Ranking system

I have an idea. Thaithai loses alot of points every game he loses. He is a warrent officer which is 9 or 10 away from general. Because he loses so much a game, this makes it impossible to get to general. What if we change the ranking system somehow. Like if u ar Warrnt officer to general, u lose 20 points for every game u lose. lower than w officer, u lose 10 to 15 points a game

it doesn't make it impossible for him to get to general. it will just take a lot of games. People are moving up faster with this ranking system than with the old one. I think that it is too early to be able to judge whether or not any modifications are necessary.

1771 never got to warrant officer with the old system so i think this is evidence that players will be able to get higher ranks.

if anything should be modified it is the fact that from warrant officer on you have to get 300 points more for the next rank whereas from basic to warrant officer it's only 200. It is more difficult to get points the higher up you get because like you said, when a top player loses they lose a lot of points. So it seems like it would be better if the next rank was always only 200 points away. There is no reason to have two different ways of making it harder for the top players to get the next rank.
 

Yes but when he gets to general, if he loses he will lose close to 100 points. Also your point could go against you. thaithai was at second lutenint, bad spelling, with the old system. He can't get past warrent officer now.

he was a captain and I think that he will get back there in just a couple months. I think it's too soon to judge the new system. it may need a slight change in the way the points are calculated but I'll have a better idea of how it should be modified in a couple months.

Good point, good politition. LOL!

The logic of the new ranking system doesnt require a player to win more games to be a general -that would be established by higher thresholds for higher ranks-. Instead, you need to have a better overall win/loss ratio to achive higher ranks. Or more wins against better players and less losses against newcomers. Every players win/loss ratio keeps him at the rank that he owns.

There surely is a limit at that ratio, that one can not get beyond, due to the nature of luck -dice and random start-inherint in the game. It would be interesting to see what will happen, to see the highest rank one can ever hold..

I liked the idea very much, but parameter settings seems crucial. It seems like it depends on the current rank, number of players,and when one is eliminated. Can admins post the mechanism of how points are deducted at the end of games?

How is the new system calculated?
The calculation for the new ranks will be based on points. A user will start with 1000 points and lose or gain points depending on if they win a game. It will go like this:

(losers points/average points of all players)*20

Can I see an example?
An example:

John 1000 points
Bob 1500 points
Billy 3000 points

They play together and Bob wins:

(1000+1500+3000 / 3 players) = 1833 average (I round down)

John loses 11 points (1000 john points / 1833 average)*20
Billy loses 33 points (3000 billy points / 1833 average)*20
Bob gains 44 points (11 john points + 33 billy points)

The play together and Billy wins:

(1000+1500+3000 / 3 players) = 1833 average

John loses 11 points (1000 john points / 1833 average)*20
Bob loses 16 points (1500 bob points / 1833 average)*20
Billy gains 27 points ( 11 john points + 16 bob points)

we only need condition to join a game.such as own over 2k point to join a game ,or own over 1500 to join another game.so good players can play against.

Just wondering if there are enough players/members of the site to support thaithai's suggested conditions.

I like the current points system because it rewards those who would dare join a game and win against top players. Conversely, as in real life the bigger you are the harder you fall; in terms of points it means the more you have the more you risk on every game you play -- and that's the case whether you play against great players or newbies.

What I don't understand is the token system. I get it in terms of access to maps and other special features. But why do I need points AND tokens to purchase a higher rank? Ranks should be based purely on results, shouldn't they?

Cheers,

D

i always suppose we need lucky to win a game.i only played about 5 games, i knew how to win.
u should download game "risk 2" on popgamers.com to practice. it is the best risk ,special sametime-type is very good. i love risk because i love "risk 2". AI plays very well in risk 2. it is very hard to win the campaign.it is a challenge.u learn more strategy to win AI.

Yeah, if thaithai played 1 on 1 with someone who has the same amount of points as him, he only loses 20. The only reason he loses more is because everyone is so far lower than him. If he plays 1771 alone and loses he doesn't lose as much as if he plays a very low ranking player.

As far as ranks and how many points to gain ranks. We have more ranks than our competition, so I took their highest rank and added maybe 1-2 more ranks on top of that. Now I know that because they have players in that rank, we can also have players in that rank, the other 2, I don't know, but maybe one day we will be able to remember the one guy who got General.

@dabbledave
needing tokens encourages you to play more games. That's all they are for. it just gets more games played and promotes the site.

Does the point deduction algorithm includes any other criteria, like being eliminated for missing two turns? Can one explain the points after this game:
http://www.dominating12.com/?cmd=game&sec=play&id=10967

it doesn't include any other criteria. the points after that game were correct.
how many tokens you get, however, is dependent on how many turns you miss. minus 3 tokens for every turn missed.