• 76 posts
  • Page 1 of 6
DurandalBlue wrote:
It seems there's a lot of veteran players who choose not to upgrade their rank so when you lose to them you lose a lot of rating but when you win you only gain not nearly as much. It just seems a little unfair as far as maintaining a high rank when the rating disparity is so off.

Is there a way to make this more balanced?
AlexCheckMate wrote:
I believe your perception is wrong; have a read here and let me know if there's still stuff troubling your mind wrt rating in D12

https://dominating12.com/forums/2/general-discussion/3078/inner-workings-of-the-game-engine

-Alex
“Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love. How on earth can you explain in terms of chemistry and physics so important a biological phenomenon as first love? Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.”

― Albert Einstein
Matty wrote:
You lose or win rating depending on how much rating you currently have, not on what badge you choose to display.

The only reason to get the badges is bragging rights and maybe tactical (dis?)advantage (aka, ppl are more likely to follow the tips you give if you have a high rank, but they're also more likely to consider you a threat).
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strenght lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria
Matty is online.
vikingo1337 wrote:
I'm more concerned about the rating you win/lose when high-ranked players play with low-ranked players.

I recently lost 70 rating in a single game due to two new players not reading the game right, in effect handing the game to a third new player.

By losing to said third newbie, I lost twice as many rating as I would have gained by winning the game. An eight-player game, mind you.

How is that supposed to encourage senior players to participate in games with lower ranked players? The gains for senior players are so slim, and the losses so great, that they have to win 50 percent of all games with newbies in order to break even in terms of rating. And that's provided the games won are eight or nine player games.

I think this is an issue that needs addressing. Provided the owners of this site want more games and not fewer games taking place on here.

One way to solve it is to allow for test games where rating are not at stake. Another could be to set a limit of, say, 50 rating you can lose. Regardless who you play with. But 70? That's just ridiculous. Makes me want to stop altogether. And I'm not even sure 70 is the limit...

Over and out.
Ber er hver að baki nema sér bróður eigi.
Bare is the back of a brotherless man.
vikingo1337 wrote:
PS. Yes, only playing with the top ten players would make the win/loss ratio more fair. I realise that. But playing the same guys/girls in every game gets a little tedious after a while to be honest. And besides, do we really want a caste system in here where players from all levels do not mix?

PPS. And yes, rank is not everything, but for those of us who have worked hard to get where we are (most in the top ten have), handing it all over again in a few games due to said issue is not really an option.
Ber er hver að baki nema sér bróður eigi.
Bare is the back of a brotherless man.
aeronautic wrote:
What Matty posted is a bit of a clue to why some players don't take on a high Rank even though they have the points and can win / lose as many as anyone with the same points, regardless of rank shown.

What you are now saying though is, the loss ratio is too damaging when playing with lower ranked (points) players and they are more prone to messing up the game.
What they are more prone to doing is attacking those with rank, as Matty states, they are more likely to see you as a threat if you are high ranking and will mostly over attack you and gang up on you, foolishly thinking that with you out of the game, they have a better chance of winning.
The battle points win/lose ratio is pretty much based on ability. Anyone who gets enough points to purchase the rank of Major for example, is mostly capable of beating anybody in the lower echelons and therefore is handicapped to stop them from handpicking the easy fights for easy points.
Yes, it kind of then restricts you to play with more experienced players due to the handicap system, but then you have the dilemma of not really having the upper hand to have a very good chance of winning the game.

Therefore, it is actually Riskier to fight with lesser able guys, even if you win about 3 out of 5 multiplayer games, you will probably gain more points from winning 1 in 5 experienced multiplayer games.

The players that knew this before taking on rank, chose not to take any rank and spend their time winning the easy games with less risk of being targeted as a threat.
Hyd yn oed er fy mod Cymraeg , dim ond yn siarad Saesneg, felly yr wyf yn gobeithio y bydd y cyfieithu yn gywir.
Matty wrote:
vikingo1337
... but for those of us who have worked hard to get where we are (most in the top ten have), handing it all over again in a few games due to said issue is not really an option.
I have always seen this as a bad thing about Risk. Or free for all's ingeneral if you want.
I'm not really sure how Slackbatter does it, or Vexer and Thaithai back in the days, but yeah, keeping your high rank is very difficult. And on our site the ranks aren't really divided as well as they can.
For myself I've lost my high rank mostly because I stopped playing (much). I think.

Anyways, I haven't seen this as a bad thing about our rank system. It could be though.
Because I do agree, it's very frustrating to lose a game because another player made a mistake. And it really happends quite a lot.

Opinions? Thoughts? @Slackbatter, if you read this, how do you do this? Do you only play against high ranked players?

Vexer's answer on this would be 'manipulation' btw. He was very good at talking in on people and get them to do what he wanted. He provoked the newbie to over-attack the player so that the player that accidentally got the win was Vexer (that also made it less fun to play against him once you knew that btw, but that's another story). But slack doesn't really play that way. He just wins, not really sure how.

To add another question: how do people think about it if we limit the maximum amount of points you can lose in one game? Say to 40 or 50?
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strenght lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria
Matty is online.
Matty wrote:
vikingo1337
One way to solve it is to allow for test games where rating are not at stake.
We'll get this too at some point. And if you want to you can set one up right now by clearly stating in the chat that it is a test game and points will be returned - then once it's over you can message me or any moderator to return the points for you.

But ultimately I want high rated players to play newbies in ranked games too. So it still doesn't solve your problem.

The test games thing is also quite high on my 'I want this done' list, but first some bugs that have been annoying me and ppl for too long now.
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strenght lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria
Matty is online.
vikingo1337 wrote:
You're right, aeronautic. Newbies do target higher ranked players. Quite often, actually. And yes, it usually ends badly for everyone involved.

Hence, if higher ranked players – on top of the increased opposition – also have to worry about losing a ton of rating, then... well, then it's kind of a no-brainer that there will be fewer mixed games set up altogether.

So I'm sticking to my suggestions: Test games where rating are returned, and a limit on rating lost in normal games. 50 would be good. 40 better.
Ber er hver að baki nema sér bróður eigi.
Bare is the back of a brotherless man.
GriffinUcos wrote:
I have not reached the heady hights, but even from down here it is annoying when I couple of newbies gang up and, as has happend even more lately one or two drop out and the game is ruined. More punishment for missing turns please.
"Gentlemen, when the enemy is committed to a mistake we must not interrupt him too soon."
elysium5 wrote:
It is hard to determine if a missed turn is on purpose or bad connection, although most rage quits are fairly easy to spot and is considered worth a suicide report as it is not playing to win. There are restrictions that can and are placed on repeat offenders.

Also, as a general rule, we usually restrict individuals to 2 player games only if their attendance score falls below 90.
Mike Donovan : How'd someone like that get to be your leader anyway?

Martin : Charisma. Circumstances, promises... Not enough of us spoke out to question him until it was too late. It happens on your planet, doesn't it?
dough_boy wrote:
I was involved in a game where I was killed on May 3rd. The game just ended (9 days later). Over that time my ranking increased (a lot)...but when the game ended it took my points based upon my now higher rank. Shouldn't it calculate based upon what my rank was at the time I was killed? Seems to me if I was at 3k when playing the game and died, whatever I was at when the game ended shouldn't matter. It should be what I was at at the time of death because that is who those people were playing...
aeronautic wrote:
dough_boy
I was involved in a game where I was killed on May 3rd. The game just ended (9 days later). Over that time my ranking increased (a lot)...but when the game ended it took my points based upon my now higher rank. Shouldn't it calculate based upon what my rank was at the time I was killed? Seems to me if I was at 3k when playing the game and died, whatever I was at when the game ended shouldn't matter. It should be what I was at at the time of death because that is who those people were playing...

That's another good point for the high-points players.
Hyd yn oed er fy mod Cymraeg , dim ond yn siarad Saesneg, felly yr wyf yn gobeithio y bydd y cyfieithu yn gywir.
vikingo1337 wrote:
So where does that leave us? A limit of 40 lost rating per game sounds fair.
Ber er hver að baki nema sér bróður eigi.
Bare is the back of a brotherless man.
aeronautic wrote:
vikingo1337
So where does that leave us? A limit of 40 lost rating per game sounds fair.
I think it does sound fair.

I also think that dough_boy raised another unfair point-loss issue, which further bolsters the need for review.
Hyd yn oed er fy mod Cymraeg , dim ond yn siarad Saesneg, felly yr wyf yn gobeithio y bydd y cyfieithu yn gywir.