although maybe tricky technically. Also, you might have some of the same issues discussed in other threads where the top people on the scoreboard(they've already used the same maps over and over) will never be knocked off by the lower people who now have to "mix it up".

[The Voice]

El_Jefe and I have been looking into a Scoreboard overhaul that helps only the true Conqueror's really shine

BMO

This is vague, but worthy of noting.

[Dillybarr]

This sounds like good idea to me, make it so that if a player plays a total of like 10 Percent of his games on one map he only gets half the points when playing that map? But have this after like a total 500 or 1000 games because it would obviously be too unfair to new recruits otherwise

[clangfield]

Concise description:

• Adjust the scoring so that playing a single map only nets you less points

Specifics/Details:

• There are currently over 200 maps and thousands or tens of thousands of combinations of different settings. Playing only a single or a small group of different maps and settings therefore does not indicate mastery of the entire game, no matter how high your winning percentage is. I suggest that the scoring system is adjusted so that if someone plays and wins certain map or setting combination for high percentage of the total, their effective score is adjusted upwards for the purpose of determining how many points they gain or lose.
• The adjustment would come to play if the person plays over 5%/10%/20% of their total games in a single map or setting combination, possibly excluding some, like random maps. For every game over 5% the points gained or lost would count double, but only for the purpose of determining how many points they gain or lose on that specific map or setting combination

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• It'll stop people who only play on a single map or setting combination from artificially inflating their total scores so much, thus making the scoreboard more accurate for representing the general skill instead of mastery of certain maps or settings.
• I'm not certain how high the percentage should be. Could be that it should be as high as 50% instead of what I suggested.

Not keen. I find that if I play on a map a few times unsuccessfully, I'll avoid that map in future, since I don't have the knack or insight to play it. Due to a dodgy mouse I avoid chained and adjacent, and I'm not keen on nuclear on some maps (eg WWII Poland), so there are several combinations that don't suit. I don't think one should be penalised for only enjoying certain game settings if other settings don't suit the way one likes to play or the way one's brain works.
If this does come in then I think it should be senior officers only, not just based on number of games.
Medals indicate the mastery of maps or settings, I don't see a need for anything else.
Is there any statistical evidence that playing certain settings inflates one's score "artificially"? Practice makes perfect, why is that a bad thing?

[jsnyder748]

what about people who just play classic? your going to tell them that by only playing classic they are now not going to get as much points as when they try other games? there are other ways to change the scoreboard to reflect a high score than this.

[Vartiovuori]

Concise description:

• Adjust the scoring so that playing a single map only nets you less points

Specifics/Details:

• There are currently over 200 maps and thousands or tens of thousands of combinations of different settings. Playing only a single or a small group of different maps and settings therefore does not indicate mastery of the entire game, no matter how high your winning percentage is. I suggest that the scoring system is adjusted so that if someone plays and wins certain map or setting combination for high percentage of the total, their effective score is adjusted upwards for the purpose of determining how many points they gain or lose.
• The adjustment would come to play if the person plays over 5%/10%/20% of their total games in a single map or setting combination, possibly excluding some, like random maps. For every game over 5% the points gained or lost would count double, but only for the purpose of determining how many points they gain or lose on that specific map or setting combination

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• It'll stop people who only play on a single map or setting combination from artificially inflating their total scores so much, thus making the scoreboard more accurate for representing the general skill instead of mastery of certain maps or settings.
• I'm not certain how high the percentage should be. Could be that it should be as high as 50% instead of what I suggested.

Not keen. I find that if I play on a map a few times unsuccessfully, I'll avoid that map in future, since I don't have the knack or insight to play it. Due to a dodgy mouse I avoid chained and adjacent, and I'm not keen on nuclear on some maps (eg WWII Poland), so there are several combinations that don't suit. I don't think one should be penalised for only enjoying certain game settings if other settings don't suit the way one likes to play or the way one's brain works.
If this does come in then I think it should be senior officers only, not just based on number of games.
Medals indicate the mastery of maps or settings, I don't see a need for anything else.
Is there any statistical evidence that playing certain settings inflates one's score "artificially"? Practice makes perfect, why is that a bad thing?

If you avoid the majority of the maps available because you're not good at them, isn't that a pretty good indication that you don't have general mastery of the game? Same for avoiding the majority of the settings. Also note that the settings should apply only if you play a good portion of the games on identical settings, so as long as you're willing to vary the settings even some - varying the number of players for example, and occasionally playing with fog or trench - this shouldn't kick in, so to speak.

[Funkyterrance]

what about people who just play classic?

Oddly, I think this is the strongest point against this suggestion so far. I think you would be surprised to find out how many people just want to play Risk online and have little interest in other maps. This would be kind of unfair to them.

[Vartiovuori]

what about people who just play classic?

Oddly, I think this is the strongest point against this suggestion so far. I think you would be surprised to find out how many people just want to play Risk online and have little interest in other maps. This would be kind of unfair to them.

Like I said in the first post, some maps/settings could not be included.

[jsnyder748]

what about people who just play classic?

Oddly, I think this is the strongest point against this suggestion so far. I think you would be surprised to find out how many people just want to play Risk online and have little interest in other maps. This would be kind of unfair to them.

Like I said in the first post, some maps/settings could not be included.

It is objective to say that some maps would apply and others would not. I like Das Schloss very much. I like Antarctica very much. Both are popular team game maps and Antarctica is popular for many modes of game play. Just because the majority of the website does not like these doesn't mean there aren't 1000 players who play them religiously.

So many people like playing arms race. So many people like playing doodle assassin. One is semi complicated and the other is the simplest map. That doesn't mean they aren't equally popular.

And also this would not solve the problem with the scoreboard. Convince me otherwise