Massive Assault Official Forum
   
It is currently Mon Apr 23, 2018 11:35 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Online scoring system
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2004 1:20 pm 
Offline
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 6:47 pm
Posts: 161
Karma: 0
Thought I'd ask for your thoughts on the scoring system.

I'm not sure exactly how it works, but it seams that you get points even if you lose. The down side to this is that your rank doesn't really reflect how good you are, just how many games you've completed.

It might be better if you're rank was dependent on the numbers of wins and losses you've had, and the rank of your opponent at the time.

I also think your score should go down if you lose. The lower rank your opponent the more it should go down.

An exception to this might be if you're playing a conscript. They could be given an average rating until they have completed at least a few games.

Something like the international chess ranking system maybe? (Rocklizards idea)

If this is being discussed elsewhere, please point me in the right direction.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Online scoring system
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2004 2:03 pm 
Offline
Veteran

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 5:09 pm
Posts: 84
Karma: 0

Location: Vienna, Austria
MortonHQ wrote:
I also think your score should go down if you lose. The lower rank your opponent the more it should go down.


Morton, I think there is a reason why this is not done: With being given some pts for losses, the newbs have an incentive not to drop. With negative pts for losses, we would never see a surrender.

But perhaps there should be some medals added: First Class for beating a General, Second Class for beating a Colonel,...

In the meantime, I give you a a medal for altruism, since because you are both a good *and* fast player, the current system has been practically designed for you... :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2004 2:45 pm 
Offline
P.L. Marshal
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 11:14 am
Posts: 1065
Karma: 0
completely agree with Morton - score should be based ONLY on number of wins
AND amount of score per win should be significantly larger if you defeat someone above your rank.
Only reason behind current score system is that there is no way to prevent newbies from dropping from game when they see they losing.And btw this is rather worthless reason because they DO drop anyway.
and you Coffedragon not right - even if were no score points for lose you will see a surrender from me for example - if i see i lost i will give opponent his hard-earned win...t....i think it's true for any self-respecting player.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2004 3:02 pm 
Offline
Veteran

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 5:09 pm
Posts: 84
Karma: 0

Location: Vienna, Austria
Points *do* currently reflect experience. (It is true that you get experience from lost battles also.)

It is just that you have a big advantage if you play more games. Not giving any pts for losses wouldnґt change that significantly. The problem is that, in principle, winning 20 games against Conscripts would presently get you farther than winning 3 games against Tiger.

A difficult thing to solve, though.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2004 3:22 pm 
Offline
P.L. Marshal
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 11:14 am
Posts: 1065
Karma: 0
Coffeedragon wrote:
. The problem is that, in principle, winning 20 games against Conscripts would presently get you farther than winning 3 games against Tiger.
.

omg
winning THREE games against the Great Predator? man do you know what it takes?
probably only Vadim can do it...when he returns to playing


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2004 3:49 pm 
Offline
Veteran

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 5:09 pm
Posts: 84
Karma: 0

Location: Vienna, Austria
Mrakobes wrote:
Coffeedragon wrote:
The problem is that, in principle, winning 20 games against Conscripts would presently get you farther than winning 3 games against Tiger.

omg
winning THREE games against the Great Predator? man do you know what it takes?
probably only Vadim can do it...when he returns to playing


Of course I know thatґs extremely difficult. Itґs very difficult to beat Tiger even once.

I need an "I beat Tiger, and all I got was lousy 36 points" T-shirt. :lol:


Attachments:
CoffeevsTigeronNobleRust.rep [85.59 KiB]
Downloaded 680 times
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2004 4:18 pm 
Offline
Developer

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 253
Karma: 0

Location: Wargaming.net
I should respond in this topic as a person who has designed that score system. Some of you're right, some are not. Just read the following:

1) The multiplayer scoring system should be definitely published on the web-site in details, while it published in manual just in short. However it does not still. I will work on it :-)

2) Your score depends on your EXPERIENCE but not wins, loses ot it's ratio.

3) Each game you play increases your experience. And after the game is finished it is assumed that overall experience depends from looser rank only.

4) Winner gets 80% of game points (which depends on looser status).

5) Looser gets 20% of game points (which depends on its status).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2004 4:19 pm 
Offline
Developer

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 253
Karma: 0

Location: Wargaming.net
Here is a table, which defines score will get looser and winner depending on looser rank:

LOOSER RANK / LOOSER SCORE / WINNER SCORE
Conscript / 1 / 4
Private / 2 / 8
Corporal / 3 / 12
Sergeant / 4 / 16
Lieutenant / 5 / 20
Captain / 6 / 24
Major / 7 / 28
Colonel / 8 / 32
General / 9 / 36
Marshal / 10 / 40


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2004 4:28 pm 
Offline
Developer

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 253
Karma: 0

Location: Wargaming.net
Here is a table, which defines player rank depending on its score:

Conscript - score=0
Private - score=1 (i.e. at least one game finished)
Corporal - 1<score<10
Sergeant - ranked position < 15% or score<20
Lieutenant - ranked position < 40% or score<75
Captain - ranked position < 60% or score<200
Major - ranked position < 75% or score<500
Colonel - ranked position < 90% or score<1000
General - ranked position <99% or score<2500
Marshal - ranked position >= 99% and score>=2500

This table is just current one and may change from time to time.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2004 4:40 pm 
Offline
P.L. Marshal
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 11:14 am
Posts: 1065
Karma: 0
i dont like this system at all
first,i certainly do insist that loser should get no points from his defeat.
Easiest way is to base the rank on victories only.But if you want really fair system you should count in score alot of other factors
1) rate of losses - this is VERY important factor in any war and it should affect the score points gained...after all you know what a "Pirryc victory" means
2) size of map - easier to win on emerald that on Wasserland
3) rank of winner should count too - if sergeant manages to defeat colonel he should certainly get more points that another general defeating same colonel


Last edited by Mrakobes on Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2004 4:46 pm 
Offline
Developer

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 253
Karma: 0

Location: Wargaming.net
We've tried to keep this system simple. And we've tried to defend players from frozen games...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2004 4:52 pm 
Offline
Veteran

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 5:09 pm
Posts: 84
Karma: 0

Location: Vienna, Austria
Thought about it a little, and I now think itґs quite a good system.

There are some quirks right now, but the system will work pretty reliably when there are more players registered and everybody has played more games I think.

Only disadvantage is it *does* somewhat favour fast play over perfectionism. Someone who plays fast and wins 2/3 of his games will be better off than someone playing very slowly who wins *all* games.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2004 5:32 pm 
Offline
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 6:47 pm
Posts: 161
Karma: 0
Coffeedragon wrote:
Thought about it a little, and I now think itґs quite a good system../quote]


I appreciate the point about trying to keep it simple and giving newbies a reason to play. Also, unless your around all the time (like me just now because I'm on holiday, not because I'm trying to boost by score!) it makes sense to concentrate on the important games.

What about a system where the winner gets 25% of the losers current points and the loser loses 20% of their current points. Newbies could get 10 points to start with and be ranked conscript, which would also be the lowest possible score. Having 10 as the lowest possible score avoids people taking a new identity if there score is less than that.

Using the 25% and the 20% means that there will always be an increasing number of points in the game.

Current ranking system based on points is fine although the levels may need to be adjusted.

You could also make it that you automatically forfit some points if you refuse a challenge when you don't have at least 3 active games against people of a similar level. I don't think this should apply to all chalenges cos you don't want to have to accept them all, but this avoids people stalling if they have lots of points.

The one danger is that the generals may not want to play the newbies to save their score. I don't think this is a big problem as if they lose the points will be distributed correctly and the newbies will/should want to concentrate on other newbies initially.

You could introduce an option for training battles where the ranks are very different, maybe 4 levels, which would only award victory points so that these games could take place.

If you ignore the last part, I don't think this would be much more complicated than the current system. You could even start with your current points to avoid scrapping the current scores (plus 10 points for everyone).

Newbies would play and surrender because they have nothing to lose.
If you include the training game option, the generals would play cos they would still get points. All other games should be fairly scored.

I think this sort of scoring system would show where the skill lies, even if you only play a few games.

I also reckon that you should gradually lose points to your opponent if you don't play your turns! Yes, yes, I know people have other things to do, but more that 2 weeks is getting silly! I won't mention any names, you know who you are!

Where the win is guaranteed please just surrender!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2004 6:02 pm 
Offline
Veteran

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 5:09 pm
Posts: 84
Karma: 0

Location: Vienna, Austria
MortonHQ wrote:
What about a system where the winner gets 25% of the losers current points and the loser loses 20% of their current points.


Nah, I wouldnґt like any system where I can lose some of my hard-earned points. :lol:

And I would never like to be forced to take a challenge. That sounds way too much like work! :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2004 6:21 pm 
Offline
Developer

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 253
Karma: 0

Location: Wargaming.net
agree :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 11:54 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 3:06 am
Posts: 1338
Karma: 1

Location: USA
VaNO wrote:
Here is a table, which defines score will get looser and winner depending on looser rank:


First of all, let me get something straight... so if you are a Marshall and lose to a Conscript, you still get 10 points? That would mean if you get to the top, as long as you're playing plenty of games (even losing a lot of them) you'd stay at the top. Shouldn't the loser get points based on what the rank of the person they were playing against was?

I've got another idea as well. The whole "experience" system makes sense to me, but it doesn't show how good a player is, just how much they have played. Some players have natural aptitude with games such as this, so people learn at different levels. You could be someone who has played 500 games, but still not have a complete understanding of the tactics to win.

So in order to determine how Good a player is (as opposed to how much experience they have), we would need an additional statistic. It would have to be a statistic that has the same range no matter how many games you have played. For example, one day someone might be as good as Tiger (Hehe, I wonder about how he feels about being the measuring stick for Everything). If this person couldn't play as often as he does, the experience system would never let people know this player was better. A static range system could.

One quick way to apply this is to divide the total experience you've gotten by the total number of games you've played. This statistic would have a range of 1 to 40 (40 could only be reached if you were a marshall and beat other marshalls quite consistently - you would have earned that rank). That way a casual player could compare themselves to a hardcore player. Someone that can only play a couple hours a day (like myself) has a chance of seeing how they are doing, and the chance to challenge people that are at a like level of skill. No doubt this approach is still flawed, but its along the lines of something I'd like to see.

Because of my time constraints, I try to be picky about who I challenge. I want to have good games with good players in the limited time I have each day. Of course I'm not Masochistic :). I'm not quite ready to challenge the best players again, but I do like stiff competition.

_________________
Founder of The New World Order, and moderator for the Andromeda Clan War.

NWO website:
http://www.freewebs.com/massiveassault-nwo/index.htm

Clan War website:
http://www.massiveassault.com/clans/nwo/ClanWar


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 4:37 pm 
Offline
Developer

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 253
Karma: 0

Location: Wargaming.net
The best thoughts I've heard ever on this issue! Congrats. I will kepp it in mind when rethinking on ranking system.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 5:58 pm 
Offline
Supreme Marshal
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2003 4:40 pm
Posts: 1980
Karma: 6

Location: Moscow, Russia
Maelstrom wrote:
... For example, one day someone might be as good as Tiger (Hehe, I wonder about how he feels about being the measuring stick for Everything).


It's very pleasant to hear :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 6:53 pm 
Offline
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 6:47 pm
Posts: 161
Karma: 0
I've been giving this some thought since my initial comments, and I reckon that all of the suggestions so far have a major flaw. That is, you get into the situation that for one reason or another an experienced or high ranking player won't want to play someone else.

I like Maelstrome's idea, but the same problem exists. If you have a score close to 40, you wouldn't want to play lower ranking players, because whatever happens your score would go down. For example if the experience points for a win were be less than your current rating there would be no point in playing.

My main problem with the current system is that the people who play the most games, myself included, have the highest rank regardless of how good they are. Not to mention the points for losing, grumble, grumble...

What we need is a system where each player plays the same number of games and against the same opponents, that way you know where you stand.

A tournement is great as a one off to sort the men from the boys, or should that be the Generals from the cannon fodder, but once you're out, you can't improve your position. And you do get some unlucky starts.

The obvious solution is to set up some sort of league, maybe 6 to 8 players per division, for the more dedicated players.

One game could be started each week to spread the games out, or all games could be initiated at the start with maybe a 2 or 3 month deadline to complete all games.

A history of league tables could chart your rise to fame and glory.

Once there are enough players, promotions and relegations could take place.

Hopefully you'll be more kind to this suggestion! I haven't finished putting the flames out on my first one yet!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 7:06 pm 
Offline
P.L. Marshal
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 11:14 am
Posts: 1065
Karma: 0
MortonHQ wrote:
My main problem with the current system is that the people who play the most games, myself included, have the highest rank regardless of how good they are.

absolutely true
look at me for example
4th place in rank list and still playing quite bad and making dumb mistakes :cry:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Karma functions powered by Karma MOD © 2007, 2009 m157y