[SCSY] Points Won/Lost Margin

[AAFitz]

This is the only quick idea i could come up with...

I dont really care about the point system..if it doesnt change doesnt matter to me...however...it does sometimes limit who can play together in games...if the diffence is too huge, its impossible to get a fair score

Almost no general could play a private in even ten games and end up winning in the score...

He wins eight games gets...10 points or 80 points...(not adjusted per game)

The private wins 120 (again not adjusted)

Now if there was a grouping, the score system would stay the same...the proportions of everybody's points would be the same but in extreme differences, the point system would more clearly identify the winner...

Now this is not perfect and a mathematician will be able to do this in his head...but this is the general idea...

Normal games...Where the score is w/in 1000 pts, same rules ws/ls *20

If difference is > 1000 make ls/ws *15

If difference is >1500 make ls/ws *10

If difference is > 2000 make ls/ws *5

and the more groups the more precise it becomes...

My math skills are lacking, so this is an idea not a formula...but it would reduce the huge swings that make it unattractive to play half of the players on the site at any given time...doesnt change anyones score as it is per se...except making it slightly harder for a newbie to climb in rank...except now he may have the opportunity to play more colonels and generals, because they have a chance of coming out on top, without winning nearly every single game...

again...you can poke a millions of holes in this, which is what i want, and to the people who have to do the work here, I dont expect anything...i offer this as a suggestion only...as far as im concerned the site is awesome, and i get my $20 worth every day....

show me my mistakes, but it would be interesting to see a professional run with this

[Pedronicus]

but it would be interesting to see a professional run with this

Dugcarr1 is on his way

Seriously - the points system is ok as long as players are sensible and communicate with other players of similar rank. We already have private games available - so why not do something similar to what has already been done with the 'Elite games' where you have to have 1600 points min. to play a game.

These Elite games were the brainchild of another Englishman (not me!) and it worked well to level the points loss / gain amongst he higher point owning players.

Majors / Colonels / Generals can still join open public games if they fancy risking bugger all points return for a win or a large loss if they loose to a low scoring player.

All everyone has to do is be a communicative member of this thriving community and talk and discuss ways round it using the existing tools at our disposal.

[Dlakavi]

Normal games...Where the score is w/in 1000 pts, same rules ws/ls *20

If difference is > 1000 make ws/ls *15

If difference is >1500 make ws/ls *10

If difference is > 2000 make ws/ls *5

and the more groups the more precise it becomes...
show me my mistakes, but it would be interesting to see a professional run with this

Look, it is very flawed.


The current system is ls/ws*20

Your system would be Ws/Ls*20

Then It would be very bad for a 1000 person to play a 3000 person, because even if he won he would get (1000/3000)*5 = 1.7 points if he won , so he would get punished for beationg a good player with a high score



If you really meant LS/WS *5, look then, if im a general and play a private, i would get only 1.7 points per win and lose 15, so its proportional to the old system.


Nice of you to try to think of something, eventually you might make it

[joeyjordison]

i once made the mistake (very recently) of agreeing to a rt. i set it up and the people who joined were both new recruits but new recruits who could play i lost and points loss was pretty big. would it be possible to hav a setting where u play for an agreed amount of points? this could be like gambling where u could stake 50 points on a game or just 5.

[Dlakavi]

i once made the mistake (very recently) of agreeing to a rt. i set it up and the people who joined were both new recruits but new recruits who could play i lost and points loss was pretty big. would it be possible to hav a setting where u play for an agreed amount of points? this could be like gambling where u could stake 50 points on a game or just 5.

Major cheating possibilities

[Evil Semp]

If you are afraid of losing points only play people of your own rank. Once again I say when higher ranked players were climbing in the ranks the scoring system was ok. If the system was good enough for you to gain points why is it considered broken now? Now that they have to put some of those points on the line they are afraid to. Seems to me that they are being a little hypocritical.

[Rogi]

Absollutly agree with ya.
Think back to when you started the game.....it was all for fun wasn't it?
Now when you have some points you're all so worried to lose them...
I read it once on this forum can't remember who wrote it but it went something like this....DOES IT GET YOU LAID? DO YOU HAVE MORE RESPECT FROM IT?

[Evil Semp]

i once made the mistake (very recently) of agreeing to a rt.

Joey why was it a mistake? You don't enjoy playing? Or are the points that important?

[AAFitz]

Normal games...Where the score is w/in 1000 pts, same rules ws/ls *20

If difference is > 1000 make ws/ls *15

If difference is >1500 make ws/ls *10

If difference is > 2000 make ws/ls *5

and the more groups the more precise it becomes...
show me my mistakes, but it would be interesting to see a professional run with this

Look, it is very flawed.


The current system is ls/ws*20

Your system would be Ws/Ls*20

Then It would be very bad for a 1000 person to play a 3000 person, because even if he won he would get (1000/3000)*5 = 1.7 points if he won , so he would get punished for beationg a good player with a high score


If you really meant LS/WS *5, look then, if im a general and play a private, i would get only 1.7 points per win and lose 15, so its proportional to the old system.

Heres the thing if im a general, i now dont mind playing newbiex, because i only lose 15...which is not enough...my multipliers are way off, but I may not be able to cash in on killing him, but at least i dont get murdered for losing, relative to a win with someone in my bracket... and my formulas are just for show, not the real numbers...the idea is not allow veterans to profit solely from crushing newbies, so that they dont want to play, but dont make a loss so painful, than lower ranks dont always get the same shot at playing with higher ranks...the 100 point cap keeps it more fair, but the fluctuation is so much relative to a game of two equals, that if you want rank, realistically you shouldnt risk playing too many lower ones...ie...lower ranks never get the opportunity to play the higher ranks...




Nice of you to try to think of something, eventually you might make it

[AAFitz]

but it would be interesting to see a professional run with this

Dugcarr1 is on his way

Seriously - the points system is ok as long as players are sensible and communicate with other players of similar rank. We already have private games available - so why not do something similar to what has already been done with the 'Elite games' where you have to have 1600 points min. to play a game.

These Elite games were the brainchild of another Englishman (not me!) and it worked well to level the points loss / gain amongst he higher point owning players.

Majors / Colonels / Generals can still join open public games if they fancy risking bugger all points return for a win or a large loss if they loose to a low scoring player.

All everyone has to do is be a communicative member of this thriving community and talk and discuss ways round it using the existing tools at our disposal.

it really isnt for me, if i dont want to lose points in huge bulks, i wont play newbies...but thats the problem...the newbie doesnt get to play me...maybe ever... we should all be able to play each other... obviously we cant have a flat system, there has to be handicaps, but they seem extreme... Unless i beat newbie x every single game, it costs me points to play him, It seems to me the newbies can be protected while not absolutely punishing a higher rank from playing them...

again, it doesnt matter to me, when i want points, i go after points..when i want to have fun i go play anybody, but it really has segregated the site to some degree...i was just suggesting there might be some middle ground...theyre may not be, but it doesnt hurt to discuss it...usually

and Pedro, thanks for the input, i had an idea and typed it out quickly, if this is the best way, than so be it, no complaints here

[HotShot53]

I posted this in another thread on here, but no-one commented on it, so I don't know if it's a good idea or what problem it has yet...

What would happen if the points you gained/lost was based on the people playing the game, and not on who won the game? Like everyone puts points in based on the other players' average points, and then the winner takes all. Then it wouldn't matter who you lost to, cause the amount of points you lose is fixed, but beating a bunch of weaker players wouldn't gain you much and you'd still be risking a lot if you lost. Also, then a bunch of generals wouldn't mind as much having a private join, cause the points they lose would be based on the average player, while the private risks very little and can still win a nice amount (but not nearly as much as currently)

It seems that this should work, though being new here I'm sure I haven't thought of all the possible problems with it yet

[dugcarr1]

fucking rights fitz.

at least u have the right idea.

im in the top 15 players on this site and i think the system has been fucked since the day i joined.

there should be a diferent system,,,and i difrentt score board for singles doubles and triples.

if i got some super low scoreing partners and just smashed newbies and only played in my snob games and took out deadbeats i could be ## 1 to.


but i dont wanna ignore 80% of the players here and i do wanna play singles... but the point system now is creating ... byist almost kinda like racist leages..

oh you dont have XXXX points ... u cant play with us!
what kinda online sociity are we trying to create here.

so many top players wont risk anything bad hapining to them,,,, go check there games played.. wont play singles without password for there snob friends... and will only play doubles and triples agaist new players and only 1 team at once.
is getting fucked here.
easy sollution,, change the point system

we need a different system!

[HotShot53]

did you read my suggestion, dugcarr? Cause unless you have a system to change it to, it doesn't do any good to change it to a worse system...

[dugcarr1]

that is an exellent idea sir....... I am behind it

[AAFitz]

way better than mine...actually

[dugcarr1]

wright it up nice and put it in poll.....and tell iceman he cant post here

[sfhbballnut]

the point system isn't going to be changed, it in the rejected ideas pile of the to-do list, as far as I know because it would be almost impossible to reset and in my opinion not worth the trouble

[AK_iceman]

I like the idea of the monthly scoreboard being added, instead of changing the existing one.

[sfhbballnut]

decent idea, but still probably won't happen

[dugcarr1]

it wont change anyones score....... and it would be easy to do and wouldnt cause people like iceman to igrnore all but the 25 poeple he plays with

[HotShot53]

I wouldn't consider this an entirely new way of calculating score, and of course no-one expects anything to be recalculated retroactively... basically, it's just instead of calculated score based only on winner and loser, it'd be each loser calculated against the average opponent, so that in the game it doesn't matter who is higher/lower ranked, and no-one will throw games to someone just because of score... yet you still have to play harder people to keep improving your rating.

[sully800]

I like that suggestion a lot actually.

It minimizes the problem of players trying to throw the game to someone with a higher score. I don't know how prevalent that problem is, but if it exists at all it is too much in my opinion.

Also it would bridge the gap between low and high ranking players so the site isn't so segregated, as many people have mentioned.

But most importantly- it is very similar to the current scoring system and would therefore not drastically change the way people try to accumulate points. It would be almost the same process, just averaged out a bit more (which would reduce the giant swings in points especially high or especially low ranked players can see).

[MeDeFe]

It would probably work well for mixed games with people of very varying ranks, but if you start a game as a major and 5 privates join you're still risking losing 40 points (same as now) or more while getting maybe 50 for a win.

A private playing against 5 majors could win about 100 points (instead of something like 200 as of now) while risking about 10 (same as now).


Here's a different idea.

20/(1+(√((ws - ls)^2))/1000)



I think that the formula is ok, but I'm not a mathematician. The general idea is that the amount of points exchanged is based on the relative difference between the two players. It would encourage people to play others of their own rank in order to improve their score, and if you want to play stronger opponents in the hope of learning something you have a better chance of getting in a game with them since they'll be risking less than at the moment. On the other hand, if you like to play weaker opponents you'll still be getting just as few points as before.

Feel free to tweak around with the root and what power you take it to.

[sully800]

It would probably work well for mixed games with people of very varying ranks, but if you start a game as a major and 5 privates join you're still risking losing 40 points (same as now) or more while getting maybe 50 for a win.

A private playing against 5 majors could win about 100 points (instead of something like 200 as of now) while risking about 10 (same as now).


Here's a different idea.

20/(1+(√((ws - ls)^2))/1000)



I think that the formula is ok, but I'm not a mathematician. The general idea is that the amount of points exchanged is based on the relative difference between the two players. It would encourage people to play others of their own rank in order to improve their score, and if you want to play stronger opponents in the hope of learning something you have a better chance of getting in a game with them since they'll be risking less than at the moment. On the other hand, if you like to play weaker opponents you'll still be getting just as few points as before.

Feel free to tweak around with the root and what power you take it to.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with that formula, but you took the square root of the quantity you just squared. So right now it just boils down to...

20/(1+(ws - ls)/1000)

which is in turn 20,000/(1000+ws-ls)

[MeDeFe]

I said you could play around with the root and and what power you take it to. I only squared to get a positive number.


If you draw it you'll get a bell curve (I think they're called that...)