The powers that be are working on implementing a new scoring system! This scoring system would not only take into account the total amount of points accumulated, but also include the "relative rank" of the opponents faced and therefore create a scoring system that accurately depicts the true quality of any given individual player.
The formula is simple: (Total points) multiplied by "relative rank" = Final Score
By this method.... "Squirly" is the current conqueror (4086 X .827 = 3379)
s3xt0y wrote:This promotes rank segregation, gone will be the days of creating a public game for anyone to join.
This is not true at all... your relative rank is .926 would you change anything?
As you ranked up, you would have to keep playing people of your rank to keep the relative rank up. I do think some people would change ways, but not all people.
s3xt0y wrote:This promotes rank segregation, gone will be the days of creating a public game for anyone to join.
This is not true at all... your relative rank is .926 would you change anything?
As you ranked up, you would have to keep playing people of your rank to keep the relative rank up. I do think some people would change ways, but not all people.
Let's be honest here... how long has the relative rank been in place? it is what it is... some people already try to play only high ranked players and then many of us still don't care... I don't see where anything would change at all. And I am having a hard time swallowing the argument that we are worried about the low ranked players with some of the practices that are used everyday on this site.
I know that change is hard for most but rest assured that this will eventually be the scoring system because it is the only system that is truly accurate.
the scoring system already takes into account the different ranks of the players.
you get about 20 points for defeating someone near your rank. you get 2 or 3 points for defeating someone far, far below your rank. you get 100 points for defeating someone far, far above your rank.
you lose about 20 points for losing to someone near your rank. you lose 2 or 3 points for losing to someone far, far above your rank. you lose 100 points for losing to someone far, far below your rank.
greenoaks wrote:the scoring system already takes into account the different ranks of the players.
you get about 20 points for defeating someone near your rank. you get 2 or 3 points for defeating someone far, far below your rank. you get 100 points for defeating someone far, far above your rank.
you lose about 20 points for losing to someone near your rank. you lose 2 or 3 points for losing to someone far, far above your rank. you lose 100 points for losing to someone far, far below your rank.
But as we all know, gaining 5000 points from "farming" low ranked player can still class you as the "best" player.... whereas maybe gaining 3000 points from playing high ranked players will only sit you just inside the top 100.. Awful system
fully support this system and the sooner it is implemented the better for this site...as someone with a relative rank of .850 I would stand to lose about 400 points off my current score but this is a small price to pay for a scoreboard with some integrity behind it....
greenoaks wrote:the scoring system already takes into account the different ranks of the players.
you get about 20 points for defeating someone near your rank. you get 2 or 3 points for defeating someone far, far below your rank. you get 100 points for defeating someone far, far above your rank.
you lose about 20 points for losing to someone near your rank. you lose 2 or 3 points for losing to someone far, far above your rank. you lose 100 points for losing to someone far, far below your rank.
But as we all know, gaining 5000 points from "farming" low ranked player can still class you as the "best" player.... whereas maybe gaining 3000 points from playing high ranked players will only sit you just inside the top 100.. Awful system
and as some of us know 100 points are risked every time one of those games is played.
the scoring system already takes into account the rank of the players in the game.
greenoaks wrote:the scoring system already takes into account the different ranks of the players.
you get about 20 points for defeating someone near your rank. you get 2 or 3 points for defeating someone far, far below your rank. you get 100 points for defeating someone far, far above your rank.
you lose about 20 points for losing to someone near your rank. you lose 2 or 3 points for losing to someone far, far above your rank. you lose 100 points for losing to someone far, far below your rank.
But as we all know, gaining 5000 points from "farming" low ranked player can still class you as the "best" player.... whereas maybe gaining 3000 points from playing high ranked players will only sit you just inside the top 100.. Awful system
and as some of us know 100 points are risked every time one of those games is played.
the scoring system already takes into account the rank of the players in the game.
Farming = little risk. There is nothing more to be said. This would be the fairest way to have it if it were to change.
greenoaks wrote:the scoring system already takes into account the different ranks of the players.
you get about 20 points for defeating someone near your rank. you get 2 or 3 points for defeating someone far, far below your rank. you get 100 points for defeating someone far, far above your rank.
you lose about 20 points for losing to someone near your rank. you lose 2 or 3 points for losing to someone far, far above your rank. you lose 100 points for losing to someone far, far below your rank.
But as we all know, gaining 5000 points from "farming" low ranked player can still class you as the "best" player.... whereas maybe gaining 3000 points from playing high ranked players will only sit you just inside the top 100.. Awful system
and as some of us know 100 points are risked every time one of those games is played.
the scoring system already takes into account the rank of the players in the game.
Farming = little risk. There is nothing more to be said. This would be the fairest way to have it if it were to change.
little risk of losing but still a risk, about 1 in 50 to break even. as it should be.
A new system just means a new way a manipulating it, you get rid of some people that inflate their scores, but also get others that figure out.
Im not sure about this but I think it would allow for a cook or other low ranks to inflate their score above their ability if their relative rank is above 1.000 from playing higher ranked players.
Anything that kills the farming and brings back some fucking integrity to the scoreboard is fine with me.
You already have rank segregation from those too overprotective to play any lower ranks, and that bullshit about risking points is bullshit Greenoaks, as the formula that pays out profit in the end has effectively nullified the risk over the game spread.
The excuse of " I'm risking 50 points when I'm farming Noobs" is accurate only in a game by game perspective. Over time and numerous farming games the risk diminishes to zilch and our current conqueror is living proof.
It's amazing how some people would rather parade around with an inflated rank from system that inaccurately keeps them there, than one that mathematically marks you on your proper skill level.
lynch5762 wrote:Rumor has it that behind the scenes....
The powers that be are working on implementing a new scoring system! This scoring system would not only take into account the total amount of points accumulated, but also include the "relative rank" of the opponents faced and therefore create a scoring system that accurately depicts the true quality of any given individual player.
The formula is simple: (Total points) multiplied by "relative rank" = Final Score
By this method.... "Squirly" is the current conqueror (4086 X .827 = 3379)
Stay tuned for further details......
source??
catstevens: you are now an honorary American TG...Congrats
I only checked the top ten on scoreboard.. 
