New scoring method

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:27 pm

I've moved this to it's own thread.

Vortan wrote:I suppose an interesting notion would be to rank VP's in a similar way to Formula 1 but say, purely as example.

Nothing for 6th - 10th
0.25 VP for 5th
0.50 VP for 4th
0.75 VP for 3rd
1.00 VP for 2nd
2.50 VP for 1st

Not only would this encourage the point mad to not quit early it would also encourage players to fight on to the end rather than voting to split the win. This way - with Fun in the Sun as example I would have 5th, Dragonette 4th, Jen 3rd, and Kor and TB would be fighting to the death much to all of our pleasures.

Dont dismiss out of hand - think about it. It may be a way to encourage the less addicted to stick around if they believed they stood a half chance of actually getting some VP's.

Actually i quite like Vortan's plan. We've always had the 'only the winner(s) get something' vps but it wouldn't be too bad if there were points given to the other players as well.

Maybe something like this:

Single winner: 200 points / split win: 100 points each
Third: 40 points
Fourth: 30 points
Fifth: 20 points
Sixth: 10 points
7-10 no points.

It makes for a more interesting ranking as now there will actually be a difference to a player who's come in third several times and one who is always first to get ripped.

I'm all for it!

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:32 pm

Before people start on the old rating debate again. I think it would be best to not have any points for ripping a player, just for your position in the table. A very simply and effective ranking system.

Yondallus · Post by **Yondallus** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:37 pm

I don't like the idea.
I think it's only fair that the people who won the game get the points, and the losers get none. It doesn't matter if you're third or last, you still lost the game. I think it would prevent players to take risks on the first few turns to make sure they would get points.

Post by **korexus** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:39 pm

The problem will always be that you either annoy the good players, by letting people overtake them simply by playing loads of games or you annoy the bad players by weighting their gains so low that they are meaningless. We're currently in the latter case. Hey, at least it's an incentive to get better!

korexus.

Vortan · Post by **Vortan** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:01 pm

I can accept Kor's statement and can see how players at the top would feel aggrieved if they only played infrequently BUT would this system not encourage more gaming not less. If the VP's are truly that important to them surely they would make the effort to play more often.

Those of us who seen to be stuck in a loop that won't let us leave MAY gather points from surviving a little longer but ultimately, with Saladins suggested scoring it would take 20 6th place games to match 1 single player win. If the best are truly that good what would they have to lose.

It takes, say three weeks for a game to run to completion, or longer even. So if you were in 8 simultaneously the also ran points still would not match a clear win.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:04 pm

Yeah, but there's a middle ground.

With this system winning a game gives you 100 points. you will need to play in four games and be fourth in all of them to get similar points.

You could go even one bigger and give 1000 points for first place and only 50 points for a third place. That way winning a game will give you a ton more points than coming in third in 15 games.

But the nice thing is it still gives some points to the other players so they actually have a ranking. I mean we currently have a system where the majority of players don't even have a ranking.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:08 pm

Also the annoying good players that don't play much part is there now as well. I mean there are players who only play 4-5 games a year and maybe do well and win 4 out of 5. But there are also players (like me) who play in a multitude of games and maybe with 5 out of 15 games. According to our current rating the second player would be better.

So that point is mute i'd say.

Vortan · Post by **Vortan** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:13 pm

And for my other two comments check the other thread cos I wasn't paying attention to where I was. My soapbox is high and I hate heights so had my eyes shut.

Basically I agree with Sal and the 1000 for 1st is one heck of an incentive to get better.

Dragonette · Post by **Dragonette** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:30 pm

I like the sound of it if first gets loads of points and third to six hardly gets any but they do.

I think this is a good idea because....

* it gives members of the public or new recruits an incentive to join games.

* It gives older players an incentive to carry on after a long time.

* It gives an incentive not to go quit, because if you go quit i think even if you finish 5th for e xample you shouldn't get any points seen as you backed out.

* I'll love it if it comes into place as it makes me feel more positive if i lose a game instead of leaving the site because of bordem with losing [i'm a sore loser].

Dragonette

--------------------------------
He who runs lives to fight another day
but
He who fights gains lots of points

Brykovian · Post by **Brykovian** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:34 pm

I like the idea.

(So much for us crustly old-timers who hate change, eh?)

I like the top-heavy scoring that Sal proposes ... and especially like the "0 points for going QUIT" the Dragonette puts forward.

-Bryk

Vortan · Post by **Vortan** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:43 pm

Ooooo...

Can I quote from Korexus's bottom of post notes here

'I am not doing it unless three other people think its a good idea'

At least its something like that.

Well lets see Dragonette (1), Brykovian (2), Saladin (3), Vortan (4) ... oh hang on a mo ... thats more than three.

Post by **korexus** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:55 pm

So...

QUIT players always count as going out 10th?

Do players quiting reduce the total points available?

Do we do some sort of conversion for current VPs, or do we have a complete restart?

Track different WoK games seperately?

Just seen Vortan's post: "Three other people" implies I have to say it's a good idea too. I still need convincing...

A while back, I started tracking various player stats. They don't make much sense right now, because of all the bugs when we first introduced WoK On. But could add this to them and reset it. I'm thinking that various ways of tracking players would be better. - We can have a % win version for the purists, a traditional VPs section for the traditionalists and a section more like this for newcomers and have all three tables current, at least for a while. The ultimate goal would be to get to the top in each of them, all we'd have to do would be to decide which counted for getting into the champs...

I think we have to leave an option in for players to split games. Alliances are a major part of WoK, a lot of the fun would go if you knew you couldn't trust your ally because you'd b fighting it out soon...

Post by **korexus** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:59 pm

Saladin wrote:Yeah, but there's a middle ground.

Afraid not.

Either the points you're earning don't give you a chance of catching up, in which case earning them is only ego stroking or they do and playing well becomes devalued. The 'middle ground' would only be a state of annoying the really bad and really good players in order to keep the average ones happy.

[grumpy old man]New players should join a clan if they want VPs. I got a VP from my first game by joining the Scholars *and* managed to get into the champs in my first year. You kids don't know you're born...[/grumpy old man]

Yondallus · Post by **Yondallus** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:13 pm

Don't forget that clans limit the amount of games you can play. Also, with this system, people who play in pretty much all of the games will be on top of the table, while players who play only one or two but actually win one, are going to be held back.

I think a better idea to get more people to score VPs is to set up different games. Games where only people with 0 VPs can join(or people with +5VPs). Games with less players(5 players on a smaller map for 1 VP). Co-op games where you play as a team from the start. etc.

Another thing that might be worth thinking about is expanding the whole clan idea. Add up all VPs that are won by members of each clan. And at the end of a certain period. All members of that clan battle it out in a championship game and gets crowned with at title.

Just naming a few things that come to mind.

Vortan · Post by **Vortan** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:15 pm

Okay Kor ... you need convincing well lets try this.

Convert existing VP's into the new format at a 1000 pts per VP basis (assuming shared games had earned 0.5 VP - dont know this data). That way existing veterans dont have to be penalised on what they already have.

Make Quit = 10th and 0 points as it is better to RIP trying than to walk away. Leave other point totals the same. To do anything different would be giving the Quitter a reason to do so, however petty that may be.

Make each referee report rankings at the end of each game or make the system such that they award the positions and it auto-updates.

As for EGO STROKING. No. I think you are way off beam with that, the points raised by Dragonette, you remember her the 12 year old scholar, you said you were interested in the views of the next generation of WOK players. Perhaps even a small reward would mean that the next generation would actually stay because they could SEE how they were doing in comparison to some older and more experienced players.

Surely this would benefit all in the long term. More players, more publicity etc ... perhaps the disappearance rate would not be as high.

Keeping the system as is surely only STROKES THE EGO's of the current old hands who keep winning at the expense of everyone else.

Post by **korexus** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:34 pm

Vortan, please bear in mind that these post are written with my tongue firmly in my cheek. They only makes sense if you read them that way too. I survived the first round of the Ratings Wars and know that the only way to do so is with a strong (and probably twisted) sense of humour...

That being said, the point about retention needs challanging. It's true that we have a high drop off rate among new players, but it's equally high with our seasoned players. Admittedly most of them come back from time to time, but I think there are other issues than the scoring method.

Also, my point about clans is valid. Now that our new players have got strong and reliable allies, they should see their game's raised significantly. A good clan system is more impotant for player retention than a different scoring method, imho.

Spot test for the newbies: How can you see how players are ranked right now? (No one tell them. I'm curious to see if they know...)

Chris.

Vortan · Post by **Vortan** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:44 pm

NICE AVOIDANCE TACTIC but it only works on schoolies.

You click upon the name of a member in any given game screen and it brings up your dull grey screen with boxes of facts which are very good.

Well lets try this from the other side. YOU explain LOGICALLY and RATIONALLY why YOU dont want to do this when already several of your clansmen who have been here almost as long as you, if not longer, think it would be a good thing???

Yondallus · Post by **Yondallus** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:45 pm

I know!

PM Korexus?

no seriously...

Player VPs
Raw 4.0
Saladin 4.0
Egbert 3.0
Lord Fredo 2.0
Grave Maker 2.0
Brykovian 2.0
Validon 1.0
Hannibal 1.0
Allister Fiend 1.0
Xarfei 1.0
bean 1.0

Yondallus · Post by **Yondallus** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:46 pm

I hope I'm wrong though, because I have never heard of most of those players

Brykovian · Post by **Brykovian** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:51 pm

Vortan ... While I think it's a good idea, I completely understand why korexus is taking the position he is ... and it's because of the history of this a very similar discussion in the distant past.

Did you do the forum search he suggested and read up on the previous threads about ratings?

No need to raise the temperature this early in the discussion ... it's very nature makes most WOKers hot-n-bothered (and not in the good way).

It's not about retention or old-fogyism to me ... it's about properly rating people in a logical manner to be able to tell who may or may not be a dangerous opponent. Personally, I'd like to see something along the lines of Avalon Hill's AREA scoring ... but that point was quickly dispatched last time I raised it.

-Bryk