Moderator: Community Team
Jeff Hardy wrote: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
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 wrote: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 wrote: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.
Jeff Hardy wrote:Fruitcake wrote: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)
Jeff Hardy wrote:how about no points for private games against lower ranks...?
seems to me it would be a far better solution
Jeff Hardy wrote:how about no points for private games against lower ranks...?
seems to me it would be a far better solution
Jeff Hardy wrote:it would be extremely easy to get medals without losing rank if this idea goes through
Fruitcake wrote:
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.
moe wrote:Matted with hair, armed to the teeth, swift as the noble beast his screen name so "lovingly" embodies.. . ..
Wielding a hot dog in one hand and a fedora in the other. . . . .
Fruitcake wrote:Jeff Hardy wrote: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....Jeff Hardy wrote:it would be extremely easy to get medals without losing rank if this idea goes through
Fruitcake wrote: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.
Woodruff wrote:Fruitcake wrote: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 wrote:Woodruff wrote:Fruitcake wrote: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.
demonfork wrote:there would only be 6 people that I could play against on the entire site that would allow me to increase my relative rank.
Timminz wrote:demonfork wrote: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 wrote:
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.
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
Fruitcake wrote: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!
SuicidalSnowman wrote:Fruitcake wrote: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...
demonfork wrote:Timminz wrote:demonfork wrote: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
Jeff Hardy wrote: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
Return to Archived Suggestions
Users browsing this forum: No registered users