Recent Activity List

no dog in the fight. but some thoughts since i love putting in my 2 cents where it doesnt belong. :) I have been here, never paid and have averaged 29 games a month. almost exclusively 4 players or more per game. So defentiely no issue with meeting the limits. Of course i rarely play multiplayer flat rate singles. rather watch the paint dry on the outside of a house. in a rainstorm. with thunder and lightning.......... To get back on point. I assume you guys have a method of retrieving information from the servers via data sets into excel or csv. pull everyone's history and do some analysis. see how many games people do play on average for non paying members and paying members. do some breakouts based on flat rate, increasing cards, etc. break data out into groups and start determining what you really want to see in a dominator. see where that corresponds to the data. then set the targets to get into the d12 game. decision making with assumptions usually leads to incorrect results. you have the data. so play with it.

[quote]The two reasons for seeing everyone's games: 1. Can help fact check and keep people honest 2. Can help people learn what makes someone great, and possibly their weakness If I couldn't randomly change a game number and see it I would understand keeping them hidden. But when they are all public I don't see the harm in exposing data for 30 days.[/quote] i totally agree with this 100%. At our old digs, anyone was able to look up any player's games and the people they played with. you can tell immediately their play style, and if they are gaming the systme or not. it DOES keep people honest. and a great learning tool....i have certain games book marked so i can show new teammates examples of different strategies i use and when. why this information be only available to people i manage to reach out to? if fact you could put a search function on each person's profile page. for example, you want to look at how i play texas unlimited fixed cards setting (since that has been a recent topic of discussion for the 2v2 tourey)....put that in the search function and you can see the strategy i use to win. there is alot of dead space on the profile page, so there is room for a search function there. or you can look up how many times i team up with clark or bluebonnet? that should be there as well. sorry....yup... i just introduced another thing on the todo list :) [quote]To get back on point. I assume you guys have a method of retrieving information from the servers via data sets into excel or csv. pull everyone's history and do some analysis. see how many games people do play on average for non paying members and paying members. do some breakouts based on flat rate, increasing cards, etc. break data out into groups and start determining what you really want to see in a dominator. see where that corresponds to the data. then set the targets to get into the d12 game. decision making with assumptions usually leads to incorrect results. you have the data. so play with it.[quote][/quote][/quote] yup. let's make good decisions based on the data you have.

Ok, so it is not just completed games but also includes active ones. I see logical arguments for this as well. Test games are meaningless and should not count towards the total games, active or completed. I do not think they fit the intended criteria for making the D12 game. Proposed solution: I am not a programmer and I can't imagine the work involved in trying to write programing around this one specific issue. I believe there are other things that are a much higher priority or have more meaning to the programmers to spend their own personal free time on. What I do have is enough of my own free time to do a quick check before invites go out to the players who appear to be eligible for the D12 game to ensure they meet the proper criteria for the game. Thoughts?

oh...i like that solution. :) yes i agree...i assume that there is a long laundry list for the programmers and this is just one of those one offs.....for the amount of time and energy to put into programming it, there isn't much value. Thanks for noticing and volunteering elysium! :thumbs:

These are possible solutions, but please let's first give Alex some time to respond. We're publicely accusing him now. We have reasons for this, but he hasn't had a long time to defend himself yet - it's very impolite to come to conclusions before he had a proper chance at responding.

[quote=Matty]These are possible solutions, but please let's first give Alex some time to respond. We're publicely accusing him now. We have reasons for this, but he hasn't had a long time to defend himself yet - it's very impolite to come to conclusions before he had a proper chance at responding.[/quote] Agreed, but I am not actually weighing in on whether or not Alex is 'gaming' the system and I think if he responds, he will likely have some reasons for playing those games. In fact, I do not even think he needs to defend himself if 'test' games are in fact considered not eligible to meet the criteria. I am only trying to address the issue that if the intended criteria for being invited to a D12 game is 5 completed and/or active games then the meaningless test games should be excluded.

Agreed. I am not accusing him of doing anything nefarious. Since I cannot see the data, and you can, is the makeup of his 5 active or completed games at the time of the list just longer-term games (that are not self-described as test) valid? If so no concerns...he is playing (or had played the necessary amount). If the active games don't equal 5 after removing the "test" games, then what Ely proposes should work (although he would need to be able to verify games I can't see). I think really this only needs to be done if the "Total Games" from one list to the next do not increase by 5. As far as how to fix it, I would think have a checkbox/toggle up front that says real or test game. If set to test, then when doing the calculations on everything, do an if check and if real, continue, otherwise ignore it. Of course, you can get into more nuanced things like updating the game filter, indicating in the game lobby what is test, maybe changing the background color of the game board a different color, etc. Again, a lot to do and probably not high on the priority list considering people can manually back out results. Also, did you message Alex and point to the post? He might not see it.

Separate and slightly related wrinkle: A player (Dreamstreet?) recently proposed a "league-style" tournament. What are the possibilities of holding "seasons" of play? (This also sounds like a programming nightmare, but is pretty fun in other gaming formats.)

Please make this a different post so as to not confuse and lose things.

The whole idea of the D12 is not as great as it was before. The time where the generals behaved like generals is over. I stopped playing here some time ago because players were making the list, on non-honourable ways. - farming points from newbies in 1v1 games with passwords - only playing teamgames with the same teammembers over and over again, also sometimes with passwords: inviting newbies as well - playing the bare minimum, desperate to stay in the list. Those games being again: team-games or other low-risk games. Also having a chat-banned player in the D12 list, even giving him the chance of being a dominator, blows my mind. In the latest D12 list there are 3, maybe 4, players who play normal DM or domination games. How is that representative of how good a player really is? Yes, you can be the very best at 1v1 same time. Yes, you can be the best at 2v2 or 2v2v2v2 or whatever. But only playing those games should not give you a place in the D12. That should be harder.

I used to get hung up on how to determine "best of the best" back at my old digs. Points? Nope. People would find their niche and stick to it. But only by playing multi player singles? Not by a long shot. To me best of the best means putting it out there for all comers, on all maps, in all game styles. So I would go after medals. Medals were awarded for beating unique opponents on whatever criteria the medal was for. We had medals for each map, each mode (assassin, mercenary, death match) as well as for single or team play. Medals for 2 person teams up to 12 person teams. And being unique opponents you have to defeat, you wont earn them without taking on the good players as well as the scrubs. Let me tell you, it was damn hard getting some of those generals to play games so you could get their kill for a medal. A majority did like to hide in their niche games which you had to weasel your way into for a win. So if you aren't playing assassin games, or team games which are both critical to know to be a true master. How can you say you are the best at risk? I am done with all that though. I just like playing teams with peri.

yup...I totally admit, I am a team game player. I enjoy playing team games, especially against other good teams. The top-ranked players are really good at collecting points, only playing to their strengths, whatever that may be. I have no issue with placing a minimum of single (free for all) games.

We may really be at the point where we need separate ranking systems. It has been discussed before to have a separate ranking for 1v1 games, but it would also be appropriate for team games now that we've had them for a while and they've become popular. The current D12 has players from each of these 3 categories, and since the D12 game is (almost) always 9 player free for all, players that prefer the other formats opt out of the game (many 1v1 players have been opting out for some time, and it only recently became common for team game players to opt out as well).

While I almost always exclusively play team games, if given the chance I would play the free for all. Now I wouldn't join if it were caps though. I go back to if the purpose of the D12 list is to show who the top players were for the month, then that should be how things are calculated. Come up with some sort of algorithm based on rank earned vs games played, or something. Maybe it is as simple as each game you win is worth 5 points per opponent played. So if you win 100 1v1 games, you get 500 points. Play 1v9 and win 10 you get 450, etc. Could also work the number in how many games played somehow. This would cover team games (2v2 would be worth 10 points since you are playing 2 people). It would favor premium members because they could play more games, and it would also encourage more games played instead of minimally holding on to rank. These would be your dominating 12. If we wanted to do a monthly game that is fine and if people wanted to opt out they could. Maybe even let the #1 player pick what the game play is so you get a mix each month. 2nd player gets to choose map, 3rd fog, etc.

A separate ranking system and new way of calculating the d12 is a good topic to talk about, but not in this thread. Can you guys start a new one?