SCORING

[Ratel]

I see where you are coming from Walrus and I agree. It is important to give points for the participation, if only that. We should give the guys some points even for the worst levels of losses, but there is no room in it IMO. Reason why I say this is that I don't believe we should up the scores for draws and wins. Again I say this, as I don't think we should make the promotion system so easy that we all end up being generals.
So, if we keep draws and wins at the same scores, it leaves us with only 0 to 5 to differentiate losses with. With this in mind, I then think that we have no choice but to keep the current system, if my solution was chosen as a way to go forward with. Obviously, if the consensus is to accept somebody else's proposal, then this remark is null and void.

[Vesku]

Option A:
50 points Overwhelming Victory to the Winner
40 points Decisive Victory to the Winner
30 points Medium Victory to the Winner
20 points Minor Victory to the Winner
10 points Draw to both players
8 points Minor Loss of a scenario
6 points Medium Loss of a scenario
4 points Decisive Loss of a scenario
2 points Overwhelming Loss of a scenario

Option B:
Win 20 pts
Draw 10 pts
Loss 5 pts

Option C:
10 pts per game reported

I think that C would be equal to all players. A might work for Imp, win levels have the same points as current scoring, no fear for too quick point accumulation.

[Ratel]

BTW where did the Table of Ranks disappear to? I wanted to do a test on logics. What I mean by this is to take the different proposals' scoring for losses, and calculate how many minor losses I would need to have before I end up being a general. The result must be compared to the existing system. It's just as a matter of interest, but again compairing it to real life, I am sure no army will promote a guy if he keeps on losing. He must have at least some % of wins as well.
Like I said, I am just curious. I wouldn't like to complicate our scoring system by suggesting that the % of wins must now also be taken into account.

Lastly, on the old site I could see what the different columns on the ladder was for, but on the new site I can't. I cannot remember what ELO stands for?

---

Option A:
50 points Overwhelming Victory to the Winner
40 points Decisive Victory to the Winner
30 points Medium Victory to the Winner
20 points Minor Victory to the Winner
10 points Draw to both players
8 points Minor Loss of a scenario
6 points Medium Loss of a scenario
4 points Decisive Loss of a scenario
2 points Overwhelming Loss of a scenario

Option B:
Win 20 pts
Draw 10 pts
Loss 5 pts

Option C:
10 pts per game reported

I think that C would be equal to all players. A might work for Imp, win levels have the same points as current scoring, no fear for too quick point accumulation.

Oops, my maths let me down I forgot that we could score losses from 0 to 10 and not 0 to 5 as I mentioned in my earlier post.

I like Vesku's option A though.
And now I am keeping quiet till tomorrow at least. Feels like I have been posting too much during this last 30 minutes. Verbal diarrhoea.

[Walrus]

Hi Guys

That's some good options there Vesku, cheers.

I think the obvious one to look at is A.
In fact...it is a very good option indeed.

win levels have the same points as current scoring, no fear for too quick point accumulation.

That's probably the two main points I had concerns with right there.

If you get a good response to this, I would back it no worries.

@ Ratel...ELO
Not sure what it actually means, but it is a 'seeded' ranking system.
They would use similar in a Chess tourney I expect.
It takes into account the players you play as well as the scores you get.
Your ELO will improve if you beat a player with a higher ELO than you.
If you play guys with lower ELO and win, you may not see such a movement.
I have no idea of the algorithm for that.

Cheers
Walrus

[Vesku]

ELO stands for the guy who invented it, hungarian professor Elo. I guess google can tell you more :)

[Imp]

I think Vesku might have got a worth while change with option A it bases both winners & losers points on how well they did so is fair in that respect. Also for those that need it gives the incentive to hang on or treat more like a campaign & try an orderly withdrawl:smoke:
Knock it around for a week if you like but I dont think you are going to improve on it, would say time for a poll if you are going to have one its got my vote as fair to all parties & still loaded for the winner.

[Walrus]

Hi Chaps
The Poll is posted.
No get in there and vote!

Try to encourage others to vote also...we need a fairly large representation before any change will happen eh.

Also...the result of the poll does not mean there will / will not be an automatic change...we are just canvassing opinion at this stage.

Cheers for being involved.

Walrus

[Vesku]

we give e.g. 50 points per game reported.
overhelming win - winner gets 100 % of points, looser 0%
decisive win - winner 90%, looser 10%
medium win - winner 80%, looser 20%
minor win - winner 70%, looser 30%
draw - 50% each

This might have been better understood at the start. Idea was to give each played game the same value, 50 points. Now the same game may have value of 20 pts or 52.

I still think that scoring should decide how you advance in ranks, not ranks deciding how many points can be scored. Ranks for me are just window dressing.

[retired from gaming]

Again I say this, as I don't think we should make the promotion system so easy that we all end up being generals.

Let me ask maybe stupid, yet simple question : why not ?