Revised scoring metric for "Most Improved" Medal

by **Extreme Ways** on Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:15 pm

betiko wrote:sorry for no reading everything in details, but I remember reading someone in C&A (was it extreme ways?) suggesting something I liked much better.
Only counting the games started during a given month. (And probably stop counting them after 3 month pass and they are still not finished?)

Original suggestion was start + finish in same month, not by me. I dont like the suggestion because of what Duk says, but you did improve it by adding "a given month".

by **Vid_FISO** on Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:43 pm

How about the start point can be at most 50% of any given player's max score?

That way if a player that has reached 2000 and has dropped a long way (whether deliberately or not) has the 'improvement' measured from 1000 rather than say 800, a 3000 player only starts scoring from 1500 rather than 1000.

by **Extreme Ways** on Tue Jan 17, 2017 3:00 pm

Vid_FISO wrote:How about the start point can be at most 50% of any given player's max score?

That way if a player that has reached 2000 and has dropped a long way (whether deliberately or not) has the 'improvement' measured from 1000 rather than say 800, a 3000 player only starts scoring from 1500 rather than 1000.

For every proposal here the question is whether the merits of it weigh up against disallowing others to participate. In this case, a player like xroads (usually at least 2500+) can still easily reach 100% improvement. It does not eliminate many legitimate players, so that's a good one.

by **xroads** on Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:33 pm

How about a 12 month average as a base

by **Extreme Ways** on Wed Jan 18, 2017 8:20 am

xroads wrote:How about a 12 month average as a base

I feel like the scoreboard was intended to encourage newer players. How would you calculate this for new players (<12 months)? Would you, for a player that is on the site for 5 months, take the average of those 5? Would you take the average of 5, but with the last month weighed much more e.g. first month weight 1, second 1, n-1th month 1, nth month 12 - n + 1?

by **bobdakota** on Thu Jan 19, 2017 10:23 am

I like 1/2 of highest score as a minimum. Very simple and easy to calculate.

12 months doesn't work for a person, like me, that quit and came back a year later.

by **xroads** on Thu Jan 19, 2017 12:18 pm

bobdakota wrote:I like 1/2 of highest score as a minimum. Very simple and easy to calculate.

12 months doesn't work for a person, like me, that quit and came back a year later.

Why doesnt it? If you came back, and you score has been 1300 every month while you were gone, it is still 1300.

Or if it is a newbie that has been here two months, it will be the average of the last 2 months

by **bobdakota** on Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:00 pm

xroads wrote:
bobdakota wrote:I like 1/2 of highest score as a minimum. Very simple and easy to calculate.

12 months doesn't work for a person, like me, that quit and came back a year later.

Why doesnt it? If you came back, and you score has been 1300 every month while you were gone, it is still 1300.

Or if it is a newbie that has been here two months, it will be the average of the last 2 months

In my case I quit with active auto enroll tournaments which I could not get out of and they can go on for months. I am guessing most people that quit have a few active games. This game is addicting, so people almost need to go cold turkey or they can't walk away. I was around 1600 when I quit Because the auto enroll games kept getting started, I lost 40+ games in row. Losing that many games tanked my score. I ended around 750.

These numbers are for example only (just guessing). - So I would start January at 750. I come back and raise my score to 1500 (very average player) and I have a 100% increase. Then I start February around 850 with a 12 month average. Without playing a game, I am already at a 85% increase. I could have a bad Feb and end at 1400, but I am still up 70%. I start March at 900 and I am up 65% without playing a game.

by **xroads** on Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:23 pm

This case is not the average player.

And if someone leaves like that and deadbeats that many tourneys, then they get what they deserve when they come back.

by **bobdakota** on Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:55 pm

xroads wrote:This case is not the average player.

And if someone leaves like that and deadbeats that many tourneys, then they get what they deserve when they come back.

So they deserve Most improved???

I don't know why you are so against min start being 1/2 max. The average player is never below 1/2 of their max. The average players doesn't have 2 weeks of bad dice like you experienced in December.

by **willedtowin1** on Fri Jan 20, 2017 5:55 pm

You wouldn't want to pay a Newb credits if they aint gonna stick around.

You should want to reward the players who stick around and are part of the community.
That's why I believe most improved would be best rewarded year upon year.

End of January ending score compared to the end of January the following year.
Same for each month there after..................

If you are gonna cheat.....make them think 1 year out to do so.

end of story

by **Extreme Ways** on Sat Jan 21, 2017 6:08 am

willedtowin1 wrote:You wouldn't want to pay a Newb credits if they aint gonna stick around.

Agreed. I think winning a monthly scoreboard or just being high up there is an incentive for them to stick around though. Problem with that is that you dont climb fast if you're freemium, so I guess it doesn't matter much if they're up there already.

by **richard.poor** on Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:05 pm

The question is what are you improving from?
If the goal is to stop point dumping and experienced players who are manipulating the system, why have it based on the previous 30, 60, 90 days? Why not award it to the player who increased their all time high score by the greatest amount?
That way taking a sabbatical or otherwise losing points only puts in that player in a hole. This would skew the award toward newer players who are starting from a lower score, but these are also the players who have the greatest room for improvement making it a more appropriately named award.

by **bobdakota** on Thu Feb 02, 2017 8:26 am

This month looks much better on day 2. First place +15%. Last month on day 2 a guy was up +150%.

by **Dukasaur** on Sat Feb 04, 2017 12:01 pm

bobdakota wrote:This month looks much better on day 2. First place +15%. Last month on day 2 a guy was up +150%.

January will always be that way, with the Anniversary Battle Royales.

by **jfm10** on Sun Feb 05, 2017 11:40 am

I am just curious now on how PaulatPeace would fare in any of the new suggestions on the way the scoreboard should be revised.I believe the best suggestion was to make it just for members upto a year and even throw the multi hunters at the winners to be sure no one is cheating.

by **bobdakota** on Wed Mar 08, 2017 4:58 pm

Josko.ri appears to be the manipulator this month. He was down 51% last month.

by **xroads** on Wed Mar 08, 2017 5:30 pm

richard.poor wrote:The question is what are you improving from?
If the goal is to stop point dumping and experienced players who are manipulating the system, why have it based on the previous 30, 60, 90 days? Why not award it to the player who increased their all time high score by the greatest amount?
That way taking a sabbatical or otherwise losing points only puts in that player in a hole. This would skew the award toward newer players who are starting from a lower score, but these are also the players who have the greatest room for improvement making it a more appropriately named award.

This is the best idea yet.

by **riskllama** on Wed Mar 08, 2017 6:33 pm

multi!!!

by **bobdakota** on Sat Apr 29, 2017 11:44 am

What about only allowing each player to win one most improved?

This medal is the biggest joke in the game with Josko abusing the system month after month.

by **jdw35** on Tue May 02, 2017 6:01 pm

bobdakota wrote:What about only allowing each player to win one most improved?

This medal is the biggest joke in the game with Josko abusing the system month after month.

That is actually a good suggestion.

by **riskllama** on Wed May 03, 2017 6:15 pm

why not just give it to the actual "most improved" player every month? medals are manually doled out, are they not? also, maybe have a "most regressive" medal for them special few folks who tank every month to try and win that stupid ducking thing. i dunno...

by **Dukasaur** on Fri May 05, 2017 12:25 pm

riskllama wrote:why not just give it to the actual "most improved" player every month? medals are manually doled out, are they not? also, maybe have a "most regressive" medal for them special few folks who tank every month to try and win that stupid ducking thing. i dunno...

No. This particular medal is automated, like the gameplay medals, not manually issued like the achievement medals.

by **Lord_Bremen** on Wed May 10, 2017 4:40 pm

This is a good idea.

by **iAmCaffeine** on Thu May 11, 2017 7:41 am

Doc_Brown wrote:Another thought here: The 30 day moving average could only count days in which a turn was played. That way a player can't tank his score, go inactive for a month, and then come back and win the improvement medal. This variation would also better account for people that take an extended absence from the site. It would also put players that deadbeat out of a bunch of games at a disadvantage for the medal.

Do it like this. Ignore the other posts such as dumb things said by bobdakota.