Conquer Club

I'd like to see the average score of opponents played in our profile.


This will improve the following aspects of the site:

-It would give us a good estimation of our opponents by seeing the type of players they play. If they're 1 vs 1 player, dubs, public or private game player.
-Perhaps it would appease all those that want to see a new scoreboard.

Personally, I'd rather see that than percentage of turns missed if I were to choose one over the other.


-SL

If you care deeply about one individual, then you can figure it out (sort of) by using Map Rank. It won't give you the average of every opponent, just the ones they beat/lose to. So it'll work for 2 player/2 team games the best, but if you have two high ranking players who play 6 other low ranks in an 8 player game, and either one or the other wins, it won't work out.

But I support this idea.

BaldAdonis wrote:If you care deeply about one individual, then you can figure it out (sort of) by using Map Rank. It won't give you the average of every opponent, just the ones they beat/lose to. So it'll work for 2 player/2 team games the best, but if you have two high ranking players who play 6 other low ranks in an 8 player game, and either one or the other wins, it won't work out.

But I support this idea.

I'm not sure why it wouldn't work. 6 players at 1000 and 1 at 3000... the average rank would be 1285 for that game- no ? It could display 1285 as the average or have a symbol of a Corporal (not sure what the rank is).

i'd rather have a script that calculated how many points you stand to gain & lose... would most likely work for only active games but i think it'd be interesting to see

trapyoung wrote:i'd rather have a script that calculated how many points you stand to gain & lose... would most likely work for only active games but i think it'd be interesting to see

Quit trying to jack my thread Trap- get your own.

trapyoung wrote:i'd rather have a script that calculated how many points you stand to gain & lose... would most likely work for only active games but i think it'd be interesting to see

Can be done but as always would be faster on the site. Map Rank could do this but on a manual button press because it might take a short while.

Scott-Land wrote:

trapyoung wrote:i'd rather have a script that calculated how many points you stand to gain & lose... would most likely work for only active games but i think it'd be interesting to see

Quit trying to jack my thread Trap- get your own.

foiled yet again.. i guess i have to add something constructive to your thread.... umm.... it's a good idea, would help show quality of opponents like scott said and more importantly show the not so quality of opponents some people take on

I think the average score of opponents would be a cool script or site change to have. It would single out players that play only the low ranks, and would reward those who play a lot of the higher ranked players.

Love the idea but it's near impossible.

You need to work out every player's score at the time of the end of the game.

* As far as I know, there is no actual record of players scores at game end, all we have is the game log.

Using an extreme method it would be possible to work out for a particular player most of the points of opponents but
only when that player wins because the points lost and gained in the game log are all a function of that player's current score.

Unfortunately the same cannot be said when that player loses - you can only determine the winning player's score.

So really this would all depend on * and I don't see evidence of this happening.

Now if you were ok with using every player's current score rather than at game end then this is possible.

chipv wrote:Love the idea but it's near impossible.

You need to work out every player's score at the time of the end of the game.

* As far as I know, there is no actual record of players scores at game end, all we have is the game log.

Using an extreme method it would be possible to work out for a particular player most of the points of opponents but
only when that player wins because the points lost and gained in the game log are all a function of that player's current score.

Unfortunately the same cannot be said when that player loses - you can only determine the winning player's score.

So really this would all depend on * and I don't see evidence of this happening.

Now if you were ok with using every player's current score rather than at game end then this is possible.

If there's no record of players scores at the end of the game- how could it calculate the points won/loss? Could it be calculated at the same time ?

EDIT: Or better yet- can it be calculated at the start of the game?

Scott-Land wrote:

chipv wrote:Love the idea but it's near impossible.

You need to work out every player's score at the time of the end of the game.

* As far as I know, there is no actual record of players scores at game end, all we have is the game log.

Using an extreme method it would be possible to work out for a particular player most of the points of opponents but
only when that player wins because the points lost and gained in the game log are all a function of that player's current score.

Unfortunately the same cannot be said when that player loses - you can only determine the winning player's score.

So really this would all depend on * and I don't see evidence of this happening.

Now if you were ok with using every player's current score rather than at game end then this is possible.

If there's no record of players scores at the end of the game- how could it calculate the points won/loss? Could it be calculated at the same time ?

EDIT: Or better yet- can it be calculated at the start of the game?

It's done at game end - the points won/lost are calculated at that time and then written into the game log.
The ranks are then also adjusted at that time. It has to do this then to prepare the scores for the next games or concurrent games.
So that means the ranking points are continually overwritten - you can see this happening mid-game when someone's rank
icon has changed because another game has finished elsewhere.

Currently ranking points are used at game end - as I said you can see people's rank and scores mid-game so the points won/lost
are derived from game end ranks. An exception for this is terminator games. This is an exception where points are calculated mid-game, this makes it more difficult to work out people's scores but not impossible so long as the player concerned has done all the terminating.

So unless there is a record of player's scores whenever scores change this is going to be , well , not feasible. I doubt this is recorded because it is an enormous amount of superfluous data.

I see...thanks.

Scott-Land wrote:I see...thanks.

* Also I don't know if the database is designed so games can be arranged in order of time finished which is critical.

There is an extreme way to get hold of this data by ordering every game ever played and recalculating everyone's scores
from scratch , then store this data, in effect replaying every game to get the scores. You would also need the timestamp
of every terminator kill as well but ... possible if * is true.

BUT, what about using the current scores? This is possible to do and reasonably straightforward.

chipv wrote:

Scott-Land wrote:I see...thanks.

* Also I don't know if the database is designed so games can be arranged in order of time finished which is critical.

There is an extreme way to get hold of this data by ordering every game ever played and recalculating everyone's scores
from scratch , then store this data, in effect replaying every game to get the scores. You would also need the timestamp
of every terminator kill as well but ... possible if * is true.

BUT, what about using the current scores? This is possible to do and reasonably straightforward.

Hmmm, it would eventually level off at some point- no? I don't see why not- most players are in their own groove so to speak, in their game selections already. I don't think it would be misleading.

Scott-Land wrote:

chipv wrote:

Scott-Land wrote:I see...thanks.

* Also I don't know if the database is designed so games can be arranged in order of time finished which is critical.

There is an extreme way to get hold of this data by ordering every game ever played and recalculating everyone's scores
from scratch , then store this data, in effect replaying every game to get the scores. You would also need the timestamp
of every terminator kill as well but ... possible if * is true.

BUT, what about using the current scores? This is possible to do and reasonably straightforward.

Hmmm, it would eventually level off at some point- no? I don't see why not- most players are in their own groove so to speak, in their game selections already. I don't think it would be misleading.

So this is a yes to using current scores, right?

As I said, reasonably straightforward, and a nice idea.

chipv wrote:

Scott-Land wrote:

chipv wrote:

Scott-Land wrote:I see...thanks.

* Also I don't know if the database is designed so games can be arranged in order of time finished which is critical.

There is an extreme way to get hold of this data by ordering every game ever played and recalculating everyone's scores
from scratch , then store this data, in effect replaying every game to get the scores. You would also need the timestamp
of every terminator kill as well but ... possible if * is true.

BUT, what about using the current scores? This is possible to do and reasonably straightforward.

Hmmm, it would eventually level off at some point- no? I don't see why not- most players are in their own groove so to speak, in their game selections already. I don't think it would be misleading.

So this is a yes to using current scores, right?

As I said, reasonably straightforward, and a nice idea.

Yep- I still like it. Thanks for all your input !

trapyoung wrote:i'd rather have a script that calculated how many points you stand to gain & lose... would most likely work for only active games but i think it'd be interesting to see

Just to point out - you can calculate points gained easy enough - however - points lost depends on the player winning...

So could range from 0-100 depending on who wins.

C.

chipv wrote:

Scott-Land wrote:I see...thanks.

* Also I don't know if the database is designed so games can be arranged in order of time finished which is critical.

There is an extreme way to get hold of this data by ordering every game ever played and recalculating everyone's scores
from scratch , then store this data, in effect replaying every game to get the scores. You would also need the timestamp
of every terminator kill as well but ... possible if * is true.

BUT, what about using the current scores? This is possible to do and reasonably straightforward.

After re-reading this post, can you clarify [current]? You mean it only applies after 1 game and changes after each game or effective from a starting point as in when the script is applied ?

Scott-Land wrote:

chipv wrote:

Scott-Land wrote:I see...thanks.

* Also I don't know if the database is designed so games can be arranged in order of time finished which is critical.

There is an extreme way to get hold of this data by ordering every game ever played and recalculating everyone's scores
from scratch , then store this data, in effect replaying every game to get the scores. You would also need the timestamp
of every terminator kill as well but ... possible if * is true.

BUT, what about using the current scores? This is possible to do and reasonably straightforward.

After re-reading this post, can you clarify [current]? You mean it only applies after 1 game and changes after each game or effective from a starting point as in when the script is applied ?

The ranks as they are right now.
Say you played a game 2 years ago and everyone was a Cadet but now are Field Marshals. Then the average would be Field Marshal, not Cadet.
So current as in the exact number in the profiles.

chipv wrote:You need to work out every player's score at the time of the end of the game.

Not if you're just interested in the opponents score relative to yours. The points tranfer would be enough to give relative scores to everyone (as fractions of your score), then just average that over all games. It will still give you an average opponent score, but if will be as a fraction of your score, which more accurately depicts changes resulting from your current score at any given time.

chipv wrote:

Scott-Land wrote:

chipv wrote:

Scott-Land wrote:I see...thanks.

* Also I don't know if the database is designed so games can be arranged in order of time finished which is critical.

There is an extreme way to get hold of this data by ordering every game ever played and recalculating everyone's scores
from scratch , then store this data, in effect replaying every game to get the scores. You would also need the timestamp
of every terminator kill as well but ... possible if * is true.

BUT, what about using the current scores? This is possible to do and reasonably straightforward.

After re-reading this post, can you clarify [current]? You mean it only applies after 1 game and changes after each game or effective from a starting point as in when the script is applied ?

The ranks as they are right now.
Say you played a game 2 years ago and everyone was a Cadet but now are Field Marshals. Then the average would be Field Marshal, not Cadet.
So current as in the exact number in the profiles.

Ok- that's what I thought you meant. Sounds great. So what needs to be done to get this bill passed into law- more support ?

BaldAdonis wrote:

chipv wrote:You need to work out every player's score at the time of the end of the game.

Not if you're just interested in the opponents score relative to yours. The points tranfer would be enough to give relative scores to everyone (as fractions of your score), then just average that over all games. It will still give you an average opponent score, but if will be as a fraction of your score, which more accurately depicts changes resulting from your current score at any given time.

If you don't work out all the scores at game end how will you be able to tell the other players' scores from games that you lost in? (Aside from the winner).

You could do it easily enough with points gained/lost.
Just find all end-game score transfers (or in-game for terminator). Sort them between points gained and points lost for the targeted player, and take the average of both groups. If someone gains an average of 24 per win and loses an average of 16 per loss, you know he more often plays (and has always played) higher ranks. If he gains 17 per win and loses 25 per loss, you know he plays lower ranks. If it's 18-18 you know he wins from lower ranked and loses from higher ranked etc.
An easy way to put this into a nice figure is to substract the average point loss from the average point win. So the first example would be +8, the second -8, and the third 0 (maybe add 20 to make it more obviously related to gain/loss?). The higher the number, the higher the average rank of the player's opponent.
And that's easier than reading some kind of fraction of your own score, which does vary over time...

This suffers from the same problem.

It is missing all of the ranks of players who also lost in the same game as the targetted player's losses.

If target wins, no problem - that number of points gained has taken all the players ranks into consideration.

If target loses then that figure only is a comparison with the winner's score at game end and no other player is considered.

Examples:

1.Target Loses in an 8 player game with 6 cooks and one Cadet losing to the Cadet. Target's point deduction is relative to the Cadet's score only.

Target loses Target/Cadet * 20 points.

2.Target Loses in an 8 player game with 6 field marshals and one Cadet losing to the Cadet. Target's point deduction is relative to the Cadet's score only.

Target loses Target/Cadet * 20 points.

Continue like this and you can see what is missing from final calculation.

Winning is fine as it will take everyone's rank into consideration.

Yet I would find most interesting to see to what ranks that player actually loses. Maybe even more so than what players he played, without them winning the game.
Isn't that more fair than seeing a win to a cook who now became field marshal as a win to a field marshal?