Rating system

@Cireon, sorry I did really think I was posting in the "right thread" you requested me to post. @AlphaLeo. Bonus for elimination I'd say no. It is not fair, if you kill someone and lose, you have just done a bad move. [u]More points for longer games[/u] is an interesting subject. But must be done as "more points awarded and more points lost" per game. As Cireon said you cannot just reward people creating points from nothing, this would affect the intire system. Neither you can gift points deducting them by someone other account, this would be even worse. Most of the lenght of the game is related to the game settings. Let's say you play increasing card games while I play cards capped at 12. Your games finish in 8 rounds. mine in 80. Actually winning one game requires to me 10 times the effort required to you. Not a big deal really, nothing really unfair, in the long run everybody gets the rating rapresenting his own skills, doesn't matter if he plays long games or short games. BUT The issue is for new players. If both of us are newers and I play only capped while you play only increasing then it requires for me much more time than you to arrive to the rating that really represent my skills, while it is fast for you, might be frustrating maybe... So let's say for example: -- games with cards capped at 12 or lower (including no cards and fixed) ==> [u]triple the points[/u] (either for win and loss) -- games with cards capped at 15 up to 30 ==> [u]double the points[/u] (either for win and loss) -- games with increasing cards or high capped cards ==> [u]normal points[/u] Plus, the Death-Match is just the game as it is in its full, while Capitals, Domination and Assassination are 3 different ways of shortening the game, so I think the 3 of them might be [u]points halved[/u]. Still you can combine things, like playing let's say fixed cards Capitals, so triple points and halve resulting in multipling the points (win/lost) by 1.5. 2p games should stay as they are though, because they always are fast game, it doesn't matter the settings. P.S. Also, on the same subject, I think tokens should be awarded per turns taken rather than per games played. 1 token per turn taken, −10 per turn missed.

[quote=Cireon]AlphaLeo. These are all cool suggestions, but have you read my post above? We can't just add points to the system. Are you suggesting that you also lose more points every game?[/quote] Yes of course, I think more points need to be lost what Admins think about this suggestion? It can be a great idea to add the setting of the game: - Normal points (normal setting) - Increasing rounds points (+1/round, -1/rounds) - Elimination extra points (+10/kill, -10/death) something like that would be great and of course... same for tokens I think... but without making it a setting...

I am not a big fan of these settings before. Increasing rounds points encourage people to drag out games. Elimination points encourage people to kill people, if it is not in their best interest to win the actual game. It sounds to me like we would be rewarding gameplay that actually makes the game less fun. But I'm happy to hear what others have to think about these ideas.

I'd have to agree with @@Cireon on this. Adding points for elimination sounds reasonable on the surface, but you would be encouraging murder/suicide just for the sake of a few points. Increasing round points would throw out the balanced rating system currently in place.

If you reset the ranks, Hoodlum, you essentially wipe out hundreds or even thousands of hours of gameplay for those of us who have become regulars at this site. Those of us who have invested the most in this site; games, chat, friendships, suggestions in the forum, you name it. So that's probably not a very good idea. Unless you want an exodus of loyal players from the site. Myself included. Of course, the ones who don't care, or presume to not care, about their rank – well, they obviously stand to lose less. Your suggestion would also turn the site into a 'quick and dirty' platform where ranks and trophies cost very little time and effort – instead of a longterm thing where people invest more of themselves, their time, and their money in your project. I also suspect that new players would get tired of the site much faster once they have become 'Dominator' once or twice, then in turn see all of their own work undone at the turn of the month. But if you want D12 to be more about 'quickies' and less about 'relationships', then this would definitely be the way to do it.

On a more positive note, I think that one way to compromise would be to create a separate tournament every month for the 'up and coming' players here at D12. It could mirror the monthly D12 game by summoning the top 12 new players who have increased their rank the most – not in general, but since joining the site one month earlier – and then pit them against each other in a similar fashion. That should get their attention. Basically the equivalent of a junior tournament from the world of tennis. It could be named 'The Dominating 12 Juniors', 'The Dominating 12 Fast Learners', or something to that effect. Maybe it could even come with its own unique, but temporary rank and title for the champion.

[quote=vikingo1337]On a more positive note, I think that one way to compromise would be to create a separate tournament every month for the 'up and coming' players here at D12. It could mirror the monthly D12 game by summoning the top 12 new players who have increased their rank the most – not in general, but since joining the site one month earlier – and then pit them against each other in a similar fashion. That should get their attention. Basically the equivalent of a junior tournament from the world of tennis. It could be named 'The Dominating 12 Juniors', 'The Dominating 12 Fast Learners', or something to that effect. Maybe it could even come with its own unique, but temporary rank and title for the champion.[/quote] love the idea!!!

Someone asked me of my proposals on the rating system. Here above there's one which is intended to be applied to all but 2p games. The reason why I propose this is because all games are rated together but there are gametypes and settings which lead to real quick games and others that lead to hyper-long games. So (for example) who plays Death-Matches with capped cards has to spend much more time and efforts to rank up compared to who plays Capitals with increasing cards. It is not much fair as it is, at least not for the newcomers.

2 sets of Ranks per game that wittle into 2 of the following upon ending. Domination Caps Death match Assassination 2 to 3 player 4 to 6 player 7 to 9 player So if you win a 8 player caps game, the caps rating and 7 to 9 player ratings increase.

I'm not sure to understand. God_of_War, do you suggest to use 12 different ratings? Or 24? It would be really confusing I think, and still in your proposal you haven't considered the great difference that there is between increasing cards and capped cards (which is the only difference I would consider). Not to mention: some are better in live games, others in long-terms; some are specialist of Fogo'war, others (like me) are totally dumb with Fogo'war... And, what about the one setting that changes the gameplay more than anyother, the sametime turns?? So I wouldn't want and wouldn't ask to have different ratings for any different settings, it could be logical but will result to be crazy in my opinion. I'm just asking to make the rating adjustments heavier (both winnings and losses) for games that last for 6 hours compared to games that last for 15 minutes, and still continue to use [b]one rating only.[/b]

Better ratings for games that last longer? What would I get for the game I've been in for over 4 years?

Well no, not that way Ely. It is not 'better ratings' what I mean, but [u]heavier[/u] rating changings, i.e. when you play games with fixed/ low capped cards you lose thrice the points you'd lose in increasing card games, therefore the winner also earns thrice. Then if your specific game lasts for 4 days or 4 years nothing changes, it will be always triple points.

I'm a bit confused, then, because you said: [quote=The_Bishop]I'm not sure to understand. God_of_War, do you suggest to use 12 different ratings? Or 24? It would be really confusing I think, and still in your proposal you haven't considered the great difference that there is between increasing cards and capped cards (which is the only difference I would consider). Not to mention: some are better in live games, others in long-terms; some are specialist of Fogo'war, others (like me) are totally dumb with Fogo'war... And, what about the one setting that changes the gameplay more than anyother, the sametime turns?? So I wouldn't want and wouldn't ask to have different ratings for any different settings, it could be logical but will result to be crazy in my opinion. [b]I'm just asking to make the rating adjustments heavier (both winnings and losses) for games that last for 6 hours compared to games that last for 15 minutes, and still continue to use [b]one rating only[/b].[/b][/quote] To me that sounded like you said you were asking to make the rating adjustments heavier, both winnings and losses, for games that lasted longer, for example games that last for six hours compared to games that last for 15 minutes. [quote]but heavier rating changings, i.e. when you play games with fixed/ low capped cards you lose thrice the points you'd lose in increasing card games, therefore the winner also earns thrice.[/quote] Are you saying this would only apply to fixed/ low capped cards instead of increasing cards only? [quote]Then if your specific game lasts for 4 days or 4 years nothing changes, it will be always triple points.[/quote] This would only be for fixed/low capped cards? I'm sorry, maybe I'm just not understanding what you are saying.

Sorry Elysium, I could have made some mistakes with English wording and/or grammar that cause you to not understand. Either that or you didn't read carefuly what I wrote. Really my proposal in itself is extremely simple: [quote=The_Bishop]-- games with cards capped at 12 or lower (including no cards and fixed) ==> triple the points (either for win and loss) -- games with cards capped at 15 up to 30 ==> double the points (either for win and loss) -- games with increasing cards or high capped cards ==> normal points[/quote] P.S. You are surely confusing the cause with effect. My proposal doesn't mean that you get a heavier rating adjustement only because your game lasted for long, but rather it means that when you join a game with heavier rating adjustements you will expect it to be longer.

[quote]you will expect it to be longer.[/quote] Got it. Was confusing that with if it lasts longer as a condition and not a probability.