Forum


aaaaaaaaaaaargh stop asking me
Grunvagr wrote
at 8:46 PM, Sunday March 4, 2007 EST
okay - to not type this out for the 30th time... here's how the new ranking / top 25 thing works.


Rank - click on the top 25, it is the 0.00 value on the left. Think of it as how much ass someone has kicked in the past. (ie, were they ever #1 in elo, or top 5, etc, or how many times they played in the 1900s+ finishing the games in the top 10 and way up there)

Elo - the number by your name and in your profile. Think of it like this, the higher you are, the more in position you are to ADD to your rank.

So imagine someone with a rank of 1.52, if their elo is down in the 1700s, they probably wont add much to it. But if they are in the 1900s, 2000s and at the very top they can add significantly to it.



Technical mumbojumbo:
____________________

How's this actually work?

Rank has do with Elo - just like the previous scoring system did. It is calculated:

1/your place in elo

meaning, say player A wins a game and has 1900 elo. That means nothing, what matters is how does it compare to others. If 1900 is the 10th best elo rating, then that person gets 1/10, or .10 added to their rank.

if you finish a game with 1750 elo and you have the 1500th best elo rating in the game, you get 1/1500, lets just say thats tiny cuz my calculator just gave me an error HEHE.

SUMMARY:
Rank is how much ass someone kicked in the past. Having high elo compared to others = putting yourself in position to add significantly to your 'rank' value.




Pros: What's really cool is if someone is #1 in elo and kicks ass, then has a few bad games and drops, the game respects them by keeping them in the top 25. So no more slipping from 2nd place to 26th cuz you tried to take over 1st spot. Now, people gradually drop off the top 25 as others pass them, rather than massive jumps.

It rewards people for being great players. Ok, youve never had the lucky streak to get to #1 elo, but you play a lot of games in the top 10 of elo, well, that's 1/10 or 1/9 or 1/11 added to your rank, .1, .11 etc, good values. You'll get rewarded, despite never making it to the top.

Cons: It's new, people always dislike what's new until they master it. It's weird at the moment cuz how do you know what position you are, how do you know what 1840 elo means compared to others? it doesnt really show you unless youre on the top 25 (at the moment), probably other cons but im tired of typing

Note: people say playing often can pad your score. While this is technically true, u have to maintain high elo while you play a lot. And again, 1 game in 2nd or 1st place of elo instantly massacres all the gains someone else makes playing 70 games in 100th.

« First ‹ Previous Replies 11 - 20 of 56 Next › Last »
Grunvagr wrote
at 1:56 PM, Tuesday March 6, 2007 EST
triplehexlix,

how did the previous top 25 work?

You had to be #1 in elo.

how does the new top 25 work?

You have to be #1 in elo.



The only real difference, is that now once you reach the very top of game you get to keep credit for it. The game recognizes the best players over the long run.

Ultimately, what will happen is that the #1 person overall on the top 25 list will simply be the person who has become the #1 player in elo *most often*

As for your last point. It's not true. Rewind had a crazy lead (or so we though, when he was 7 to 3). Now check the top 25. Also, a day or two ago the person in 25th place had less than 1.0 rank. As of this post the 25th person is Cutiepie with 1.32.

Another reason it's not really true, look at me for example. I was 3rd overall. I had 3.5 when the next closest person to me was in 4th with less than 2.00 In one day I have slid down to 6th (and by the time most people read this, smitri mighta passed me).
triplehelix wrote
at 5:38 PM, Tuesday March 6, 2007 EST
big difference though, is that you could move up and down the ranks more easily as it was. now, if you have one good run, you easily get on the top 25, but if you have a bad run, even an extended one 3 times as long as your good run, you don't fall off.

i'm not saying the new system should be thrown out, just tweaked to allow more mobility. as it stands, unless you have the very top of elo's, your not really mobile.
Grunvagr wrote
at 6:06 PM, Tuesday March 6, 2007 EST
to attain the very highest in elo is extremely difficult - it was the cornerstone of the previous top players scoring system and it is again of utmost importance now

Your last statement triplehelix is the exact reason for the new scoring that uses 'rank'.

You SHOULDNT be really mobile unless you achieve the very highest in elo.

And trust me, you do fall off.
I've dropped three spots already since the start of this thread alone.

Example: I got to 1921 elo and was able to pull in a lot of rank with top 5 finishes. That rank thing recognizes that as an achievement and gives me rank points accordingly.

Since then I have dropped down to the 1800's where I have hovered more or less - not adding much more than 0.01 here or there. Thus, I am not defending my lead and with time I have dropped down.

A very cool thing is that now, you can be a great player and kick ass - then have a bad luck streak. Fight your way back to the top and all the while the game rewards you with whatever rank points you have earned. Because after all, it takes a lot of skill to play a game with 1900+ elo and finish with the 10th or 7th best elo of all 35k players that play, etc.
triplehelix wrote
at 6:09 PM, Tuesday March 6, 2007 EST
i agree with your points, thats why i said i don't think the new scoring system should be scrapped, just tweaked, adding a bit more mobility back.
Grunvagr wrote
at 6:09 PM, Tuesday March 6, 2007 EST
another example about mobility... rnd was not on the top 25 list ohhh about a week ago.

he's #1 now.

think about that - there's plenty of mobility IF you can get to the #1 or #2 overall spots in elo, etc
triplehelix wrote
at 6:18 PM, Tuesday March 6, 2007 EST
you just agreed with one of my biggest gripes. IF you get 1st or 2nd elo your mobil, if not, not so much.
triplehelix wrote
at 6:22 PM, Tuesday March 6, 2007 EST
basically the curve is just way to steep for getting rank points right now, a more shallow curve would entice more people to strive for top 25, and be "more fun" in my opinion.
Grunvagr wrote
at 6:38 PM, Tuesday March 6, 2007 EST
well, a top 10 finish or coming in 7th or 14th, those arnt pathetic values, they'll add to .3 in no time

but yes, it does seriously reward coming in 1st 2nd or 3rd in elo 1 / .5 / .33

The point is - if the top 25 finishes were rewarded more, OR if the curve was less steep, then people could play x amount of games and power their way to the top. It shouldn't be that way and Ryan has said that is not the point.

A less steep curve means people (who are good players and can get top 50 in elo or top 25 in elo often) would climb to #1 overall by sheer volume of games played.

The goal is to avoid that. That is the reasoning for such a steep value for finishing in the top 5 in elo.
triplehelix wrote
at 6:58 PM, Tuesday March 6, 2007 EST
yeah i read where ryan stated those things and agree, i just think its a bit too steep. the curve could be tweaked and still achieve those goals.
Cyron wrote
at 2:57 AM, Wednesday March 7, 2007 EST
I'd like to see a top 100, a much more reachable milestone for most people, similar to the way gpoker rewards it's top 100 players each month
KDice - Multiplayer Dice War
KDice is a multiplayer strategy online game played in monthly competitions. It's like Risk. The goal is to win every territory on the map.
CREATED BY RYAN © 2006
RECOMMEND
GAMES
GPokr
Texas Holdem Poker
KDice
Online Strategy
XSketch
Online Pictionary