Page 1 of 2
Rank Addendum
Posted:
Mon Feb 14, 2011 7:31 amby mybad
I'd like to see what everybody thinks about this concept. It might take a little bit of work, but I imagine this could have far-reaching implications for the future of the site. Better site = more speed games for me!
If we can come up with some ideas, such as pros and cons, formula for calculation, and ease of implementation, maybe Andy will consider juggling things around a bit.
It's just an idea; please look at it with an open mind, consider what factors are important to you and give your input. I will keep checking and update a list at the top to keep it fresh and maybe the mods will work with me to keep the thread clean while we toss ideas around.
Concise description:Specifics/Details:- Highest Rank attained/operative rank would factor into points exchange. Meaning high-ranked players will lose less points to cooks with 600 games, such as myself.
How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:- Less butt-hurtedness
Re: Rank Addendum
Posted:
Mon Feb 14, 2011 7:37 amby mybad
it would also be kind of like a badge for shitty cooks, like me. I could be like "hey I was a sergeant for 20 minutes once". then 10% less people on this site could laugh at me and order sandwiches.
Fewnix wrote:I like the idea. If you look at the score graph provided by BoB, you can get a rough idea of the range of scores and the progress of the players ranking, with highs and lows. So you have a rough sense of how a player ranks over the long term or in the recent period. A moving average or mean or median ranking might be doable in some hard number format.
For example, the graphical score for a player shows a range between a low of 1300 and a high of 1800 in the last hundred or so games. Is this a player who, "on average", is a career officer, ranked over 1600 . with had a few bad streaks or, is this someone who at least half the time was stuck in the ranks, below 4010 and had a couple of "lucky "streaks to bring the occasional 1700 to 1800 score?
There are three ways to calculate the "average" for a range like this:
1) add the lowest score, 1300, and the highest score, 1800, and divide by 2 =1550.
2) add up all the scores and divide by the total number of games.
3) Rank the scores from lowest to highest and identify the score that is the mid point.
Variations that might be doable and desirable might be to post both the "average" ranking over the last 10 games and the last 100 games.That should give a reasonably "true" ranking with good and bad streaks identified
I like where you're going with this. a more comprehensive stats system, instead of treating points like a wallet balance.
The point to my suggestion is because I want more activity for the site. more games. if I gave a shit about score I'd play for score instead of fun and be an elitist nerd like Mr. Adams. I just think it's more fair for everybody if #1 - people weren't threatened with the prospect of large point losses for playing new or low-ranked players, and #2 - we had a better idea of a player's actual stats, instead of simply how many points we stand to gain or lose pending elimination.
Re: Rank Addendum
Posted:
Mon Feb 14, 2011 12:21 pmby greenoaks
perhaps you should take your av's advice
Re: Rank Addendum
Posted:
Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:34 pmby Mr_Adams
greenoaks wrote:perhaps you should take your av's advice
Re: Rank Addendum
Posted:
Tue Feb 15, 2011 12:21 amby mybad
greenoaks wrote:perhaps you should take your av's advice
good one...
Re: Rank Addendum
Posted:
Tue Feb 15, 2011 12:24 amby TheForgivenOne
And what happens with a player that once had a score of 5500? That's going to constantly follow them now that their score is at 1600? or 2000?
Re: Rank Addendum
Posted:
Tue Feb 15, 2011 10:28 amby mybad
yes. why not? if someone previously held a score of 5500 it should be noted and factored into point gain/loss, even if that player is currently a cadet. it only seems fair. I think it makes more sense than losing 50 points for playing against me in a 1v1 when odds are good that I'm going to win and my score is low because of other circumstances. it's incentive not to play against me, which is hardly fair.
Re: Rank Addendum
Posted:
Tue Feb 15, 2011 11:14 amby Mr_Adams
You're just butt hurt because you don't get enough points for your few and far between wins. You think "If I play Mr_Adams and win, I should get 80 points instead of 30! That would be great!" Well, what happens when I decide I want to play less feudal and more variety? Now i have to put up with my score dropping twice as fast? My rank dropping to cook, when it should have leveled off at Sergent? Heck no! I'd start a new account and ditch this one, if that were the case. actually, I'd probably ditch the site all together. As is, you get plenty of points for your sparse wins. be happy with it, and bug off.
Re: Rank Addendum
Posted:
Tue Feb 15, 2011 5:52 pmby TheForgivenOne
mybad wrote:yes. why not? if someone previously held a score of 5500 it should be noted and factored into point gain/loss, even if that player is currently a cadet. it only seems fair. I think it makes more sense than losing 50 points for playing against me in a 1v1 when odds are good that I'm going to win and my score is low because of other circumstances. it's incentive not to play against me, which is hardly fair.
You do realize your "highest rank/operative rank" is totally skewed, right?
Say you're high score is 1200, and you are at 1000 right now. 1200/1000 = 1.2
This player goes up against this ---> 5500/1200 = 4.5833333~
Suddenly, instead of losing about 22-25 points from the lower ranked player, the Corporal is going to lose about 50~ points. You are only going to piss off more players that used to be high ranks, but now are lower ranks.
Also, someone AT their high rank is going to have skewed results. 2500/2500 = 1
In that situation, the player with 2500 would win more points that he would if he lost.
Re: Rank Addendum
Posted:
Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:21 pmby dana1971
I've been on the site for a few months now, and I think the scoring system works. If you get knocked down a rank or two then you need to learn from your mistakes, pray to the dice god and start over.
It's a lot like gambling and the points are your money.
Posting, or factoring in your highest score ever is a bit silly in my opinion, it's like saying, once I was a millionaire and now I'm broke, but you still have to treat me like I'm successful.
I don't think that's going to do anything but make people wonder what happened? How'd you loose all your points and why didn't you do something about it?
For what it's worth that's what I think.
Best Wishes,
Dana
Re: Rank Addendum
Posted:
Wed Feb 16, 2011 2:44 amby Fewnix
I like the idea. If you look at the score graph provided by BoB, you can get a rough idea of the range of scores and the progress of the players ranking, with highs and lows. So you have a rough sense of how a player ranks over the long term or in the recent period. A moving average or mean or median ranking might be doable in some hard number format.
For example, the graphical score for a player shows a range between a low of 1300 and a high of 1800 in the last hundred or so games. Is this a player who, "on average", is a career officer, ranked over 1600 . with had a few bad streaks or, is this someone who at least half the time was stuck in the ranks, below 4010 and had a couple of "lucky "streaks to bring the occasional 1700 to 1800 score?
There are three ways to calculate the "average" for a range like this:
1) add the lowest score, 1300, and the highest score, 1800, and divide by 2 =1550.
2) add up all the scores and divide by the total number of games.
3) Rank the scores from lowest to highest and identify the score that is the mid point.
Variations that might be doable and desirable might be to post both the "average" ranking over the last 10 games and the last 100 games.That should give a reasonably "true" ranking with good and bad streaks identified
Re: Rank Addendum
Posted:
Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:04 amby mybad
Fewnix wrote:I like the idea. If you look at the score graph provided by BoB, you can get a rough idea of the range of scores and the progress of the players ranking, with highs and lows. So you have a rough sense of how a player ranks over the long term or in the recent period. A moving average or mean or median ranking might be doable in some hard number format.
For example, the graphical score for a player shows a range between a low of 1300 and a high of 1800 in the last hundred or so games. Is this a player who, "on average", is a career officer, ranked over 1600 . with had a few bad streaks or, is this someone who at least half the time was stuck in the ranks, below 4010 and had a couple of "lucky "streaks to bring the occasional 1700 to 1800 score?
There are three ways to calculate the "average" for a range like this:
1) add the lowest score, 1300, and the highest score, 1800, and divide by 2 =1550.
2) add up all the scores and divide by the total number of games.
3) Rank the scores from lowest to highest and identify the score that is the mid point.
Variations that might be doable and desirable might be to post both the "average" ranking over the last 10 games and the last 100 games.That should give a reasonably "true" ranking with good and bad streaks identified
I like where you're going with this. a more comprehensive stats system, instead of treating points like a wallet balance.
The point to my suggestion is because I want more activity for the site. more games. if I gave a shit about score I'd play for score instead of fun and be an elitist nerd like Mr. Adams. I just think it's more fair for everybody if #1 - people weren't threatened with the prospect of large point losses for playing new or low-ranked players, and #2 - we had a better idea of a player's actual stats, instead of simply how many points we stand to gain or lose pending elimination.
Re: Rank Addendum
Posted:
Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:06 amby mybad
TheForgivenOne wrote:
You do realize your "highest rank/operative rank" is totally skewed, right?
Say you're high score is 1200, and you are at 1000 right now. 1200/1000 = 1.2
This player goes up against this ---> 5500/1200 = 4.5833333~
Suddenly, instead of losing about 22-25 points from the lower ranked player, the Corporal is going to lose about 50~ points. You are only going to piss off more players that used to be high ranks, but now are lower ranks.
Also, someone AT their high rank is going to have skewed results. 2500/2500 = 1
In that situation, the player with 2500 would win more points that he would if he lost.
I was hoping we could come up with something a little better than that. think outside the box.
dana1971 wrote:I've been on the site for a few months now, and I think the scoring system works. If you get knocked down a rank or two then you need to learn from your mistakes, pray to the dice god and start over.
It's a lot like gambling and the points are your money.
Posting, or factoring in your highest score ever is a bit silly in my opinion, it's like saying, once I was a millionaire and now I'm broke, but you still have to treat me like I'm successful.
I don't think that's going to do anything but make people wonder what happened? How'd you loose all your points and why didn't you do something about it?
For what it's worth that's what I think.
Best Wishes,
Dana
ok thanks Dana it's good to hear from an adult.
maybe I'm looking at the points system wrong. I was under the impression it should be relevant to skill and not simply monopoly money. I can see why certain players would be threatened by my idea if they were the type who would actually start new accounts over it.
Mr_Adams wrote:You're just butt hurt because you don't get enough points for your few and far between wins. You think "If I play Mr_Adams and win, I should get 80 points instead of 30! That would be great!" Well, what happens when I decide I want to play less feudal and more variety? Now i have to put up with my score dropping twice as fast? My rank dropping to cook, when it should have leveled off at Sergent? Heck no! I'd start a new account and ditch this one, if that were the case. actually, I'd probably ditch the site all together. As is, you get plenty of points for your sparse wins. be happy with it, and bug off.
ok go take your medicine and come back when you can be civil. grownups are talking.
Re: Rank Addendum
Posted:
Wed Feb 16, 2011 10:00 amby mybad
2011-02-15 01:36:00 - mybad: green, I don't understand why it's better if blue wins...
2011-02-16 03:32:08 - codland: because i won't lose so many points sorry
Game 8323902
Re: Rank Addendum
Posted:
Wed Feb 16, 2011 12:05 pmby Mr_Adams
He'd still lose fewer points if the hoff won, as his high score is higher (I think I've seen him with swords before) than yours. this doesn't help your argument.
Re: Rank Addendum
Posted:
Thu Feb 17, 2011 10:25 pmby PLAYER57832
The scores are already weighted pretty highly against those of high rank.
Re: Rank Addendum
Posted:
Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:12 pmby Mr_Adams
PLAYER57832 wrote:The scores are already weighted pretty highly against those of high rank.
That's what I'm saying.
Re: Rank Addendum
Posted:
Fri Feb 18, 2011 7:18 amby mybad
ok, I get what you guys are saying, just to be clear, I'm trying to get a dialogue started about a better scoring system. I think it's unfair to high and low ranks that there's an incentive for them not to play. any suggestion is welcome, as is negative feedback, such as supportive arguments for the current system. thanks.
Re: Rank Addendum
Posted:
Fri Feb 18, 2011 10:50 amby PLAYER57832
I like the idea of posting a person's highest rank. however, to tie it to points would be a mistake. Go over some of the past suggestions for modifying score (some of the best are pretty old), then re-think your suggestion.
Re: Rank Addendum
Posted:
Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:10 amby mybad
yeah, honestly after talking to you guys and woodruff in the "can I quit" thread, I'm starting to realize that any way we figured out to make it work would just end up being abused.
Re: Rank Addendum
Posted:
Sat Feb 19, 2011 11:39 amby PLAYER57832
mybad wrote:yeah, honestly after talking to you guys and woodruff in the "can I quit" thread, I'm starting to realize that any way we figured out to make it work would just end up being abused.
No, but that kind of attitude is why a lot of old-timers respond as we do. It's a matter of not wanting to "reinvent the wheel" (that is go over things already covered many times).
The TRUTH is that the scoring system has been discussed, discussed and discussed. MANY ideas have been presented that seem great, until you really look at the data and impacts. There have been more than a few committees (closed, open only to specific people to cut down on garbage posts) specifically analysing this.
I am suggesting that rather than us going through and explaining what we remember from all those discussions (the public ones, of course), it would be worthwhile for you to go back and read those suggestions, THEN we won't be
"reinventing the wheel".
Re: Rank Addendum
Posted:
Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:03 amby mybad
ok give me some keywords so I don't miss anything.
has an opt-out, or seperate leagues been discussed?
Re: Rank Addendum
Posted:
Tue Mar 08, 2011 1:06 amby Queen_Herpes
I like the idea of auto-displaying each member's highest point total and highest rank held. This helps to show that the player (at some point) was really "good" or perhaps they have been consistently "bad." (good and bad in quotes on purpose.) This would help players to know that the player has potential (or not.)
Re: Rank Addendum
Posted:
Tue Mar 08, 2011 1:12 amby TheForgivenOne
Queen_Herpes wrote:I like the idea of auto-displaying each member's highest point total and highest rank held. This helps to show that the player (at some point) was really "good" or perhaps they have been consistently "bad." (good and bad in quotes on purpose.) This would help players to know that the player has potential (or not.)
This I always agreed with, I thought it would be neat to see everyone's highest rank/score held. I just don't like the fact of weighing in your highest score into points.
Re: Rank Addendum
Posted:
Tue Mar 08, 2011 1:20 amby Queen_Herpes
TheForgivenOne wrote:Queen_Herpes wrote:I like the idea of auto-displaying each member's highest point total and highest rank held. This helps to show that the player (at some point) was really "good" or perhaps they have been consistently "bad." (good and bad in quotes on purpose.) This would help players to know that the player has potential (or not.)
This I always agreed with, I thought it would be neat to see everyone's highest rank/score held. I just don't like the fact of weighing in your highest score into points.
I will argue in the future to support weighing in the highest score/rank into points. For now, I'm happy to just see everyone's highest rank and highest points. Should a separate thread be created, or do you think the OP would be willing to amend the sug to simply show everyone's highest rank and highest score? (assuming the database carries such information on the backside...)