Changing the way we score

[Blitzaholic]

RR has many cause and effects, some of which in your haste, you have alluded to, But you really need to shake this fixation off first.

yes, finally, thank you for admitting it, and we can admit teaming with friends that are cooks will boost you relative rank.


and what I was saying all along is that many on here now can tell new friends to join and lose a lot in games, then team with you to win more. i am not suggesting you did this, but when one is constantly teaming with new players over and over again from your same home town with scores of 500 to 1000 and there are many you have done this with, it raises an eyebrow is all.

[Joodoo]

To me, relative rank mostly just compresses everyone into a thinner range. There will be some jumbling of positions but that will mostly depend on how long you've been at a high or low rank. As Jeff stated, we could derank on purpose and be better off for it when we return.

For those of us who set up games for anyone to join, we have less choice about what rank we play. Instead it would put YOUR rank in the hands of someone who wants to play you just so they can rank-up, almost regardless of if they win or lose. This would probably end up causing people to just not start games anymore and weaken all of CC.

RR effectively hurts higher ranked players so lower ranked players can be ranked relatively higher. I'm not Robin Hood and am opposed to this system.

As Fruitcake already explained, if you do the math a player with poor skill cannot manipulate with relative rank to reach a higher score than expected.

[timmy1]

To me, relative rank mostly just compresses everyone into a thinner range. There will be some jumbling of positions but that will mostly depend on how long you've been at a high or low rank. As Jeff stated, we could derank on purpose and be better off for it when we return.

For those of us who set up games for anyone to join, we have less choice about what rank we play. Instead it would put YOUR rank in the hands of someone who wants to play you just so they can rank-up, almost regardless of if they win or lose. This would probably end up causing people to just not start games anymore and weaken all of CC.

RR effectively hurts higher ranked players so lower ranked players can be ranked relatively higher. I'm not Robin Hood and am opposed to this system.

As Fruitcake already explained, if you do the math a player with poor skill cannot manipulate with relative rank to reach a higher score than expected.

It was explained, but only with estimates. I think I understand RR so here's what I meant:

- A new recruit (1000 pts) plays me (3500 pts)
- I win and get 6 pts.
- His RR is now (3506/994) = 3.5272 since he's only played the 1 game. In effect, they lose 6 points but gain much more on RR.

Does he deserve a rank of 994*3.5272 = 3,506 (general)?

Does sedem deserve a 1,657 rank (Lieutenant) after playing just one game, and losing it?

I suppose this is just one game and it will average down, but still don't like how RR rank would perform in such a way.

[Mr Changsha]

To me, relative rank mostly just compresses everyone into a thinner range. There will be some jumbling of positions but that will mostly depend on how long you've been at a high or low rank. As Jeff stated, we could derank on purpose and be better off for it when we return.

For those of us who set up games for anyone to join, we have less choice about what rank we play. Instead it would put YOUR rank in the hands of someone who wants to play you just so they can rank-up, almost regardless of if they win or lose. This would probably end up causing people to just not start games anymore and weaken all of CC.

RR effectively hurts higher ranked players so lower ranked players can be ranked relatively higher. I'm not Robin Hood and am opposed to this system.

As Fruitcake already explained, if you do the math a player with poor skill cannot manipulate with relative rank to reach a higher score than expected.

It was explained, but only with estimates. I think I understand RR so here's what I meant:

- A new recruit (1000 pts) plays me (3500 pts)
- I win and get 6 pts.
- His RR is now (3506/994) = 3.5272 since he's only played the 1 game. In effect, they lose 6 points but gain much more on RR.

Does he deserve a rank of 994*3.5272 = 3,506 (general)?

Does sedem deserve a 1,657 rank (Lieutenant) after playing just one game, and losing it?

I suppose this is just one game and it will average down, but still don't like how RR rank would perform in such a way.

Yes, that was my problem with it.

Blitz goes to 1,400? Come on Fruitcake! It might suggest something, but it doesn't reflect his obvious ability.

His RR may show he has played ranks much lower than him a lot (maybe because he's had a high rank for a very long time?) but your system would put my pal manwiththeplan and blitz at a similar level. That can't right!

Ability to WIN GAMES must have a greater weight than the opposition rank in the games played. I am sure of that at least.

Maybe RR can be taken into account, but with a more complicated calculation that gives it a '10% weighting' (I think I may have to go and lie down after that mental feat) or something like that.

And not retrospectively!

That's simply not gonna fly...

[AAFitz]

Id put more time into arguing against the relative rank, but since it so obviously isnt a better system, and better guage of skill, i wont spend too much time on it. What i do know, is that there is no way the management would install a system as complex as this, for the simple reason that it would be impossible to explain to anyone that wasnt a regular. It takes long enough for the current system to be familiar to players.

But the biggest flaw, would be that it would instantly segregate the site like never before. Ranks would almost only want to play the same ranks, and it would essentially kill the prospect of playing open games altogether.

Further, there is no way to translate the current score, and change the way its calculated, and have it mean anything, because people have been playing with the current system for years, and all their stats are to some degree based on that system. To change it this drastically would nullify the years that people put into the game, and cant possibly be justified.

Its a nice idea, and its nice that map rank has it, but there is absolutely no way this system could work as the main scoring. A simple adjustment of the current system, probably escalating it at big margins, and spliting the scoreboard into a few categories is the only logical, sensible way to approach the scoring system.

[Woodruff]

But the biggest flaw, would be that it would instantly segregate the site like never before. Ranks would almost only want to play the same ranks, and it would essentially kill the prospect of playing open games altogether.

Only for the cowards.

[Jeff Hardy]

But the biggest flaw, would be that it would instantly segregate the site like never before. Ranks would almost only want to play the same ranks, and it would essentially kill the prospect of playing open games altogether.

Only for the cowards.

theres a difference between caring about points and being a coward

already most high ranked seq players play mostly private games for high ranks only to save them from losing points, this suggestion, as aa said, would only increase that

[Woodruff]

But the biggest flaw, would be that it would instantly segregate the site like never before. Ranks would almost only want to play the same ranks, and it would essentially kill the prospect of playing open games altogether.

Only for the cowards.

theres a difference between caring about points and being a coward
already most high ranked seq players play mostly private games for high ranks only to save them from losing points, this suggestion, as aa said, would only increase that

If someone won't play someone else for fear of losing their precious points, then they are a coward who actually has no faith in their own skill.

[Mr Changsha]

But the biggest flaw, would be that it would instantly segregate the site like never before. Ranks would almost only want to play the same ranks, and it would essentially kill the prospect of playing open games altogether.

Only for the cowards.

theres a difference between caring about points and being a coward
already most high ranked seq players play mostly private games for high ranks only to save them from losing points, this suggestion, as aa said, would only increase that

If someone won't play someone else for fear of losing their precious points, then they are a coward who actually has no faith in their own skill.

'Coward' is too strong a word in this context.

[a.sub]

just throwing in my two cents with math
the RR score for winning a game would have this equation that i figured out
if you won (W+20L/W)*(RWO+L)/(OW)
if you lost (W-20W/L)*(RWO+L)/(OW)
W=Your score
L=Opponent's score
R=Relative Rank
O= # of opponents, not # of games
so O=2*a+3*b...8*g
a= # of 2 player games
b= # of 3 player games
...
g = # of 8 player games

so for me for example
53 two player games
7 three player games
35 four player games
13 five player games
83 six player games
2 seven player games
26 eight player games
O=1052
W=1500
R=1.165
RR score =1745
if i beat a player with a score of 1000 i become 1763 so a delta of +18
if i lose to a player with score of 1000 i become 1713 so a delta of -32

i hope my number crunching and formula making helped you all
-Adith

[a.sub]

here is an excel of my score
the first collum is my opponent's score
the second is what i would be if i won with the old system
the third is what i would be if i lost with the old system
the fourth is what i would be if i won with the new system
the fifth is what i would be is i lost with the new system
realize my score with the old system starts at 1500
realize my score with the new system starts at 1748
the 100 point transfer max is not included in this
200 1503 1350 1751 1573
400 1505 1425 1754 1661
600 1508 1450 1757 1690
800 1511 1463 1760 1704
1000 1513 1470 1764 1713
1200 1516 1475 1767 1719
1400 1519 1479 1770 1723
1600 1521 1481 1773 1726
1800 1524 1483 1776 1729
2000 1527 1485 1779 1731
2200 1529 1486 1782 1732
2400 1532 1488 1785 1733
2600 1535 1488 1788 1735
2800 1537 1489 1791 1736
3000 1540 1490 1795 1736
3200 1543 1491 1798 1737
3400 1545 1491 1801 1738
3600 1548 1492 1804 1738
3800 1551 1492 1807 1739
4000 1553 1493 1810 1739
4200 1556 1493 1813 1740
4400 1559 1493 1816 1740
4600 1561 1493 1819 1740
4800 1564 1494 1823 1741
5000 1567 1494 1826 1741

[Timminz]

O= # of opponents, not # of games
so O=2*a+3*b...8*g
a= # of 2 player games
b= # of 3 player games
...
g = # of 8 player games

wouldn't it be
O=a+2b+3c...
since you only have 1 opponent in a 2 player games, 2 in a 3-way, etc...

[a.sub]

O= # of opponents, not # of games
so O=2*a+3*b...8*g
a= # of 2 player games
b= # of 3 player games
...
g = # of 8 player games

wouldn't it be
O=a+2b+3c...
since you only have 1 opponent in a 2 player games, 2 in a 3-way, etc...

oh yeah! my bad! i shall edit that now, thx!

[a.sub]

just fixed an error pointed out by

O= # of opponents, not # of games
so O=2*a+3*b...8*g
a= # of 2 player games
b= # of 3 player games
...
g = # of 8 player games

wouldn't it be
O=a+2b+3c...
since you only have 1 opponent in a 2 player games, 2 in a 3-way, etc...

just throwing in my two cents with math
the RR score for winning a game would have this equation that i figured out
if you won (W+20L/W)*(RWO+L)/(OW)
if you lost (W-20W/L)*(RWO+L)/(OW)
W=Your score
L=Opponent's score
R=Relative Rank
O= # of opponents, not # of games
so O=a+2*b...7*g
a= # of 2 player games
b= # of 3 player games
...
g = # of 8 player games

so for me for example
53 two player games
7 three player games
35 four player games
13 five player games
83 six player games
2 seven player games
26 eight player games
O=833
W=1500
R=1.165
RR score =1745
if i beat a player with a score of 1000 i become 1764 so a delta of +18
if i lose to a player with score of 1000 i become 1714 so a delta of -32

i hope my number crunching and formula making helped you all
-Adith

[Jeff Hardy]

If someone won't play someone else for fear of losing their precious points, then they are a coward who actually has no faith in their own skill.

not really, half the games that can be played here are all about luck

if a high rank has a 50% chance of beating you but can only gain 5 and lose 80, why should they do it?

thats like going up to someone on the street and saying "lets flip a coin. if its heads ill give you 1 euro and if its tails you have to give me 10" then calling them a coward when they say no

[a.sub]

If someone won't play someone else for fear of losing their precious points, then they are a coward who actually has no faith in their own skill.

not really, half the games that can be played here are all about luck

if a high rank has a 50% chance of beating you but can only gain 5 and lose 80, why should they do it?

thats like going up to someone on the street and saying "lets flip a coin. if its heads ill give you 1 euro and if its tails you have to give me 10" then calling them a coward when they say no

but its not really a 50-50 chance is it? im not sayinf Woodruff is right, i dont think he is. actually the thing is, if a high rank plays other high ranks, hes a coward, but if he plays low ranks, hes a n00b farmer, so whats the solution? just give up CC once ur a brig? just leave the high ranks alone, maybe if you get to their level u will understand

[Woodruff]

But the biggest flaw, would be that it would instantly segregate the site like never before. Ranks would almost only want to play the same ranks, and it would essentially kill the prospect of playing open games altogether.

Only for the cowards.

theres a difference between caring about points and being a coward
already most high ranked seq players play mostly private games for high ranks only to save them from losing points, this suggestion, as aa said, would only increase that

If someone won't play someone else for fear of losing their precious points, then they are a coward who actually has no faith in their own skill.

'Coward' is too strong a word in this context.

Ok, I'll buy that. You're probably right that coward is too strong of a word. Chickeneous is pretty accurate, however.

[Woodruff]

If someone won't play someone else for fear of losing their precious points, then they are a coward who actually has no faith in their own skill.

not really, half the games that can be played here are all about luck

if a high rank has a 50% chance of beating you but can only gain 5 and lose 80, why should they do it?

thats like going up to someone on the street and saying "lets flip a coin. if its heads ill give you 1 euro and if its tails you have to give me 10" then calling them a coward when they say no

50-50? Really?

First of all, if those games really ARE 50-50, then you're an idiot for PLAYING THOSE GAMES EVER because they're 50-50 against anyone!

Secondly, if the games really ARE 50-50, then there's absolutely no reason to keep a rating and rank. In fact, there's absolutely no reason to fear playing anyone.

Thanks for defusing your own argument.

EDIT: I'm not calling YOU an idiot. My "you" there is referring to anyone who plays those 50-50 games, if they believe they are 50-50.

[Woodruff]

If someone won't play someone else for fear of losing their precious points, then they are a coward who actually has no faith in their own skill.

not really, half the games that can be played here are all about luck

if a high rank has a 50% chance of beating you but can only gain 5 and lose 80, why should they do it?

thats like going up to someone on the street and saying "lets flip a coin. if its heads ill give you 1 euro and if its tails you have to give me 10" then calling them a coward when they say no

but its not really a 50-50 chance is it? im not sayinf Woodruff is right, i dont think he is. actually the thing is, if a high rank plays other high ranks, hes a coward, but if he plays low ranks, hes a n00b farmer, so whats the solution? just give up CC once ur a brig? just leave the high ranks alone, maybe if you get to their level u will understand

Eh, I'll never be a high rank, which is fine by me as it really doesn't mean much to me. Other than tournament games, I mostly play 6-8 player games. I also don't run from anyone.

[a.sub]

Ok, I'll buy that. You're probably right that coward is too strong of a word. Chickeneous is pretty accurate, however.

how about you just admit to being jealous and leave. not gonna lie ur posts have sucked so far. if i were to say, "Hey im going to roll a dice, if its a 6 i shoot u in the face, if its anything else u get a 25c piece of bubble gum, wanna play?" would you say yes? well if you do, then ur an idiot, and if you dont, ur a hypocrite, and if you dont answer then ur admitting ur post was dumb.
please chose now so we can continue with the OP. the fact is that the higher ranks shouldnt be persuaded to play small time players (myself included) because that would be no fun. there is no challenge. it would be like beating a bunch of legless retarded kids at football, GOOD JOB! they have a high rank because they are good, and want a challenge ie other high ranked players and multi accounts like "the egg" and the fact that ur angry abotu them not giving a shit about u is just becuase a small fact u need to accept a single fact, KICKING UR ASS IN RISK IS NOT FUN TO THE HIGH RANKS. and its not just to, its toa bunch of ppl including me. dont get me wrong i have played games with generals and field marshals (and SkyT when he was conqueror) and they enjoyed playing with me, but quite frankly i can totally sympathize with the fact that they want a challenge.

[Woodruff]

Ok, I'll buy that. You're probably right that coward is too strong of a word. Chickeneous is pretty accurate, however.

how about you just admit to being jealous and leave.

Jealous of what? I see nothing to be jealous of. I take that back...I AM jealous of qwert's mapmaking abilities. But other than that, I see nothing to be jealous of.

not gonna lie ur posts have sucked so far.

Not gonna lie...I really don't care. Please keep this sort of post in FlameWars, though. Thanks.

if i were to say, "Hey im going to roll a dice, if its a 6 i shoot u in the face, if its anything else u get a 25c piece of bubble gum, wanna play?" would you say yes? well if you do, then ur an idiot, and if you dont, ur a hypocrite, and if you dont answer then ur admitting ur post was dumb.

That doesn't even make basic logical sense. You're really equating losing some points with getting shot in the face? Really? Yeah, I didn't think so either.

please chose now so we can continue with the OP.

What? Chose?

the fact is that the higher ranks shouldnt be persuaded to play small time players (myself included) because that would be no fun. there is no challenge. it would be like beating a bunch of legless retarded kids at football, GOOD JOB!

Yes, I've noticed that high-ranked players NEVER play newbies. I've noticed that! Good point. Or not.

they have a high rank because they are good

Some (and you may well be one, I don't know) certainly do have high ranks because they are good. I've certainly seen it first-hand. Sadly, many of them are high ranked simply because they are quick and thus are good at overwhelming their opponents in speed games.

and want a challenge ie other high ranked players and multi accounts like "the egg" and the fact that ur angry abotu them not giving a shit about u is just becuase a small fact u need to accept a single fact, KICKING UR ASS IN RISK IS NOT FUN TO THE HIGH RANKS.

You seem to be really going off the deep end here, to be honest. I'm not angry about anyone "not giving a shit about me" on this site. I frankly wouldn't expect anyone to. By the same token, I'm pretty sure I'm not as easy to beat as you seem to believe I am. But feel free to let my rating score continue to fool you.

dont get me wrong i have played games with generals and field marshals (and SkyT when he was conqueror) and they enjoyed playing with me, but quite frankly i can totally sympathize with the fact that they want a challenge.

Oh, I absolutely do as well. That's the whole point, as far as I'm concerned. Too many of them don't seem to agree about that, however.

[FarangDemon]

Please stop the flaming. Mods please delete all flames.

I have spoken to some mods and know that at least a few of them recognize the need for changing the scoring system. Whether there is enough leadership and guts to actually implement any solution (there are dozens of simple, viable solutions languishing in Sug Bug purgatory), no matter how well presented or received by the community, is another story.

Now lets please get back to the civilized discussion.

[a.sub]

Farang is right, my apologies to Wood, for flaming i guess i was having an off day when i posted

[Woodruff]

Farang is right, my apologies to Wood, for flaming i guess i was having an off day when i posted

No sweat. It's certainly happened to me. Thanks.

[Jeff Hardy]

If someone won't play someone else for fear of losing their precious points, then they are a coward who actually has no faith in their own skill.

not really, half the games that can be played here are all about luck

if a high rank has a 50% chance of beating you but can only gain 5 and lose 80, why should they do it?

thats like going up to someone on the street and saying "lets flip a coin. if its heads ill give you 1 euro and if its tails you have to give me 10" then calling them a coward when they say no

50-50? Really?

First of all, if those games really ARE 50-50, then you're an idiot for PLAYING THOSE GAMES EVER because they're 50-50 against anyone!

Secondly, if the games really ARE 50-50, then there's absolutely no reason to keep a rating and rank. In fact, there's absolutely no reason to fear playing anyone.

Thanks for defusing your own argument.

EDIT: I'm not calling YOU an idiot. My "you" there is referring to anyone who plays those 50-50 games, if they believe they are 50-50.

maybe you should learn to read.