New scoring method

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:08 pm

Korexus, i agree that it is in part simply ego stroking. A player who most of the time finishes in position 3-5 now doesn't get anything to show for it. He or she also has no comparison, no 'ooh if i beat so and so in this game and finish fourth i'll move up two places on the ranking' feeling.

I've played many games in which i pretty much sucked. But even if you're place 23467th you feel good about yourself if you do reasonably well and climb to 22899th. I would still be no where near as good as the top players, but i've got something to play for.

Now personally i've always had something to play for in wok (it's the Scholar way to win your first game i believe

), but please take in to consideration all those poor players that actually join CoN what have they got to play for?

(just kidding guys!).

Yondallus · Post by **Yondallus** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:12 pm

says the guy who got killed by the Vulkings

Vortan · Post by **Vortan** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:24 pm

Bryk ... Me, heated ... this is not me being heated BELIEVE ME!

I understand everything said about previous debates BUT Saladin has it right. I may only be a goal but even a minor goal is something to aim at. I would have thought that you intellectual teaching staff would have figured this out in real life with pupil motivation. The same applies at all levels of life.

If your concerns about lots of minor point totals eventually equalling a win well bear in mind that you are assuming that the offending winner is not actually playing in another game by now.

If it makes you feel better give 2000 for a win 1500 for a split win 1000 for 2nd 50 for 3rd 25 for 4th 10 for 5th and a measly 5 for 6th with nothing for 7th - 10th.

You dont have to change anything else. why would you.

Anyhow, my part in this debate is over cos I am going to bed and to be honest I cant be bothered because it was only what I thought was a viable suggestion - forgive my obviously impudent stupidity.

I quote Kor's posts one last time
'Power corrupts - Absolute power is kind of neat' . Hmm .. must be.

Brykovian · Post by **Brykovian** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 11:36 pm

My apologies to anyone (especially Vortan) who was offended by my comments ... I didn't intend them to be offensive.

I too would like to see the current VP system replaced with a simple-to-understand and easy-to-implement rating system that would allow players to be more able to see how they stack up relative to the other players. And in a 10-player game, I would hope that a rating could be obtained before a player gets to finish 1st or 2nd in a game.

That's my whole take on it. I'll let the rest of you argue out the details and heat things up as you see fit.

-Bryk

Calidus · Post by **Calidus** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:14 am

Very interesting conversations since I wasn't really paying attention.

I see some good ideas. Here's my take for what it's worth. Feel free to pick it apart:

I propose the following:

+5 points for each turn that you stay alive in the game. (turn 3 = +15 bonus points) You can get these points, even should you be the first player eliminated, unless you QUIT or go M-3, at which time you forfeit ALL points for the game. (good idea Dragonette!) There are a couple of things that make this difficult. How do you rank two players that get RIPPed on the same turn? OoP, or do you do a tie, and award the higher place, and drop the next place. (kind of like they do in golf) Also, once the game has completed, how do you assign players positions? Score? I can inflate my score with large amounts of missiles. Granted, if I am that late in the game, I probably don't have many missiles left. Anyhow, these are arguments left for later. Add the +5 points per turn survived to the following points for the win:

500 points for a solo win. (plus turns played bonus)
200 points for a shared win to each player that shares the win. (plus turns played bonus) I think this will give enough incentive to play for the solo win.
100 points for 2d place (plus turns played bonus)
50 points for 3d place (plus turns played bonus)
25 points for 4th place (plus turns played bonus)
10 points for 5th place (plus turns played bonus)

The players ranked 6-10 would only be eligible for the turns survived bonus.

I also believe that you need to restart ALL of the points. I don't think you need to delete all of the old scores, just archive them to history, and start new with the new scoring system.

Why do I suddenly get the feeling that AG and Kor are calling me very bad names over the prospect of a scoring system like this????? Hmm, must just be my imagination......

Jen · Post by **Jen** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 5:46 am

I'm only going to vote for it, if the ranking starts from the Fun in the Sun game

Vortan · Post by **Vortan** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 6:32 am

Bryk - no offense was taken, I may have sounded so but that was not a result of YOUR post so fret not.

I see what Calidus said but can see that the powers that be would not like this modification, which is a good notion, but the primary concern would be the levels of work involved.

If game referees took it upon themselves to manually calculate finishing positions these could be submitted to 'Him on high' for addition. This would mean that 'his' time involvement would be lowered while a GM's would be increased slightly.

Anyway - going agaiin.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 7:24 am

I really like Cal's idea of having the points for a solo win higher than the total of a combined win. We don't have much solo wins and this might make people more inclined to go for it.

With the points for turns survived i'm a bit in doubt. On the one hand i can see that there's a difference with a player that survives 3 rounds and one that gets ripped next but has survived 10 rounds. But on the other hand i think these bonusses will see a lot more boring no action turns like we had in the Austria game where all the vet players were napped for 20 turns or so. So that might be a risk.

Post by **korexus** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 7:58 am

Vortan. It's my job to be conservative. With every idea that comes along I need to make sure it's been fully discussed before we can implement it, no matter how good it seems to the person proposing it. This applies to my ideas as much as anyone else. - Just look at how much discussion is going into the scores thread and I really do think that the scores need changing.

Just because something doesn't work, doesn't mean that the first alternative suggested will be any better.

As a side note, neither Vortan nor Yondallus has answered my question correctly. Anyone else want to try? (This is not an avoidance tactic. If people don't know where the score is, why do they care so much about moving up it

)

korexus.

Post by **korexus** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:11 am

Ok, feeling slightly more charitable now. (The implication that I resent spending time on WoK rankled slightly...)

The main problem with VPs (or a least one of the main problems) is that players who have been around for longer build up an unassailable lead. Egbert's on something like 32 now, even though he hasn't played in over a year. *I* have no chance of catching him any time soon, so new players are ridiculously disadvantaged.

The current system is more a measure of how frequently or how long you have played than how well and the proposed system exagerates this property further. Discuss.

korexus.

Tigress · Post by **Tigress** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:40 am

I do believe korexus has a point here. New players will almost never get to catch up with players that have been around forever.

However, the current system does kind of the same thing.

I would be in favor of the new system if scores were to reset every year or so. That way, new players will have a chance to catch up. An overall table could be implemented, but only to keep track of total points. And the champions game could return at the end of every year.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 9:44 am

Well i've had a look around the site but could not find a reasonably up to date vp table. Which is something i do miss. I would be in favour of simply setting a date (July 1st for instance) from which a new score system would run. Than we can have a yearly score again and on 30 June 2008 we will know the 10 players that get to play in the advanced and standard wok champs.

Tigress · Post by **Tigress** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 9:50 am

so basically you're saying that games that end in June, don't get rewarded?

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:06 am

Yes they do get rewarded. They will still use the current vp system and will count for the 2006-2007 season. So those vps will be used to determine the players that are invited for the champs this year. Though in the new season we would then start with a new ranking system.

Vortan · Post by **Vortan** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:02 am

And there people would seem to be the solution. An annually renewable total, for those of long standing as I beleive Kor suggested keep the old records alive so that previous success could be mapped. This then also allows players to compete against themselves. If say you had 10,000 in the coming year would you not want to better it next?

Good call Saladin.

And korexus (look its a little k cos I'm sorry) I didn't mean to imply you didnt put in the effort. I have read on the old boards just how much work you put in and I know how much it is appreciated by all parties (well except when you get snotty of course

)

Like all peeps I get frustrated when I perceive that someone is seeming to dismiss something constructive without really giving a valid reason. I had felt that was happening here and it would seem I was wrong so PUBLIC APOLOGY - Sorry okay.

The general feel from those whose comments have been aired thus far clearly show that the system needs an overhaul with Sals amendment you have a near perfect solution I think. I would certainly back it.

Oh and the scores are found via the scores tab in the lobby.

Post by **trewqh** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:06 am

korexus wrote:The current system is more a measure of how frequently or how long you have played than how well and the proposed system exagerates this property further. Discuss.

That's why a zero sum ratings system would be better.

Taking into account what I consider fun in WoK, I'm strongly against giving a bonus for turns you survive. Look at Fun in the Sun and at Austrian Apocalypse. I think it's more skillful to win a game in #12 turns than in #25 (doing nothing for 23 turns in the case of Bryk).

Why not automate the ratings system we had previously?

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:31 am

Well actually Vortan, it wasn't really my idea. We've always had a high score list than ran for 1 year to determine the players which got in to the champs. And a Kaohalla that shows an all time vp score. So it's not really a new idea. But as you said it works well.

Brykovian · Post by **Brykovian** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:16 pm

trewqh wrote:doing nothing for 23 turns in the case of Bryk

Thanks, Mike ... love you too.

-Bryk

Post by **korexus** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:45 pm

Just so everyone's on the same page...

Current system:
A Standard game is worth 2 VPs, which can be awarded either to a single player or equally between to joint winners.
If 5 or more players quit during a game, then it is only worth 1 VP and cannot be split.
Totals are kept both over the year and into eternity, at the end of each year, the top 10 players from that year's table fight it out in a championship game.
Clans gain VPs every time a clan member does. The two top scoring clans fight a clan war once a year.

Main issues with this:
No reward for playing well but not winning.
It becomes very hard very quickly to advance in the overall totals.

Solutions which have been suggested,

Ratings system: Players gain or lose a ratings change, depending on what position they get in a game and how many RIPs they manage.

Problems: RIP bonuses were very contraversial, hard to keep track of who came in which position. Otherwise this was actually a pretty good system.

Chess style rating.

Problems: Very hard to extend to a 10 player game which allows draws.

Bryk's idea.

Problems: Don't remember, but there must have been some otherwise we'd have adopted it.

The current suggestion:

Scale points so that most positions get something, although QUITS do not. Exponential growth on points for higher positions.

Problems: A cummulative score will still be very hard for people to catch up for people joining in later years.

I would like a new system to address both the issues with our current system (as well as any others that people can point out). trewqh's suggestion of a zero-sum system helps with this (although player migration makes it very difficult to have something entirely zero-sum).

In fairness, I think the best solution I've seen so far is to simply use the ratings system without the RIP bonus, and have a seperate list keeping count of the number of wins.

Of course, without a RIP bonus, there is less incentive to finish people off and so players may be able to get a higher result than they should by keeping one useless province into the end game...

Chris.

Vortan · Post by **Vortan** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:11 pm

Yes Kor but you miss the point slightly. Players should be concentrating on current performance (or in my case - lack of) and not freting over past glory.

At this I hear cries of terror throughout WOK but if players want to get onto the ALL TIME LIST then they are encouraged to play more often and with greater gusto as they quest after higher and higher points. No longer will surrender be an option. All will fight to the death for the few extra points.

And done on the annual zero basis ALL would continue to have a realistic goal even with little experience behind them. The current system, as all accept, does nothing to redress this but the new proposed system would do this and do it simply. There is no need for complications. Suggested scores based on other comments raised:

1st = 1000
Joint= 400
2nd = 300
3rd = 100
4th = 50
5th = 20
6th = 10
7th-10th= NIL

Quit = -50 for unsportsman like behaviour!

Like formula one and other sports which operate this kind of scoring system the lower end teams will squabble for the scraps from the leader groups table with the dream of one day acheiving the successes they enjoy.

You know it makes sense people. VOTE YES in Dragonette's POLL.