Player Score Floor

[BigBallinStalin]

thecrown's strategy was an anomaly for the CC point system, so revamping so much to address so little (which can already be addressed through means already in place) is counter-productive.

This has nothing to do with TheCrown (and I probably shouldn't have gotten into that debate with agentcom). The fact that that is an anomaly is why I am not worried about the effects of that sort of thing. I'm more worried about the point dumping that happens more much commonly and silently. We don't usually call that point dumping; we call it bad luck. Let me provide an example to show you what this suggestion is really about. My 'actual' score is probably around 2000 (that is, the score where I should equilibrate if I'm playing seriously). A few months ago, I had a nice string of victories that brought me up past 2400. Soon after that, I had a serious streak of bad luck (I play a lot of 1v1s, so this is possible), and my score dropped down below 1500 within the span of like a month. My skill level is not actually 1447, it's much higher than that; but people were playing me at that level, and either not gaining enough points when they won or losing too many when they lost. This happens all the time because of the luck factor in this game, and it's why I'm enthusiastic about this idea. It's just hard to articulate that as a 'benefit' of the suggestion because it happens so frequently and without fanfare.

BTW, I've changed the OP to reflect the 'games played' requirement instead of the 'length of time' requirement. Number of games played at the floor to lower it, is also up for debate of course.

Honestly, I still don't see how your floor somehow makes the scoreboard more accurate. Your losing so many points is due to a change in maps and settings, thus your score should be allowed to fall. Your 2000 score was higher because you tended to play different maps/settings, thus it accurately enough reflects your score--at that style of play.

If players had a variety of scores for a variety of settings/maps, then that would provide a more accurate measure of their abilities.

Regarding point dumping, 'bad luck' isn't point-dumping. It's called playing different maps with different settings at which you do not excel as well as you did on other maps and settings. And if I could hit a floor by 'point dumping', then I'd be more inclined to play more games (at which I do not excel as greatly) in order to 'point dump'.

[Metsfanmax]

thecrown's strategy was an anomaly for the CC point system, so revamping so much to address so little (which can already be addressed through means already in place) is counter-productive.

This has nothing to do with TheCrown (and I probably shouldn't have gotten into that debate with agentcom). The fact that that is an anomaly is why I am not worried about the effects of that sort of thing. I'm more worried about the point dumping that happens more much commonly and silently. We don't usually call that point dumping; we call it bad luck. Let me provide an example to show you what this suggestion is really about. My 'actual' score is probably around 2000 (that is, the score where I should equilibrate if I'm playing seriously). A few months ago, I had a nice string of victories that brought me up past 2400. Soon after that, I had a serious streak of bad luck (I play a lot of 1v1s, so this is possible), and my score dropped down below 1500 within the span of like a month. My skill level is not actually 1447, it's much higher than that; but people were playing me at that level, and either not gaining enough points when they won or losing too many when they lost. This happens all the time because of the luck factor in this game, and it's why I'm enthusiastic about this idea. It's just hard to articulate that as a 'benefit' of the suggestion because it happens so frequently and without fanfare.

BTW, I've changed the OP to reflect the 'games played' requirement instead of the 'length of time' requirement. Number of games played at the floor to lower it, is also up for debate of course.

Honestly, I still don't see how your floor somehow makes the scoreboard more accurate. Your losing so many points is due to a change in maps and settings, thus your score should be allowed to fall. Your 2000 score was higher because you tended to play different maps/settings, thus it accurately enough reflects your score--at that style of play.

I didn't change maps and settings. I play pretty much the same games all the time (a mix of 1v1s on maps like Arms Race, and 6+ player escalating games on Classic, etc.). I lost so many points not because of switching the game types I played but just because I got very bad luck in the drops and rolls during that time period. That's what the floor protects against.

[agentcom]

So, the floor is now protecting against bad luck?! Sheesh. I had a problem with it when it was dealing with "real" problems like manipulating the scoreboard and people having to go to the hospital. But I don't even think it warrants the arguments given here to protect people from bad luck. We're playing a game based on DICE, after all.

Oliver, the debate that has happened here can hardly be characterized as people throwing up their hands and saying "No it won't work." It's been a combination of "This isn't a (big) problem"; "This isn't the right solution to the problem if it does exist"; and "This solution causes other problems. Your other solutions are interesting, but I won't derail things by discussing them here, except to point out my own novel solution, which could be discussed elsewhere:

Base the points won and lost per game on a player's average all-time score. This score would be "sticky" and wouldn't fluctuate much over time; whereas, we still get every game mattering in terms of points. This solves your guys' perceived problem with wild point fluctuations, but I admit doesn't address the problems that this topic was originally designed to cover. But now, the topic has turned to any form of point swings even the ones based on luck.

Back to this suggestion, some of you are attacking the concept of point swings as if it is inherently negative. No limit poker is pretty much designed to facilitate crazy swings, and last I checked that was a pretty popular game. CC's scoring system isn't inherently better or worse than either poker or chess. It's just different. There's no particular reason to make our scoring system more like chess and less like poker. That choice should be based on what people prefer, and I think that this conversation shows that the changes you suggest are at best controversial and at worst unwanted.

I have a bunch of other quibbles with your points, but I think I'm done going line-by-line through this discussion.

[Metsfanmax]

Back to this suggestion, some of you are attacking the concept of point swings as if it is inherently negative. No limit poker is pretty much designed to facilitate crazy swings, and last I checked that was a pretty popular game. CC's scoring system isn't inherently better or worse than either poker or chess. It's just different. There's no particular reason to make our scoring system more like chess and less like poker. That choice should be based on what people prefer, and I think that this conversation shows that the changes you suggest are at best controversial and at worst unwanted.

I invite you to take a stroll through General Discussion if you think there's a general consensus that people like crazy streaks. No one likes that, because while this is a game that has luck as a central premise, being able to lose 1000 points in a streak of bad luck completely negates the meaning of the scoring system.

More importantly, there's a very important difference between this and poker, which justifies the use of the chess system. If you run low of money in poker and continue playing, that doesn't hurt anyone else. If you suffer a severe loss in points and continue playing, you are being unfair to your opponents, because you are taking more points in those games than you would have if you were at the 'correct' score when you win, and giving them less points when they win. You yourself more or less made this exact point when describing why TheCrown's actions were bad for the site.

[BigBallinStalin]

thecrown's strategy was an anomaly for the CC point system, so revamping so much to address so little (which can already be addressed through means already in place) is counter-productive.

This has nothing to do with TheCrown (and I probably shouldn't have gotten into that debate with agentcom). The fact that that is an anomaly is why I am not worried about the effects of that sort of thing. I'm more worried about the point dumping that happens more much commonly and silently. We don't usually call that point dumping; we call it bad luck. Let me provide an example to show you what this suggestion is really about. My 'actual' score is probably around 2000 (that is, the score where I should equilibrate if I'm playing seriously). A few months ago, I had a nice string of victories that brought me up past 2400. Soon after that, I had a serious streak of bad luck (I play a lot of 1v1s, so this is possible), and my score dropped down below 1500 within the span of like a month. My skill level is not actually 1447, it's much higher than that; but people were playing me at that level, and either not gaining enough points when they won or losing too many when they lost. This happens all the time because of the luck factor in this game, and it's why I'm enthusiastic about this idea. It's just hard to articulate that as a 'benefit' of the suggestion because it happens so frequently and without fanfare.

BTW, I've changed the OP to reflect the 'games played' requirement instead of the 'length of time' requirement. Number of games played at the floor to lower it, is also up for debate of course.

Honestly, I still don't see how your floor somehow makes the scoreboard more accurate. Your losing so many points is due to a change in maps and settings, thus your score should be allowed to fall. Your 2000 score was higher because you tended to play different maps/settings, thus it accurately enough reflects your score--at that style of play.

I didn't change maps and settings. I play pretty much the same games all the time (a mix of 1v1s on maps like Arms Race, and 6+ player escalating games on Classic, etc.). I lost so many points not because of switching the game types I played but just because I got very bad luck in the drops and rolls during that time period. That's what the floor protects against.

Well, my contention still holds for people who do as I described. The score floor would conceal how poorly they actually play.

Also, I really don't think your recent loss is due to luck.

1v1 - 48% win rate
standard - 25%

Not the mark of a real expert, in my opinion. Perhaps, your current score more accurately accounts for your play? Maybe you were previously on a win-luck streak, and you've dropped down to normal?

It seems that your suggestion would have prevented the score from more accurately revealing your current score.

[BigBallinStalin]

So, the floor is now protecting against bad luck?! Sheesh. I had a problem with it when it was dealing with "real" problems like manipulating the scoreboard and people having to go to the hospital. But I don't even think it warrants the arguments given here to protect people from bad luck. We're playing a game based on DICE, after all.

Oliver, the debate that has happened here can hardly be characterized as people throwing up their hands and saying "No it won't work." It's been a combination of "This isn't a (big) problem"; "This isn't the right solution to the problem if it does exist"; and "This solution causes other problems. Your other solutions are interesting, but I won't derail things by discussing them here, except to point out my own novel solution, which could be discussed elsewhere:

Base the points won and lost per game on a player's average all-time score. This score would be "sticky" and wouldn't fluctuate much over time; whereas, we still get every game mattering in terms of points. This solves your guys' perceived problem with wild point fluctuations, but I admit doesn't address the problems that this topic was originally designed to cover. But now, the topic has turned to any form of point swings even the ones based on luck.

Back to this suggestion, some of you are attacking the concept of point swings as if it is inherently negative. No limit poker is pretty much designed to facilitate crazy swings, and last I checked that was a pretty popular game. CC's scoring system isn't inherently better or worse than either poker or chess. It's just different. There's no particular reason to make our scoring system more like chess and less like poker. That choice should be based on what people prefer, and I think that this conversation shows that the changes you suggest are at best controversial and at worst unwanted.

I have a bunch of other quibbles with your points, but I think I'm done going line-by-line through this discussion.

I know. This suggestion is getting worse per post.

Good alternative for about the wild point fluctuation concern.

[Donelladan]

Metsfanmax wrote:Less drastic points variation is an absolute key if we want a player's score to reflect their skill. If you can gain several hundred points at once in a BR it really negates the ability of your score to reflect your skill. It's just a tough problem to solve, given the incredible variety of game types and players we have on the site. It's one I want to attack, but also one that will annoy lots of people regardless of which one we end up selecting.


Because we acknowledge that the problem exist and we also acknowledge that we want a solution that minimizes it instead of getting worse, I think that suggestions like yours should be debated with the intention to get something from the discussion.

I am not sure "we" acknowledge that the problem exist.
There is no problem at all with points fluctuations. If there is no points fluctuations then the scoreboard would become totally meaningless.

Losing points for any reasons allow you to gain them back easily. Thererfore your current score always fluctuate around your average level. This is normal and this is good like it is.
If your skills improve, then your average score will improve.
I cannot not see any good reason of preventing people to go down in score.

If there is a problem with the scoreboard it's about score calculations being not differenciated per map and per settings. But this is a totally different which has been adressed with other suggestions. Except for that I totally believe that score system reflects the real level on a player.

[Metsfanmax]

Metsfanmax wrote:Less drastic points variation is an absolute key if we want a player's score to reflect their skill. If you can gain several hundred points at once in a BR it really negates the ability of your score to reflect your skill. It's just a tough problem to solve, given the incredible variety of game types and players we have on the site. It's one I want to attack, but also one that will annoy lots of people regardless of which one we end up selecting.


Because we acknowledge that the problem exist and we also acknowledge that we want a solution that minimizes it instead of getting worse, I think that suggestions like yours should be debated with the intention to get something from the discussion.

I am not sure "we" acknowledge that the problem exist.
There is no problem at all with points fluctuations. If there is no points fluctuations then the scoreboard would become totally meaningless.

No one is talking about avoiding all point changes, obviously. What we're concerned about is being able to lose or gain many hundreds of points at one time. That also makes the scoreboard meaningless -- if your score can change by 1000 points instantaneously, your score doesn't necessarily mean anything. It's just a number. It doesn't tell anyone how good you are. The only way for the score to be a meaningful quantity is if it settles into a stable equilibrium around your actual skill. The score system that we currently have is absurd in that sense. JamesKer1 disappeared for a couple of weeks and lost like 800 points. No one should think that he's actually an 800 rank player, but whoever he plays when he comes back will incorrectly think that. That's just silly. Fixing the scoring system should be a top priority for anyone who cares about having a meaningful score. Regardless of what other changes occur to soften point fluctuations, a score floor (and maybe some sort of score ceiling, to deal with BRs) in some sense is always necessary if you want to protect against wild score fluctuations.

[Metsfanmax]

Base the points won and lost per game on a player's average all-time score. This score would be "sticky" and wouldn't fluctuate much over time; whereas, we still get every game mattering in terms of points. This solves your guys' perceived problem with wild point fluctuations, but I admit doesn't address the problems that this topic was originally designed to cover. But now, the topic has turned to any form of point swings even the ones based on luck.

I know. This suggestion is getting worse per post.

Good alternative for about the wild point fluctuation concern.

That doesn't solve any of the issues addressed here, including wild point fluctuations. If the player has an all-time average of 1800 and is currently at 1800 when he disappears or has a bad streak, he'll just lose even more points than he would have when he disappears, because each time he loses he'll be losing points corresponding to his 1800 score instead of the lower score that he's dropped down to. So it's even worse than the current system in most cases.

[greenoaks]

how long will you beat this dead horse for before a Suggestions Moderator moves it to Rejected.

[patrickaa317]

Sorry if i missed this but is the 15 games that the floor is subject to dependent on average active games? If not, then a player that carries 100 games is still more subject to crazy point fluctuation than a person who carries 10 games at a time.

[Metsfanmax]

Sorry if i missed this but is the 15 games that the floor is subject to dependent on average active games? If not, then a player that carries 100 games is still more subject to crazy point fluctuation than a person who carries 10 games at a time.

I don't know a clean way around this. If I set it for a length of time like I originally had, then it leaves it more open to abuse because you can play lots of games to milk the point floor while you're there. If I set it for a number of games, if it's too low then it doesn't do anything, and if it's too high it's open to the same abuse as before.

[patrickaa317]

Sorry if i missed this but is the 15 games that the floor is subject to dependent on average active games? If not, then a player that carries 100 games is still more subject to crazy point fluctuation than a person who carries 10 games at a time.

I don't know a clean way around this. If I set it for a length of time like I originally had, then it leaves it more open to abuse because you can play lots of games to milk the point floor while you're there. If I set it for a number of games, if it's too low then it doesn't do anything, and if it's too high it's open to the same abuse as before.

Agreed and that is what my concern with any suggestion like this.

[agentcom]

how long will you beat this dead horse for before a Suggestions Moderator moves it to Rejected.

LOL

[betiko]

Yup i see no interest in this suggestion.

[Agent 86]

Well all I see is point dumping on the last page..so kick them..example Loki Angel so obvious.