Moderator: Community Team
imcooler wrote:how would people's existing score transfer over if it was changed to where the score starts at 0?
qwert wrote:
OliverFA wrote:imcooler wrote:how would people's existing score transfer over if it was changed to where the score starts at 0?
The current score wouldn't change. The only thing that would change would be the way that ranks are assigned. Instead of assigning a rank corresponding to the score, rank would be assigned correspoding to the position in the scoreboard.
Frop wrote:OliverFA wrote:imcooler wrote:how would people's existing score transfer over if it was changed to where the score starts at 0?
The current score wouldn't change. The only thing that would change would be the way that ranks are assigned. Instead of assigning a rank corresponding to the score, rank would be assigned correspoding to the position in the scoreboard.
Sounds like a sensible approach, it wouldn't be affected by inflation at all.
OliverFA wrote:Plus ranks would be more meaningful (no offense to all higher ranked players intended, please don't misunderstand me). If you saw a Field Marshall you could say "Oh, is one of the 5% best players" and if you saw a Captain you would say "Oh, he is better than 60% of players". (Of course, those percentages are completely made up for the example).
Frop wrote:OliverFA wrote:Plus ranks would be more meaningful (no offense to all higher ranked players intended, please don't misunderstand me). If you saw a Field Marshall you could say "Oh, is one of the 5% best players" and if you saw a Captain you would say "Oh, he is better than 60% of players". (Of course, those percentages are completely made up for the example).
Indeed. Any ideas translating the different percentiles into ranks?
imcooler wrote:how would people's existing score transfer over if it was changed to where the score starts at 0?
OliverFA wrote:Frop wrote:OliverFA wrote:Plus ranks would be more meaningful (no offense to all higher ranked players intended, please don't misunderstand me). If you saw a Field Marshall you could say "Oh, is one of the 5% best players" and if you saw a Captain you would say "Oh, he is better than 60% of players". (Of course, those percentages are completely made up for the example).
Indeed. Any ideas translating the different percentiles into ranks?
There are two different possible approachs. For the sake of the example, let's imagine that we have only 10 ranks.
The first approach is to divide players evenly, with 10% of them going to each of the ranks.
Field Marshall - 90%-100%
General - 80%-90%
Coronel - 70%-80%
Major - 60%-70%
Captain - 50%-60%
Liutenant - 40%-50%
Sergeant - 30%-40%
Private -20%-30%
Cadet - 10%-20%
Cook - 0%-10%
The second approach is to make lower ranks range bigger.
Field Marshall - 99%-100%
General - 95%-99%
Coronel - 90%-95%
Major - 85%-90%
Captain - 80%-85%
Liutenant - 70%-80%
Sergeant - 60%-70%
Private - 45%-60%
Cadet - 30%-45%
Cook - 0%-30%
Personally, I prefer the first one.
lozzini wrote:i think all the ranks should be distributed evenly with the amount of % they get, but the very top ranks and teh very bottom ranks, say the bottom 20% and top 20% should be much more split up, so like a mix of your 2 examples
the only complaint i could see people having about using position for romotions is that people wouldnt know how many points they need to reach the next rank. An easy way round this is to have the 'intructions' page on 'score and ranking' refresh itself every few hours to show the current points you would need for a certain rank. The points needed for the next fank could also be displayed on a persons profile.
OliverFA wrote:lozzini wrote:i think all the ranks should be distributed evenly with the amount of % they get, but the very top ranks and teh very bottom ranks, say the bottom 20% and top 20% should be much more split up, so like a mix of your 2 examples
the only complaint i could see people having about using position for romotions is that people wouldnt know how many points they need to reach the next rank. An easy way round this is to have the 'intructions' page on 'score and ranking' refresh itself every few hours to show the current points you would need for a certain rank. The points needed for the next fank could also be displayed on a persons profile.
I think you are absolutely right. Probably it would be better to mix both systems, making the ranks on the top and the bottom smaller in players quantity, and keeping the ones in the middle almost the same.
About the points needed to get the next rank, even if the site didn't show them, I am sure that plugin authors would give us that information
Blitz
Excellent Job on implementing more ranks and they seem to be well thought out and distributed fairly.
my change of your 23 ranks on score would be this:
lancehoch wrote:It is a measure of how far from the average a data point lies.
lancehoch wrote:It is a measure of how far from the average a data point lies.
OliverFA wrote:That is an interesting proposal. I can only see a potential flaw. What if noone surpasses the standard deviation threshold? Would that mean not having any field marshall?
Loser's Score / Winner's Score x 5
The thing is, you cannot assume that the standard deviation will only be 200 points. The standard deviation is equal to the square root of the average distance from the average. The first thing to do would be to find the average score of everyone on the scoreboard, then find how far each individual score is from that average. Another thing to look at is the distribution of the scores, while I doubt that it follows a perfectly random distribution, I would believe that there is some correlation.TheShiningSun wrote:The other problem with the standard deviation is the number of people we have on CC. Lets assume an xbar of 1200 or 1300 or so and a standard deviation (due to the number of members) of only 200 or so, then the 4500 point people would be an astonishing 15 or so standard deviations away from the mean, unfortunately if you take a look the top people are far and away greater than the huge chunk in the middle. I think the best way is the point system that has been proposed earlier (and seconded thirded fourthd and fifthed) that goes all the way from objector up
Users browsing this forum: No registered users