Massive Assault Official Forum
   
It is currently Sun Jun 24, 2018 12:05 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Scoring
PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 1:31 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:14 pm
Posts: 424
Karma: 10

Location: Michigan
I placed a post on this once before but never had a response so i thought i would place another. Can someone explane the scoring system and how it is determined how many points are won or lost each game. I played a person one step above and would have gained about 90 points for a win and i lost 65 after my defeat--this seems to be a fair risk/reward ratio. But, there are games i have going against players in the top 40 where if i win i will gain 1, 2 or 3 points while if i lose i will probably have 2, 3 or 4 hundred deducted from my score. I know of many very good players in the ranks of major and colonel but the way the scoring is set up it is a terrible risk/reward ratio to play them. I think a much fairer scoring system would have some sort of multiple as a cap on the amount of points you can lose. As an example, say the multiple was set at 50. This would mean that if you can only gain 1 point with a victory, you can only lose 50 points with a loss. Without a change such as i have suggested, it is a total no win situation for a player to play anyone very far down the rank from them--much to lose while nothing to gain!!

_________________
Archers! But sir, will we not hit our own men? Yes, but we'll hit theirs too, and we have reserves!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 3:05 pm 
Offline
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:18 pm
Posts: 75
Karma: 0

Location: Sierra gold country
I second that. Scoring should at least have an understood rational behind it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:50 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:14 pm
Posts: 424
Karma: 10

Location: Michigan
At the very least, the amount of points you will lose in defeat should be listed right next to the amount you will gain if you win.

_________________
Archers! But sir, will we not hit our own men? Yes, but we'll hit theirs too, and we have reserves!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:16 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:25 am
Posts: 469
Karma: 0

Location: California
Don't worry so much about the points. If you are as good as the ranking thinks you are then you have nothing to fear.

_________________
Guardian of the SWORD

http://www.freewebs.com/7thwanzer

"Don't be a fool and die for your country. Let the other sonofabitch die for his." George S. Patton


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:51 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:14 pm
Posts: 424
Karma: 10

Location: Michigan
I don't think "worry" is the right word. I think there are players--myself included--that would like to know how the scoring is based, what points we can gain in a match and what points we can lose in a match. Personally, I think the system needs to be tweeked because there are a lot of players, like you, that are much better than their score would indicate, who are capable of beating anyone with the right layout , who i would gain perhaps 2 or 3 points with a win and lose 3 or 4 hundred with a loss--this is out of wack.

_________________
Archers! But sir, will we not hit our own men? Yes, but we'll hit theirs too, and we have reserves!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:35 pm 
Offline
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:18 pm
Posts: 75
Karma: 0

Location: Sierra gold country
storm440 wrote:
I don't think "worry" is the right word. I think there are players--myself included--that would like to know how the scoring is based, what points we can gain in a match and what points we can lose in a match. Personally, I think the system needs to be tweeked because there are a lot of players, like you, that are much better than their score would indicate, who are capable of beating anyone with the right layout , who i would gain perhaps 2 or 3 points with a win and lose 3 or 4 hundred with a loss--this is out of wack.


Its clearly designed to force you to play an equal or higher rank or risk losing a disproportionate number of points. A clever method of forcing players to play at their own skill level or higher. That way one cant stay in the shallows and feed only on the easy pickings. The win loss ratio becomes too steep, keeps the line moving as it were. Once I think it through I suppose its as fair a method as you could hope for. That said, I would still like to know how many points I stand to lose if I decide to play my brother who is a rank behind me. Little bugger just cost me a lot of points and all on account of he got lucky :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: No lost points
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 3:05 am 
Offline
Developer

Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 338
Karma: 0

Location: Wargaming.net
Guys.

We are about to change that system.

No one will be losing poings ever. Points can be only gained for games, not lost.

Victor


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:58 pm 
Offline
Tough Nut

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 10:21 am
Posts: 25
Karma: 0
Quote:
No one will be losing poings ever. Points can be only gained for games, not lost.


Hope you reconsider. I think that the new scorign system is a huge improvment over the old system. es I hate losing points, but the fact of the matter is I can regain them just as quick. I consider myself an average player and the current ranking system would see to agree. If you never lose points, you get rewarded for your shear volume of play, not the quality of it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:57 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:14 pm
Posts: 424
Karma: 10

Location: Michigan
Big O does make a good point. I can remember a few players in the old system that became Marshall just by playing hundreds of games at a time, loseing 3 or 4 or sometimes more for every 1 that they won. I would have to say that if i had to choose between the system we now have and one in which someone can reach the top ranks with a record of 100 wins and 500 losses I would have to vote for the system in place now.

_________________
Archers! But sir, will we not hit our own men? Yes, but we'll hit theirs too, and we have reserves!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 3:45 am 
Offline
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:15 pm
Posts: 135
Karma: 8

Location: Bern
I agree. Please reconsider this. You could get some more feedback by starting a poll.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:43 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:14 pm
Posts: 424
Karma: 10

Location: Michigan
On the other hand, If we look at this from a marketing stand point, the game will be more attractive to people if the upper ranks are attainable for more people. Perhaps there can be some sort of middle ground where the point deduct for a loss is fairly small, say 5, 10 or 15 points. This would still allow the adverage player to play a lot of games and rise thru the ranks and would also keep the fairly bad players from just playing 100's of games, loseing most, and still being rewarded. And, you could keep a seperate web page, like MAN had, where the players are rated with the glicko system.

_________________
Archers! But sir, will we not hit our own men? Yes, but we'll hit theirs too, and we have reserves!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:22 am 
Offline
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:18 pm
Posts: 75
Karma: 0

Location: Sierra gold country
Rank is fun and all that but for a usable indicator of skill I would be happy just having a win loss ratio to refer to i.e win/loss 50/50 or something along those lines. That would give shadow-d something like 95/5, Morn 90/10 and me 60/40. Seems more useful to the serious player while removing the focus from rank. As it is under the present system as soon as, most, players see they are going to lose (I know Im guilty) the speed at which turns are returned slows down while they wait for a win or two.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:42 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 6:45 am
Posts: 282
Karma: 0
Rodehard wrote:
Rank is fun and all that but for a usable indicator of skill I would be happy just having a win loss ratio to refer to i.e win/loss 50/50 or something along those lines. That would give shadow-d something like 95/5, Morn 90/10 and me 60/40. Seems more useful to the serious player while removing the focus from rank. As it is under the present system as soon as, most, players see they are going to lose (I know Im guilty) the speed at which turns are returned slows down while they wait for a win or two.


Hmm, I'm less intrested in a game that I'm loosing, but heu, I have the respect to finish those games while I don't like them :)

Anyhow, on the ranking system, I have more then 100 games, and I'm far from Marshall hehe :)
Win / loose ratio would say me more too, since I mostly go check the win/losses from a player who sended a challenge.

_________________
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 6:06 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:14 pm
Posts: 424
Karma: 10

Location: Michigan
There could be a 2 tiered system--no points would be deducted for players below the rank of colonel and then only a small amount for those above that rank. This would allow the new players to feel they have a chance to attain higher ranks and it would make attaining the very top ranks still somewhat skill based. The win loss record is still what most of us look at when playing someone new. I think that whatever system is used, new players have to feel that they can get to the top positions and some form of the glicko system is they only real way to do that.

_________________
Archers! But sir, will we not hit our own men? Yes, but we'll hit theirs too, and we have reserves!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 7:09 pm 
Offline
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:15 pm
Posts: 135
Karma: 8

Location: Bern
Rodehard wrote:
Rank is fun and all that but for a usable indicator of skill I would be happy just having a win loss ratio to refer to i.e win/loss 50/50 or something along those lines. That would give shadow-d something like 95/5, Morn 90/10 and me 60/40.


Is it a coincidence that all have 100 games or do you really want a percentage? Percentage means that if someone have played two games and won both of them he will have a 100/0 ratio. I don't think that this would be wise. If you want a win/loss ratio then it must be the real one - currently 163/41 for me.

But I would have a problem with this one too. This could be dangerous because the win loss ratio doesn't say anything about against who these games were played. If you use public challenges and restrict your opponents to Conscript and Private you will probably get a very good win/loss ratio.
To a certain extent this works for glicko too. But then you have to restrict your games to Major. In order to get some points you have to play a lot of games of course.

Well, I prefer playing against higher ranks (Colonel, General, Marshall) because I love challenges. ;-)

Bokkie wrote:
Hmm, I'm less intrested in a game that I'm loosing, but heu, I have the respect to finish those games while I don't like them :)

Guillty as charged. :o
I'm playing a lot of games at the moment. It depends on my opponent but if I don't think I can win a game anymore I surrender. In my opinion it's waste of time - my time.


Last edited by Morn on Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:48 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 8:19 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:14 pm
Posts: 424
Karma: 10

Location: Michigan
Perhaps we are giving all of this point/rank thing too much attention. It really does not matter what the rank or how many wins and losses a player has--anyone that has played a fair number of games gets to know who is good--whatever their rank. Either they have played the player in question or they know someone who has and have received some feedback.

_________________
Archers! But sir, will we not hit our own men? Yes, but we'll hit theirs too, and we have reserves!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 3:19 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf

Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 12:17 am
Posts: 620
Karma: 4
It could be conceivable to have a list of players who choose to be RANKLESS.
That way they could always play for a Diversion from the Grind-of-Life and just have as much "fun" as possible.
The Ranked Players could have their scores affected by the Rank-Less players and could keep on Competitively Ranking.
Eh?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 6:04 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:14 pm
Posts: 424
Karma: 10

Location: Michigan
A very interesting idea!

_________________
Archers! But sir, will we not hit our own men? Yes, but we'll hit theirs too, and we have reserves!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


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