• 76 posts
  • Page 5 of 6
The_Bishop wrote:
Thank you very much for sharing your thought and for your appreciation for our website and its maps.
Basically I have no answer to your question:
So my question is very simple. How is this Fair?
It is just the same question I'm asking too.
Let's say it is a calculated disadvantage of the new rule, and perhaps it will be improved in the future.

Thanks for expressing your opinion on the subject. I followed you reasoning which indeed might be sound, but here we don't want to make this forum an audience for personal accusations.

Since I am the only staff member opposed to this rule and, except for two of us who have declared themselves neutral, the vast majority of the team is in favour, then except second thoughts, the rule will remain as it is.
Adjustments can be made, as explained by the Programmers, who will keep monitoring the stats to see what the actual impact of the new rule is, in the sake of the site and all players involved.
  ---  π : «Come on, be real!»
  ---  i : «Be rational, please»
supiachao wrote:
This is an interesting topic.

Well, if you are going to implement a cap on the lost then should implement a cap on the gains as well to make sure it is not just one sided thing and seems only beneficial for higher ranks.

I am recently back to the game and right away lost 300 points in live game because everyone just want to get territory bonus and will kill anything for it. *especially in world map* I don't care about points and all, it is after all just a references for us to know how good a player is for the first few games, you don't avoid certain players because of bad play or high suicidal possibility, many other reasons too.

Hoodlum wrote:
i'm opposed to the change, it's not an issue as opposed to what you can lose in 1v1 games. i lost 29 points in a 1v1 game yesterday, i think i lost 3 games with that result. that's 3 opponents 87 points!.,
game 1027595
game 1027591
game 1027462
can lose a few hundred if i'm being really active and having a bad day, and then there's a high ranker concerned about 50+ points being lost in 1 larger game that lasts days/weeks? (high rankers barely play large live games for it to be a big deal on the daily).

or perhaps there should be a cap on games per how many players to make it all fair, if we are keeping 50 cap loss, then something like the following.

1 opponent - 8 points
2 opponent - 14 - points
3 opponent - 20 - points
4 opponent - 26 - points
5 opponent- 32 - points
6 opponent - 38 - points
7 opponent - 44 - points
8 opponent - 50 - points

this sort of thing wouldn't discourage high rankers from playing 1v1 games, or trying new modes they forgot to try before they got scared to try because of rank.

i'd rather there be focus on the dominator title and who's actually dominating from month to month. i do like the idea dough touched on about that. points earned month to month qualifying for the dominator game, rather than who's got the most points and players that figured out how to not lose them.

The web moves pretty fast. If you don’t stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.
Hoodlum is online.
La_Khaleesita wrote:
Hi all,
I am kind of new in the all D12 and I am enjoying a lot. After I read most of the comments and opinions about the topic, I agree with @The_Bishop,t he new rating system is really unfair and it helps only few people.

The_Bishop wrote:
Thank you Supia. I agree with you, if an advantage is applied to someone then a disadvantage also must apply. For example, if one benefits from losses capped at 50 then he must accept the dice capped at 5: either take both or take nothing (it's just a virtual example). And I inform you that the new rule is already in force — since May 24th.

Thank you Hoodlum, I really appreciate your intervention. I agree that it makes no sense to make the comparison with 2-player games, certainly a very active user in the head-to-head can lose several hundred points in a few hours. And I also find interesting what you said about the Dominator title, access to the final should be based not only on the rating but also on the number of games played. Reaching a high rating and then playing only once a month to try to grab the title is not at all sporty ... But I think we should discuss this in another thread.

Thank you La_Khaleesita for supporting my opinion: the new rule is actually unfair.
I'm glad you're enjoying the site, so ... Welcome to Dominating12: this is where professional players love to play! ;)

So — considering that half the site (i.e. Hoodlum per se) is on my side and in addition most of the Dominating12 girls are with me (as evidenced by the interventions of Supiachao and La_Khaleesita) — I begin to think that perhaps WE ARE the vast majority!

Being serious.
I was clearly wrong on saying that I am the only staff opposed to the new rule, because Hoodlum's words show that there are at least two of us. The reason for my mistaken assumption is that we simply have not yet had time to discuss it in details within the team and as soon as we find the necessary time I am confident that in the end we will find a common decision.

In the meanwhile, anyone who wish to express their thoughts on the topic is welcome. Thanks to everyone in advance. :)
  ---  π : «Come on, be real!»
  ---  i : «Be rational, please»
dough_boy wrote:
Not sure if I am considered staff, but I don't really agree with the limiting of it. If there was a valid reason yes, but to assume that by limiting it this would solve the problem of higher ranks wanting to play lower ranks, that logic doesn't equate.
2ofclubs wrote:
Semi NBee. No matter how it's presented it seams like the rich get richer (just not as fast) and the poor stay poor (just not as slow). Was there really an issue with rank interaction¿ Yea higher ranks appear to be a threat BUT personally what better way to learn. And High ranks can also learn from low ranks. Also I've experienced (seemingly) HIGH Ranks making mistakes, blaintenly break treaties, prey on low rank for points and make risky/irrational moves like low ranks. Lastly what about the newer skilled player starting off, he is being held down 'sepressed' from increasing rank. I will let the board hash it out, pay my dues and have fun. THANKS FOR ALL THE HARD WORK & A GREAT PLACE TO PLAY.
2ofclubs is online.
The_Bishop wrote:
Thank you Dough_boy, surely you also are a staff as shown by the blue banner, so we are at least 3 staff members who disagree with the Disparity Rule. Even 4 if I also count Slackbatter, being a game attendant of the website, but wait, he changed his mind after realizing the Disparity Rule is mostly hurting Maafi. :D

Thanks 2ofclubs for your appreciation of Dominating Twelve and for expressing your opinion. High ranks also can do bad mistakes, I agree with that, they probably just do that less often. They can learn from lowers too, especially when they play in a game mode where they are not expertised.

- Personal case -
In this recent game I lost 50 points: game 1029083. I'd be curious to know how many points I should have lost with the original rule, probably not many more, perhaps 52 or 53; those extra points pertain to Evil_house who won the game, not to me. I would be grateful if an Admin could do the math to determine how many points I owe to Evil and then return them to him: I DON'T WANT TO BENEFIT FROM THIS PRIVILEGE. The only fault of Evil_house is to have beaten a player with a much higher rating than his own and those of the other players involved in the game; and for this "fault" he is awarded less points than normal! All this is absurd. I don't want any debts with anyone, if you can't make an exact calculation then, please, at least remove 4 points from me and give them to him, thanks.

Again, anyone who wish to express their thoughts on the topic is welcome.
Thanks to everyone in advance.
  ---  π : «Come on, be real!»
  ---  i : «Be rational, please»
The_Bishop wrote:
Also in this game 1031268 I only lost 50 points when I was entitled to lose 65 or 70: it is not fair.
I could suggest removing 20 points from my rating to add to M223b's rating.
  ---  π : «Come on, be real!»
  ---  i : «Be rational, please»
dimceto wrote:
Hey all,
I will also write an opinion about this "cap rule" which affect me as well (because mostly I am playing with newbies) and normally I have benefit from it but let me explain:
The rule at some point makes sense IF as the staff says to make the high ranked players play against low ranked players and if this rule is effective and gives results then it's fine and there is no reason to remove it but normally if the main point of the rule doesn't give the effectiveness which need to give then remove it.

Also for now when it stands live I will comment about the The_Bishop reply when he says that some players can reach 5 digit rating points which I don't think is possible just because of that rule, why? Because at some point the high ranked player will start earning a lot less than previously (like 20-30 points per 5 players win) and he cannot grow any more. Actually this rule can help a player to have a little bit more points than he deserve (for example instead of 6000 points he will have maybe 6300) but that will not effect the ranking system at all, and at the same time we will enjoy from the benefits this rule has.
So I don't think this rule breaks totally the system probably only a few hundreds more points for few people which doesn't mean much.
slackbatter wrote:
Here's some data for the discussion:
In the first 2 months this rule has been in effect I have had 26 games affected by the rule (minus any where I would have lost exactly 50 under the previous rule). I don't know the average points I'm not losing per each of these games, but if we conservatively say it is 3 points per instance then it has saved me 78 points already. Over the course of a year this will be hundreds of points (even accounting for the fact that the higher rating will result in me losing more points in games unaffected by this rule).

In my view these are hundreds of points I didn't earn, and, conversely, hundred of points that other players did earn that were not awarded to them, which is the main argument against this rule, as exhaustively discussed above.

As for the main reason for the rule, to encourage higher ranked players to play with lower, I have no data to offer and I'm unclear if that kind of data is being collected to inform the continuance of this rule. As I have said above I have always played with lower ranked players and this rule has never factored into whether or not I decide to join a game. I do think it is possible though that I have played more games with new players in the last few months, not because of this rule, but just because there are a lot of new players around compared to the pre-covid days. So the rule might have an inflated effect on my rating in the current environment and maybe my gains over the long term will not be as great as extrapolated in the first paragraph.

I wonder if there is even any anecdotal evidence of high ranked players being willing to play lower ranked players because of this rule? Anyone?

Fun fact: maafi won 5 of the 26 games impacted by this rule. I do hope he has had some games where he has benefited from the rule, but while I feel bad stealing points from the low rankers, stealing points from maafi has only served to enhance my D12 experience. ;)
dimceto wrote:
That's what i said, this rule will boost only few players especially you but if we look at the rating points other players have we can see that only you and one more player have more than 6000 and only few around 5000 so it means that if you were affected in 26 games in the past 2 months the others with lower rating like me and the people around me the effect of the rule is lower.
In my example I checked my last 28 losses where i have been playing with more than 2 players (mostly with low ranked players) and only in 3 games I lost 50 points so in my example the rule has no huge effect on me because those 28 losses are from 100 games (there are a lot 1v1 games and I didn't include those losses) so that means from 100 games and only in 3-4 games I am affected which is nothing.
I am 8th by ranking on the site and see how small is the impact on me + more than 80% of my games are with newbies so...

As i said in the previous post if the rule gives the expected benefits it can stands and that job is on the staff to check the games and see if the rule makes sense.
maafi wrote:
Fun fact: maafi won 5 of the 26 games impacted by this rule. I do hope he has had some games where he has benefited from the rule, but while I feel bad stealing points from the low rankers, stealing points from maafi has only served to enhance my D12 experience. ;)

Cireon wrote:
I wonder if there is even any anecdotal evidence of high ranked players being willing to play lower ranked players because of this rule? Anyone?
Once this change has been live for a few months, we'll actually pull some data to see if the effects have been as we've hoped for, and make adjustments as needed, but changes like these sometimes need some time to show the effects, so we don't want to check things too early either.
“This is how humans are: We question all our beliefs, except for the ones that we really believe in, and those we never think to question.”
- Speaker for the Dead, O.S. Card
Blagoje_Jovovic wrote:
Great thing, can you please protect us lieutenants so that we don't lose more than 25 maybe 30 because 37 and 40 can be too much.