I placed a post on this once before but never had a response so i thought i would place another. Can someone explane the scoring system and how it is determined how many points are won or lost each game. I played a person one step above and would have gained about 90 points for a win and i lost 65 after my defeat--this seems to be a fair risk/reward ratio. But, there are games i have going against players in the top 40 where if i win i will gain 1, 2 or 3 points while if i lose i will probably have 2, 3 or 4 hundred deducted from my score. I know of many very good players in the ranks of major and colonel but the way the scoring is set up it is a terrible risk/reward ratio to play them. I think a much fairer scoring system would have some sort of multiple as a cap on the amount of points you can lose. As an example, say the multiple was set at 50. This would mean that if you can only gain 1 point with a victory, you can only lose 50 points with a loss. Without a change such as i have suggested, it is a total no win situation for a player to play anyone very far down the rank from them--much to lose while nothing to gain!!

I second that. Scoring should at least have an understood rational behind it.

At the very least, the amount of points you will lose in defeat should be listed right next to the amount you will gain if you win.

Don't worry so much about the points. If you are as good as the ranking thinks you are then you have nothing to fear.

I don't think "worry" is the right word. I think there are players--myself included--that would like to know how the scoring is based, what points we can gain in a match and what points we can lose in a match. Personally, I think the system needs to be tweeked because there are a lot of players, like you, that are much better than their score would indicate, who are capable of beating anyone with the right layout , who i would gain perhaps 2 or 3 points with a win and lose 3 or 4 hundred with a loss--this is out of wack.

Its clearly designed to force you to play an equal or higher rank or risk losing a disproportionate number of points. A clever method of forcing players to play at their own skill level or higher. That way one cant stay in the shallows and feed only on the easy pickings. The win loss ratio becomes too steep, keeps the line moving as it were. Once I think it through I suppose its as fair a method as you could hope for. That said, I would still like to know how many points I stand to lose if I decide to play my brother who is a rank behind me. Little bugger just cost me a lot of points and all on account of he got lucky

Guys.

We are about to change that system.

No one will be losing poings ever. Points can be only gained for games, not lost.

Victor

Hope you reconsider. I think that the new scorign system is a huge improvment over the old system. es I hate losing points, but the fact of the matter is I can regain them just as quick. I consider myself an average player and the current ranking system would see to agree. If you never lose points, you get rewarded for your shear volume of play, not the quality of it.

Big O does make a good point. I can remember a few players in the old system that became Marshall just by playing hundreds of games at a time, loseing 3 or 4 or sometimes more for every 1 that they won. I would have to say that if i had to choose between the system we now have and one in which someone can reach the top ranks with a record of 100 wins and 500 losses I would have to vote for the system in place now.

I agree. Please reconsider this. You could get some more feedback by starting a poll.

On the other hand, If we look at this from a marketing stand point, the game will be more attractive to people if the upper ranks are attainable for more people. Perhaps there can be some sort of middle ground where the point deduct for a loss is fairly small, say 5, 10 or 15 points. This would still allow the adverage player to play a lot of games and rise thru the ranks and would also keep the fairly bad players from just playing 100's of games, loseing most, and still being rewarded. And, you could keep a seperate web page, like MAN had, where the players are rated with the glicko system.

Rank is fun and all that but for a usable indicator of skill I would be happy just having a win loss ratio to refer to i.e win/loss 50/50 or something along those lines. That would give shadow-d something like 95/5, Morn 90/10 and me 60/40. Seems more useful to the serious player while removing the focus from rank. As it is under the present system as soon as, most, players see they are going to lose (I know Im guilty) the speed at which turns are returned slows down while they wait for a win or two.

Hmm, I'm less intrested in a game that I'm loosing, but heu, I have the respect to finish those games while I don't like them

Anyhow, on the ranking system, I have more then 100 games, and I'm far from Marshall hehe
Win / loose ratio would say me more too, since I mostly go check the win/losses from a player who sended a challenge.

There could be a 2 tiered system--no points would be deducted for players below the rank of colonel and then only a small amount for those above that rank. This would allow the new players to feel they have a chance to attain higher ranks and it would make attaining the very top ranks still somewhat skill based. The win loss record is still what most of us look at when playing someone new. I think that whatever system is used, new players have to feel that they can get to the top positions and some form of the glicko system is they only real way to do that.

Is it a coincidence that all have 100 games or do you really want a percentage? Percentage means that if someone have played two games and won both of them he will have a 100/0 ratio. I don't think that this would be wise. If you want a win/loss ratio then it must be the real one - currently 163/41 for me.

But I would have a problem with this one too. This could be dangerous because the win loss ratio doesn't say anything about against who these games were played. If you use public challenges and restrict your opponents to Conscript and Private you will probably get a very good win/loss ratio.
To a certain extent this works for glicko too. But then you have to restrict your games to Major. In order to get some points you have to play a lot of games of course.

Well, I prefer playing against higher ranks (Colonel, General, Marshall) because I love challenges.


Guillty as charged.
I'm playing a lot of games at the moment. It depends on my opponent but if I don't think I can win a game anymore I surrender. In my opinion it's waste of time - my time.

Perhaps we are giving all of this point/rank thing too much attention. It really does not matter what the rank or how many wins and losses a player has--anyone that has played a fair number of games gets to know who is good--whatever their rank. Either they have played the player in question or they know someone who has and have received some feedback.

It could be conceivable to have a list of players who choose to be RANKLESS.
That way they could always play for a Diversion from the Grind-of-Life and just have as much "fun" as possible.
The Ranked Players could have their scores affected by the Rank-Less players and could keep on Competitively Ranking.
Eh?

A very interesting idea!