Why you don´t test the new scoring system in a sandbox first? Then we will discuss about this!

And if you make a sandbox... why not two?
For the "hibernate idea" of TEAM-PLAY. You mustn´t do anything about this, it´s just a place for us to play TEAM-GAMES without harassing someone else...

and during the "hibernation" we may dream a lot of ideas for this new concept...

Ryan, please, please make it so not very many points are lost on the first 3-4 rounds. These first rounds are pure luck, and the player should not be punished very many points for this.. (a few points lost is ok)

I've been killed before it was even my turn before and lost 40 points. And also killed many times before round 2 and 3 where I lost up to 49 points.
Please take this into account when making your new points system...THANKS!!! :-)

When I first read this it sounded like a terrible idea, but after thinking about it more it does seem better than what we have now.

Good points:

It separates players who have no idea what they're doing from those who do, as the former would be unlikely to gain enough points to play at higher level tables, and would drop back quickly if they did.

You are rewarded more for playing against the good players than the bad players.

There is no distinction amongst those at the top (if i read this correctly...). E.g. a player with 5000 points will gain the same from a 1st in a 5k game as a player with 500000 points. If you think about it, it's a bit silly in the current system that the player with the highest elo gains about 200 times more points than a player who is just onto the 2k tables. As far as I'm concerned, there is very little difference in "skill" amongst the 2k players. Most of them know the right moves, and thus the outcome of the game is more dependent on luck.

A player with a score of 50k doesn't need to worry about a huge point drop when sitting at a table of 5ks, so people should be less 'afraid' of sitting at any given table and more games will happen.

A full reset at the end of each month puts everyone on much more equal footing and should mix up the tables a bit. Right now, I feel as though most 2k players know only other 2k players, 18ks know 18ks, etc.

Bad points:

If a player has a lucky run, they can get a runaway high score. It seems like this would reintroduce the old problem of a player taking the 1st place spot and then sitting on it and not playing for fear of losing points. Maybe an inactivity penalty would solve this? E.g. if 5k tables are the top level, a 5k player who does not play at least one game a day loses 5k points, or 2.5k points, or some such.

PGAs will still be able to propel a player to first, though I see no way to stop this regardless of the scoring model.

Somewhat related questions and comments:

Does this mean that dominance will be going away? Or will it still be factored in? I hope it will stay, or at least something similar, because removing it would cause instant reversion to the strategy of begging for 2nd with just one land (aka "pulling a Stoude"). The whining and arguing and ninjaing over flags and vflags and what place people deserve is bad enough.

Penubag mentioned that the first rounds are pure luck. On one hand, I know how frustrating it is to have zero chance of winning because of a crappy start. On the other hand, over time the luck should even out and everybody has the same chance of getting a crappy start. I've wondered, though, if it would be possible to slightly alter the initial distribution of lands to somewhat minimize the chance of both truly terrible and truly invincible starts. I've seen starts where a player begins with 4 connected lands, and other players are scattered about with no hope of connection. Games like this are practically decided before the first die is rolled. I'm not sure the best way to go about it, but perhaps you could tweak things to make the starts more even and give each player in each game at least a somewhat realistic chance of winning?

I don't think this will reduce the 'elitism' you perceive amongst the top players. If players are going to have scores and ranks, the players at the top are going to be proud of their score. Yes, some people play just for fun and naturally gain a high score, but a lot of people play as much as they do purely for the score. And those people are going to be proud of that high score. The only way to really get rid of 'elitism' is for everyone to be equal, i.e. abolish rankings altogether. Personally though I like the ranks, they give you something to reach for. And anyway, we should at least end up with some new and different elitists each month this way.

That's all I can come up with for now.

Hm. My post broke.. maybe this one will work---

When I first read this it sounded like a terrible idea, but after thinking about it more it does seem better than what we have now.

Good points:

It separates players who have no idea what they're doing from those who do, as the former would be unlikely to gain enough points to play at higher level tables, and would drop back quickly if they did.

You are rewarded more for playing against the good players than the bad players.

There is no distinction amongst those at the top (if i read this correctly...). E.g. a player with 5000 points will gain the same from a 1st in a 5k game as a player with 500000 points. If you think about it, it's a bit silly in the current system that the player with the highest elo gains about 200 times more points than a player who is just onto the 2k tables. As far as I'm concerned, there is very little difference in "skill" amongst the 2k players. Most of them know the right moves, and thus the outcome of the game is more dependent on luck.

A player with a score of 50k doesn't need to worry about a huge point drop when sitting at a table of 5ks, so people should be less 'afraid' of sitting at any given table and more games will happen.

A full reset at the end of each month puts everyone on much more equal footing and should mix up the tables a bit. Right now, I feel as though most 2k players know only other 2k players, 18ks know 18ks, etc.

Bad points:

If a player has a lucky run, they can get a runaway high score. It seems like this would reintroduce the old problem of a player taking the 1st place spot and then sitting on it and not playing for fear of losing points. Maybe an inactivity penalty would solve this? E.g. if 5k tables are the top level, a 5k player who does not play at least one game a day loses 5k points, or 2.5k points, or some such.

PGAs will still be able to propel a player to first, though I see no way to stop this regardless of the scoring model.

Somewhat related questions and comments:

Does this mean that dominance will be going away? Or will it still be factored in? I hope it will stay, or at least something similar, because removing it would cause instant reversion to the strategy of begging for 2nd with just one land (aka "pulling a Stoude"). The whining and arguing and ninjaing over flags and vflags and what place people deserve is bad enough.

Penubag mentioned that the first rounds are pure luck. On one hand, I know how frustrating it is to have zero chance of winning because of a crappy start. On the other hand, over time the luck should even out and everybody has the same chance of getting a crappy start. I've wondered, though, if it would be possible to slightly alter the initial distribution of lands to somewhat minimize the chance of both truly terrible and truly invincible starts. I've seen starts where a player begins with 4 connected lands, and other players are scattered about with no hope of connection. Games like this are practically decided before the first die is rolled. I'm not sure the best way to go about it, but perhaps you could tweak things to make the starts more even and give each player in each game at least a somewhat realistic chance of winning?

I don't think this will reduce the 'elitism' you perceive amongst the top players. If players are going to have scores and ranks, the players at the top are going to be proud of their score. Yes, some people play just for fun and naturally gain a high score, but a lot of people play as much as they do purely for the score. And those people are going to be proud of that high score. The only way to really get rid of 'elitism' is for everyone to be equal, i.e. abolish rankings altogether. Personally though I like the ranks, they give you something to reach for. And anyway, we should at least end up with some new and different elitists each month this way.

That's all I can come up with for now.

change is good. Ryan for president!

i agree with ChelseaSucks. so please clarify if it the case where only the 1st place player will get points......why don't we get rid of the score and just use elo, with monthly reset?

Kwiz:

I agree with everything that you have just said except for one: changing the starting position.

I think that the start is just a part of the game, and it shouldn't be changed for any reason. If you get a crappy start, then work with it.

Sometimes it's impossible to gain points in a given situation. It's part of the game. I think even slightly altering the starts of the game would totally change the game. When people sit they are risking their earned points, and evening out the starts would eliminate that fear. I predict that even starts would lead to more PGAs which nobody really wants too much of.



Plus kwiz, I know that you love it when you get a rocking start, would you want that taken away?

kwiz, I apologize that you need to type that twice. On the good side I think you understand things pretty clearly. The proposed scoring takes the good features from ELO and score and combines them into one thing.

The advantage is all of the current features, a simpler scoring sytem with one number, and a fresh start each month putting everyone on equal ground.

Game strategies will stay the same since point adjustments will follow the same calculation minus ELO variances. For example:

at a 50 table (think of 50 as the maximum points you can gain or lose) your point adjustments would be exactly the same as the current game if every player had the same ELO.

at a 200 table multiple the point adjustment by 4. So if you got +30 for first at the 50 table then you would get +120 at a 200 table.

at the higher tables it would be the same thing +600 at the 1000 table and +3000 at the 5000 table.

Your score will go up if you win more often and down if you lose more often. when you hit zero you will be playing free games, (where you don't loose points but can gain).

tables will have a minimum. The minimum points need to play at a 200 table will be 2,000, for a 1000 table 10,000 and for a 5000 table 50,000

the starting layout is another discussion that can happen on another thread. There is actually a few things happening to reduce horrible/incredible luck on the first turn:
- you can't get more than a 5 stack
- the placement algorithm tries not to give a player two territories next to each other to start, although this isn't always possible.
- first players get extra territories which is meant to spread their dice thinner and be less aggressive
- last players get an extra dice to reduce the change that they will get many attacks.

Wicked -

Everything in the game is "part of the game", but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed. If there's room for improvement, why not improve it?

I just think the game would be more enjoyable if you didn't have to worry about getting knocked down to 1 land and 2 dice before you even take a turn. I also don't think altering the starts would change the gameplay itself at all, aside from shifting the skill/luck ratio a bit. Something as simple as always giving the player who goes last a 6 stack would eliminate a lot of terrible starts. Or maybe ensuring that every player has a stack of at least size 4.

Of course I love a good rocking start, but I also don't think it's very fair at all. If I start out with 4 connected territories in a corner, I'm almost guaranteed to win. That's it. Flags up guys.

Bringing this back to scoring: the scores are supposed to measure skill. But when such a huge degree of the game depends on your luck in getting a good start, the importance of your choices is diminished and the scores become somewhat meaningless.

I'm not expecting any change in the near future though and I don't think it's really what Ryan wanted discussed here. I just thought it was somewhat related and threw it out there.

I suppose you're right about staying on topic kwiz.



So on that note:

Bring on the sandbox!