New scoring method
Moderators: Duke, trewqh, korexus, Egbert
- Saladin
- Moderator
- Posts: 1652
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: The Netherlands
Korexus, could you maybe pull out the 'formula' for the rating system so people can see what it looks like?
On the point of quits. I feel there's a big difference between still having something to do in a game and going m-3 compared to being almost wiped out and having next to nothing left.
Maybe we could solve this by having a SURRENDER option. Players that have nothing of importance left can decide to surrender and will be out of the game then. This will be different than going M-3. M-3 means you get no ranking points and surrender means you do get the points for the position that you reached.
On the point of quits. I feel there's a big difference between still having something to do in a game and going m-3 compared to being almost wiped out and having next to nothing left.
Maybe we could solve this by having a SURRENDER option. Players that have nothing of importance left can decide to surrender and will be out of the game then. This will be different than going M-3. M-3 means you get no ranking points and surrender means you do get the points for the position that you reached.
"Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by stupidity."
"To speak ill of others is a dishonest way of praising ourselves."
"To speak ill of others is a dishonest way of praising ourselves."
- Vortan
- Commander
- Posts: 588
- Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:00 am
- Location: Valn Ohtar, English Office
- Contact:
- Calidus
- Commander
- Posts: 530
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: Clan Head, CoN
- Contact:
I really think that I like the idea of the new proposed points system, I just think that 1000 points for a win is WAY too high. Then again, I am partial to the points that I put forward.
If you wanted to force games to be played over shorter stretches, why not do a points bonus per turn, through say turn 10. After turn 10, you would start to LOSE points. (this is just an off the wall idea, and I haven't thought it out. That's y'alls area!) Do you think that this would cause more players to be aggressive from the get go?
Personally, aside from the amount of effort that a player has to put into it, I have had more fun with the two Duel games that I have played since returning to WOK. Knowing full well that there will be no sleeping, you really go straight after your opponent. Strategy becomes much more a factor, than just building a crap-load of high level troops and steam-rolling everything in your path. (which, I know, I know, is a strategy in and of itself)
I think that each year the points system needs to be reset. Maybe we can just make a Kaohalla page for each year where you can see the Player/Clan points for the year. Everyone starts over fresh at the new year.
Chew on those Blah blah blahs for a while, and post what you think.
If you wanted to force games to be played over shorter stretches, why not do a points bonus per turn, through say turn 10. After turn 10, you would start to LOSE points. (this is just an off the wall idea, and I haven't thought it out. That's y'alls area!) Do you think that this would cause more players to be aggressive from the get go?
Personally, aside from the amount of effort that a player has to put into it, I have had more fun with the two Duel games that I have played since returning to WOK. Knowing full well that there will be no sleeping, you really go straight after your opponent. Strategy becomes much more a factor, than just building a crap-load of high level troops and steam-rolling everything in your path. (which, I know, I know, is a strategy in and of itself)
I think that each year the points system needs to be reset. Maybe we can just make a Kaohalla page for each year where you can see the Player/Clan points for the year. Everyone starts over fresh at the new year.
Chew on those Blah blah blahs for a while, and post what you think.
I didn't say it was your fault, I said I was going to blame you.
- Saladin
- Moderator
- Posts: 1652
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: The Netherlands
- Vortan
- Commander
- Posts: 588
- Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:00 am
- Location: Valn Ohtar, English Office
- Contact:
The points per turn theory you prescribe to is in itself an interesting notion but it would be a nightmare to administer I fear. The comments about the win score being too high ... hmm ... this is possibly where the biggest problem will come for this system.
The conversation thus far has included objections about two small an amount of points and two high an amount of points. Lets try this revision then:
Win = 50
Joint = 20 each
2nd = 10
3rd = 5
4th = 3
5th = 2
6th = 1
7th-10th still 0
Quit = 0
Surrender acceptable to maintain ranking points providing surrender is accepted by other players.
In the event of two players going out in the same round then total the eligable points divide then equally rounding to nearest half point in case of three+ players going same turn.
The proposed scoring means a player would have to play 50 games at 6th to match a win. The chances of playing in 50 games in one year are slim particularily if you are talking about active clans when the two player ruling is considered and if points are being reset annually this will not be a problem.
Still though we would have a system to inspire, even if only slightly, the less experienced to stay, learn and eventually master the game.
NOW. I may be new, I may be devilishly irritating at times BUT I think we are all in agreement that the system could be improved. This system is simple and should be easy to manage. Make it clear and easy to follow and we can avoid heated debates over the accuracy of points awarded. Complicate it too much and it would be a different ball game altogether.
RSVP.
The conversation thus far has included objections about two small an amount of points and two high an amount of points. Lets try this revision then:
Win = 50
Joint = 20 each
2nd = 10
3rd = 5
4th = 3
5th = 2
6th = 1
7th-10th still 0
Quit = 0
Surrender acceptable to maintain ranking points providing surrender is accepted by other players.
In the event of two players going out in the same round then total the eligable points divide then equally rounding to nearest half point in case of three+ players going same turn.
The proposed scoring means a player would have to play 50 games at 6th to match a win. The chances of playing in 50 games in one year are slim particularily if you are talking about active clans when the two player ruling is considered and if points are being reset annually this will not be a problem.
Still though we would have a system to inspire, even if only slightly, the less experienced to stay, learn and eventually master the game.
NOW. I may be new, I may be devilishly irritating at times BUT I think we are all in agreement that the system could be improved. This system is simple and should be easy to manage. Make it clear and easy to follow and we can avoid heated debates over the accuracy of points awarded. Complicate it too much and it would be a different ball game altogether.
RSVP.
- Calidus
- Commander
- Posts: 530
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: Clan Head, CoN
- Contact:
The only problem that I can see is when 5 or more players QUIT. Not surrender, just quit. Do you continue to play for the full compliments, or do as we do now, and half the total points?
Kor,
How feasible is it to tie this new rating system into the current automatic turn process? Would you be able to create a script that could handle the computations? (I believe you can, if you haven't already.....or are you motivated more by someone saying you cannot do something?)
Is this even a realistic option, or do we need to appoint a new GateKeeper to help keep track of all of the points? Thank God we don't have to listen to the WOK Supreme Council about this!!! We would still be arguing through Christmas 2009!
Kor,
How feasible is it to tie this new rating system into the current automatic turn process? Would you be able to create a script that could handle the computations? (I believe you can, if you haven't already.....or are you motivated more by someone saying you cannot do something?)
Is this even a realistic option, or do we need to appoint a new GateKeeper to help keep track of all of the points? Thank God we don't have to listen to the WOK Supreme Council about this!!! We would still be arguing through Christmas 2009!
I didn't say it was your fault, I said I was going to blame you.
- Vortan
- Commander
- Posts: 588
- Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:00 am
- Location: Valn Ohtar, English Office
- Contact:
Okay Cal (and everyone else of course) to deal with the 5 player quit scenario how about making points available for 5 spots not six as previously suggested.
Use the same values for 1st to 5th but as is at present half points awarded in the event of this. This would give 25 for a win and 1 for 5th.
Still incentive but now covering an additional scenario.
**SORRY**(AGAIN!) by the way.
I am, as you have probably figured in a position where I DO NOT have a life. Other than my family and this community I have little contact with anyone due to disability so bear with me if I get a little over eager. I dont mean to get up your noses.
Oh and as I am here with nothing better to do I can always keep score if anyone wants me to. Cant programme to save my life but I am good with a pen and paper.
Use the same values for 1st to 5th but as is at present half points awarded in the event of this. This would give 25 for a win and 1 for 5th.
Still incentive but now covering an additional scenario.
**SORRY**(AGAIN!) by the way.
I am, as you have probably figured in a position where I DO NOT have a life. Other than my family and this community I have little contact with anyone due to disability so bear with me if I get a little over eager. I dont mean to get up your noses.
Oh and as I am here with nothing better to do I can always keep score if anyone wants me to. Cant programme to save my life but I am good with a pen and paper.
- korexus
- Moderator
- Posts: 2827
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:00 am
- Location: Reading
- Contact:
The issue, Vortan, is that players QUITing make the game easier to win. Even under the current system, where only the top two spots are rewarded, we acknowledge this.
How about the difference between QUIT and SURREDER comes not down to what other players think (tricky to gt everyone's opinion) but how many turns you played before you dissapeared. If you've put in orders for more than 50% of your turns so far, you are SURR and count towards VPs, otherwise you are QUIT and don't. 5+ QUIT players halve whatever points are awarded across the board.
How about the difference between QUIT and SURREDER comes not down to what other players think (tricky to gt everyone's opinion) but how many turns you played before you dissapeared. If you've put in orders for more than 50% of your turns so far, you are SURR and count towards VPs, otherwise you are QUIT and don't. 5+ QUIT players halve whatever points are awarded across the board.
With Great Power comes Great Irritability
- Vortan
- Commander
- Posts: 588
- Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:00 am
- Location: Valn Ohtar, English Office
- Contact:
- Calidus
- Commander
- Posts: 530
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: Clan Head, CoN
- Contact:
- Saladin
- Moderator
- Posts: 1652
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: The Netherlands
Well the good thing about the WSC was that although there was a LOT of long discussions we always set a date to have a vote to decide the topic.
At least things do get done that way even if not everyone is in agreeance (as long as the majority is).
At least things do get done that way even if not everyone is in agreeance (as long as the majority is).
"Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by stupidity."
"To speak ill of others is a dishonest way of praising ourselves."
"To speak ill of others is a dishonest way of praising ourselves."
- Lardmaster
- Commander
- Posts: 690
- Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 8:00 am
- Location: The Big Smoke
I feel like I have stepped back in time
Personally I don't like cumulative points as a way of showing who is the best. As a simple format I suggest it should just be
1- 10pts
2- 7pts
3- 5pts
4- 3pts
5 - 1pt
6-10 0pts
Then take your pts and divide them by games in the current season and voila there you go. Then stick a minimum games to qualify in there, lets say three and you have a nice, easy and understandable system to trial and expand upon once its been used for a bit if necessary.
As for it being easier to win a game if someone quits, its easier to win a agme if 80% are newbs, or you have a good starting spot etc etc etc. I don't think those things need to be taken into account at all.
Personally I don't like cumulative points as a way of showing who is the best. As a simple format I suggest it should just be
1- 10pts
2- 7pts
3- 5pts
4- 3pts
5 - 1pt
6-10 0pts
Then take your pts and divide them by games in the current season and voila there you go. Then stick a minimum games to qualify in there, lets say three and you have a nice, easy and understandable system to trial and expand upon once its been used for a bit if necessary.
As for it being easier to win a game if someone quits, its easier to win a agme if 80% are newbs, or you have a good starting spot etc etc etc. I don't think those things need to be taken into account at all.
Question everything.
- Vortan
- Commander
- Posts: 588
- Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:00 am
- Location: Valn Ohtar, English Office
- Contact:
While on the surface this sounds good I can see that if an occasional player played only 4 games all year but got lucky and won all of them they would have an unassailable average of 10.0 with no one having a hope of ever overhauling them. Which is why I think the rolling total would be better.
In the event of an end of year tie then bring the 'accurate' number of games played into consideration. (I say accurate because I have not played in 29 games as my profile suggests).
Just a thought.
In the event of an end of year tie then bring the 'accurate' number of games played into consideration. (I say accurate because I have not played in 29 games as my profile suggests).
Just a thought.
- Saladin
- Moderator
- Posts: 1652
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: The Netherlands
Well if somebody plays in 4 games and wins all 4 he probably is the best.
Though that doesn't really matter to be honest. What matters is the top 10 best players as they get invited for the champs. And the winner of the champs is the new standard or advanced wok champion for that year.
Though that doesn't really matter to be honest. What matters is the top 10 best players as they get invited for the champs. And the winner of the champs is the new standard or advanced wok champion for that year.
"Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by stupidity."
"To speak ill of others is a dishonest way of praising ourselves."
"To speak ill of others is a dishonest way of praising ourselves."
- korexus
- Moderator
- Posts: 2827
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:00 am
- Location: Reading
- Contact:
The bit about new players is a gross generalisation. New players can win games and have a good chance at crippling a specific player if they wish. QUIT players can do neither.
I would rate my chances in a game with 5 vets and 5 empty slots far higher than a game with 2 vets and 8 new players who entered orders each turn.
Also, if you play and win three games, it is a massive disincentive to play more. - Your score can only stay the same or go down...
korexus.
I would rate my chances in a game with 5 vets and 5 empty slots far higher than a game with 2 vets and 8 new players who entered orders each turn.
Also, if you play and win three games, it is a massive disincentive to play more. - Your score can only stay the same or go down...
korexus.
With Great Power comes Great Irritability
- Saladin
- Moderator
- Posts: 1652
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: The Netherlands
Well to be honest players who would stop playing games because they fear that their score might go down, might as far as i'm concerned not play at all.
Though i have a solution for this. We have the yearly high score and we have Kaohalla.
I would use the total/games for Kaohalla to show how good a player is over time and i would use the rolling total for the yearly high score.
For the fear that some may have of a player playing in a ton of games and gaining a high ranking that way...well good for them! We should be thrilled to have players around that are willing to play in a ton of games. Without them most games wouldn't even fill.
Of course we wouldn't delete the current Kaohalla (just put it in the archives) and we could start a new in the new season.
Though i have a solution for this. We have the yearly high score and we have Kaohalla.
I would use the total/games for Kaohalla to show how good a player is over time and i would use the rolling total for the yearly high score.
For the fear that some may have of a player playing in a ton of games and gaining a high ranking that way...well good for them! We should be thrilled to have players around that are willing to play in a ton of games. Without them most games wouldn't even fill.
Of course we wouldn't delete the current Kaohalla (just put it in the archives) and we could start a new in the new season.
"Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by stupidity."
"To speak ill of others is a dishonest way of praising ourselves."
"To speak ill of others is a dishonest way of praising ourselves."
- Calidus
- Commander
- Posts: 530
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: Clan Head, CoN
- Contact:
If I only play in 4 games a year, that's my own fault. Granted things have been slow, but there will come a time when the waitlists will fill much faster than they do currently, and you will have every opportunity to play in more games. Even with the Clan limitations for two players per clan per game, (this is an argument that the newer guys will be arguing) you will still be able to get into just about as many games as you will want to be playing in at one time.
Personally, I tend to play more WOK5 games, as opposed to WOK 4 games. I could only theoretically play in two at a time before things get sloppy. That's my decision, and if I don't play well in those, I have only me to blame for poor scores.
I think we need to keep in mind that the real goal is to sort out the order for the top 10, and the Champs, not do a historical point system like we have currently.
Let us set a date for the discussion and put this new system into effect as of June 15. Then we can test it for a couple of months, and if it doesn't work, we can go back and make changes to it later. Noone said we'd get it perfect on try #1.
Personally, I tend to play more WOK5 games, as opposed to WOK 4 games. I could only theoretically play in two at a time before things get sloppy. That's my decision, and if I don't play well in those, I have only me to blame for poor scores.
I think we need to keep in mind that the real goal is to sort out the order for the top 10, and the Champs, not do a historical point system like we have currently.
Let us set a date for the discussion and put this new system into effect as of June 15. Then we can test it for a couple of months, and if it doesn't work, we can go back and make changes to it later. Noone said we'd get it perfect on try #1.
I didn't say it was your fault, I said I was going to blame you.
- korexus
- Moderator
- Posts: 2827
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:00 am
- Location: Reading
- Contact:
I've been re-reading the old threads on ratings and think I can shed some insight.
Victory points were created to show who had won the most games. This makes sense as WoK is in the end a war game. You don't get points for second place!
However this takes no account of players who consistently play well but rarely win the game or who go out early having RIP enough other people to secure a victory for their ally.*
The problem we've had is trying to fit these strands into one system. Ratings tried to take account of RIPs as well of wins. The current proposal rewards survivability. We're trying to cram too much into one number and ending up with a value which means very little.
I suggest we track 3 different values.
A win count: - very similar to the current VP setting.
A survivability rating: - based on the average number of turns survived.
An aggression rating: - based on the average number f RIPs in game.
These three values would give far more information to players. For example, someone with a high survivability but low agression rating is likely to try sleeping.
Are there any other things which would be useful to track?
korexus.
*This being known as the 'Ecrivian Defense'
Victory points were created to show who had won the most games. This makes sense as WoK is in the end a war game. You don't get points for second place!
However this takes no account of players who consistently play well but rarely win the game or who go out early having RIP enough other people to secure a victory for their ally.*
The problem we've had is trying to fit these strands into one system. Ratings tried to take account of RIPs as well of wins. The current proposal rewards survivability. We're trying to cram too much into one number and ending up with a value which means very little.
I suggest we track 3 different values.
A win count: - very similar to the current VP setting.
A survivability rating: - based on the average number of turns survived.
An aggression rating: - based on the average number f RIPs in game.
These three values would give far more information to players. For example, someone with a high survivability but low agression rating is likely to try sleeping.
Are there any other things which would be useful to track?
korexus.
*This being known as the 'Ecrivian Defense'
With Great Power comes Great Irritability
- Saladin
- Moderator
- Posts: 1652
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: The Netherlands
Korexus, as i'm a statistics freak i can only applaud the idea of keeping track of as many stats as possible.
I would add 'placing' as a stat to keep track off. So you could see how often a player came in third or sixth, etc. I think this is more valuable than number of turns survived. That usually says nothing about your ability to play the game but more about your ability to not get involved in a fight. However the more stats the better i believe so we should have it as well.
Though all these stats do not help us with determining an official yearly ranking system. For that i think we should just go with the points for end placing in a game system. That's the easiest to understand and most fair as well.
I would add 'placing' as a stat to keep track off. So you could see how often a player came in third or sixth, etc. I think this is more valuable than number of turns survived. That usually says nothing about your ability to play the game but more about your ability to not get involved in a fight. However the more stats the better i believe so we should have it as well.
Though all these stats do not help us with determining an official yearly ranking system. For that i think we should just go with the points for end placing in a game system. That's the easiest to understand and most fair as well.
"Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by stupidity."
"To speak ill of others is a dishonest way of praising ourselves."
"To speak ill of others is a dishonest way of praising ourselves."
- Dragonette
- Commander
- Posts: 630
- Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:00 am
- Location: mercenary camp