Changing the way we score

[Fruitcake]

This has spun out of the JR thread of not giving points for certain levels of opponent.

My raw thought is to adjust the scoreboard to have two tiers.

The first which shows their total score, the second to show their score and rank by applying their relative rank. So a 5000 point player with a relative rank of 0.6 would actually only be a Colonel on 3000 points.

Now let's see how this would affect game play.

Say this 5000 (3000) point player takes on a 2000 point player with an RR of 0.8 (so has a ranking of 1600) and beats him. He presently wins 8 points. However, if his relative rank then dropped by 0.001 so that it then read 0.599 his ranking score would be 5008x0.599=3000 so he would, in fact have gained no points towards his promotion. Meanwhile should the 2000 point player see a commensurate rise in his rank to 0.801 his ranking score would then be 1992x0.801=1596 so he would actually only lose 4 points.

Take this a stage further....

This same 5008 point player then takes on a 1000 point player with an RR of 1.0 and beats him. He receives a gross 4 points. However, this will have a greater impact on his RR. Now even if it still just reduces his RR by a further 0.001 then he would now have a ranking total of 5012x0.598=2997. In other words this win was not worth taking.

Using myself as an example:
My score as at writing is 3843
My RR is 0.862
So my relative rank is 3843x0.862=3313 (Brig status)

If I was to take on khushhal, presently no. 250 on the scoreboard, with 2514 points, and beat him, I would earn 13 points.

With this system, there is little likelihood my RR would be affected by more than a single point due to the closeness of our points, so I would, in all likelihood, gain a net 12 points to my RR score. With a present RR of 0.815 khushhal is unlikely to gain by more than a point.

However, if I was to swoop down to say slayer6, presently no. 12502 on the scoreboard, with 988 points and win a game, my points earnt would be 5. However, since his score is so much lower, there is every chance it would affect my RR. If it was affected by the .001 mentioned earlier, my RR would then be 0.861, so my although my 'score' would increase to 3848, my RR score would now be 3848x0.861=3313 it is then obvious that to 'farm' in the newer sense of the word would not be worthwhile in any way to me as my scoreboard rank/points would not change.

Issues surrounding this:

Stopping low ranks 'ambushing' high ranks when it would have the effect of above. I am sure it would not take a great deal of coding to show on the game finder page what the net effect on your score would be if you won any particular game, just as it would not take a lot of coding to block 'ambushing'.

Some benefits:

Scoreboard is adjusted to show a more meritocratic hierarchy of players.
High ranked players are then encouraged to play alongside low rank players in team games to ensure a win situation. Those low rankers would then learn more than they do constantly swimming around the same pool.
High ranked 'lean machine' teams (and I can be accused of running those I fully admit) would not be able to take series of games and points without suffering in the process.
Teams would ebb and flow as low ranks gained in points, because the efficiency of those teams points pick ups steadily diminishes over time.
It would reduce the reward for 'easy kills', to the point that it is not a viable option.

I am sure many will find problems within what I have laid out, but I have long felt that the RR is a truer way of seeing players for what they are. It would also resolve the long term argument about 'farming' in one quick sweep.

However, there is a down side. The argument that senior ranks do not play junior ranks could gain credence. To this I answer simply that as can be seen from my figures, it would still be viable for a rank/score holder such as me to play anyone over 1250 points if I was prepared to risk that level of points, and I would! After all, what is the point of holding such a level if you are not. I am a team player, this is what I enjoy, so there may well be issues regarding this, but I am sure within this community there are enough sound minds to resolve any of those issues.

Thank you for your time in reading this.

[Timminz]

I think this makes a lot of sense. I can't think of any example that would make it a bad idea. There is the issue of the missing logs, but the more time passes since then, the less significant the missing logs become. If relative rank was included in the coding of the site, rather than as just part of an add-on, any logs that might go missing in the future wouldn't matter, since the information would have already been taken from them. The same as no one's score was affected when the logs went missing, no one's relative rank would be affected if it happened again. If this suggestion were implemented, the people hoping to make the top of the scoreboard would need to play other high-ranked players to achieve it. As with any ranked sport/game, I feel that for someone to be considered "the best", they should be able to regularly beat the other people near them in score. This suggestion seems as though it would accomplish that.

please pardon the stream-of-consciousness-ness of this post. I just got out of bed.

[Jeff Hardy]

this would just stop high ranks setting up anything but private games because if a low rank joined they would be in a lose-lose situation

relative rank is stupid anyway, i could drop to cook and easily get my map rank up to 2.0 then get up to colonel and be a field marshal

[Fruitcake]

this would just stop high ranks setting up anything but private games because if a low rank joined they would be in a lose-lose situation

No they wouldn't. As I mentioned in the original post, it would be a matter of coding to ensure that no low rank could 'ambush' a high rank to a lose lose situation. But as long as the high rank could gain 1 point in their RR scoreboard rank then the game should be allowed as it is now. The only difference would be that the bar for that level would be raised to near a 1000 points scorer.

Issues surrounding this:

Stopping low ranks 'ambushing' high ranks when it would have the effect of above. I am sure it would not take a great deal of coding to show on the game finder page what the net effect on your score would be if you won any particular game, just as it would not take a lot of coding to block 'ambushing'.

[Jeff Hardy]

whats the problem with the current system anyway?

if i play 5 games against captains and majors i have to win 4 out of 5 just to break even (which is hard, captains and majors arent exactly noobs and dice/drop can easily give them the game)

so playing lower ranks doesnt exactly ensure that you get a high rank, you have to have skills too

[Fruitcake]

whats the problem with the current system anyway?

if i play 5 games against captains and majors i have to win 4 out of 5 just to break even (which is hard, captains and majors arent exactly noobs and dice/drop can easily give them the game)

so playing lower ranks doesnt exactly ensure that you get a high rank, you have to have skills too

There is nothing wrong with the system. I am responding to a greater and greater groundswell of opinion that is calling for change. I am happy (obviously!) with the current system, but if it is going to be changed then I would rather be a part of the change and have some influence over it than be dragged kicking and screaming to it.

On your last point, I would take slight issue. If you have a modicum of skill and only play certain players who make the craziest moves you will generally find yourself rising higher than you should. The way I have proffered would ensure that playing style was harder to gain by.

However, it may be seen to make the scoreboard too elitist in approach, but seeing as it would have the effect of flattening it quite dramatically I do not see that as a long term problem.

[Jeff Hardy]

On your last point, I would take slight issue. If you have a modicum of skill and only play certain players who make the craziest moves you will generally find yourself rising higher than you should. The way I have proffered would ensure that playing style was harder to gain by.

thats only assuming you only join games or make private games and invite the type of player you just discribed. very, very few can be bothered to do that (i certainly couldnt be)

[Fruitcake]

On your last point, I would take slight issue. If you have a modicum of skill and only play certain players who make the craziest moves you will generally find yourself rising higher than you should. The way I have proffered would ensure that playing style was harder to gain by.

thats only assuming you only join games or make private games and invite the type of player you just discribed. very, very few can be bothered to do that (i certainly couldnt be)

I am sure you couldn't be bothered, and I am also certain you wouldn't. However, due to recent history this issue has arisen, so all the 'senior' ranked players need to look at what is happening. You only have to review the slow but inexorable increase in the number of threads about these things.

[Jeff Hardy]

how about no points for private games against lower ranks...?
seems to me it would be a far better solution

[Timminz]

how about no points for private games against lower ranks...?
seems to me it would be a far better solution

What would this solve?

[Fruitcake]

how about no points for private games against lower ranks...?
seems to me it would be a far better solution

I can only quote your words on JRs thread....

it would be extremely easy to get medals without losing rank if this idea goes through

[Wolffystyle]

There is nothing wrong with the system. I am responding to a greater and greater groundswell of opinion that is calling for change. I am happy (obviously!) with the current system, but if it is going to be changed then I would rather be a part of the change and have some influence over it than be dragged kicking and screaming to it.

Your plan is much more thorough and provident than any others I have seen in the forums.

I'm glad, however, that you've taken the time to point out the 'ambushing' issue. Clearly, no scoring system will ever be perfect. Innate to any system ranking as many as 20,000 unique users is the inextricable lack of unanimity.

The current system, in my humblest of opinions, functions. But you're exactly right about what I've quoted above. It's much better to be proactive. If reform is required, desired or finally transpired, let's take our part to avoid a misfire.

In almost all collegiate and major league sports in the United States, and from what I know about the Premier Soccer Leagues in Europe, the best play the best, and rankings and league tier are influenced heavily by relative rank. One needs look no further that collegiate Football or Basketball in the United States. A second tier team may have a perfect record, but it is reasonable to rank them behind a top tier team with a better relative rank.**

In short, while there is not a single answer to appease all, it will always be best to err on acumen. There's too much corn in all that other proverbial shit I've seen around the forums. Leave it as it is, or utilize a coded relative rank.

---
**Friendlies, I think they're called, are fun games, good for practice, enjoyment, marketing and, I'm sure, a plethora of other uses. I enjoy a good friendly, but I don't froth at the mouth waiting operate solely within those conditions.

[Jeff Hardy]

how about no points for private games against lower ranks...?
seems to me it would be a far better solution

I can only quote your words on JRs thread....

it would be extremely easy to get medals without losing rank if this idea goes through

i was actually only pointing out a side effect to his solution i thought of while reading the thread, not trying to bash his idea though

but you are right, what i said in this thread would have the same effect as JRs idea

[sailorseal]

I agree the scoring and ranking system needs a change but not like this. Also I think the scoreboard has to change also. I am sick of being listed below a guy who has won his first ten games. I think many other factors need to be addressed...

[Woodruff]

There is nothing wrong with the system. I am responding to a greater and greater groundswell of opinion that is calling for change. I am happy (obviously!) with the current system, but if it is going to be changed then I would rather be a part of the change and have some influence over it than be dragged kicking and screaming to it.

You are very wise, in this regard.

For me personally, I don't really care much at all about "rank". However, I must admit that I AM curious as to how well I would be placed given that I generally play 7- and 8-player games (I've played smaller ones, but not regularly). Clearly, it's much more difficult to win those sorts of games than 1-vs-1. I play them because those are the sorts of games I enjoy, and I'm perfectly happy always being stuck at the enlisted ranks. But it would be nice to "see where I'm at", from a curiousity standpoint. It might also give me a better idea of who I could invite into games who fall nearer to my real skill-level than what is currently seen, which would be a nice benefit for me (from a selfish standpoint).

[Fruitcake]

There is nothing wrong with the system. I am responding to a greater and greater groundswell of opinion that is calling for change. I am happy (obviously!) with the current system, but if it is going to be changed then I would rather be a part of the change and have some influence over it than be dragged kicking and screaming to it.

You are very wise, in this regard.

For me personally, I don't really care much at all about "rank". However, I must admit that I AM curious as to how well I would be placed given that I generally play 7- and 8-player games (I've played smaller ones, but not regularly). Clearly, it's much more difficult to win those sorts of games than 1-vs-1. I play them because those are the sorts of games I enjoy, and I'm perfectly happy always being stuck at the enlisted ranks. But it would be nice to "see where I'm at", from a curiousity standpoint. It might also give me a better idea of who I could invite into games who fall nearer to my real skill-level than what is currently seen, which would be a nice benefit for me (from a selfish standpoint).

You have a relative rank of 1.443 (impressive). Simply put, this means that although your 'points' are 1308, your 'position/rank' on the scoreboard would be 1308x1.443=1887 This would place you as a Captain.

Furthermore, you are a good example of how the score board would be flattened out considerably, as the very high scorers would reduce and many, such as yourself, would rise. This, in turn, would lead to a lot more movement within the scoreboard as players were bunched closer together.

[Woodruff]

There is nothing wrong with the system. I am responding to a greater and greater groundswell of opinion that is calling for change. I am happy (obviously!) with the current system, but if it is going to be changed then I would rather be a part of the change and have some influence over it than be dragged kicking and screaming to it.

You are very wise, in this regard.
For me personally, I don't really care much at all about "rank". However, I must admit that I AM curious as to how well I would be placed given that I generally play 7- and 8-player games (I've played smaller ones, but not regularly). Clearly, it's much more difficult to win those sorts of games than 1-vs-1. I play them because those are the sorts of games I enjoy, and I'm perfectly happy always being stuck at the enlisted ranks. But it would be nice to "see where I'm at", from a curiousity standpoint. It might also give me a better idea of who I could invite into games who fall nearer to my real skill-level than what is currently seen, which would be a nice benefit for me (from a selfish standpoint).

You have a relative rank of 1.443 (impressive). Simply put, this means that although your 'points' are 1308, your 'position/rank' on the scoreboard would be 1308x1.443=1887 This would place you as a Captain.
Furthermore, you are a good example of how the score board would be flattened out considerably, as the very high scorers would reduce and many, such as yourself, would rise. This, in turn, would lead to a lot more movement within the scoreboard as players were bunched closer together.

Interesting...higher than I would have guessed. Math makes my head hurt. <laughing>

But I do agree with you (if you're saying what I think you're saying) that the flattening out of the scoreboard would be good thing, for those who are interested in it from a competitive standpoint.

[demonfork]

Top 31 players score> RR> adjusted score

King_herpes- 6058 .474= 2872
Sjnap- 5880 .612= 3598
poo-maker 4608 .638= 2940
rabbiton 4515 .734= 3314
bridge2far 4427 .698= 3090
Velvecarrots 4225 .780= 3296
Thai Robert 4099 .549= 2250
General Mojo 3993 .783= 3126
Jeff Hardy 3992 .694= 2770
lt.pie 3951 .643= 2540
Seulessliathan 3898 .831= 3239
mhennigan 3856 .588= 2267
Fruitcake 3843 .862= 3312
SkyT 3669 .487= 1787
Chariot of Fire 3655 .858= 3136
Thomas.Paine 3646 .956 = 3486
Phlaim 3630 .660 = 2395
AMGecko 3620 .679 = 2457
ballenus 3618 .770 = 2785
David_Wain 3615 .750 = 2711
dividedbyzero 3605 .658 = 2372
timmy1 3590 .797 = 2861
Teylen 3553 .801 = 2845
laddida 3549 .700 = 2484
prismsaber 3536 .711 = 2514
Kiron 3528 .580 = 2046
Gwaahjo 3481 .799 = 2781
loes 3431 .688 = 2360
Scott-Land 3430 .666 = 2284
Beadle 3377 .834 = 2816
demonfork 3364 .935 = 3145

This is how the top 7 would look right now if your system were to be incorporated

1. Sjnap- 5880 .612= 3598
2. Thomas.Paine 3646 .956 = 3486
3. rabbiton 4515 .734= 3314
4. Fruitcake 3843 .862= 3312
5. Velvecarrots 4225 .780= 3296
6. Seulessliathan 3898 .831= 3239
7. demonfork 3364 .935 = 3145


Here is the problem that I have, under your system, there would only be 6 people that I could play against on the entire site that would allow me to increase my relative rank.

Playing against anyone else on the entire site would decrease my relative rank, which in turn would decrease my adjusted score or stagnate it.

It would seem to me that the system that you are proposing would only promote RR snobbery, as the top players would only be able to play against each other

NOTE: I stopped at top 31(me) because I have the 2nd highest RR in the top 100 or so players, therefore there is not anyone below me that could formulate an adjusted score that would be higher than mine.

[Timminz]

there would only be 6 people that I could play against on the entire site that would allow me to increase my relative rank.

There are actually about 50 people you could play, since anyone over 3145 would increase your relative rank. Still not a lot, but more than 7.

[demonfork]

there would only be 6 people that I could play against on the entire site that would allow me to increase my relative rank.

There are actually about 50 people you could play, since anyone over 3145 would increase your relative rank. Still not a lot, but more than 7.

how do you figure there would be more than 7 players over 3145? Did you see this.......

1. Sjnap- 5880 .612= 3598
2. Thomas.Paine 3646 .956 = 3486
3. rabbiton 4515 .734= 3314
4. Fruitcake 3843 .862= 3312
5. Velvecarrots 4225 .780= 3296
6. Seulessliathan 3898 .831= 3239
7. demonfork 3364 .935 = 3145

[Fruitcake]

Here is the problem that I have, under your system, there would only be 6 people that I could play against on the entire site that would allow me to increase my relative rank.

Playing against anyone else on the entire site would decrease my relative rank, which in turn would decrease my adjusted score or stagnate it.

It would seem to me that the system that you are proposing would only promote RR snobbery, as the top players would only be able to play against each other

NOTE: I stopped at top 31(me) because I have the 2nd highest RR in the top 100 or so players, therefore there is not anyone below me that could formulate an adjusted score that would be higher than mine.

Ok,taking each point in turn. The relative rank may decrease, but this is not what the system is ALL about. It matters not if your RR decreases as long as your adjusted points still increases. You presently (at time of writing) have a score of 3360 and an RR of 0.934, so your RR score is 3138.

Now let's take you as an example. If you took on viperpiper (points 1409), for example, and won. Presently your score increase would be 1409x20/3360 = 8..... Now let us assume your RR decreased from 0.934 to 0.933, your RR score (on which your true position would be based) would be (3360+8)x0.933 = 3142 so the net increase would, in fact, be 4 points. So you would still garner a positive outcome, just less than presently. Meanwhile, viperpiper, who has an RR of 0.956 so enjoys an RR score of 1347, may well see an equal increase in his relative rank from 0.956 to 0.957 so his net loss would be 1401x0.957 = 1341 a loss of just 6. This also shows that by doing this, inflation is steadied as the number of RR points within the system does contract until equilibrium is reached. I might also say at this point, I think this a fair route as it does not just affect senior ranks. If a lower scorer such as viperpiper wants to increase his score in a more beneficial way then he needs to take on more senior ranks and beat them as he effectively obtains 'double bubble', an increase in score AND an increase in his RR. However, this increase in his RR score would not impact the more senior player beyond his/her reduction in RR.

Now let's assume you lose to this player. Presently, you would lose 3360x20/1409 = 48 points (so your score is now 3312). However, if your RR dropped as well by the example above of 0.001, then the net effect would be that your RR score would now read 3312x0.933=3090. Which means your RR score has also reduced by 48 only (3138-3090). So, in effect, the loss to you is the same either way!

Now let's move on to your second point.

Playing against anyone else on the entire site would decrease my relative rank, which in turn would decrease my adjusted score or stagnate it.

As I have shown above, although your RR may decrease, your score still increases, it just becomes that little more difficult.

Lastly.

It would seem to me that the system that you are proposing would only promote RR snobbery, as the top players would only be able to play against each other

Apart from the fact that many already do, and quite frankly, they are beyond help, those players, such as myself, who play anyone, would just have their work cut out a little bit harder. If I then settled into a clique and we only played each other, then we would have to beat those same people consistently to rise any further. otherwise we are just playing pass the parcel with our points (a bit like quite a few players we have on the site already).

[SuicidalSnowman]

Ok,taking each point in turn. The relative rank may decrease, but this is not what the system is ALL about. It matters not if your RR decreases as long as your adjusted points still increases. You presently (at time of writing) have a score of 3360 and an RR of 0.934, so your RR score is 3138.

Now let's take you as an example. If you took on viperpiper (points 1409), for example, and won. Presently your score increase would be 1409x20/3360 = 8..... Now let us assume your RR decreased from 0.934 to 0.933, your RR score (on which your true position would be based) would be (3360+8)x0.933 = 3142 so the net increase would, in fact, be 4 points. So you would still garner a positive outcome, just less than presently. Meanwhile, viperpiper, who has an RR of 0.956 so enjoys an RR score of 1347, may well see an equal increase in his relative rank from 0.956 to 0.957 so his net loss would be 1401x0.957 = 1341 a loss of just 6. This also shows that by doing this, inflation is steadied as the number of RR points within the system does contract until equilibrium is reached. I might also say at this point, I think this a fair route as it does not just affect senior ranks. If a lower scorer such as viperpiper wants to increase his score in a more beneficial way then he needs to take on more senior ranks and beat them as he effectively obtains 'double bubble', an increase in score AND an increase in his RR. However, this increase in his RR score would not impact the more senior player beyond his/her reduction in RR.

Now let's assume you lose to this player. Presently, you would lose 3360x20/1409 = 48 points (so your score is now 3312). However, if your RR dropped as well by the example above of 0.001, then the net effect would be that your RR score would now read 3312x0.933=3090. Which means your RR score has also reduced by 48 only (3138-3090). So, in effect, the loss to you is the same either way!

I have been reading all of this, and it actually seems like a pretty sound system.

I have a question: How is your system different from simply making each win/loss worth less? From each of your examples, it seems as though all you are really doing is taking the normal amount of points exchanged, and cutting it in half...

[Fruitcake]

Ok,taking each point in turn. The relative rank may decrease, but this is not what the system is ALL about. It matters not if your RR decreases as long as your adjusted points still increases. You presently (at time of writing) have a score of 3360 and an RR of 0.934, so your RR score is 3138.

Now let's take you as an example. If you took on viperpiper (points 1409), for example, and won. Presently your score increase would be 1409x20/3360 = 8..... Now let us assume your RR decreased from 0.934 to 0.933, your RR score (on which your true position would be based) would be (3360+8)x0.933 = 3142 so the net increase would, in fact, be 4 points. So you would still garner a positive outcome, just less than presently. Meanwhile, viperpiper, who has an RR of 0.956 so enjoys an RR score of 1347, may well see an equal increase in his relative rank from 0.956 to 0.957 so his net loss would be 1401x0.957 = 1341 a loss of just 6. This also shows that by doing this, inflation is steadied as the number of RR points within the system does contract until equilibrium is reached. I might also say at this point, I think this a fair route as it does not just affect senior ranks. If a lower scorer such as viperpiper wants to increase his score in a more beneficial way then he needs to take on more senior ranks and beat them as he effectively obtains 'double bubble', an increase in score AND an increase in his RR. However, this increase in his RR score would not impact the more senior player beyond his/her reduction in RR.

Now let's assume you lose to this player. Presently, you would lose 3360x20/1409 = 48 points (so your score is now 3312). However, if your RR dropped as well by the example above of 0.001, then the net effect would be that your RR score would now read 3312x0.933=3090. Which means your RR score has also reduced by 48 only (3138-3090). So, in effect, the loss to you is the same either way!

I have been reading all of this, and it actually seems like a pretty sound system.

I have a question: How is your system different from simply making each win/loss worth less? From each of your examples, it seems as though all you are really doing is taking the normal amount of points exchanged, and cutting it in half...

Not if I took someone closer to my score. In fact the closer to my score I fought and won, the lower the differential would be. This would be the same for anyone playing at cc. In essence, this means those who play their peer groups all the time (in points terms) and consistently won, would steadily rise through the scoreboard. However, the caveat is that they would have to keep winning to get to the next stage. Meanwhile, they could still take on and beat 'allcomers' as long as the coding was in place to ensure no 'ambushing' could take place (as mentioned in my original post). One of the most common complaints recently (and now for some time since the groundswell started) has been that very high ranks use their experience to just shred lower ranks for a few points pick ups. In many cases this has ended up being nothing more than akin to a steamroller effect. What the RR scoreboard does is ensure that those who are (and let's be honest here) pretty poor at playing, do get to be protected from the real 'machines'. It does not mean they will always be poor players, but they can play others in their peer group regularly, will not make the errors of diving into the shark infested waters of the front page ranks. They can learn through steady experience without wondering how the hell something happened that is normal tactical warfare amongst higher ranked players. Furthermore, as I mentioned in my first post, teams would ebb and flow as the symbiotic relationship between high and low ranks dissapated due to wins.

[Timminz]

there would only be 6 people that I could play against on the entire site that would allow me to increase my relative rank.

There are actually about 50 people you could play, since anyone over 3145 would increase your relative rank. Still not a lot, but more than 7.

how do you figure there would be more than 7 players over 3145? Did you see this.......

1. Sjnap- 5880 .612= 3598
2. Thomas.Paine 3646 .956 = 3486
3. rabbiton 4515 .734= 3314
4. Fruitcake 3843 .862= 3312
5. Velvecarrots 4225 .780= 3296
6. Seulessliathan 3898 .831= 3239
7. demonfork 3364 .935 = 3145

Your relative rank is decided by your opponents' un-modified score. There are approximately 50 players who would increase your relative rank, if you played them.

[Jeff Hardy]

relative rank is stupid anyway, i could drop to cook and easily get my map rank up to 2.0 then get up to colonel and be a field marshal