Suggesting a new VP awarding system

Post by **Hannibal** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:34 pm

I wouldn't dare try to tamper with the playing rules ........ but I can see a case for changing the system on VP's, so here it is, up for debate. I'm talking WOK4, maybe same or different for WOK5.

Currently, per game, there are 1 or 2 winners and necessarily 8-9 "losers". No recognition for doing fairly well, or getting the bronze medal in a game. If you think about it, it tends to be the winners, in one game or another, who stay hooked and stay with the community, feel good about having participated, want to do it again. Classic marketing theory would have you dole out smaller rewards to more people to keep them enthused and lower the drop-out rate.

Wouldn't it be easy to increase the general happiness by giving more VP rewards to more people, whilst still preserving the differential between winners and losers? So that more players feel they're making some progress and want to make more?

It would be simplicity itself:

Suggestion:
If you make the "cut" in a game, ie still there when it reduces to 5 or fewer left in, you get one VP.

If you come second or third, ie one of the last 3 but not a winner or joint-winner, you get 2 points, not just the 1.

If you are one of two who share the victory, you get 5 points each (instead of, not as well as, the 1 or 2 for making the cut or being in the last 3)

If you are the sole winner, you get 12 points.

You'll see I've built in a premium for going for solus winner, over sharing victory, but that's for debate as well as the rest.

The effect would be to make more players more happy with what they achieved, rather than a pure winner vs. loser, all or nothing. But the preserved differentials mean, surely, that no non-winner would make it to the champs. And it's not just a VP for turning up - at least 5 players per game would leave empty-handed, you score nothing unless you make the last 5 in a game.

Still time to adopt it, or something like it, for this year, before new games start? The danger is that those replying will be those who've thrived in the current system; let's hear from the Ecrivian's of this world who did well or badly but never had a VP to pin to their WOK hard-copy folder....

I'd love to hear some pros and cons on this. I can only see pluses. "Dilution" of what a VP means is not an argument, unless you can say how it would disadvantage the winners more than it would help more players feel they got something out of the game.

Comment very welcome.

Post by **Lardmaster** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:59 pm

This isn't a new debate actually Hannibal, it has been discussed on the boards quite a while back. The main drawback with giving players pts for "surviving" longer than other players is that you will get players starting to play for that 1st or 2nd VP. i.e. they will just sit tight and defend their home province until 5 other players are mia or ripped. I already know that you have a "dislike" for the sleeping tactic but thats exactly what your pts system encourages unfortunately.

What would be good would be a rating system but again that has been discussed at leeeeeeeeeeeeennnnnnnnnggggggggttttthhhh before and no concensus could be agreed.

Validon · Post by **Validon** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 4:37 pm

BUT doesn't the old system promote the sleeping giant as well? There seems to be some of those in every game I've played in so far. What Hannibal suggests is a way to keep players interrested in wok when they may not necessarily be the Raw's of the game. Some people win a lot while others never win. What is the fun of something if you never win? Getting a VP for effort is a victory to some. But using a system that heavily favors the winners would not endanger the integrity of the VP system.
It is too easy to stop playing when you don't have a chance to win. Then you have another QUIT or M-3 player. What's the fun in players dropping out when they could be holding on for dear life in hopes of the small possability of 1 VP?
I, for one, don't like giving up no matter the odds(see Matt's 5 or Vet's vs. Newbies) but everyone isn't like that. They need something to play for. It's too easy to quit when there isn't anything left to play for. Something needs to hold their interrest longer. New VP system would seem to be a logical choice.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 4:44 pm

I agree fully with Hannibal and Validon.

As i've said in previous discussions, it would be better if we instead of fixed vps we had a points score where people would get points for all kinds of aspects of the game...ripping a player, number of provinces captured, etc.

But Hannibal i'm afraid that such changes will never happen as Al is strongly against such changes.

Raw · Post by **Raw** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 5:24 pm

OK....I will put my opinion into this...

I think the VP's should remain the same, otherwise you would have to restructure WOK5 also.

However, there could be a rating system based on how you finish in a game. This rating would not get you into the Champs, but it would give an idea of how good of a player you are.

Ok..so each player starts with a rating of 1000. Each game that finishes....the scoring goes as follows.

10th Place -10
9th -8
8th -6
7th -4
6th -2
5th +2
4th +4
3rd +6
2nd +8
1st +10

If you split then +9 each, or something like that.

Just a little idea, but who would keep track of this? If someone did want to, then when the GM sends the email to Bjorn with the winners and VP's to be awarded, he can put the points awarded or finishing position also, and send this to who ever wants to own it.

-Raw

Post by **gm_al** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 6:29 pm

Its all about motivation I guess.

You would believe that giving every employee more money would be enough to motivate them in a manner that they actually work more/better for the company - the truth is that at least half of them dont look for money, but rather social acceptance.

In WOK words, there is more then VPs in games. Some even would say that NOT winning a VP kept them coming back, bacuse they had a (rather difficult to achieve) goal. Giving lots of people rewards is not always a motivation - if the whole department gets Xmas money for the revenues YOU made you will not be too happy, as in fact you might see it that you alone would have deserved more, while the lazy guy also gets some of YOUR reward....

hate to say it, but Id prefer to keep the Vps as per se and add (yes !) some rating system to it.

Open for discussion - fire off.....

Post by **Donut** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 7:09 pm

[shadow=red]VP's = Victory Points[/shadow]

I don't believe in compensation for coming close. It makes winning a game that more prestigious. As I see it, the best players in the game are in the champs. I'm not sure that you can argue otherwise. The whole point of having a scoring system is so that you rank players. As it is now, that's what happens.

Right now, you could make an arguement that the players that play in 5+ games at a time will have a better chance at the champs because they have more VP's to win; but, they have to win them. Winning a game is by no means easy, whether you play in 50 games a scoring period or 5. I think the system that is set up ranks the players fairly for the championship game. From there the best player is crowned.

Implementing the system that Hannibal has suggested would encourage(maybe not encourage but the opportunity would be there) players to enter 50 games, and last for a while. As I said before, I don't like giving compensation to the guys that came close. In Stephen's 5, me and Validon have dominated the game since I eliminated Mullog. While Heir Squire and Eagle Eyes have faught well, Val and myself are almost certain of VP's. I personally eliminated 3 players in the game so far while EE and Heir squire built an army and bunkered down (Please, no offense meant here. I have no problem with "Sleeping Giants". I feel its a perfectly valid strategy). I battled pretty hard in this game and giving points to 3rd, 4th, and even 5th place, in my opinion, would take away from a victory. I'm sure that many people have had games where they busted there tail for VP's and wouldn't want there victory diminished.

Sorry Han, I can't agree with you on this one.

Donut
GM Josh

Oh yea, I think a ranking system would be kinda cool; but, I would fear that you would have the problem that College Football has right now... 2 ranking systems. The best player in 1 ranking system may not be the best in the other. If that happens (and does) someone will feel cheated that this ranking says I'm the best but that one doesn't.

Raw · Post by **Raw** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 8:05 pm

This ranking system could go on throughout mutiple scoring seasons though....where as HiScore is only for one year.

I am willing to keep track of this as long as all GM's agree to send me the places of each player.

I don't want it to get to complicated though, with number of Province or Player RIP's per game and so on.

I would just like it to be plus or minus per finishing position.....

What do you guys think?

Funtastick · Post by **Funtastick** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 9:22 pm

I very much like idea of a ranking system, and I would be more than willing to help Raw out in the endeavor as well. However, I do suggest this as a possibility.

It has been brought up by Donut about some players being in 50 games whereas others play in only 5. By no means can a ranking system then keep things in perspective. Is there some way to divide(?) the number of games you played into the rating mix, without distorting the numbers a lot? I'm no mathmatician, so, where are the scholars on this one?

Raw · Post by **Raw** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 9:48 pm

Ok...you bring up a good point...so how about this then.

I will keep track of rating (same as above) and then games played (total games, not specific) and then average score per game.

That would keep it real...right

.

-Raw

Post by **trewqh** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 10:15 pm

One little thought: the only reasonable thing to do in my opinion is to implement the discussed rating system (whatever way it works) into Kaobase v2

Mullog?

trewqh

Funtastick · Post by **Funtastick** » Tue Jan 06, 2004 12:11 am

Here's what Raw and I have decided together. Mind you, this has no bearing on the champs or vice champs or any of that, just a system hopefully to keep people more happy.

The game results for each game will be sent to both Raw and I. Each place will be awarded a certain number of points (negative for bad finishes) of which we can discuss at a later time. Every player will begin with a rating of 1000 points. After each game, your rating will go up (for good finishes) or down (for bad finishes). In addition to your rating, an average will be taken. This will account for how many games of been played so you can compare yourself with other players, even if they've played many more or many fewer games than you have.

I think Trewqh is right in that it would be a good addition to Kaobase V2, just another link people can check or whatnot, I'm not really sure how things are set-up. Again, comments are encouraged, just keep in mind, your rating and average score will have no bearing on anything kaomaris-related unless we want to expand it to that at a later time.

Bjorn · Post by **Bjorn** » Tue Jan 06, 2004 1:58 am

This discussion comes up every year or so. It is always a healthy discussion, so no one really minds. The odds of anything actually changing are small, but it is a useful discussion.

For any system that awards points for other than winning, you have to agree on what constitutes finishing 3rd, 4th, etc... As is motor racing, the lower positions can usually be determined by the order they were eliminated. What happens when two players are eliminated on the same turn? A tie? How do you determine position of the survivors at the end? Points? Number of provinces held? We used to keep track of something called "Turn Points" where each player received one turn point for each turn they submitted orders in a game. It was a bit of a hassel for the GMs, so we dropped it. Some GMs also started awarding turn points for doing good deeds for WOK. However, just like VPs, they could not be turned in for valuable prizes. (Sorry Eg.)

Since taking over as gatekeeper I have kept a simple record of each completed game. Each player who is entered in the game is recorded into one of four categories.

1 - Winner (number of VPs won)
2 - Survived (no record of their score or provinces, just that they were still active.)
3 - RIP
4 - Quit

I also picked up on the rating system that Aussie Gaz was running after he gave up on it. He started it by awarding each player 1000 points, then added 50 points/VP for each player who had Vps in Kaohalla at that time. I simplified his rating system a bit and maintained it. In general, it goes like this.

Each player who enters a game contributes 20 VPs for a WOK 4 game and 30 VPs for a WOK 5 game. For a normal game that creates a pool of 200 points for WOK4 and 300 points for WOK 5. Players are awarded 100 points for each VP they win in a game. So, if you enter a WOK5 game and don't win any VPs, your rating drops by 30. If you win 1.5VPs, then you win 120 points (150 for the VPs - 30 that you contributed to the pool.)

I know Count Henri wanted us to deduct more points from people who quit games, or award points to players who survive a game but did not win any VPs, but I could not figure out any equitable way to do it.

Note that this does not work out to a zero sum rating. If 5 players quit a game, fewer VPs are awarded. Likewise some games start with less than 10 players, but I still award 100 points/VP.

Just for grins, I sorted the excell spreadsheet by current rating and deleted some of the columns. You can see how many completed games each person has signed up for since I took over and their current rating.

www.angelfire.com/ny4/gmtom/wokratings.htm

Post by **Hannibal** » Tue Jan 06, 2004 2:07 am

The last 4 posts or so have been about a parallel ranking system. I'd like to come back to the central option of a single integrated VP system, before it gets left behind.

The parallel ranking system is great. Many thanks, Raw. Great, IF we can't do an integrated system, or alongside an integrated system. I hate being in the position of having to "criticise" it in order to re-argue for an integrated VP system, thus pouring cool water on an idea from those who are agreeing with me in principle.

By comparison with VP's, it risks being a bit of a pale shadow, not really part of the main measure of success.....not really putting the beginner on the ladder that matters.....a statistic a bit like your batting average - there ought to be one, great, but it doesn't do the SAME as ascending the ladder of "Points". I say let's do BOTH, but the key issue is surely the main VP system......., which is bound to remain the main indicator of success.

Lardmaster sounds a good warning about it encouraging people to sleep till they're in the last 5. I tend to think the existing motivation to sleep if you can is already quite high, given the rewards for standing still with max WOK on LEV, if you want a shot at being in the endgame, so I doubt it would actually add to the tendency appreciably. There will still be enough impatient people, or inability to agree boundaries for naps. But it's a risk, granted. Maybe we should find other ways to disincentivise the passive strategy, such as Sal's reward for ripping.

I can't agree with Donut that it MUST be about winning. Not necessarily. Presumably, Donut, you'd have no silver or bronze medals at the Olympics? No smaller prizes in lotteries? I'm pretty sure it wouldn't affect who got into the Champs, if that's your prime concern; too few points to help; NOBODY will ever go in for 50 games just to rack up survivor points; you don't get points unless you make the last 5; OK, double the winning points to 20 so that losers can't even come close, but still give people a point or two so they feel they're on the ladder. You surely make the error of looking at the plan from the POV of those already committed to the community, who'll play regardless, not from the POV of those we want to bring in and retain.

Because I think the Community DOES have a problem of retention, both overall and with the quit rate in beginner games especially - nothing to go for if you look like losing. (It has an even bigger problem of recruitment, but solving that would only put retention into sharper relief!). What's been the growth rate of still-active members? If you don't care about this, then structure for the group who contend for the Champs; if you do care about net growth, consider how to motivate 500 players when 10-20 get into the Champs and Vice-champs......

And for once I can't agree with the mightyAl. It's a false analogy to compare it with bonuses for the whole workforce. They're there to DO something for you; your players are there to enjoy the experience, and feel good coming out of it. And it's not giving EVERYONE a bonus; only half or less of players per game would get anything at all; reward HALF your workforce and it DOES work! Lazies get nothing. You might have taken note of some who said they just had to come back for more till they got the big prize of a VP, but that's a self-fulfilling observation - you only heard from them! Compared to how many people who came and went - how many of them said why? Those who come back because the prize was hard to achieve - you'll get those ANYWAY, wanting to get top marks; it's the ones who are LESS motivated than that, the bulk, that you need to think about if this thing is to mushroom.

Post by **Donut** » Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:33 am

Hannibal wrote: I can't agree with Donut that it MUST be about winning. Not necessarily. Presumably, Donut, you'd have no silver or bronze medals at the Olympics? No smaller prizes in lotteries? I'm pretty sure it wouldn't affect who got into the Champs, if that's your prime concern; too few points to help; NOBODY will ever go in for 50 games just to rack up survivor points; you don't get points unless you make the last 5; OK, double the winning points to 20 so that losers can't even come close, but still give people a point or two so they feel they're on the ladder. You surely make the error of looking at the plan from the POV of those already committed to the community, who'll play regardless, not from the POV of those we want to bring in and retain.

Because I think the Community DOES have a problem of retention, both overall and with the quit rate in beginner games especially - nothing to go for if you look like losing.

Han, I think your intentions are dead-on. I absolutely agree that retention needs some help; but, I think that you're looking in the wrong area. Why give points to players if those points don't mean anything? I think it offers false hope and would still only lead to dissappointment.

In my opinion the best way for us to retain players, is to teach them the game early. Allow them to learn what the game has to offer; give them a credible fighting chance in a game. If a player really knows the game, and likes it, he/she will stick around. I think the worst thing we can do is allow a new player to make their decision on whether to stick around or not on an opinion that hasn't experienced what the game has to offer. If they truly know the game, liking it is up to them; that we can't affect. The only thing we can do is teach them the game to the fullest extent.

In my first game, Trewqh tought me WOK4. He walked me through almost every aspect. Gave me advice, and helped me with the little things(orders, diplomacy). In my opinion, thats the best that we can do for new players. I can't speak for other clans but BoV has been very helpful for me in learning the games. They are fairly involved and respond to my requests of advice.

It seems that a key ingredient is communication with new players. This is where I really like the idea of the chat room. I try to be in the room as much as possible; while I may not respond right away quite frequently, I usually check it about every 15 min. I think if advanced players are in the rooms often, new players could stop in and talk to them. I understand that this is hard because almost nobody has the time to sit and talk in the room. I often open the room while doing homework and just hope someone drops in. This is where I may suggest moderators at specific times of the day.

My other suggestion for player retention would be a Newbie/Advanced game. Open a game where a newbie can join a game with an advanced player from their clan. This would greatly increase the odds of the player learning the aspects of the game that they may not encounter in a strictly beginner game.

My opinion on the New VP system still stands. I still believe that the entire point of the scoring system is to rank players for the eventual champs. As is, it's effective and doesn't cause contreversy(Yet).

... Just a thought (mighty long one I guess)

Donut

Post by **gm_al** » Tue Jan 06, 2004 11:27 am

Good thread here.

Lets make a few things clear. Im thinking about a RATING system, not RANKING (one is some individual evaluation, the other only a comparison)

The use of ratings in WOK (along VPs) could be to determine who is a Beginner/Advanced/Pro (or call it otherwise) and GMs could set up games with allowing Players of a certain rating to participate. For historical reasons Id like to set the initial rating of every Player to 1.000 (just like army level in WOK)

We then should not forget that we want to recompensate a Player for every achievement he can make in a game (and I consider sending in orders as achievement, yes). So it all could look something like this:
- sending in orders: +0.001
- missing a Turn: -0.005
- RIPping a Player: +0.010
- getting RIPped: ??
- every 0.5 VP: +0.020
etc.

Number of (rated) games played can also be nice to track. All this should be made through KaoBase V2, and we had that planned too.

In some sort this gets in the direction that Hannibal had suggested. Remember, VPs are still the TOP price, and thats how it should stay. BUT if we add some rating tracking we could make it a good and valuable addition - newbies can see that a Player with 2.500 rating is quite an adversary, and Players will stick to a game just to keep or improve their rating. There is something to be won for everyone.

Validon · Post by **Validon** » Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:09 pm

The rating system is used in many games and helps differenciate between beginners, good players, great players, etc. All great players don't always make the cut(i.e. make it to the champs). But you know your playing with a good player or can set up a game for a certain level of player. I, for one, would think that this would be good for wok. VP's, of course, are still the top prize.
The problem I see with a rating system is the fact that we have, essentially, two games. Soon to be three. Wok 4 and Wok 5 would need to have separate ratings to make them legit. IF I were a great wok 4 player with a 3.000 rating I wouldn't necessarily be good enough to play in a wok 5 rating specific game. So, what if Raw and Funtastick split the tracking duties. One does wok 4 ratings while the other does wok 5 ratings. I would be willing to help either one of them as well, if needed.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:34 pm

Well Al, that's a pleasant surprise for the new year! A cool new rating system!

I completely agree that all the achievements should get 'rewarded' and things like missing a turn of going QUIT should get a negative bonus as well.

Unsurprisingly i also agree with Validon that Wok 4 and Wok 5 and the future Wok 6 (Go Matt!) are completely different games which would each have their own rating. I've given up the hope of seeing the vps for wok 4 and wok 5 counted seperately, but the ratings we could have seperately, right Al?

Mullog · Post by **Mullog** » Tue Jan 06, 2004 8:03 pm

Now, this is interesting.

As Al says, we have discussed adding a rating system to the Kaobase2. Since the Kaobase is built on a database, there should be no need for other players to manually keep track of vp's/ratings/whatever. This means that the complexity of the system is not a problem, anything is possible.

But, before we start discussing how the new VP or rating system should be, I think we should ask what we want to accomplish with it. Why, before how.
Hannibal wants to encourage players (beginners especially) to stay in the game. As I understand him, he sees the VP's as the main encouragement for players. Giving a small award is better than no award at all... I tend to agree with Hannibal, it feels better to get a small price than no price at all.

Since so many of you disagree with this we should ask if there are other ways to encourage players. Could the GM's give more feedback? Could the turn reports be changes? Maybe more x-games would be interesting? Or maybe all new players should be given a tutor? An experienced player that they could ask for advice? Saladin and Duke have been most helpful to me. Maybe I can help the next newbie to join TKG...

I belive that changing the award system in WOK might help encourage new players to keep playing, but as long as there is so much sceptisism we should also look for other ways to keep players in the game. I belive that more feedback from other players will help a lot.

Mullog

SmashFace · Post by **SmashFace** » Tue Jan 06, 2004 9:11 pm

hehe i always get yelled at for my x-games, as they truly bend the rules of WOK

i'll try thinking of another to get al mad at me and bring his wrath