We've been playing a lot of CA ladder, and i know im an advocate for giving more points than are lost in the exchange, but i think 5 is too high.
For example, Det is playing Shraka right now and earning 7 points, while shraka is losing only 2.
I think 1-2 would be better, so the bonus is only minor, or 10-20% rounded down, so you earn more for playing equal enemies, and earn no bonus for playing anyone who nets you under 5/10 points.
Ladder Bonus Points
Moderator: Moderators
Ladder Bonus Points
Last edited by Saktoth on 28 Apr 2008, 05:14, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Ladder Bonus Points
Mel would need time to fix that. He's busy.
Re: Ladder Bonus Points
Changing this would be trivial if it should apply to all played and new battles.. But are you sure it's not just your opinion?
Re: Ladder Bonus Points
I think it would need to scale; battles between evenly skilled players which yield five points seem good to me, but the wider the disparity, the less the higher should gain, or the more the lower.
Re: Ladder Bonus Points
Of course this is just my opinion, but im posting here to try and gather some other thoughts on the matter. I know det agrees with me.
I dont think evenly matched opponents should get any specific emphasis here though, playing the same person over and over and not playing anyone else is already a way to climb the ladder and i dont see a need to encourage that more than anything else.
But a particular problem is beating up a vastly inferior player, and the fact that the majority of the points you are getting are bonus points. Eventually the scores are meant to get to the point where you're earning almost nothing (2 points in the case of shraka vs det) but 5 points are almost always worth it.
Anyway, lets see what other ladder players think.
I dont think evenly matched opponents should get any specific emphasis here though, playing the same person over and over and not playing anyone else is already a way to climb the ladder and i dont see a need to encourage that more than anything else.
But a particular problem is beating up a vastly inferior player, and the fact that the majority of the points you are getting are bonus points. Eventually the scores are meant to get to the point where you're earning almost nothing (2 points in the case of shraka vs det) but 5 points are almost always worth it.
Anyway, lets see what other ladder players think.
Re: Ladder Bonus Points
I agree. Points earned should reflect challenge of game. I think the chess ranking system works similarly to Saktoth's suggestion.
Re: Ladder Bonus Points
We have the chess rating system (at least if I understood it correctly).. The only change was to add points to the system with every game (bonus points) which was requested to encourage to play..
Re: Ladder Bonus Points
Ya, i was a major advocate of adding bonus points, i just think there are a few too many.
ELO is for tournament play, not for casual play between random players, so some incentive to play ladder games is needed.
ELO is for tournament play, not for casual play between random players, so some incentive to play ladder games is needed.
Re: Ladder Bonus Points
But adding bonus points would mean that people who dont have time to play 30 games a day but are still good will drop lower on the rank even if they can beat those that can play 30 games a day.
I agree that those that play more will ultimatly be higher ranked than players who are better but play less,but at least if they play a few games vs the top players who play alot they can restore themsleved to being top ranking players pretty fast.
If you add bonus points on the long run the top players who dont have a lot of time to play wont be able to catch up even though that them not playing alot didnt make them worse players.
I might be wrong here but it sure sounds like a bad direction to go to and it favors playing a lot instead of being a good player,not completly of course,but more so than the existing system.
I agree that those that play more will ultimatly be higher ranked than players who are better but play less,but at least if they play a few games vs the top players who play alot they can restore themsleved to being top ranking players pretty fast.
If you add bonus points on the long run the top players who dont have a lot of time to play wont be able to catch up even though that them not playing alot didnt make them worse players.
I might be wrong here but it sure sounds like a bad direction to go to and it favors playing a lot instead of being a good player,not completly of course,but more so than the existing system.
Re: Ladder Bonus Points
Keep up Basic, there already are bonus points. You get 5 every time you win no matter what. What i am advocating is reducing them, to 1-2, or to 10-20%.Gota wrote:Some stuff.
Re: Ladder Bonus Points
Well there shouldnt be.
Whats the point of very good players playing vs very weak ones?that shouldnot be encouraged after a certain differance in stats no points should be givven.
A low level player should play with those that are a bit above him but since we dont have that much players that can be extnaded a bit but not too much and there is no need forbonus points.
As i wrote before it also benefits those that play alot over those that play less and if we want the ladder to show the real best player on the ladder players list than bonus points should be removed.
Whats the point of very good players playing vs very weak ones?that shouldnot be encouraged after a certain differance in stats no points should be givven.
A low level player should play with those that are a bit above him but since we dont have that much players that can be extnaded a bit but not too much and there is no need forbonus points.
As i wrote before it also benefits those that play alot over those that play less and if we want the ladder to show the real best player on the ladder players list than bonus points should be removed.
Re: Ladder Bonus Points
Im glad nobody listens to anything you say Basic.
10% of 0 is 0 btw >_>.
10% of 0 is 0 btw >_>.
Re: Ladder Bonus Points
How am i wrong than.Enlighten me.
Re: Ladder Bonus Points
Noobs start at 1500, which is slap bang in the middle of a pure ELO style ladder. Because it is only worthwhile to play someone whose skill is overestimated (IE, its just not worth challenging someone who doesnt have a higher score than they really deserve, there is no way to gain from playing an underestimated player) and every noob, at 1500, is overestimated, the best strategy to gain points is to play noobs.
Equally, in order to get to the point that you no longer gain points from playing noobs, you need a very high score from hundreds of games (from beating 1500 players, or players who have been beating 1500 players, who obviously didnt deserve the score).
Playing an evenly matched enemy only evens out your score- which only benefits the player with a score below his skill level. The player with the higher score of the pair would be wise to not play the other until he, too, has harvested some points off of noobs and has an equal score that reflects his equal ability (of course, in the meantime, the first player might beat even more noobs).
Having bonus points means points are constantly entering the system not from new noobs deciding to get beaten up, but just from every game. This drives active ladder players scores up, away from the 'noob' level, and encouraging players of equal skill to play against oneanother, as they still have something to gain. With enough points entering the system it quickly becomes unprofitable to play noobs- especially if the bonus is small, a percentage, or you stop receiving the bonus after a certain score level, the sort of thing im advocating here.
There is always some way to game the system. In pure elo, its playing noobs and refusing to play anyone of skill above their ranking, relative to yours. With a bonus its just from playing a lot of games- even ones against players better than you or players whose scores dont reflect their ability, which can still net you a positive score in the long run.
Equally, in order to get to the point that you no longer gain points from playing noobs, you need a very high score from hundreds of games (from beating 1500 players, or players who have been beating 1500 players, who obviously didnt deserve the score).
Playing an evenly matched enemy only evens out your score- which only benefits the player with a score below his skill level. The player with the higher score of the pair would be wise to not play the other until he, too, has harvested some points off of noobs and has an equal score that reflects his equal ability (of course, in the meantime, the first player might beat even more noobs).
Having bonus points means points are constantly entering the system not from new noobs deciding to get beaten up, but just from every game. This drives active ladder players scores up, away from the 'noob' level, and encouraging players of equal skill to play against oneanother, as they still have something to gain. With enough points entering the system it quickly becomes unprofitable to play noobs- especially if the bonus is small, a percentage, or you stop receiving the bonus after a certain score level, the sort of thing im advocating here.
There is always some way to game the system. In pure elo, its playing noobs and refusing to play anyone of skill above their ranking, relative to yours. With a bonus its just from playing a lot of games- even ones against players better than you or players whose scores dont reflect their ability, which can still net you a positive score in the long run.