[SCBD] Scoreboard Restructure

[WILLIAMS5232]

scoring changes

previous discussions;
june 2010, army of nog
dec 2008, john9blue this one in particular is a very good sugg.
nov. 2008, walnutwatson
nov. 2008, porknbeans another good one




Concise description:

• rework the scoreboard to make the leader board mean something to everyone on conquer club

Specifics/Details:

• this is open for discussion, but personally i prefer making several scoreboards for different game types. then compiling all and making a seperate "overall" list where the top player there would be named conquerer.

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

• this would please everyone. you could keep boggrolling legal and no one would care anymore. it would also keep more people interested in the scoreboard because they would be higher up in their preffered playstyle. also for those that like being well rounded it gives them something to shoot for. i think it would create a true conquerer. all in all, you do this, everyone is happy. the ranchers, the teamplayers. the standard players. they all got their own place to see how good they are no matter how cheap/uncheap their playstyle may be viewed by the rest of the CC club community

[agentcom]

I really like this idea. How many users are there on CC these days? Why do we have only one Conqueror? It would be cool to have a 2-player Conqueror, Freestyle Conqueror, etc. Or maybe some other rank just below the overall Conqueror.

Dammit, while I was typing, I realized the flaw in this idea. You would probably see a lot of privates being conquerors of various settings. Some of you will know instantly what I'm talking about, so stop reading. I'll try to explain for those that don't.

Have you ever mapranked a mediocre player and discovered that on some map he has +3000 points. That's because he loses a lot of other games and wins a lot of games on one map. If he didn't play those other games, he wouldn't have as high a score on the favored map. Why? Because his points per win would be lower and points per loss would be higher. His rank is kept down by playing the other settings and so he earns more points when he wins and loses fewer points when he loses.

The same thing would happen with various gameplay options. Last I checked, I was up thousands of points in standard games, but had lost about 1,000 in assassin games. If I wanted to be the "Standard Game Conqueror", I could just keep losing assassin games (among others) and balance them out with wins in standard games. I could probably bring my score down to private if I played enough assassin games because apparently I suck at them. But my standard game score would just keep climbing and climbing.

[greenoaks]

there should be a leaderboard for every map, a leaderboard for every setting. it should be a dynamic leaderboard allowing us to select the settings to see who is best.

our score would have to be calculated separately for FoW, separately for Feudal War, separately for Speed, separately for .... you get the picture.

[AndyDufresne]

I've always been in favor of a more detailed scoreboard, though I think the argument is usually that if more scoreboards get added, that they might begin to dilute and water down whatever the main scoreboard is.

I'd still like more scoreboards though...!


--Andy

[crazymilkshake5]

A score board for farmers, to see who is the best farmer...

[ljex]

I really like this idea. How many users are there on CC these days? Why do we have only one Conqueror? It would be cool to have a 2-player Conqueror, Freestyle Conqueror, etc. Or maybe some other rank just below the overall Conqueror.

Dammit, while I was typing, I realized the flaw in this idea. You would probably see a lot of privates being conquerors of various settings. Some of you will know instantly what I'm talking about, so stop reading. I'll try to explain for those that don't.

Have you ever mapranked a mediocre player and discovered that on some map he has +3000 points. That's because he loses a lot of other games and wins a lot of games on one map. If he didn't play those other games, he wouldn't have as high a score on the favored map. Why? Because his points per win would be lower and points per loss would be higher. His rank is kept down by playing the other settings and so he earns more points when he wins and loses fewer points when he loses.

The same thing would happen with various gameplay options. Last I checked, I was up thousands of points in standard games, but had lost about 1,000 in assassin games. If I wanted to be the "Standard Game Conqueror", I could just keep losing assassin games (among others) and balance them out with wins in standard games. I could probably bring my score down to private if I played enough assassin games because apparently I suck at them. But my standard game score would just keep climbing and climbing.

while true, in this instance it would actually be wrong or at least if my understanding of this suggestion was to take place. Where you not only have different scoreboard's for the different settings but different scores as well for like 10 different kinds of games.

[Dako]

The scoreboard is not the problem. The points system is me thinks.

I have an idea but don't have time to write it down in details. It is based on Starcraft 2 pooling system. Basically, you divide all ranks into 5 leagues and award points only inside your own league. You don't lose or gain playing in another league - but you still get overall win percent, medals and stuff. To move to the league upwards means you have to win at least 50% of the games in your league for the past 3 months (of course games got to be weighted akin current points system, meaning that 1v1 is like 1 point in your win% while 1v7 win will give you at least 7 points). When you move up the league someone is being pushed from the top league to yours (so you swap places). Of course the ones to get down should be shifted from the bottom of the league. And conqueror title should be given to a person who has best win% in the top league against other top league players. Also, every league has roughly the same amount of players and when new players appear - they start from the bottom league (and it means somebody will be instantly promoted upwards in all other leagues).

Or you can have not winning %, but a points system inside a league. Say when you cross the league you start at 1000 again. You move up when you double it and move down when you get below zero (or below 500 or some other number) in your own league. Of course inactive players should decay points at some rate.

Leagues can be called something like bronze, silver, gold, platinum and brilliant being the top.

We keep one scoreboard, we keep approach versatility, we keep settings and maps all in one place. We just eliminate points as a measure of professionalism.


That is a rough idea but you can speculate upon it and I think you can dissect it and describe every detail and possibility.

[maxfaraday]

The scoreboard is not the problem. The points system is me thinks.

I have an idea but don't have time to write it down in details. It is based on Starcraft 2 pooling system. Basically, you divide all ranks into 5 leagues and award points only inside your own league. You don't lose or gain playing in another league - but you still get overall win percent, medals and stuff. To move to the league upwards means you have to win at least 50% of the games in your league for the past 3 months (of course games got to be weighted akin current points system, meaning that 1v1 is like 1 point in your win% while 1v7 win will give you at least 7 points). When you move up the league someone is being pushed from the top league to yours (so you swap places). Of course the ones to get down should be shifted from the bottom of the league. And conqueror title should be given to a person who has best win% in the top league against other top league players. Also, every league has roughly the same amount of players and when new players appear - they start from the bottom league (and it means somebody will be instantly promoted upwards in all other leagues).

Or you can have not winning %, but a points system inside a league. Say when you cross the league you start at 1000 again. You move up when you double it and move down when you get below zero (or below 500 or some other number) in your own league. Of course inactive players should decay points at some rate.

Leagues can be called something like bronze, silver, gold, platinum and brilliant being the top.

We keep one scoreboard, we keep approach versatility, we keep settings and maps all in one place. We just eliminate points as a measure of professionalism.


That is a rough idea but you can speculate upon it and I think you can dissect it and describe every detail and possibility.

I think that's the best idea I've seen so far regarding that matter...
But it would cause segregation.
Those who care about their points, especially high-ranked players, won't waste their time against players from other leagues.
I'm not sure about that, but it could lead to some kind of "stalemate" in the scoreboard.
Still a good idea though.

[WILLIAMS5232]

The scoreboard is not the problem. The points system is me thinks.

I have an idea but don't have time to write it down in details. It is based on Starcraft 2 pooling system. Basically, you divide all ranks into 5 leagues and award points only inside your own league. You don't lose or gain playing in another league - but you still get overall win percent, medals and stuff. To move to the league upwards means you have to win at least 50% of the games in your league for the past 3 months (of course games got to be weighted akin current points system, meaning that 1v1 is like 1 point in your win% while 1v7 win will give you at least 7 points). When you move up the league someone is being pushed from the top league to yours (so you swap places). Of course the ones to get down should be shifted from the bottom of the league. And conqueror title should be given to a person who has best win% in the top league against other top league players. Also, every league has roughly the same amount of players and when new players appear - they start from the bottom league (and it means somebody will be instantly promoted upwards in all other leagues).

Or you can have not winning %, but a points system inside a league. Say when you cross the league you start at 1000 again. You move up when you double it and move down when you get below zero (or below 500 or some other number) in your own league. Of course inactive players should decay points at some rate.

Leagues can be called something like bronze, silver, gold, platinum and brilliant being the top.

We keep one scoreboard, we keep approach versatility, we keep settings and maps all in one place. We just eliminate points as a measure of professionalism.


That is a rough idea but you can speculate upon it and I think you can dissect it and describe every detail and possibility.

I think that's the best idea I've seen so far regarding that matter...
But it would cause segregation.
Those who care about their points, especially high-ranked players, won't waste their time against players from other leagues.
I'm not sure about that, but it could lead to some kind of "stalemate" in the scoreboard.
Still a good idea though.

ive seen tennis leagues set up this way. it seems interesting. it keeps people playing at their own skill level making for better games. but unless you can make it to where you only play players in your own league then problems can come up. because no one really wants to play meaningless games. which is what would happen if you get paired with a player outside of your league. at least i wouldn't want to play a long hard fought game and not get points from it just because someone is out of my certain league. especially if he was higher up.

I really like this idea. How many users are there on CC these days? Why do we have only one Conqueror? It would be cool to have a 2-player Conqueror, Freestyle Conqueror, etc. Or maybe some other rank just below the overall Conqueror.

Dammit, while I was typing, I realized the flaw in this idea. You would probably see a lot of privates being conquerors of various settings. Some of you will know instantly what I'm talking about, so stop reading. I'll try to explain for those that don't.

Have you ever mapranked a mediocre player and discovered that on some map he has +3000 points. That's because he loses a lot of other games and wins a lot of games on one map. If he didn't play those other games, he wouldn't have as high a score on the favored map. Why? Because his points per win would be lower and points per loss would be higher. His rank is kept down by playing the other settings and so he earns more points when he wins and loses fewer points when he loses.

The same thing would happen with various gameplay options. Last I checked, I was up thousands of points in standard games, but had lost about 1,000 in assassin games. If I wanted to be the "Standard Game Conqueror", I could just keep losing assassin games (among others) and balance them out with wins in standard games. I could probably bring my score down to private if I played enough assassin games because apparently I suck at them. But my standard game score would just keep climbing and climbing.

you would only have one conquerer. and someone that is good at a certain map and settings would have a hard time being conquerer because all the other maps he's bad at would drag him down.

like a marathon runner running a triathlon. he would kick butt in the marathon portion. but lose the race because he can't swim good or ride a bike fast.

you could have a few categories, or a bunch. i'm all for either.

such as just team games, standard games, freestyle/manual

or really make it interesting, and this is what i'd really like to see. i'm not a compluter geek so i don't really know how hard this is or not. but i'm sure it can be done. ( nothing against computer geeks. all my best friends are computer geeks )

1v1, standard games 3-5 players, standard games 6-8 players, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4, 2v8, freestyle 1v1, freestyle standard 3+, manual, escalating.......etc you get the idea.

[chapcrap]

I find Dako's idea intriguing. Initially, I think that a problem would be team games. What if you have partners from different leagues?

[Dako]

I find Dako's idea intriguing. Initially, I think that a problem would be team games. What if you have partners from different leagues?

I don't know, what do you think should happen?
Let's say we have dubs team with league 1 (lowest) and league 5 (top league) players. Other team is league 3 and league 4. If we sum it we have 6 vs 7. That will be our coefficient. I think there should be a rule that team games that have a coefficient gap more than 3 don't score points. That can be one solution.

There will be no meaningless games because stuff like tournaments and clan events and site events exist. They will bring purpose to such games.

This model aims to force people to always play challenging games because they will play inside their own league. If they evolve and get better - they advance. Of course they can do private matches with top guns but I doubt they will enjoy it very much. I remember myself playing Quake 3 with people of my level - it was far more enjoyable than getting killed every 5 secs in the pro game. And I was thrilled to grind my way up inside my own league.

I think that's the best idea I've seen so far regarding that matter...
But it would cause segregation.
Those who care about their points, especially high-ranked players, won't waste their time against players from other leagues.
I'm not sure about that, but it could lead to some kind of "stalemate" in the scoreboard.
Still a good idea though.

Segregation is not bad. And it will not be totally segregated as well. If you run this model for eternity and assume that there is a limit of professionalism, people will get better and move up the league. Everyone will get better little by little until they hit the pro limit. Then they will stop getting better and will maintain their level while others are getting better. In the end there will be 5 leagues but the difference between them will be opaque. All of them will have players that have hit their pro cap. So this doesn't look so bad at all.



===========
I am against the multiple scoreboard or marathon idea because it will dilute the idea of competition in every aspect of CC. It will also be hard to maintain all of them. And there will constants questions "who is better, seq conqueror or freestyle conqueror?" that will not be answered.

[Chuuuuck]

I have been thinking about this a lot too. I like to think (I may be foolish for thinking this) that CC will be willing to make a change because so many people dislike what we have. Someone commented earlier about it dilluting what we have, well what we have is extremely diluted. No one looks at the top of the scoreboard (and hasn't in the past 2-3 years) and been like "dang, that player at the top is truly the best player on this site."

In theory I like Dako's idea a lot. I like that you have to play people relative to your rank to move up. But I think it'll never happen where they separate us. Way too many standard games will become pointless and tougher to create/join. I think it would be good change, but a very big culture shock.

I am still working out ideas in my head. I may come up with something better. But I think the best and easiest idea for now that would move forward is separate scoreboards. But you don't run the scoreboards like maprank is where you have a +3000 recruit. You legitimately give everyone two scores (and yes, only 2). A freestyle score and a sequential score.

I think all of the cards, fog/no fog games and everything else is great. But I think the 1 think that truly disrupts the scoreboard today is freestyle game play compared to sequential. I think every player has a "freestyle score" and then a "sequential score." I think it would be simple to just leave it at that, but if we really wanted to we could do an overall score where it is the average of the two scores (not the sum of them). If we took the sum then this would still encourage overall leaders from people who could rack up freestyle points. But if we average them, that freestyle player would still have to keep a pretty darn high sequential rating. Keep the point system the way it is. Then, all of us who care the most, can just go look at the "sequential scoreboard" to see what the true scoreboard on the site looks like.

[Qwert]

viewtopic.php?f=535&t=123804

these is what i sugested,unfortunatly after 1,5 years still nothing

[WILLIAMS5232]

i'm not crazy about the leauge business. but i think once the kinks are hammered out, it would be a new exciting way to look at things. so i would support that suggestilon.

another thing i've been thinking about for the past few days is to make the scoreboard more of a currency system.

you could turn cc points into "virtual" dollars.

and with this, make games cost money to create and join.

you could say make it 5 dollars to create a game. possibbly 5 dollars per opponent. so 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4, would all cost 5 dollars to make. 1v2, 2v2v2 would be 10 dollars. 1v3, 2v2v2v2 would be 15. 1v4 would be 20 and so on. this money would just vanish back to the bank.

and to join games, just make it 5 dollars per person.

so you could keep the normal point system, and since everyone is doing this it all evens out in the wash.

you may also have to employ some sort of welfare system. so when someone gets down to like 500 bucks he gets a "welfare" payment of 500 to get him back to 1000. you could also maybe somehow keep track of how many of these payments are made to a player and have them listed on his profile page. possibly giving him an option to pay these back in the future.

the goal of this is to make it useless to invite players of a lower skill level to play games. if you have to pay 5 dollars to create the game, and only get 5 dollars from defeating him. what's the point? this way, it's still possible for people to "enjoy" the types of games that give them 99.9% chance of victory. but not have it affect the scoreboard in ways that it seems the general population of CC think are negative.

i've only thought about this yesterday, so i'm sure there are plenty of problems with it. but if it seems to be something that may be appealing to everyone. maybe we could work towards resolving problems with it.

[deantursx]

I have been thinking about this a lot too. I like to think (I may be foolish for thinking this) that CC will be willing to make a change because so many people dislike what we have. Someone commented earlier about it dilluting what we have, well what we have is extremely diluted. No one looks at the top of the scoreboard (and hasn't in the past 2-3 years) and been like "dang, that player at the top is truly the best player on this site."

In theory I like Dako's idea a lot. I like that you have to play people relative to your rank to move up. But I think it'll never happen where they separate us. Way too many standard games will become pointless and tougher to create/join. I think it would be good change, but a very big culture shock.

I am still working out ideas in my head. I may come up with something better. But I think the best and easiest idea for now that would move forward is separate scoreboards. But you don't run the scoreboards like maprank is where you have a +3000 recruit. You legitimately give everyone two scores (and yes, only 2). A freestyle score and a sequential score.

I think all of the cards, fog/no fog games and everything else is great. But I think the 1 think that truly disrupts the scoreboard today is freestyle game play compared to sequential. I think every player has a "freestyle score" and then a "sequential score." I think it would be simple to just leave it at that, but if we really wanted to we could do an overall score where it is the average of the two scores (not the sum of them). If we took the sum then this would still encourage overall leaders from people who could rack up freestyle points. But if we average them, that freestyle player would still have to keep a pretty darn high sequential rating. Keep the point system the way it is. Then, all of us who care the most, can just go look at the "sequential scoreboard" to see what the true scoreboard on the site looks like.

I agree completely...this would be awesome.

[king achilles]

Dako's idea looks very interesting. Climbing the scoreboard should not be as easy as looking for ways to farm or ranch certain ranks regularly.

[L M S]

Why does it come to the same thing every time this argument/discussion is presented?

(Essentially) Freestyle should not be considered in the score because it is neither a valid nor a fair way to determine the best player?

There always seems to be an underlying attempt to demean the freestyle player by saying sequential is the only true measure of skill.
I'm sorry that doesn't fly with me.
Whatever solution is decided upon must include all game styles to be truly representative.

I liked the idea of a tournament between the top say, 100 players, every so often to determine it. I liked the relative rank multiplier idea also. (although both ideas are a bit underdeveloped) Maybe Dako's idea can be incorporated into these, as a way to determine the top 100, but I think everyone would have to start from scratch and the brackets determined after a set period of time...how about 1 month (doesn't matter to me how long)....to make it true.

Does someone deserve to be in the top bracket because of past accomplishments? Do they freestyle? Are they just great diplomats? Amazing team players? Did they win a battle royale? The specialist? The farmer? The high-ranker with low-ranker teammates? All these types will appear in that bracket certainly and then we will be right back where we started. Do we go so far as to make everyone play the exact same (diversified) 20 games every month on top of their regular choices to be eligible for the top bracket to make sure its all on the level? (no, yuk, but a lot of sports leagues actually have mandatory ordinals like this)

There are a ton of details to work out but if its going happen I say we go at it 100 miles an hour and not worry too much about the short term, knowing the long term result will represent the true Conqueror.

It kinda seems to me that its not the game style as the problem, as much as the points system rewarding folks that don't really care to play the game but only care to collect points.
So how do get people to care about playing the game and let the points fall where they may?

[lynch5762]

I still don't understand how the following formula wouldn't fix everything.... players points X "players relative rank" = total score..

If this was the scoring system then farming wouldn't matter. Nor would freestyle or anything else. The only argument I have heard against this that make sense is that it would cause rank segregation... It's time to look in the mirror folks because that already exists.

In my opinion there are basically 3 types of players on the site.... Some that only play vs high rank to try and minimize being "noobed" and then there is the other extreme that has players purposely seeking out noobs to take advantage of them. And then there is the other 75% of CC who doesn't give a shit who they play they just want to have fun.

This doesn't seem like a very difficult situation to fix to me yet apparently this has been debated for many years..

Having a scoreboard that tells you who is #1 at each map or style of play is cool if you want it but it doesn't make much sense to me... If i was in charge this would have been done a long time ago

[BigBallinStalin]

The scoreboard is not the problem. The points system is me thinks.

I have an idea but don't have time to write it down in details. It is based on Starcraft 2 pooling system. Basically, you divide all ranks into 5 leagues and award points only inside your own league. You don't lose or gain playing in another league - but you still get overall win percent, medals and stuff. To move to the league upwards means you have to win at least 50% of the games in your league for the past 3 months (of course games got to be weighted akin current points system, meaning that 1v1 is like 1 point in your win% while 1v7 win will give you at least 7 points). When you move up the league someone is being pushed from the top league to yours (so you swap places). Of course the ones to get down should be shifted from the bottom of the league. And conqueror title should be given to a person who has best win% in the top league against other top league players. Also, every league has roughly the same amount of players and when new players appear - they start from the bottom league (and it means somebody will be instantly promoted upwards in all other leagues).

Or you can have not winning %, but a points system inside a league. Say when you cross the league you start at 1000 again. You move up when you double it and move down when you get below zero (or below 500 or some other number) in your own league. Of course inactive players should decay points at some rate.

Leagues can be called something like bronze, silver, gold, platinum and brilliant being the top.

We keep one scoreboard, we keep approach versatility, we keep settings and maps all in one place. We just eliminate points as a measure of professionalism.


That is a rough idea but you can speculate upon it and I think you can dissect it and describe every detail and possibility.

Would this would pretty much make farming for points... pointless?