New matrix for ranks online?

[majog]

I have no problem with the new scores for rank but do have a one with how scores are derived to start with. Scoring does not take into account your opponents stats. Without seeming to slam anyone, I have noticed that when a rookie posts for a game the sharks line up in a feeding frenzy. This almost guarantees wins and racks points.

There are several of us who play mostly the sharks on a regular basis and our win loss ratio's shows it. I have played 6 of the top 20 players religiously and my wins or more appropriately losses shows that. In fact I am in the sharks fin soup as a guppy, due to my losses and eating even the most seasoned opponents (Ha Tiger 88). The point is that I think that one of the scoring factors that should be looked at are who you played against. Break the ladder into fourths and if you play someone in your quarter ok score as is. If you play someone in a quarter above or below you that should change the scoring factors and minimize the loss from the guppy and lower the win for the shark. Transversely if a guppy wins it should mean a greater point total and a higher loss for the shark. You try playing Jumbo as the NVA and see if he does not hand you your shorts. LOL

Also another part of the ladder is there are no modern military categories. The Marines don't have a general and the NVA does not exist at all. I know Jumbo would change to NVA in a heartbeat and keeps joking about changing his handle to Charlie or Victor Charlie.

As for the actual rank maybe one of the factors should be number of games played along with the overall score ratio. Like Steelrain I think the members should have been allowed greater input. I still am unsure what was wrong with things the way they were? As it is now there is no reason to play other than the enjoyment of the game which is how it should be so why not take the ranks out all together. It is not at all a true reflection of how good one is just that they one a lot of games.

I have been with this club a long time and was even a play tester for TS's in WFBP1. You will find my name used in some of the scn's. Along with some dedicated others I made DGVN a viable game and created over 100 scn's. I helped with graphics and play tested hundreds of new scn's without ever getting a score or point. I did it for the love of the game and have never once bitched about who was in the ranks above me (except of course the rude Swede we all would like to forget) but can't understand how this change makes anything better.

Anyway just my thoughts as one of the guppies (right>>>)

J

[Mike Abberton]

As for the actual rank maybe one of the factors should be number of games played along with the overall score ratio. Like Steelrain I think the members should have been allowed greater input. I still am unsure what was wrong with things the way they were? As it is now there is no reason to play other than the enjoyment of the game which is how it should be so why not take the ranks out all together. It is not at all a true reflection of how good one is just that they one a lot of games.

I am not why you would say there is no reason to play other than the enjoyment of the game due to the new rank system. I understand that many people might now see that they will probably never reach Marshall rank due to their playing rate, and I am probably one of them. But under the old system, I was already a General and not all that far away from General of the Army on two separate ladders. Once I reached GotA, what reason would I have to continue playing other than enjoyment of the game. I would have been at the top rank, so should I quit while I was ahead? No.

Now that I am back down to the top enlisted ranks on those ladder, I actually have more to ability to progress in rank, not less. And achieving those ranks should mean more since it takes more to get them. And it's not like everyone else stayed at their old ranks and only you or I got demoted, everyone did. In the end there will be more stratification now (different people at different ranks) and more "bragging" rights, if you will, than before. Me personally, I'd rather be one of 9 lieutenants on the overall ladder than 1 of 50 to 100 generals.

Anyway, I expect we will have to agree to disagree on ranks and be thankful that enjoyment of the game is more important anyway.

Mike

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Jorg, wasn't that why they implemented the ELO rating column? There are those who even now do not want it, or know what it is for. :smoke:
A player who won a lot of games, or another who lost games, to "good players" would have a higher ELO rating?
If you want to know who is munching on guppies, at a glance, take a look at the ELO ratings? ;)
I, too, have been playing opponents who are much better than I. After a while they all seem better than I. :rolleyes:

:thumbs_up: You make many good points though!

We will look into adding the "modern eastern armies" to our CS ladder.

Back to your original point. Do you know how many members had more points than were needed to acheive Marshal's rank?
Do you know, even now, that the person that is highest in score on the overall ladder has the Marshal rank by over 2,000 points. That is with the rank being ten times higher to reach.

And, when the owner of the club says to do it? Ya do it? Right?:chin:

We can come back to this discussion after you all read the next issue of the Newsletter? I don't want to stifle any creative thoughts on any other subjects but, we volunteer to do this "work", and we were discussing scoring/Table of Ranks?

[majog]

ELO, there is another interesting topic. I am still not sure after all this time exactly how that works.

I will let the issue drop. Basically I have no problem with dropping down in the ranks and felt the ladder was off. I do think we took it back too far though.

Was just voicing my opinion.

j

[Herr Straße Laufer]

No worries! There was plenty of discussion ... and room for more? :smoke:

If you want to work on ladder scoring and table of ranks that rewards players for losing while rewarding players for winning, I'm all ears! :)
Remember that it has to be done with all ladders being considered and total points earned by players who have been here for five years or more ... and those who are about to join?

Similar to the changes to scenario reporting/rating. Some members wanted the old? Some like the new? Some still understand neither? :cool:

As far as ELO goes. I think I explained it in my previous post:
***"the ELO rating column? -snip- A player who won a lot of games, or another who lost games, to "good players" would have a higher ELO rating?"***
It uses a formula like the "international chess rating system", ELO "handicaps" players ratings based on whether they played against a "better" opponent or not.
Or, like golf handicaps. You may use less strokes but the other player did better?

[Glint]

well! reading thru that lot, all I would say is, after a few drinks!)
if people are so worried about the ability to reach a certain rank under the new system and due to racking up enough games to reach there desired rank, maybe they should consider the custodians who love to play, but have to devote so much time aside, to administer the Blitz site?
I speak my mind and await the shrapnell! :smg:
but, I for one was surprised at the drop in rank, but hell, GET ON WITH IT!!!!
I find it hard to keep up with my game turns, let alone getting involved in maintenance of the Blitz site, so unless you can make those committments, show respect to the ones who are trying to and doing a pretty good job of it!
all respect
Peter

[McIvan]

I personally could not care in the slightest what "rank" I hold at the Blitz. Which is not to say anything negative about those that do, just that it is not a motivating factor for me. For what my opinion is worth, I think the new system with a far more distant pinnacle, and much less top heavy, is preferable.

[Tide1]

I remember the poll that was taken. I voted against the change but the change is here. Drive On. :smoke:

Gary

[Copper]

It's a thanksless job, Peter.


I tell ya tho, I have my wife and kids wearing nametags these days!

[Smedley]

I like it........

I went from Private to General in one year.......not very likely in the real world.

I was maxed out on the Marines table of ranks and thinking of transfering to another ladder. Now I have plenty of room to advance!

Rob