Conquer Club

how would people's existing score transfer over if it was changed to where the score starts at 0?

imcooler wrote:how would people's existing score transfer over if it was changed to where the score starts at 0?

The current score wouldn't change. The only thing that would change would be the way that ranks are assigned. Instead of assigning a rank corresponding to the score, rank would be assigned correspoding to the position in the scoreboard.

qwert wrote:

Excellent Job on implementing more ranks and they seem to be well thought out and distributed fairly.

my change of your 23 ranks on score would be this:

6000
5000
4500
4000
3800
3600
3400
3200
3000
2800
2600
2400
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
1


this way almost all are a 200 point gap except the highest and lowest this is the perfect balance!


respects blitzy

OliverFA wrote:

imcooler wrote:how would people's existing score transfer over if it was changed to where the score starts at 0?

The current score wouldn't change. The only thing that would change would be the way that ranks are assigned. Instead of assigning a rank corresponding to the score, rank would be assigned correspoding to the position in the scoreboard.

Sounds like a sensible approach, it wouldn't be affected by inflation at all.

Frop wrote:

OliverFA wrote:

imcooler wrote:how would people's existing score transfer over if it was changed to where the score starts at 0?

The current score wouldn't change. The only thing that would change would be the way that ranks are assigned. Instead of assigning a rank corresponding to the score, rank would be assigned correspoding to the position in the scoreboard.

Sounds like a sensible approach, it wouldn't be affected by inflation at all.

Plus ranks would be more meaningful (no offense to all higher ranked players intended, please don't misunderstand me). If you saw a Field Marshall you could say "Oh, is one of the 5% best players" and if you saw a Captain you would say "Oh, he is better than 60% of players". (Of course, those percentages are completely made up for the example).

OliverFA wrote:Plus ranks would be more meaningful (no offense to all higher ranked players intended, please don't misunderstand me). If you saw a Field Marshall you could say "Oh, is one of the 5% best players" and if you saw a Captain you would say "Oh, he is better than 60% of players". (Of course, those percentages are completely made up for the example).

Indeed. Any ideas translating the different percentiles into ranks?

Frop wrote:

OliverFA wrote:Plus ranks would be more meaningful (no offense to all higher ranked players intended, please don't misunderstand me). If you saw a Field Marshall you could say "Oh, is one of the 5% best players" and if you saw a Captain you would say "Oh, he is better than 60% of players". (Of course, those percentages are completely made up for the example).

Indeed. Any ideas translating the different percentiles into ranks?

There are two different possible approachs. For the sake of the example, let's imagine that we have only 10 ranks.

The first approach is to divide players evenly, with 10% of them going to each of the ranks.

Field Marshall - 90%-100%
General - 80%-90%
Coronel - 70%-80%
Major - 60%-70%
Captain - 50%-60%
Liutenant - 40%-50%
Sergeant - 30%-40%
Private -20%-30%
Cadet - 10%-20%
Cook - 0%-10%

The second approach is to make lower ranks range bigger.

Field Marshall - 99%-100%
General - 95%-99%
Coronel - 90%-95%
Major - 85%-90%
Captain - 80%-85%
Liutenant - 70%-80%
Sergeant - 60%-70%
Private - 45%-60%
Cadet - 30%-45%
Cook - 0%-30%

Personally, I prefer the first one.

imcooler wrote:how would people's existing score transfer over if it was changed to where the score starts at 0?

How do you get points if the people you play all have 0 points to take?

OliverFA wrote:

Frop wrote:

OliverFA wrote:Plus ranks would be more meaningful (no offense to all higher ranked players intended, please don't misunderstand me). If you saw a Field Marshall you could say "Oh, is one of the 5% best players" and if you saw a Captain you would say "Oh, he is better than 60% of players". (Of course, those percentages are completely made up for the example).

Indeed. Any ideas translating the different percentiles into ranks?

There are two different possible approachs. For the sake of the example, let's imagine that we have only 10 ranks.

The first approach is to divide players evenly, with 10% of them going to each of the ranks.

Field Marshall - 90%-100%
General - 80%-90%
Coronel - 70%-80%
Major - 60%-70%
Captain - 50%-60%
Liutenant - 40%-50%
Sergeant - 30%-40%
Private -20%-30%
Cadet - 10%-20%
Cook - 0%-10%

The second approach is to make lower ranks range bigger.

Field Marshall - 99%-100%
General - 95%-99%
Coronel - 90%-95%
Major - 85%-90%
Captain - 80%-85%
Liutenant - 70%-80%
Sergeant - 60%-70%
Private - 45%-60%
Cadet - 30%-45%
Cook - 0%-30%

Personally, I prefer the first one.

10% means means the first 8.9 pages of the board will be field marshalls... hell even 1% means there will be 222 field marshalls. it really cheapens the ranks imo

i think all the ranks should be distributed evenly with the amount of % they get, but the very top ranks and teh very bottom ranks, say the bottom 20% and top 20% should be much more split up, so like a mix of your 2 examples

the only complaint i could see people having about using position for romotions is that people wouldnt know how many points they need to reach the next rank. An easy way round this is to have the 'intructions' page on 'score and ranking' refresh itself every few hours to show the current points you would need for a certain rank. The points needed for the next fank could also be displayed on a persons profile.

lozzini wrote:i think all the ranks should be distributed evenly with the amount of % they get, but the very top ranks and teh very bottom ranks, say the bottom 20% and top 20% should be much more split up, so like a mix of your 2 examples

the only complaint i could see people having about using position for romotions is that people wouldnt know how many points they need to reach the next rank. An easy way round this is to have the 'intructions' page on 'score and ranking' refresh itself every few hours to show the current points you would need for a certain rank. The points needed for the next fank could also be displayed on a persons profile.

I think you are absolutely right. Probably it would be better to mix both systems, making the ranks on the top and the bottom smaller in players quantity, and keeping the ones in the middle almost the same.

About the points needed to get the next rank, even if the site didn't show them, I am sure that plugin authors would give us that information

OliverFA wrote:

lozzini wrote:i think all the ranks should be distributed evenly with the amount of % they get, but the very top ranks and teh very bottom ranks, say the bottom 20% and top 20% should be much more split up, so like a mix of your 2 examples

the only complaint i could see people having about using position for romotions is that people wouldnt know how many points they need to reach the next rank. An easy way round this is to have the 'intructions' page on 'score and ranking' refresh itself every few hours to show the current points you would need for a certain rank. The points needed for the next fank could also be displayed on a persons profile.

I think you are absolutely right. Probably it would be better to mix both systems, making the ranks on the top and the bottom smaller in players quantity, and keeping the ones in the middle almost the same.

About the points needed to get the next rank, even if the site didn't show them, I am sure that plugin authors would give us that information

yer, im sure something like that could easily be built in to map raqnk GL as a similar thing is allready on there

Hey, what about using standard deviations off of the average score. Like all people 3 standard deviations above the average are field marshals, all people 3 standard deviations below the average are cooks, and then you split up the others however you want. Three standard deviations is ~0.1% so there would be twenty or thirty of each of these ranks.

standerd deviation?

lehmans terms plz

Blitz
Excellent Job on implementing more ranks and they seem to be well thought out and distributed fairly.

my change of your 23 ranks on score would be this:

You like mine ranks,thanks,blitz,but people more like Mrbeen, so for now i quit work on ranks. For these its need very large support.

so basically it is a complex and accurate average?

(th\t didnt reli help lol )

It is a measure of how far from the average a data point lies.

lancehoch wrote:It is a measure of how far from the average a data point lies.

That is an interesting proposal. I can only see a potential flaw. What if noone surpasses the standard deviation threshold? Would that mean not having any field marshall?

lancehoch wrote:It is a measure of how far from the average a data point lies.

ok, way to complicated for me, and probs a large amount of people here on CC, dont we want to keep this simple? hence a percentage being good

OliverFA wrote:That is an interesting proposal. I can only see a potential flaw. What if noone surpasses the standard deviation threshold? Would that mean not having any field marshall?

The thing is, by definition, the standard deviations are at set percentages. The points more than three standard deviations above the average score are the points that are in the top 0.1%. It is just a different way of determining which percentages to use, instead of using blanket 10% chunks.

Question about this... What is wrong with the point system we have now?

It seems to me that it is a good system, except that is goes up and down too much, but the only way to solve that would be to make score determination to be:
Which would have to involve making a score reset for all members because the scores will move far too little for people to bridge the gaps in the first page, or even get up there.

As for adding more ranks, I do not see the purpose of making it be just like the army ranks. It would make it seem to be more accurate, since there will be few ranks with a 500 point range etc. but in the end that is less accurate because of the up and down nature of the scoreboard: (Explanation in italics)

There are plenty of people that are constantly on the border between two ranks (usually Captain and Major border has this problem). The players in this position keep on going back and forth because of things like luck etc. So in the end half the time you see them as a Major and the other Half as a Captain, but they never leave those two ranks because of the huge 200 point cushion beneath them, and the 500 point wall above. But if the ranks were to change, then it would be far easier, especially closer to the top of the scoreboard, to go up or down 2 or even 3 ranks in a period of good or bad luck. This means people will be jumping ranks like crazy, and it will be hard to tell which rank they belong in. Right now, Sergeant 1st Classes, Lieutenants, and Captains seem to be mostly stable ranks. Once a person goes up to the middle of the rank, they do not go up or down too often. But it you make that 200 point range 100 points, you will see so much rank hopping it will be meaningless.

The other problem with the standard deviation is the number of people we have on CC. Lets assume an xbar of 1200 or 1300 or so and a standard deviation (due to the number of members) of only 200 or so, then the 4500 point people would be an astonishing 15 or so standard deviations away from the mean, unfortunately if you take a look the top people are far and away greater than the huge chunk in the middle. I think the best way is the point system that has been proposed earlier (and seconded thirded fourthd and fifthed) that goes all the way from objector up

TheShiningSun wrote:The other problem with the standard deviation is the number of people we have on CC. Lets assume an xbar of 1200 or 1300 or so and a standard deviation (due to the number of members) of only 200 or so, then the 4500 point people would be an astonishing 15 or so standard deviations away from the mean, unfortunately if you take a look the top people are far and away greater than the huge chunk in the middle. I think the best way is the point system that has been proposed earlier (and seconded thirded fourthd and fifthed) that goes all the way from objector up

The thing is, you cannot assume that the standard deviation will only be 200 points. The standard deviation is equal to the square root of the average distance from the average. The first thing to do would be to find the average score of everyone on the scoreboard, then find how far each individual score is from that average. Another thing to look at is the distribution of the scores, while I doubt that it follows a perfectly random distribution, I would believe that there is some correlation.

True but seeing as the first page of the scoreboards goes all the way from 2500 to 5200, more than half the range of scores is on the first out of 89 pages, and by page 12-13 you've already reached 1500 or so, thus I cant imagine that the average would be very high and the standard deviation very large either, to be honest 200 might even be an overestimate