[SCSY] point system change for teamgames to include rank

[SirSebstar]

Add all players rank up and compare that with the other teams total rank. Now the lower ranked player in the team should get more points for winning then a higher ranked player, and vice versa the higher ranked player will loose more points if he looses.

Pointwhoring by teaming up with a low ranker and guiding his every move is rewarding, espacially so since you get a big boost out of it pointwise. However, if you are that good a player, then the points you recieve are in excess of what can be considered unfair. A lot of controvercy has been made around pointfarming. CC's official stance is that unless you farm NR's you are quite safe. And i find that the be acceptable. Sometimes however I find the current point system to be unbalanced for teamgames, and I have not been able to come up with a substitute, untill now.

Would it help if you did not pool your rank in teamgames but simply got a return as normal? So the lower ranked player on your side getting a heap more points then the high ranked player?
that would totally defeat the pointwhoring of teams and be a simple improvement

It would mean that the bonus to teaming up with a lowly cook next to someone with 8 times as many points is going to be a bigger gamble with less payout. But on the other hand it will also fix the scoreboard so that players that are really good should still be able to surface. But teamgames alone will no longer give you the boast it once did. This should have no impact on teams where the members are more equal nor should this stop teams from being formed with unequal members, it is just the payout that changed

food for thought:discus

Deapool has come up with the right math.. That i'd like to propose.
(a) = [(loser's team score / winner's team score) * 20] * Number of players
This calculated the total amount of points each team win (loses)
(b) = [(a) * (team average / players score) ] * [(a)/ sum{(team average / players score)}]
Or simply (a) * [(team average / players score)]/ [sum(team average / players score)]

[mc05025]

I like that.

In my opinion the point is to punish the teams with a huge point difference.

Lets say a 5000 point player team up with 3 players with 1000 points

Obviously anyone will follow the orders of the 5000point players. So everyone will play almost as good as a 5000 point player. So what is the point of having an average 2000 points?

That problem have cause a lot of problems at the top list.

The competition is really low (Blitz have almost 1000points more)
the conqueror is always (from when I join the club) the one who is playing team games with cooks.

I am sure that if I was able to find three cooks with 500 points who will obey me I would soon have more than 6000 points although I do not play quadruples better than a colonel.

To sum up, there is no problem as the point difference among one teams players is not huge. In fact I like that because law rank players have the opportunity to learn. But when that difference is bigger than 2000 point then there is a problem.

[drunkmonkey]

I like the idea in theory, but the problem is there won't be an even exchange of points. Let me make sure I understand correctly, and my calculations are all correct.

Hypothetical game:
Team 1
Player A: 3600 pts
Player B: 1300 pts
Player C: 1200 pts
Player D: 900 pts
Team Average: 1750 pts

Team 2
Player W: 2400 pts
Player X: 2200 pts
Player Y: 1900 pts
Player Z: 1700 pts
Team Average: 2050 pts

To calculate point totals, each player's points would be compared against the other team's average, correct? Assuming Team 1 wins this game:

Player A gets 11 pts (2050 / 3600 * 20)
Player B gets 32 pts (2050 / 1300 * 20)
Player C gets 34 pts (2050 / 1200 * 20)
Player D gets 46 pts (2050 / 900 * 20)
Team 1 gets 123 total points

Player W loses 27 pts (2400 / 1750 * 20)
Player X loses 25 pts (2200 / 1750 * 20)
Player Y loses 22 pts (1900 / 1750 * 20)
Player Z loses 19 pts (1700 / 1750 * 20)
Team 2 loses 93 total points

I like this system, but I know there's a desire to keep the net points transferred at 0. Am I understanding the proposal correctly?

[General Brock II]

The main problem with the entire theory is the possibility of a cook not listening. I do know one or two who are dedicated to the game enough to pay attention, advise etc, but it doesn't guarantee victory... What if they miss turns?

[Deadpool]

I like the idea in theory, but the problem is there won't be an even exchange of points. Let me make sure I understand correctly, and my calculations are all correct.

Hypothetical game:
Team 1
Player A: 3600 pts
Player B: 1300 pts
Player C: 1200 pts
Player D: 900 pts
Team Average: 1750 pts

Team 2
Player W: 2400 pts
Player X: 2200 pts
Player Y: 1900 pts
Player Z: 1700 pts
Team Average: 2050 pts

To calculate point totals, each player's points would be compared against the other team's average, correct? Assuming Team 1 wins this game:

Player A gets 11 pts (2050 / 3600 * 20)
Player B gets 32 pts (2050 / 1300 * 20)
Player C gets 34 pts (2050 / 1200 * 20)
Player D gets 46 pts (2050 / 900 * 20)
Team 1 gets 123 total points

Player W loses 27 pts (2400 / 1750 * 20)
Player X loses 25 pts (2200 / 1750 * 20)
Player Y loses 22 pts (1900 / 1750 * 20)
Player Z loses 19 pts (1700 / 1750 * 20)
Team 2 loses 93 total points

I like this system, but I know there's a desire to keep the net points transferred at 0. Am I understanding the proposal correctly?

I think the way this would work is an overlay to the normal point equation:

(a) = [(loser's team score / winner's team score) * 20] * Number of players
This calculated the total amount of points each team win (loses)
(b) = [(a) * (team average / players score) ] * [(a)/ sum{(team average / players score)}]
Or simply (a) * [(team average / players score)]/ [sum(team average / players score)]

That would take the total points awarded (lost) and distribute to individual players it based on points. Note: the summation is across players.

This is basically what you had but scales it so that the total points won/lost are the same.
In your example:
Hypothetical game:
Team 1
Player A: 3600 pts
Player B: 1300 pts
Player C: 1200 pts
Player D: 900 pts
Team Total: 7000 pts

Team 2
Player W: 2400 pts
Player X: 2200 pts
Player Y: 1900 pts
Player Z: 1700 pts
Team Total: 8200 pts

Assuming Team 1 wins this game:
Points awarded (equation a) = 8200/7000 * 20 * 4 = 94

Player A gets 9
Player B gets 24
Player C gets 26
Player D gets 35
Team 1 gets 94 total points

Player W loses 28 pts
Player X loses 25 pts
Player Y loses 22 pts
Player Z loses 19 pts
Team 2 loses 94 total points

There is probably an easier/better way to do this, but I just thought I would take a quick stab.

[mc05025]

Now that I am looking at the results I do not like that so much. The difference in gains between the strongest and weakest (according to the point system) is too big. The result will be that the strong players will stop playing team games with low rated teammates. In addition the low rated teammates are gaining a lot of points without realty deserve them.

I prefer a system with lower difference between the gains of the winners.

An other system (I think similar to that one) is to just punish the teams with high difference at their ratings. For example if the difference is bigger than 2000 points then the lower rated player will count as a player with 1500 points less than the first rating. So the example will be:

Team 1
Player A: 3600 pts
Player B: 1300 pts that player will count as 3600-1500=2100
Player C: 1200 pts that player will count as 3600-1500=2100
Player D: 900 pts that player will count as 3600-1500=2100
Team Average: 3600+2100+2100+2100/4=2475 pts

Team 2
Player W: 2400 pts
Player X: 2200 pts
Player Y: 1900 pts
Player Z: 1700 pts
Team Average: 2050 pts

all the team 1 will gain 17 points (instead of 23 points)

and it is realistic because a 1000point player will play like a 2100 point player following the instruction of a 3600point player.

At the example the difference is not huge but enough to make the good players stop playing with very low rated teammates

[SirSebstar]

THIS is what i was looking for..

....................

I think the way this would work is an overlay to the normal point equation:

(a) = [(loser's team score / winner's team score) * 20] * Number of players
This calculated the total amount of points each team win (loses)
(b) = [(a) * (team average / players score) ] * [(a)/ sum{(team average / players score)}]
Or simply (a) * [(team average / players score)]/ [sum(team average / players score)]

That would take the total points awarded (lost) and distribute to individual players it based on points. Note: the summation is across players.

This is basically what you had but scales it so that the total points won/lost are the same.
In your example:
Hypothetical game:
Team 1
Player A: 3600 pts
Player B: 1300 pts
Player C: 1200 pts
Player D: 900 pts
Team Total: 7000 pts

Team 2
Player W: 2400 pts
Player X: 2200 pts
Player Y: 1900 pts
Player Z: 1700 pts
Team Total: 8200 pts

Assuming Team 1 wins this game:
Points awarded (equation a) = 8200/7000 * 20 * 4 = 94

Player A gets 9
Player B gets 24
Player C gets 26
Player D gets 35
Team 1 gets 94 total points

Player W loses 28 pts
Player X loses 25 pts
Player Y loses 22 pts
Player Z loses 19 pts
Team 2 loses 94 total points

There is probably an easier/better way to do this, but I just thought I would take a quick stab.

[karelpietertje]

The main problem with the entire theory is the possibility of a cook not listening. I do know one or two who are dedicated to the game enough to pay attention, advise etc, but it doesn't guarantee victory... What if they miss turns?

Exactly! Finding and guiding good teammates is a subtle art, and may in my opinion be rewarded if executed very precisely.

[karelpietertje]

Also I think we don't want to discourage players from taking a lowrank under their wing and teach them teamgames.
I think the 'trade' between a highrank sharing his knowledge in exchange for a steady teammate where they usually both have a bit of a point gain, is a beautiful thing Isn't that how every good teamplayer started out?

[Bruceswar]

Also I think we don't want to discourage players from taking a lowrank under their wing and teach them teamgames.
I think the 'trade' between a highrank sharing his knowledge in exchange for a steady teammate where they usually both have a bit of a point gain, is a beautiful thing Isn't that how every good teamplayer started out?

I got started by loes... and I since have taken many under my wing..

[Chuuuuck]

I don't have much time on here this weekend but I was actually going to post on this next week. If you want to go forward with this suggestion, then I think the only way to 0 balance the points is to turn each players score on a team into a fraction of the total team score for that team. You then take the reciprocal of that fraction, add together the entire teams reciprocals and get a new fraction for each player. Each player gets the number of points won equal to the total number of points the team wins (you can still get this number by taking the averages of the teams) multiplied by that players fraction from their reciprocal.

I know this suggestion isn't perfect and may need to have some adjustment factors in it, but this is the only way I can think of you can reward the lower ranked players on the team more and still carry a 0 balance, but I will be the first to admit, it will very heavily reward the lower ranked player and give nearly no points to the higher ranked.

I don't have time to run through an example of this now on here, maybe tomorrow or Monday or someone else can do it before then if you understand.

[SirSebstar]

Also I think we don't want to discourage players from taking a lowrank under their wing and teach them teamgames.
I think the 'trade' between a highrank sharing his knowledge in exchange for a steady teammate where they usually both have a bit of a point gain, is a beautiful thing Isn't that how every good teamplayer started out?

true, but then playing a noob in 1vs1 also gives a low amount of points., there is one optional sollution though.
you could do this for the winning team only. So if you win, the 'teacher' would get little points, but still a few. if you would loose you could get the normal amount of points lost.... this would mean the 'teacher' is not punished exceccivly is he losses, but simply his rate of return is deminished on wins...

would that work?

the advantage is that you can actually do the math.
on the suggestion that you also add win%, well thats very hard to do