Forum
Frustration over scoring.
|
Big Jumblies wrote
at 8:56 AM, Friday September 21, 2007 EDT Another frustrating thing about the scoring system is that you get penalized for playing games. The scoring system is very good in that it's simpler to understand for people that aren't familiar with ELO But... Its fun to end a night, look at your current ranking and check back in the morning to see who passed you, then try to catch back up. The problem is, if you lose 1 game you could lose ranking to someone who hasnt even played. With the old system you gained points towards your ranking every game even if you got 7th as a reward for playing; which to me makes more sense than gaining ranking by not even playing at all. I spent all morning playing several games losing/gaining points and ending up losing rank to people who didnt even play. |
|
mss wrote
at 9:08 AM, Friday September 21, 2007 EDT Yea and Major Major Major Major's family became rich by not growing alfalfa.
|
|
integral wrote
at 9:10 AM, Friday September 21, 2007 EDT win more games, I hear it helps.
|
|
phoneguy wrote
at 11:48 AM, Friday September 21, 2007 EDT This new scoring sucks, it encourages people not to play for first. Really FUCKING LAME. I read that this was supposed to be like poker with each round costing points. I don't know any poker game where the guy in second place gets money.
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 11:57 AM, Friday September 21, 2007 EDT Why not lose ranking if you lost? In baseball, a team that loses loses a game in ranking to the teams that won that day and loses half a game to teams that didn't play that day.
|
|
Mikeypoo wrote
at 12:04 PM, Friday September 21, 2007 EDT Integral i know its your right to post comments like "win more" and "do better" and "get a life" on posts attempting to engage in a conversation on the future of Kdice. But why not engage in the discussions. You are one of the best players to ever play, if not the best. (sorry RND). Your also one of the smartest people ive met on kdice. Why not engage in the conversation?
|
|
_\o/_ wrote
at 12:25 PM, Friday September 21, 2007 EDT The only solution to BJ's compaint would be something that NOBODY would want (I think)
that would be to remove a point(s) each day ... so that those that did not play that day can't "pass" those that did play. perhaps an alternative would be to give a player a few points per day if they played X number of games. played 5 games = get 5 points ... with a maximum daily allowance that way a non-daily-player would stay at their current score ... while an active player would continually increase their score i dont see either of these ideas as a solid solution ... just stream of thought |
|
JKD wrote
at 12:59 PM, Friday September 21, 2007 EDT I think the ranks where you always gained points was to encourage people to be active. That doesn't look like a problem now but if you want to design a good system where everyone gains points that's not too complicated I'm sure you'll get a good response.
Another interesting point a few people are bringing up is if you're a below average player you're always going to be losing points until you hit zero. Would be nice to improve that. |
|
|
integral wrote
at 2:58 PM, Friday September 21, 2007 EDT Before the whole medals thing, people would lose rank when they lost elo... that just makes sense, but what it did lead to was people getting a lucky streak and then they would stop playing.
The cure for that was the dom/medals era, and that too had it's problems (someone with high elo one month would get a big lead with few games). This system, maybe it does have problems, seems to be the best. You should lose rank for losing points, for losing games. You shouldn't be rewarded for just playing games. Case in point, when I had first elo, all I had to do was play a bunch of games and keep first elo to gain 1pt/game. We all know how that turned out. (see youtube) I still think X LUCK X is the best. |
|
call this bluff wrote
at 4:09 PM, Friday September 21, 2007 EDT I think rnd is the best. He told me that he doesnt cheat. Seems like a trustworthy fellow. Who is X LUCK X anyway?
|
|
XCBatman wrote
at 4:10 PM, Friday September 21, 2007 EDT I'm agreeing with integral. But I'm somewhat biased.
Plus integral is far more fun than John. Who wants to play with a kid who only says "Heh"? |
