Forum
Upgrade to Dominance
|
Ryan wrote
at 11:16 AM, Wednesday February 28, 2007 EST
I'm happy with the dominance calculation for the most part. However, it seems to work best for the top 4 players in a game.
The biggest problem I've seen is the uncertainty of score for 5th 6th and 7th place. So I've thought of a simple solution and what to know your thoughts. Currently the first round is not counted towards dominance since it is so chaotic. I'd like to make this 5 rounds of uncounted dominance. And if you go out in the first 5 rounds then your dominance is counted as the lowest to the remaining players. This might sound like a hash penalty but I think the starting of the game is a bit too chaotic to point a real value on dominance. And it is why I think the last 3 places rating adjustments are not very stable. Thoughts? I'd like to put this in tonight if there aren't any objections. |
|
CoMik wrote
at 7:23 PM, Wednesday February 28, 2007 EST from what i saw on the test server, i think the penalty is too harsh. The current system atleast allows for terrible starting positions, and makes the penalty a lot less significant. With the new method we are back to bad opening, -40 right off. I would like to see this tested more, and maybe make some tweaks before putting it on the live server
|
|
triplehelix wrote
at 7:32 PM, Wednesday February 28, 2007 EST if anything, i'd prefer something in the opposite direction. something that minimizes the negative impact of a bad starting position, and an early knockout.
|
|
RaccoonTail wrote
at 10:57 PM, Wednesday February 28, 2007 EST I think this is a step in the right direction. It penalizes people for making too many risky rolls early on. This should slow game play down in those critical first rounds.
|
|
XicaDaSilva wrote
at 11:50 PM, Wednesday February 28, 2007 EST interesting, decent attempt to fix the chaotic start
5 may be too high, maybe 3rr round would have been enough. btw how many rounds is an average game? based on this people shoud show more caution, however I wonder how many player will actually be aware of the change ... |
|
|
Ryan wrote
at 12:11 AM, Thursday March 1, 2007 EST yes, it was set to 3
|
|
Grunvagr wrote
at 8:58 AM, Thursday March 1, 2007 EST hey, when you get a chance, can you explain the change you made with the Rank thing?
my idea previously was to have a Top Players link for Elo (to indicate who's hot NOW) and the Top Rank Overall (to indicate who's consistently a top player, ie the best long-term) because we all know getting to 1st takes skill, but usually involves stringing a lot of firsts in a row, whereas there are many talented players who play vs lower elo (but quality) competition all the time and hover around the top 100 consistently, which is tremendously impressive too. (my question was specifically this, is that rank thing cummulative? - does it benefit people who play a lot of games? since that sort of penalizes someone who plays 30 games a week but is a great player, vs someone whos a pretty good player but does 60 a week, etc) |
|
z3dd wrote
at 9:24 AM, Thursday March 1, 2007 EST I think this is a great idea and I think 3 rounds is too short. I am sick of watching people playing recklessly to start off the game and go out in 7th yet get +16 for dominance.
|
|
Star Block! wrote
at 9:58 AM, Thursday March 1, 2007 EST i misunderstood the 1st post and so agree with comik now. if i knew i was guaranteed a harsh penalty by this i would be bitter and play recklessly just to screw up the game for others.
if someone supposedly gets +16 dominance by playing recklessly then they would've made more total points by not being reckless so they're still getting punished. either way this is not a good way to solve that problem, and i've never been in a game where someone in top 4 cared about what 5th-7th were getting |
|
|
Ryan wrote
at 10:16 AM, Thursday March 1, 2007 EST grun: the score is commulitive and always goes up. You get more points if you end a game with a higher rating_rank.
Its possible for a player with a lower rating who plays more to get a higher rank. Especially at the start. But rank changes should start to slow down as people get more games. (it may also be possible to reset this monthly). For your scenario with a player who plays 30 games with a higher rating vs a player who plays sixty games here's the calculation. Suppose the better player keeps a rating_rank of 10 and the worse player keeps a rating_rank of 100: after 30 games player 1 has a score of 30/10 or 3.0 after 60 games player 2 has a score of 60/100 or 0.6. So as you can see the player with the higher rating has a much better advantage if he can maintain that rating. |
|
ebrake wrote
at 10:33 AM, Thursday March 1, 2007 EST I know this is way off subject from what you are talking about here but just a little thought on scoring.......
What if you can always gain points every time you play....you just get more points for winning. As an example 1st place might get +40 points but 7th place would only get +1 instead of negative points. That way those who invest a lot of time in the game can keep moving up and no get knocked back to the kiddie table for having a few bad starts, this will also keep the n00bs that are still learning the game off the higher up tables untill they are more experianced. /end off topic idea |
