divider for newbies vs goodplayers

[Senor]

i don't like it. it's like communism...people with low score are favored and people with high score struggle to stay ahead. besides low score doesn't nessecarily mean the player is a noob. nor does a high score mean a player is experienced.

[DragonLilly]

I kind of like the idea as it would not encourage veteran players to be smashing on lesser experienced players... and would also take away the problem with newbies getting disturbed and frustrated with having a minus score...

although I'd like to see more in detail of what exactly this consists of as I'm not fully understanding the text written above (maybe someone can explain this to me)... please show some examples...

[MicroJak]

I agree with Senor. I like your communism analogy, by the way, it was very tasteful..
_________________

[SpaceGamer]

Hello Admin,

So seven years ago you thought newbie players needed help and made a suggestion to the ST community to have a scale so experianced players only benefit from battling experienced players. That was a good suggestion then.

So now we have seven years of no change and how many players are there now in the game? I read a post where there was up to 500. Today there are maybe 100 real players.

But look today the complaints about the scaled points are from the very same vets that talked you into not doing it. Almost every other game has a way of scaling to keep it unprofitable to bash new players.

Now there are less than 90 real players in the game. So something needs to be done now to save this game.

Having zero be the lowest you can go and a percentage scale is a good thing for the game.

The experienced players will just need to fight more wars against the experienced players in an alliance to get points.

[colinthecorgi]

I have considered this, and come up with the following idea.

Today we have actual score and relative score. As far as I can see the relative is some sort of extrapolation over the evo time, so it shows what score you would en up with for your whole evo if you keep the current scoring trend going at the same level.


The relative is interesting, but not crucial. We could have a more interesting relative, like a ranking score. The chess ranking systems work so that your ranking is changed more or less depending on who ypu beat/draw with. Your losses are also influenced similarly. In chess it's called the ELO system, and I see no reason why we couldn't have this instead of the relative, or as a third score. So, the system would work something like this (open to suggestions of course):
The average of (ranking score + actual score)s of all players is calculated, including any minus scores. This takes into account the performance AND the evo status of all players. This average is considered to be equal to 0 points from a ranking comparison perspective.
A battle with an average vs average player should give a multiplier of 1 for the ranking score, e.g. the points stay as they are. Likewise a battle between a -2000 scorer and another -2000 scorer should also result in a multiplier of 1.
So, we would need either a comparison between the two players (current ranking + actual) scores, or one multiplier and one divider. Since minus scores are possible I would suggest the comparison method.

IMO the effects should be logarithmic, so that extreme multipliers are avoided. If a player with -100000 meets a player with +100000 and scores +500 actual points this should not result in the lower scoring player getting a ranking boost of 50000 or so Instead, we might assume that a really heavy scorer might have +100000 actual and +50000 ranking at end of evo, and the same on the minus side. That gives a difference of 300000. So if we feel that a multiplier of 10 is the maximum we can accept, then our formula for calculating the ranking points should be something so that RankingPoints=ActualPoints*Multiplier(difference between players), and Multiplier(300000)=10 and Multiplier(0)=1.
Using a logarithmic function, this is basic maths.

We could also have a linear function with a maximum multiplier.

The ranking points would be calculated for each battle separately.
_________________
Running the P since 2007

[Inatic]

I agree with the idea but im sure people will take advantage of it

[colinthecorgi]

The actual points would remain as today.
Ranking would be a separate number.
_________________
Running the P since 2007