Exponential Scoring System

[Lord_Bremen]

The current scoring system is linear, this suggestion would switch it to an exponential model instead.

Concise description:
The current model is linear: If I have 2x someone's points, I'm expected to win four times as much (win = 10, loss = -40). With 4x, I have to win twenty(!) times as much (win = 5, loss = -80). My suggestion is to use the square root of the ratio instead. This would reduce the number of points for large differences in score. The change would not be retroactive, and would apply only to games completed after implementation.

Specifics/Details:

The current formula is: (loser's score / winner's score) * 20, max of 100.
My formula would be: (loser's score / winner's score)^1/2 * 20, max of 100.
This would change points awarded as follows:
Old points ----> New Points: Win(Loss)
Even: 20 -----> 20 (20)
1.5x Loser's Score: 13.4 (30) -----> 16 (24)
2x Loser's Score: 10 (40) -----> 14 (28)
3x Loser's Score: 6.6 (60) -----> 11.5 (34.6)

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
-The current model makes it extremely hard for highly ranked players to play lower ranked ones: given the luck factor, winning 10-20x in a row against someone of even middling skill is nearly impossible. This is even more pronounced in large games, at even 2x the point value it is necessary to win 1/3 of eight player games just to break even.
-It is not possible to restrict games by points, so higher ranked players tend to avoid public games and the massive potential point loss. When was the last time you saw a top 100 player in a public game cooks could join? This would allow top players to play more games without taking such massive score hits if they lose.
-This may alleviate the related fact that top players tend to play only one non-standard map against pre-selected opponents (for example, the current Conqueror only City Mogul 1v1, #2 plays only private games, etc). Hopefully this change will encourage them to use more variety.
-This would be a more accurate rating model, as it accounts for the luck factor: as point disparities increase, luck stays constant, so linear scores will not be a valid prediction of who wins (even scores might split 50/50, but 2x scores are less likely to split 4/1, and 4x scores are very unlikely to split 20/1).
-This would make score resets for cheaters more palatable, as it would reduce the number of points opponents lose while they attempt to regain their ranking./list]

[Woodruff]

The current scoring system is linear, this suggestion would switch it to an exponential model instead.

Concise description:
The current model is linear: If I have 2x someone's points, I'm expected to win four times as much (win = 10, loss = -40). With 4x, I have to win twenty(!) times as much (win = 5, loss = -80). My suggestion is to use the square root of the ratio instead. This would reduce the number of points for large differences in score. The change would not be retroactive, and would apply only to games completed after implementation.

Specifics/Details:

The current formula is: (loser's score / winner's score) * 20, max of 100.
My formula would be: (loser's score / winner's score)^1/2 * 20, max of 100.
This would change points awarded as follows:
Old points ----> New Points: Win(Loss)
Even: 20 -----> 20 (20)
1.5x Loser's Score: 13.4 (30) -----> 16 (24)
2x Loser's Score: 10 (40) -----> 14 (28)
3x Loser's Score: 6.6 (60) -----> 11.5 (34.6)

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
-The current model makes it extremely hard for highly ranked players to play lower ranked ones: given the luck factor, winning 10-20x in a row against someone of even middling skill is nearly impossible. This is even more pronounced in large games, at even 2x the point value it is necessary to win 1/3 of eight player games just to break even.
-It is not possible to restrict games by points, so higher ranked players tend to avoid public games and the massive potential point loss. When was the last time you saw a top 100 player in a public game cooks could join? This would allow top players to play more games without taking such massive score hits if they lose.
-This may alleviate the related fact that top players tend to play only one non-standard map against pre-selected opponents (for example, the current Conqueror only City Mogul 1v1, #2 plays only private games, etc). Hopefully this change will encourage them to use more variety.
-This would be a more accurate rating model, as it accounts for the luck factor: as point disparities increase, luck stays constant, so linear scores will not be a valid prediction of who wins (even scores might split 50/50, but 2x scores are less likely to split 4/1, and 4x scores are very unlikely to split 20/1).
-This would make score resets for cheaters more palatable, as it would reduce the number of points opponents lose while they attempt to regain their ranking./list]

The whole "max of 100" thing should be removed. There should be enormous risk involved in playing someone you enormously outclass or there isn't. This artificial structure does nothing to help and, in fact, definitely leads to farming.

I realize that it's not something that is solely a part of your suggestion, as it also exists in the current system. But it should be done away with.

[Lord_Bremen]

The whole "max of 100" thing should be removed. There should be enormous risk involved in playing someone you enormously outclass or there isn't. This artificial structure does nothing to help and, in fact, definitely leads to farming.

I realize that it's not something that is solely a part of your suggestion, as it also exists in the current system. But it should be done away with.

Under my suggestion, you would only reach the 100 cap if you have 25x more points than your opponent. But we want higher ranked guys to play lower ones, that would be good for the game.

[DoomYoshi]

The whole "max of 100" thing should be removed. There should be enormous risk involved in playing someone you enormously outclass or there isn't. This artificial structure does nothing to help and, in fact, definitely leads to farming.

I realize that it's not something that is solely a part of your suggestion, as it also exists in the current system. But it should be done away with.

Under my suggestion, you would only reach the 100 cap if you have 25x more points than your opponent. But we want higher ranked guys to play lower ones, that would be good for the game.

I concur. With the drop in membership numbers, anything that allows more games to fill is a positive change.

[Woodruff]

The whole "max of 100" thing should be removed. There should be enormous risk involved in playing someone you enormously outclass or there isn't. This artificial structure does nothing to help and, in fact, definitely leads to farming.

I realize that it's not something that is solely a part of your suggestion, as it also exists in the current system. But it should be done away with.

Under my suggestion, you would only reach the 100 cap if you have 25x more points than your opponent. But we want higher ranked guys to play lower ones, that would be good for the game.

I am curious as to why that is something that is necessarily considered "good for the game". Major League Baseball would not consider it to be "good for the game" to have the San Francisco Giants play Southeast Community College. How are expected routs good for the game? Good competition is good for the game.

[Lord_Bremen]

I am curious as to why that is something that is necessarily considered "good for the game". Major League Baseball would not consider it to be "good for the game" to have the San Francisco Giants play Southeast Community College. How are expected routs good for the game? Good competition is good for the game.

Same reasons as given here: viewtopic.php?f=704&t=274

[TheForgivenOne]

The current scoring system is linear, this suggestion would switch it to an exponential model instead.

Concise description:
The current model is linear: If I have 2x someone's points, I'm expected to win four times as much (win = 10, loss = -40). With 4x, I have to win twenty(!) times as much (win = 5, loss = -80). My suggestion is to use the square root of the ratio instead. This would reduce the number of points for large differences in score. The change would not be retroactive, and would apply only to games completed after implementation.

Specifics/Details:

The current formula is: (loser's score / winner's score) * 20, max of 100.
My formula would be: (loser's score / winner's score)^1/2 * 20, max of 100.
This would change points awarded as follows:
Old points ----> New Points: Win(Loss)
Even: 20 -----> 20 (20)
1.5x Loser's Score: 13.4 (30) -----> 16 (24)
2x Loser's Score: 10 (40) -----> 14 (28)
3x Loser's Score: 6.6 (60) -----> 11.5 (34.6)

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
-The current model makes it extremely hard for highly ranked players to play lower ranked ones: given the luck factor, winning 10-20x in a row against someone of even middling skill is nearly impossible. This is even more pronounced in large games, at even 2x the point value it is necessary to win 1/3 of eight player games just to break even.
-It is not possible to restrict games by points, so higher ranked players tend to avoid public games and the massive potential point loss. When was the last time you saw a top 100 player in a public game cooks could join? This would allow top players to play more games without taking such massive score hits if they lose.
-This may alleviate the related fact that top players tend to play only one non-standard map against pre-selected opponents (for example, the current Conqueror only City Mogul 1v1, #2 plays only private games, etc). Hopefully this change will encourage them to use more variety.
-This would be a more accurate rating model, as it accounts for the luck factor: as point disparities increase, luck stays constant, so linear scores will not be a valid prediction of who wins (even scores might split 50/50, but 2x scores are less likely to split 4/1, and 4x scores are very unlikely to split 20/1).
-This would make score resets for cheaters more palatable, as it would reduce the number of points opponents lose while they attempt to regain their ranking./list]

The whole "max of 100" thing should be removed. There should be enormous risk involved in playing someone you enormously outclass or there isn't. This artificial structure does nothing to help and, in fact, definitely leads to farming.

I realize that it's not something that is solely a part of your suggestion, as it also exists in the current system. But it should be done away with.

I'd have to go with no on removing the max on the cap. Take a user with an excessively low score. He could absolutely fly up the scoreboard if he get's a lucky win. Say the lowest person on the scoreboard was to luckily beat a Colonel with a score of 2500. With no cap, it would look like (2500/2)*20 = 25 000. Heck, even if he beat a NR, he would win 10 000 points. And that's only off 1 player! If he were to win a 8 player game...

[DoomYoshi]

The whole "max of 100" thing should be removed. There should be enormous risk involved in playing someone you enormously outclass or there isn't. This artificial structure does nothing to help and, in fact, definitely leads to farming.

I realize that it's not something that is solely a part of your suggestion, as it also exists in the current system. But it should be done away with.

Under my suggestion, you would only reach the 100 cap if you have 25x more points than your opponent. But we want higher ranked guys to play lower ones, that would be good for the game.

I am curious as to why that is something that is necessarily considered "good for the game". Major League Baseball would not consider it to be "good for the game" to have the San Francisco Giants play Southeast Community College. How are expected routs good for the game? Good competition is good for the game.

Some of us presume that points are less an indicator of skill than others. I think that those with points are just smart enough to play on settings that they win on. Some players are better and worse, but I don't think in most cases the distance is great enough to matter.

[OliverFA]

I think this proposal is a fair one. It keeps risk for high ranked players, but minimizes absurd situations. A player who consistently wins/loses will still go up/down the table, but this will be a more gradual, less drastic change.

[chapcrap]

I think this proposal is a fair one. It keeps risk for high ranked players, but minimizes absurd situations. A player who consistently wins/loses will still go up/down the table, but this will be a more gradual, less drastic change.

I agree. I like the proposal.

[Metsfanmax]

I am curious as to why that is something that is necessarily considered "good for the game". Major League Baseball would not consider it to be "good for the game" to have the San Francisco Giants play Southeast Community College. How are expected routs good for the game? Good competition is good for the game.

MLB is about entertainment. It's not entertaining to watch that game. But, if you're the Southeast Community College, you'd jump at the chance to play against the Giants, just for the experience of learning from good players. We juggle both casual and competitive players on this site, and if the casual players ever want to become more competitive, they can do so by playing the experts. I generally support ideas that encourage high and low ranked players to compete together, that don't encourage farming, and I think this is one such idea.

BTW: TFO is right, the cap has to stay.

[Lord_Bremen]

For the record, my proposal had nothing to do with the cap - it leaves it unchanged. I'm not sure why the dude tried hijacking my thread about it.

I don't think anyone has had a problem with what I actually suggested so far.