Discussion for a new scoring system

[QoH]

As seen with a few different cases, and also in the discussion of GLG's verdict, many many people believe the scoring system needs to be changed. I believe that it should be our duty to try to come up with the best scoring system, and proved reason enough to have it implemented.

Lets get the ball rolling.

[DiM]

As seen with a few different cases, and also in the discussion of GLG's verdict, many many people believe the scoring system needs to be changed. I believe that it should be our duty to try to come up with the best scoring system, and proved reason enough to have it implemented.

Lets get the ball rolling.

there are 2 major suggestions to combat farming/ranching
1. new scoring formula. not gonna happen because CC wants a simple formula not a complex one.
2. separate scoreboards for freestyle/sequential/single/1v1/teams/escalating/etc. which is also not gonna happen.

also, LOL at the bolded part. reason has nothing to do with implementation. there are plenty of suggestions that are very well thought and have huge support and would be a clear gain for the site and yet they aren't implemented.

[QoH]

What is this new scoring formula that is too complex to be implemented (on the basis that it should be simpler?)

[DiM]

What is this new scoring formula that is too complex to be implemented (on the basis that it should be simpler?)

i have first suggested this 4-5 years ago and there was some talk and even some discussion about how it could be improved but eventually it was decided that even if it could work it would not be implemented as it is too complex.

i resubmitted it last year and the response was the same.

i'm searching the forums now and i can't find it anywhere.

anyway i have it saved so here it is:

show: dynamic scoring formula

[codeblue1018]

What is this new scoring formula that is too complex to be implemented (on the basis that it should be simpler?)

i have first suggested this 4-5 years ago and there was some talk and even some discussion about how it could be improved but eventually it was decided that even if it could work it would not be implemented as it is too complex.

i resubmitted it last year and the response was the same.

i'm searching the forums now and i can't find it anywhere.

anyway i have it saved so here it is:

show: dynamic scoring formula

I like it dim; nice work.

[maxfaraday]

Someone, I thinl it was Leehar, had this idea:
You get points only against player that have the same rank (captain, lieutenant, colonel...).

[DiM]

What is this new scoring formula that is too complex to be implemented (on the basis that it should be simpler?)

i have first suggested this 4-5 years ago and there was some talk and even some discussion about how it could be improved but eventually it was decided that even if it could work it would not be implemented as it is too complex.

i resubmitted it last year and the response was the same.

i'm searching the forums now and i can't find it anywhere.

anyway i have it saved so here it is:

show: dynamic scoring formula

I like it dim; nice work.

plenty of people liked it so far but community support is not really the deciding factor on whether a suggestion is implemented or not.

[DiM]

Someone, I thinl it was Leehar, had this idea:
You get points only against player that have the same rank (captain, lieutenant, colonel...).

don't know who had that idea but it has a big flaw.
the first guy to achieve a new rank can;t climb any further cause he's not getting any points.
imagine you have the first captain ever. well, until somebody else gets to captain, the first captain can't win any points.
this means that gaining points will be very slow and that the higher ranked you are the lower the pool of possible opponents gets.

[Pedronicus]

much better scoring system dim.

[nippersean]

This depends if you care about scores. Perhaps other things have more importance?

[PLAYER57832]

This depends if you care about scores. Perhaps other things have more importance?

Yeah, that is the ultimate answer.

[leapfrog]

I think we should only add into the formula a players games played.
(LS+[10% of games]/WS+[10% of games])*20
This would help when someone has thousands of games played let their experience help them.
also I think it would level the field.

[Dako]

I had proposed a system as well in Suggestions some time back.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=167397&start=0#p3654730

[freakns]

I had proposed a system as well in Suggestions some time back.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=167397&start=0#p3654730

i like this one... but how big of a problem would it be to implement it?

[Dako]

Don't know, I am not the one who develops this site so cannot give you an estimate.

[John Deere]

My buddy lynch5762 had a great idea that would be easy to implement. Take current points now Times relative rank (avg) you play . Don't know where post is now. Will try and find later. It would only add one easy step to current scoring.

[QoH]

My buddy lynch5762 had a great idea that would be easy to implement. Take current points now Times relative rank (avg) you play . Don't know where post is now. Will try and find later. It would only add one easy step to current scoring.

We found a major flaw in that one where people could still cheat the system. All someone would have to do is play a bunch of players around their own score, and it doesn't matter if they lose. Their RR would become high again, then they ranch like crazy and their score is inflated by so much. I don't know where the post is either, but that flaw was explained much better than me, and was too important to overlook. His can't be done.

[Dukasaur]

For what it's worth, here's my idea for a separate scorboard system.

Master Scoreboard
The master scoreboard is simply the average of your scores on the 12 subsidiary scoreboards. Your CC rank would be based on the Master Scoreboard only.

Subsidiary Scoreboards: These are based on 12 fundamentally different strategic concepts. Escalating strategy is fundamentally different than non-escalating strategy, but Nuclear Strategy is only slightly different from No Spoils strategy. Thus, Escalators get their own scoreboard, but No Spoils and Nuclear do not.

It is a heirarchy, so if something belongs to more than one category, it only affects one of them. The theory behind the heirarchy is that some strategic differences make others less relevant. If a game is Freestyle Speed Sunny Assassin, it only affects the Freestyle Speed Scoreboard, and not the Sunny Assassin Scoreboard. However, if a game is Freestyle Casual Sunny Assassin then it goes on the Sunny Assassin scoreboard. This is because in a Freestyle Speed Assassin game, a very fast player who doesn't have a lot of experience with Assassin will still beat a player who has mastered Assassin but is very slow. On the other hand, if they play the same game in Freestyle Casual Assassin, the extra experience in planning assassinations of the Assassin master will outweigh the Freestyle master's tricks.

Keep in mind that some of these settings I play quite rarely, and I've never played Freestyle Speed. To a large degree I'm relying on the posted opinions of others (that Freestyle Speed is the most difficult setting to master, etc.)

1.Freestyle Speed

2. Freestyle Teams

3. Foggy Assassin

4. Sunny Assassin

5. Large Multiplayer Escalators ("Large" means 6 to 8 players)

6. Freestyle Casual

7. Large Multiplayer Non-Escalators ("Multiplayer" includes both Standard and Terminator)

8. 1v1

9. Trips, Quads, and 4-player Dubs

10. Large Dubs

11. Small Terminator ("Small" means 3 to 5 players.)

12. Small Standard

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

eliminate the scoreboard

[laughingcavalier]

Of the ones above Dako's system might work.
The one scoring system that folks seem to respect on CC is Farangdemon's 400 for ranking clans. Could something based on that work for individuals. I think it's a bit like elo in chess...

[Gillipig]

What is this new scoring formula that is too complex to be implemented (on the basis that it should be simpler?)

i have first suggested this 4-5 years ago and there was some talk and even some discussion about how it could be improved but eventually it was decided that even if it could work it would not be implemented as it is too complex.

i resubmitted it last year and the response was the same.

i'm searching the forums now and i can't find it anywhere.

anyway i have it saved so here it is:

show: dynamic scoring formula

Apart from dealing with farming I also like how this formula encourages playing on many different maps and settings infront of specializing on a set of settings an maps. With this formula we may actually get a deserving conqueror for once! A shame it hasn't garnered more attention.

[Viceroy63]

my main concern right now is that a person that plays on all maps with all settings and against various opponents has no chance of reaching the first spot on the scoreboard because that is reserved for people that "abuse" the system by specializing on one map or one setting or only playing one type of game.
as a result score and skill are something totally different.

what i'm suggesting may sound a bit complicated but trust me it's not. it's 5:40 am so maybe my explanations won't be perfect but please read the whole post.

so here goes my crazy idea.

the dynamic score formula.

instead of the classic (loser's score/winner's score) * 20 i want a formula full of variables. i haven't exactly made the formula because i want to identify all the possible variables.

1. score (both the loser's and the winner's)
2. experience with the game settings. this variable starts at a base value. let's say 1000 and each time a setting is played the value decreases slightly. for example the first time you play sequential no cards chained fog you get 20 points. the 1000th time you play that same setting you'll get just 2 points even if all the other variables are the same. this is done to avoid specialists in freestyle or in escalating or any other setting.
3. experience with the map. same logic as #2 but this time is about maps and it is to avoid map specialists.
4. opponent experience with settings. if your opponent has little or no xp with the settings then this variable will decrease and you'll get less points. however if he is very experienced you'll get more points. this is done to encourage playing against tough opponents instead of abusing new recruits and cooks.
5. opponent experience with maps. same as #4 but for maps. and for the same reason to avoid noob bashers
6. team experience. this variable obviously applies only for team games. the more games you play with the same partners the lower this variable gets because naturally the more games you have together the higher are your chances of winning. this is to avoid the teams that prey on unsuspecting noobs.
7. opponent team experience. again just for team games. if the opponent team has few or no games together then it is safe to assume they aren't a lean mean fighting machine like an experienced team is. so if the opponents have no experience this variable decreases and you win fewer points because an unexperienced team is easier to beat than an experienced one.
8-13. performance variables for numbers 2 to 6. aside from experience there will be the performance variable. the better you are the lower it gets but the crappier you are the higher it gets. let's take #3 experience with maps. let's say you have 10 games on classic map and the variable has dropped from 1000 to 990 (because you are more experienced), well if those 10 games were all losses this performance variable will compensate the experience variable. of course it will be depending on number of opponents and the chances of winning for each game. let's assume those 10 games are 1v1 games. the chances to win a 1v1 are 50% if you didn't win a single game from 10 then this variable will fully compensate the experience drop variable (from 990 back to 1000). if you have won 3 out of 10 then you're still under the average so it will compensate 60% of the loss from the experience variable (from 990 to 996). if however you won 7 out of 10 you are above average so this variable will further accentuate the effects of the experience variable by 40% thus bringing it down to 986 instead of 990. the logic works the same for all other variables.

opinions, thoughts?




and here's the formula:

[LS*(LEM-LPM)*(LES-LPS)]/[WS*(WEM-WPM)*(WES-WPS)]*20 = X <= 100

where:
LS = loser's score
WS = winner's score
LEM = loser's experience with map (has value from 2 to 3)
LPM = loser's performance with map (has value from 1 to 0)
LES = loser's experience with settings (has value from 2 to 3)
LPS = loser's performance with settings (has value from 1 to 0)
WEM = winner's experience with map (has value from 2 to 3)
WPM = winner's performance with map (has value from 1 to 0)
WES = winner's experience with settings (has value from 2 to 3)
WPS = winner's performance with settings (has value from 1 to 0)
X = points gained/lost by the winner/loser

let's test this formula for 2 new recruits facing eachother in a 1v1 game. their first game. so all the variables are at the base value.

[1000*(2-1)*(2-1)]/[1000*(2-1)*(2-1)]*20 = 20

so just like the current formula the winner will get 20 points.

now let's test this for a 1v1 game a new recruit's first game vs a colonel.
the colonel has played this map and these settings exactly 1000 times and has won 75% of the games. so his variables will change as follows:

score: 3000
WEM = instead of 2 (the base value) it has increased to 2.4
WPM = instead of 1 (the base value) it has dropped to 0.8
WES = instead of 2 (the base value) it has increased to 2.4
WPS = instead of 0 (the base value) it has dropped to 0.8

let's say the colonel wins this game and we have the formula like this:

[1000*(2-1)*(2-1)]/[3000*(2.4-0.8 )*(2.4-0.8 )]*20 =

= [1000 / (3000*1.6*1.6)] *20 =
= (1000/7680)*20 = 2.6 points rounded to 3 points.

with the normal formula we have now it is 1000/3000 * 20 = 6.6 = 7 points.

now let's assume the same game but the new recruit wins
and we get 7680/1000 * 20 = 153.6 rounded down to 100 the max limit.

and with the current formula we have 3000/1000 * 20 = 60 points

so you see, the colonel that abuses that type of game to bash new recruits will gain just 3 points instead of 7 and lose 100 instead of 60 thus making him to stop abusing because he would have to win 34 games for every loss just to break even instead of winning 7.5 games for every loss with the old formula. this will force the abuser to try new types of games. and if he tries a new map with new settings vs a new recruit he will gain 7 points like the current formula because his variables for the new map and new setting will be at the base value.

i hope this helps understanding the formula and that it helps demonstrating it's not as hard as you guys think.

Er, uh;...
What he said.

[QoH]

That's actually genius DiM. It takes into most aspects of a game.

But what then, for players like HighlanderAttack or B00060 who play tens of thousands of games, all across the board? HA is a captain/major while B00060 is a colonel/brig? Is it fair for HA to only gain a few points against a fellow major where he has tons more experience than his opponent, even if his opponent is well versed in the map? That's something that should be taken into account. HA and B00060 have specialized in certain maps, yes, but according to your formula they would never get very many points against anyone.

[b00060]

Factoring experience would only force those that do play a lot of games to play less and probably reward the multis and other cheaters that come back and all of a sudden would be Brigs because they won a lot of their games on a first time map or setting that they would really have more experience on.

[Gillipig]

Factoring experience would only force those that do play a lot of games to play less and probably reward the multis and other cheaters that come back and all of a sudden would be Brigs because they won a lot of their games on a first time map or setting that they would really have more experience on.

I'm not surprised you're saying this as you'd be one of the few players that would be very negatively effected by this. Due to your insane amount of games played. Bearing that in mind, this scoring system would still be better at recognizing the best players than the current one.