The Dominating 12

[quote=dough_boy]Cireon doesn't that assume that those with higher ranks are playing "newbs"? I would assume that based upon the "game lobby" having a lot of password protected and rating limited games this is likely true. If they are playing people with similar ratings wouldn't it mean they would proportionally earn as much rating as a new person in a similar game?[/quote] Either way, a player with a lower rank playing with exactly the same skill playing exactly the same opponents would get more rating then a higher ranked player, and thus it'll be unfair. [quote=dough_boy]I just think that the "Dominating 12" should be derived of whoever is actually dominating that month. I am sure some algorithm could be derived based upon games played, games one, ratings, etc.[/quote] Well, if you can really find a good way to determine that let us know. However, all (good) ranking systems that I know of do it the way we do (though some of them do reset the ranks at the end of a 'season' (though it lasts longer then our 'month'). Given that we could have two rating 'the same' systems - one that resets after each d12 game (aka, 'month', haha), and one that gives overall skill level from the beginning of time (aka, 2009). Still, with only a month to go, that could highly benefit live players over long term players. So again, would be unfair.

Maybe you could explain how the rating system works then? I always assumed that if you lost a % of your rating was taken away. All ratings lost were then given to the winner.

For 3p+ games the rating lost is: [i]$rating[$p->user_id] = -floor(($p->rating/$avgRating) * 20);[/i] The winner gets all (in case of teams, it's devided amoung all winners equally - rounded down).

I must not be following along then. If this "rule" is applied to everyone the same then I fail to understand the logic of "Either way, a player with a lower rank playing with exactly the same skill playing exactly the same opponents would get more rating then a higher ranked player, and thus it'll be unfair.". - I start the month at 1,000 and end at 1,250. I have gained 250. - You start the month at 5,000 and end at 5,240. You have gained 240. In this scenario everyone would be ranked by their gain (or loss) and the top 12 would be the "dominating 12" for the month. I am not talking about a % increase in rating. For instance I increased by 25% but you only increased by 4.8%.

Let me ask you a question then. First game, A wins: A: 1200 rating B: 1000 rating C: 1000 rating Second game, D wins: D: 800 rating E: 1000 rating F: 1000 rating Who is the better player here? A or D? Who should rank higher on the d12 list? Or are they equal?

dough_boy is still talking about not ranking by absolute rating, but by the difference. Three problems: [list] [li]The differences will be bigger for live game players, making D12 almost unachievable for LTG players.[/li] [li]I give you my previous argument: it's really easy to gain 200 points (using live games) when you just joined the site and started with 1000 points. It's nearly impossible to gain 200 points if you're part of the elite. You get stuck at some point.[/li] [li]It is easily exploitable: you can spend one month losing a lot of games getting a really low rating (it is possible to do this without being too obvious I think), and then the next month you'll jump back up. We can probably detect it, but it means manually vetting the D12 every month and that's too much work.[/li] [/list]

Something I have seen done in different games entirely is a rating system based upon your rank. So, for example, the list below - although you would need to add 2 more rankings breaks to have a dominating 12 list as discussed below (and forgive me, I don't care enough to look at points and what ranks and so on): "Emporers" Rank 7500 - 5000 1. player 2. player 1 3. player 2 4. player 3 5. player 4 6. player 5 "Generals" Rank 4999 - 2500 1. general 2. general 1 3. general 2 4. general 3 5. general 4 6. general 5 "Lieutenants" Rank 2499 - 1000 1. lieutenant 2. lieutenant 1 3. lieutenant 2 4. lieutenant 3 5. lieutenant 4 6. lieutenant 5 "Privates" Rank 999 - 1 1. private 2. private 1 3. private 2 4. private 3 5. private 4 6. private 5 Have each set of 6 play a game of domination risk, top two moving on to the dominating 12 list. then that list of dominating 12 plays one more game of domination fog of war risk or something of the like to have a "dominator" of the month. Thereby incorporating players of all ranks, new or old to the dominating 12 list, and determining the "dominator" from that list via the current method that you use now. Determining factors can then remain relatively the same, and less concern over a newer player being left off the dominating 12 list just due to the length of time that they've had their account and where they stand in rankings.

[quote=Matty]Or are they equal?[/quote] They are both equal are they not? [quote=Cireon]Three problems:[/quote] You can make additional rules. For instance to qualify it must be a LTG. Also it must be a multiplayer (maybe 4+) game? Ultimately the rules can be tweaked to prevent gaming the system. There are a lot of players I play against who I think would be deserving of playing in a D12 game, but they are on the outside looking in due to the large rating differences.

[quote=SethHrab] Have each set of 6 play a game of domination risk, top two moving on to the dominating 12 list. then that list of dominating 12 plays one more game of domination fog of war risk or something of the like to have a "dominator" of the month. Thereby incorporating players of all ranks, new or old to the dominating 12 list, and determining the "dominator" from that list via the current method that you use now. Determining factors can then remain relatively the same, and less concern over a newer player being left off the dominating 12 list just due to the length of time that they've had their account and where they stand in rankings.[/quote] I think that is strange. Why would you be in the Dominating 12 if you have a rating of 2499, but be at the bottom of your class with a rating of 2500? [quote=dough_boy] You can make additional rules. For instance to qualify it must be a LTG. Also it must be a multiplayer (maybe 4+) game?[/quote] Sure we could, but then the system would become hard to understand, which in itself is a problem. [quote=dough_boy] Ultimately the rules can be tweaked to prevent gaming the system. There are a lot of players I play against who I think would be deserving of playing in a D12 game, but they are on the outside looking in due to the large rating differences.[/quote] That is all very nice, and I am not saying you're wrong, but if these people keep playing, they'll end up in the D12 eventually. Part of being in the D12 is being good for a long while. We are not trying to make it possible to enter the D12 game here in your first month of play. The D12 game is the elite of this site: the very best players. Why would we want to make it easier to reach this list? In any other online videogame people have no trouble with the best players coming out on top all the time, why isn't that the same for D12? Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy to hear there is a better ranking system, but as Matty has said: all the existing ones out there work more or less the same as the battle rating on this site. To me, that makes it pretty clear that there isn't something that's necessarily better.

Ok, so let me explain better. I think, if I'm understanding correctly, there is a concern that a newer player that is good is being left out of the list of the "Dominating 12". So, my suggestion is to make it more of a playoff if you will. So, yes, you have a system of 6 Classes, i.e.: Emperors (with a rating range for example of 12000 - 10000, all qualifiers to make the current Dominating 12 list system remaining such as played 5 within last 15 days or whatever it is you have now for the current dominating 12 list) - So each of these 6 "top" players in the Emperor class must have a rating between 10k and 12k, have been active with 5 games in the last 15 days, etc. - These 6 Emperor class players will play one domination game, the winner and the last eliminated will move to the Dominating 12 list. Senators (with a rating range for example of 9999 - 8000, again all qualifiers remain. - Again, these 6 players must have a rating between 8000 and 9999 to make the list and all qualifiers met - These 6 Senator class players also play one domination game, the winner and last eliminated moves to the Dominating 12 list Generals (rating range for example 7999-6000, all qualifiers.) - Rating between 6000 and 7999 and all qualifiers met. - 6 Generals play one domination game winner and last eliminated move to Dominating 12 list Lieutenants (rating between 5999 and 4000, all qualifiers) - 6 Lieutenants play one dom game winner and last eliminated move to Dominating 12 list Sergeant (rating between 3999 and 2000, all qualifiers) - 6 Sergeants play one dom game winner and last eliminated move to Dominating 12 list Private (rating between 1999 - 1, all qualifiers) - 6 Privates play one dom game winner and last eliminated move to Dominating 12 list. [b]OK - So now you have established your list of the "Dominating 12"[/b] This list is now comprised of players of all ranks/classes, which accounts for newer very talented players, and keeps the list competitive for all "ranks" or "classes". This method also gives each ranked player an opportunity to rebound from a simple mistake, someone murder suiciding into them, etc. from the previous game so that they can play for the win or at least salvage their game so that they are the last eliminated and can move on to the next round. This should, also per some of the concern I'm hearing - eliminate concerns over a higher ranked player having a much more difficult time of gaining rank points or losing them. As long as they are generally performing, they have a good shot to be in the top 6 of their class/rank and a chance to play at the Dominating 12 list. Now, at this point, you just play your "Dominator" game however you normally play it with the 12 players who advanced from the Dominating 12 List Establishing games. Whoever wins is the "Dominator" or whatever you call it and gets the rewards, etc. This gives a brand new player the opportunity to be not only in the Dominating 12, but also the Dominator of the site. This should in turn drive higher ranked players to compete more, since I don't think an Emperor would ever want to lose to a Private, etc. Hope that explains well my thought process. I can try and clarify further if need be.

Again, I don't think that a newer player that is good should be in the dominating 12. In your system somebody who just joined the site and won a few games can end up in the dominating 12 while the number 7 of the site never can. That sounds broken to be. Finally, that solution requires a bit of a tournament every single month. The tournament might not even finish in 30 days, so I think it's a bit too heavyweight as well.

[quote=dough_boy]They are both equal are they not?[/quote] If you only consider this game: yes. However, in your way of doing things, player A would get less rating then D, and therefore would be lower on the list, which is unfair.

[quote=SethHrab]Ok, so let me explain better. I think, if I'm understanding correctly, there is a concern that a newer player that is good is being left out of the list of the "Dominating 12".[/quote] To be honest I don't really know what the problem is with the current system. I'm under the assumption that dough_boy has a problem with players that used to be good a long time ago, don't play a lot anymore, and still keep getting in the d12 list. (For clarification, it really was easier to win 3 years ago - players have gotten a lot better nowadays).

[quote=Matty]I'm under the assumption that dough_boy has a problem with players that used to be good a long time ago, don't play a lot anymore, and still keep getting in the d12 list. (For clarification, it really was easier to win 3 years ago - players have gotten a lot better nowadays).[/quote] Yes...that is all I am saying. I would venture to guess if we looked at the last handful of "Dominating 12's" they were largely the same group of people. "The Dominating 12 for July" to anyone on the outside would likely assume these were those who dominated in July. Not that they were those who could have been around for years and have a high rating and just happened to play in 5 games that month. I will leave it alone.

Game started. https://dominating12.com/game/852045