Point Floor for Score Calculation

[trapyoung]

Point Floor:

• While calculating scores following a game use a point floor where a denominator can never be lower than 1000

Specifics:

• Cap point floor at 1000
• For individuals below 1000 losing to a player above 1000, the score calculation will remain unchanged, their actual points will remain in the numerator of the ratio

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• The Point Floor that would help buffer some of the impact of playing "cook" games where you stand to lose 60+ points and only win 6.
• It would encourage more freelancing by higher ranked players who would not have to worry about a massive loss v. minimum gain
• Actual points gained by a higher rank winning would remain unchanged, not negatively impacting the lower ranked player, but the high effects of the multiplier would not be as devastating for the higher rank.
• For example: Player A has 1700 points, Player B has 650
  Player A wins match: A gains 7 points, B losses 7 points
  Player B wins match: B gains 52 points, A losses 52 ...a 45 point spread
  
  ...with the point floor...
  Player A wins match: A gains 7 points, B losses 7 points
  Player B wins match: B gains 34 points, A loses 34 points ...a 27 point spread
• Without the point floor Player A has dropped significantly leaving them 155 points away from promotion where Player B has only gained slightly still remaining 298 points away. with the floor the impact is not as intense for either player but the muted negative impacts for Player A will result in more games, less animosity towards cooks joining games, and more realistic point distributions. A single game dice fall unfortunately, etc can result in a 70+ loss for higher ranks resulting in rank changes and moves in the scoreboard which may not necessarily be representative of skill and actual score. The Point Floor lessens this impact and will allow for more competitive play.

[gdeangel]

I like your idea. As I think the bulk of regulars range in the 1500-2500 score brackets, I think 1000 sounds a little low. That's still a 40 pt loss.

Also, when you have a person below the floor, let's say a cook with 500 points whose just screwing around trying to get lucky. When the 2000 pt player loses to them in your scenario, it's a difference between losing 40 pts and 80 pts. Your option is better, but people who watch their points aren't going to line up on those odds...

It would be much better to just put a flat cap on the maximum number of points that can be won from a player... if you want to have people is the 1500-2500 range taking on people <1000, then the cap should be around 30 points. If you want to encourage the 3000+ player to take on more people in the <2000 range, then the cap should be around 40 points.

BTW - Nice sig! Shouldn't she be riding a unicorn though...

[delboy01]

An interesting concept.

I have started avoiding playgers below sarg major level due to points lost making it not worthwhile, if you value your ranking, playing games against lower ranked players.

If you look at singles for example and a captain plays the same player 10 times (sarge) a good player may win 7 out of the 10 and may lose the other three due to dice/drop or a bad day at the office.

That means V a sarge an average gain of 15 x 7 = 105
The three defeats mean an average loss of 27 x 3 = 81
A points gain of 24

One more defeat and it becomes a point deficit.

If you lower the rank of the opponent or increase your rank then it means you must win 8 out of 10 to make a points profit.

One idea could be a change to the system where by a points ceiling is implimeted for defeats. ie. A max of 30 points can be lost in any one game.

Anything along these lines would increase game interaction between levels.

[gdeangel]

...
One idea could be a change to the system where by a points ceiling is implimeted for defeats. ie. A max of 30 points can be lost in any one game.

Anything along these lines would increase game interaction between levels.

Where have I heard that before?

One thing to consider also is that the cook who gets a 60,80, or even 100 point may not even get to promotion. They are not going to now be attracting new, higher ranked opponents because they have 600 instead of 500 points. And if they are wallowing down in 500 points anyway, then it's more likely than not that five games later against a few cadets and they will be back where they started. On the other hand, you just set back the guy who lost the 100 points probably 20+ games (wins) worth of points for a 1v1 player.

An interesting angle, taking psychological significance of rank into it, you need a cap that is less than half the width of your rank range. 100 points may not psychologically meaningful to most Brigadiers, who will still be Brigadiers after the points are gone, but to a captain or a lieu sitting at 1850 or 1650, losing 60 points is too much. The cap should be about 25% of the range of the rank of the higher ranked player IMHO. That means a cadet playing a cook would not be able to loose more than 25 points, regardless of whether the cook has 300 points or 600 points.

Of course that rule would be very "fair", but probably a little confusing...

[lancehoch]

There already is a point floor. It is one fifth of the higher score. This is why you cannot lose more than 100 points in a single game: 100=(5x/x)*20.

[trapyoung]

100 still seems excessive, hell, 60 seems excessive to me, does one victory really warrant 100 points from a single person?

[gdeangel]

100 still seems excessive, hell, 60 seems excessive to me, does one victory really warrant 100 points from a single person?

I agree. Like I said, anyone who can hit the 100 mark by being 1/5 of their opponent's score is more than likely such a bad player that (1) the points will be gone within a week & (2) they won based on absolute sheer unadulterated luck.

I'd like to see something around 50 being in the 1800-2000 range of captain ATM. It's purely psychological, but getting busted rank aint cool 'cause its noticeable right away to everybody - in games, in forums, etc. If I were a cadet, I'd want a lower cap, cause I only have 100 points max to play with before I'd be a feakin' cook. If I were a Colonel like certain people, where the range of 500, I could live with 60 as a cap and be quite content to take on some risk.

[yeti_c]

Wouldn't it be easier to just limit the "100 point per game max" to 50?

C.

[lancehoch]

I think yeti's suggestion is a little easier to implement and makes more sense. I think everyone in this thread, myself included, has forgotten about the case where two cooks play one another. Say they both have 500 points. Right now, one of them will gain 20 points for winning. With system suggested in the first post, the winner will only gain 10 points for beating someone with the same score as them.

[trapyoung]

i see your point lance so should we edit this post to suggest a point ceiling per person during a loss or start up a whole new thread altogether?

[cicero]

i see your point lance so should we edit this post to suggest a point ceiling per person during a loss or start up a whole new thread altogether?

I think that, given that you're ditching quite a lot of the original idea and that there is not a huge amount of discussion which will be necessary to the revised idea, that a whole new thread would keep it cleaner.
This has the dual advantages of allowing this one to decay gracefully and not have the distraction of the discussion to date in the new idea.

I'd suggest a final post here pointing people in the direction of the new thread.

[max is gr8]

I don't think there should be a lower limit. If a cook beats me they deserve it. If I beat a cook I deserve it but I can beat 10X as many cooks as they can of my rank. So the scoring system should stick

[lozzini]

I don't think there should be a lower limit. If a cook beats me they deserve it. If I beat a cook I deserve it but I can beat 10X as many cooks as they can of my rank. So the scoring system should stick

agreed, risk is a part of life, live with it. If you cannot hold your rank against anyone, you do not deserve your rank

[trapyoung]

link to revised suggestion... http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... =4&t=55327