Five Tribes Five Tribes

Forums

Search
Forums » Memoir '44 Online - English » Discussion about the Skill system
Show: Today's Posts 
  
AuthorTopic
caroper
Senior Member

Posts: 166
Registered:
April 2004
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Thu, 16 December 2010 17:32
I still think that standard games should not be ranked.

Tournament Games are then ranked after swapping sides (A swap sides button is needed and the points are only valid if the game is completed).

Campaign Games would have a separate points system decided by the champaign designer so should not be ranked until the campaign is completed.

By default, games are not ranked.

A Permanent ladder could be run for those who only want to play Ranked games.

Monthly or Quarterly Ladders could be run, possibly with prizes on offer.

Campaingins would be fun but I am sure theye are far down the todo list.

Ranking only games that have swapped sides goes a long way towards addressing imbalance and so the existing system could remain with only minor changes. People who only have time for a quick game then risk no loss of Skill. If they are specifically challenging for the Skill points or Rank then it is up to them to ensure they have time to play both sides.

      
sam1812
Senior Member
Brigadier General

User Pages
Posts: 2278
Registered:
August 2006
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Fri, 17 December 2010 00:40
GoboGobo wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 10:37

I would be careful with the zero-sum argument. ELO is based on zero-sum, yet on chess sites and chess ratings you will see that average rating will be above 1500.
Stronger players tend to stick around, while weaker players have more of a tendency of leaving.

ELO is not that good in coping with that, ratings tend to get a little bit inflated over time, and players then tend not to want to play with lower-ranked players, making it harder for newcomers to rise in the rankings.

[edit]
Actually, what I'm saying here about ELO is not true. ELO is not zero-sum. but still, having a zero-sum rating system where players come and go does not help you one bit.

Two things, Gobo: Chess ratings don't start out at 1500; ordinarily, you get rated based on your performance against rated players. And I said the weighted average, which would include the legions of inactive players.

Actually, chess tournament play may be instructive once the Memoir ratings have had a chance to spread out. Many chess tournaments have multiple divisions, based on players' ratings. Being able to filter the available opponents based on their rating could be useful.
      
Axelb9
Junior Member
Major

User Pages
Posts: 25
Registered:
November 2010
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Fri, 17 December 2010 07:22
caroper wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 17:32

I still think that standard games should not be ranked.
.

Ranking only games that have swapped sides goes a long way towards addressing imbalance and so the existing system could remain with only minor changes. People who only have time for a quick game then risk no loss of Skill. If they are specifically challenging for the Skill points or Rank then it is up to them to ensure they have time to play both sides.




This is exactly what I am preaching for weeks now in this thread and others yet it seems that arguments around mathematics formulas and somehow raping the ELO system to work for lopsided games get better response from Yann and Dow.
      
GoboGobo
Member
Major

User Pages
Posts: 48
Registered:
April 2006
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Fri, 17 December 2010 09:43
sam1812 wrote on Fri, 17 December 2010 00:40

GoboGobo wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 10:37

I would be careful with the zero-sum argument. ELO is based on zero-sum, yet on chess sites and chess ratings you will see that average rating will be above 1500.
Stronger players tend to stick around, while weaker players have more of a tendency of leaving.

ELO is not that good in coping with that, ratings tend to get a little bit inflated over time, and players then tend not to want to play with lower-ranked players, making it harder for newcomers to rise in the rankings.

[edit]
Actually, what I'm saying here about ELO is not true. ELO is not zero-sum. but still, having a zero-sum rating system where players come and go does not help you one bit.

Two things, Gobo: Chess ratings don't start out at 1500; ordinarily, you get rated based on your performance against rated players. And I said the weighted average, which would include the legions of inactive players.

Actually, chess tournament play may be instructive once the Memoir ratings have had a chance to spread out. Many chess tournaments have multiple divisions, based on players' ratings. Being able to filter the available opponents based on their rating could be useful.


You're right. Ordinarily in a club you would start playing against rated players, and then retroactively get a rating after you played 10 or so games. This kind of method works in a club, because you have a small set of players, who all play regularly. For online games, where games are started continuously, this kind of rating does not work, and creates a whole administrative mess when trying to retroactively apply these ratings.

However, at chess.com they're using an adapted ELO rating scheme where they use a modifier to make sure that a new player moves up to his "real" rating as fast as possible, without too much loss to players that have an established rating.

Come to think of it, that rating system also incorporates your activity, so if you don't play for a long time, your rating will become looser, and deteriorates over time.

As I think about this more and more, I don't feel that ELO rating is a good fit to Memoir online play. Perhaps only indeed for matches where both sides have been played. Then the problem is however that you have to agree on this beforehand, and you're going to be tied to the board for the duration. You can't decide this halfway through.

[Updated on: Fri, 17 December 2010 09:43]

      
Axelb9
Junior Member
Major

User Pages
Posts: 25
Registered:
November 2010
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Fri, 17 December 2010 09:58
This should not be such a large issue I guess. A full game lasts 1 hour at most. One could set a toggle when looking for opponents whether he wants to play casual games or ranked games with both sides. Only those people would set this who are able to devote 1 hour gametime in any one instance. More and more people present themselves in invites already asking for full games so I donot think this change would not be appreciated. And then the who ranking debate could be closed down with this simple interface change.
      
sam1812
Senior Member
Brigadier General

User Pages
Posts: 2278
Registered:
August 2006
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Fri, 17 December 2010 13:33
I don't know about chess.com, but in the "real world" of chess tournaments, the director pairs you for a game, and you play it until it ends. (Or, if an emergency comes up and you have to leave, it ends by the player resigning.)

At M-Online, your wife (or mom) can call you for dinner or to help with some chore, and your kid can need help with homework call to get picked up from a play date.

With no way to save a game to finish later, even the best intentioned players can't guarantee a 2-sided match.

One good thing about Memoir is that unbalanced scenarios allow you to balance out a game against a weaker player. Omaha may be a pretty fair matchup with a newbie as Axis against a strong player as Allies -- but do you want to inflict the reverse on the weak player? After a few demoralizing games like that, some newbies might not come back.
      
stevens
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

User Pages
Posts: 3069
Registered:
February 2007
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Fri, 17 December 2010 14:16
Quote:

One good thing about Memoir is that unbalanced scenarios allow you to balance out a game against a weaker player. Omaha may be a pretty fair matchup with a newbie as Axis against a strong player as Allies -- but do you want to inflict the reverse on the weak player? After a few demoralizing games like that, some newbies might not come back.


Sam is one of the most encouraging fellows out there to new recruits. I know, I used to be one of them. So if you have an opportunity to play someone who will definitely teach you the ropes.
SAM is the MAN.

Miss seeing you on Vassal bud!

[Updated on: Fri, 17 December 2010 14:17]

      
Guerney
Member
Bring Boys Back Home

User Pages
Posts: 76
Registered:
March 2007
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Fri, 17 December 2010 15:52
Some people will recognize from where the idea come.

May be if DOW create a Random Battle, it could be the only one that can be rated.
When you chose this "Random Battle" the server chose randomly
the scenario and if possible an opponent of equal ranking
in the people who are ready.
This will deter some bad rating grabbing.
The rating should be based on the performance, with a good performance you should lose less points.
This rating could be scrap every semester with the top winning a title or may be some games.

Sorry for my English.

[Updated on: Fri, 17 December 2010 15:54]

      
Caboose
Senior Member
First Lieutenant

User Pages
Posts: 1597
Registered:
May 2004
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Sat, 18 December 2010 08:18
Personally, wish it would just be scrapped. Too many people (namely from TTR side) put too much faith into ranking and won't play others if they are so far down. And thus "protect" their precious ranking by only playing people near them.
      
Hydrommel
Senior Member
FFM44 Bureau

User Pages
Posts: 1027
Registered:
April 2006
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Sun, 19 December 2010 01:38
Désolé d'intervenir :
1. En français
2. Sans avoir lu le détail des précédents posts

Je n'ai qu'une chose à dire sur ce sujet.
Le bon principe de base à Mémoire 44 est le principe de l'Aller-Retour pour jauger de qui gagne et qui perd.
Force est de constater que cette "coutume" n'est pas d'usage sur la version "On line". Même avec les plus chevronnés, d'ailleurs...
Qui va se mesurer à Arnheim avec les allemands s'il brigue une place dans le classement ? Ou même juste une victoire...

Il me semble donc que la seule manière d'équilibrer les récompenses est d'oublier qui gagne ou perd, mais de ne conserver que la position du joueur par rapport à la moyenne reconnue de médailles pour le camp joué dans la partie considérée.

Ainsi perdre 5/6 pourrait procurer des points (sachant que gagner en procure toujours...).
Si l'on veut éviter l'inflation des scores, il suffit ensuite d'équilibrer la partie selon l'écart.
Exemple : Je gagne 6/5 : j'ai droit à 25 points théoriques pour avoir gagné. Le perdant, qui a dépassé la moyenns (4,65) gagne également mais seulement 5 points.
Le différentiel est de 20 points.
Le perdant perd 0 points. Le gagnant gagne 20 points.
Et si on veut un équilibre réel, autant considérer que les deux joueurs sont ex-aequo, car mieux perdre que la moyenne est parfois un vrai exploit !

Dans tous les cas, cette approche me semble plus juste que l'actuelle...

A bientôt...
      
Praxeo
Game Designer
Commandant

User Pages
Posts: 277
Registered:
June 2007
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Sun, 19 December 2010 11:37
Bonjour Hydromel

Plus ou moins. 1/ En demandant gentiment, la plupart de mes adversaires jouent l'aller-retour. Je le fais systématiquement, même en solo. C'est vrai qu'il faudrait un message fort pour que les allers-retours passent dans les moeurs. 2/ Arnhem est intéressant avec les Allemands et je ne m'en prive pas. Le système de ELO est performant : une défaite coûte très peu, et une victoire rapporte un max. Dommage que beaucoup de joueurs ne comprennent pas le système ELO indexé sur la cote du scénario. DOW a communiqué mais le message passe lentement.

Right, but not only. 1/ Usually, when you ask for a 2-sides game before playing (2 games, switching sides), people agree. I try to always play 2 sides, even in mode solo. I totally agree that 2-sides games should become the default mode, as a best practice. 2/ Arhnem is interesting to play with the Germans et I like it. The ELO system is efficient : a defeat costs few points and a victory gives a lot. Unfortunately, many players ignore that the ELO calculation is base on the scenario odds. DOW communicated, but the message is not received as it ought to be.

Best regards
      
Arago
Junior Member
Major

User Pages
Posts: 6
Registered:
June 2005
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Sun, 26 December 2010 23:03
I think a skill ranking system best suits games with little or no luck involved - like chess. Losing a scenario in M44 due to terrible dice rolling is demoralizing enough, and then to see 'Skill -15' in the AAR feels like an extra kick in the pants.

When playing live with friends, losing due to bad dice doesn't bother me, but online the drop in skill ranking seems to bother me even though I try not to pay attention to it. It's just hard to ignore the score when it's so prominently displayed in the AAR's and your profile. I feel that it takes something away from the fun of just playing a quick scenario or two.

Also, as was mentioned elsewhere, players whose score drops below average tend to become discouraged and may not come back to play anymore. This can be especially unfortunate in a game where luck plays such a large role. Wherever there's luck involved there's also streaking - and suffering through several consecutive scenarios lost mainly due to awful luck is bad enough, but seeing the system tell you that it's actually your skill that sucks is something even worse.

And don't get me even started on the antisocial behavior skill ranking induces in many players!

I think Days of Wonder should cater to the more competitive players among us by organizing tournaments and such. The higher officer ranks that a player can achieve could even be made dependent on winning a few tournaments among other things.

Summa summarum: a skill ranking system is a poor fit for a family-oriented, luck-involving, quick-fun kind of a game like Memoir '44. It will discourage unlucky players as well as bad players and it will cause antisocial behavior among players. Drop it.
      
yangtze
DoW Content Provider
Major

User Pages
Posts: 1842
Registered:
July 2005
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Tue, 28 December 2010 19:30
Some personal views if it's not too late:

1. I like the idea of every game counting for ranking points.

2. Have a minimum ranking beyond which a player cannot fall. Whilst I don't agree that lower ranked players will give up because of a low ranking (it's much more likely to occur because they keep losing to everyone regardless of a ranking system being there or not) it doesn't make sense for a commercial venture to embarrass anyone.

3. Outperformance should always result in a positive impact on ranking. Otherwise players will have little incentive to play scenarios like Omaha from the disadvantaged side unless in a match situation, and as has already been pointed out not everyone can commit to a match. It would be a shame for such great scenarios to be less frequently played. This means abandoning the idea of zero-sum points awards, but I don't think that should be seen as a huge problem. Only the rank order really matters - the actual figures are largely irrelevant. For instance, new players can be introduced at the current average ranking, rather than always at 1500.

4. I don't like the idea of experienced players not playing noobies because the old hand is nursing their ranking. Could this be cured by ensuring that the only way to play a ranking game online, unless matched by an official online tournament, is to click the green 'ready to go' games on the left hand side of the lobby? I.e. closed games against invited opponents do not count for ranking. This way, a noobie can easily click a game set up by an experienced player. Perhaps some penalty if the experienced player then pulls out? So the culture and the norm becomes that you must play against whoever clicks, not against whoever you wish to target.

5. I think all chat communication should be logged by the system. Complaints of rudeness, if upheld and supported by the log, should result in penalties for the guilty party.
      
AJBQC
Member
Lieutenant Colonel

User Pages
Posts: 69
Registered:
April 2009
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Sun, 02 January 2011 04:06
stephenwallace wrote on Tue, 14 December 2010 00:54

Whatever the relative merits or drawbacks of the current ranking, I think that most concerns could be resolved without tinkering too much with the formula, but by instead adding an option to the game setup that forces a two round game. I think most people who would care about ranking generally like to play both sides anyway, so this would kill two birds with one stone.

Single round games would still be ranked, but since full games would be ranked based on the total score of two rounds, the result would be worth twice as much as an individual round. I doubt single rounds would affect rankings that much because I think higher ranked players will likely play full games instead of individual rounds unless they are short on time, in which case more power to them as they try to move up the beach on Omaha. Ranking by game instead of round should smooth out much of the score variability that players keep complaining about.

I try to play only full games (ie, both rounds). This is the way the game was designed to be balanced, and this is what I find fun. I am finding that most of the people I am playing (and I play whoever asks) are also asking to play both sides (so far I have only had one person ditch the second round after he lost the first). For people who plan to play both rounds, the current after action scramble to reinvite is kludgy. It would be better if it were automatic and forced (I don't want a rematch button, I want it integrated into the ranking. So the *game* is ranked, not the round).

Instead of a choice between axis or allies when setting up the game, the choice would be axis, allies, or both. The computer would randomly assign who plays which side first. This should make it clear to the players in the scenario lobby that they are committing to a two-round game.

Some players won't keep their commitment, and some players will be forced by life intervening to end prematurely. Such is life. Abandoned games would be finished by Johnny, and players would still be responsible for their scores.

I don't support the idea of adding the option of non-ranked rounds because it would add complexity to the pre-game dance. It is nice that some players are willing to guide newbies through a scenario, and if they don't care about ranking, great. But since I am paying for each game I play I want to play someone who is already conversant in the rules. New players are welcome to familiarize themselves with the system using Johnny, or are welcome to play me at full strength. War is hell.

Hopefully an observe mode will be added soon that will help new players learn by watching (I am sure this is on the to-do list and is only a matter of time). It would also be helpful for newcomers if there were more in-game help about how a player can use a card as they play it, but these are topics for another thread.


It would be really great if ONLY games where people play both sides get ranked and then you base the score on total points. Also, a new player may really be very experienced from the board game so I am not sure how much that should count.
      
AJBQC
Member
Lieutenant Colonel

User Pages
Posts: 69
Registered:
April 2009
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Sun, 02 January 2011 04:11
And I would add one more thing: I think that winning against a player you never played against should be worth more than playing the same player over and over.
      
Randwulf
DoW Content Provider
Major

User Pages
Posts: 1363
Registered:
March 2005
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Sun, 02 January 2011 16:01
oh no no no... then the game turns into just a bunch of point snipers.
      
AJBQC
Member
Lieutenant Colonel

User Pages
Posts: 69
Registered:
April 2009
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Sun, 02 January 2011 20:59
That may be. But what if somebody has two accounts and just plays against himself for the points? I suppose nobody would do something like that.

      
stevens
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

User Pages
Posts: 3069
Registered:
February 2007
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Sun, 02 January 2011 23:56
Hmmmm?

Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

Just joking of course.

[Updated on: Sun, 02 January 2011 23:57]

      
AJBQC
Member
Lieutenant Colonel

User Pages
Posts: 69
Registered:
April 2009
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Mon, 03 January 2011 00:14
You would never catch me doing something like that. I enjoy meeting new people as much as playing the game.
      
Boca
Junior Member
Major

Posts: 25
Registered:
November 2010
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Mon, 03 January 2011 00:25
I am lucky to have had a wide variety of opponents, almost all of them honorable, and many of them quite formidable. At some point, if there are problems with dishonorable players, there may be password protected lobbies. Build your buddy list. Have your skill point competition between the members of your "guild".

If someone scamming skill points is an issue, it should not be too hard to expose them. If I am not mistaken you can view any players battle history.
      
Caboose
Senior Member
First Lieutenant

User Pages
Posts: 1597
Registered:
May 2004
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Mon, 03 January 2011 13:31
AJBQC wrote on Sun, 02 January 2011 12:59

That may be. But what if somebody has two accounts and just plays against himself for the points? I suppose nobody would do something like that.



Well on the TTR side, some people tried to do this and got caught.
Since it will be quite easy to see who is playing whom.

So I suspect DoW is quite aware of this issue and has ways to stop it, if such a ranking still exists.

But also I know some people who will just play with maybe a fellow friend and only with those people - thus they shouldn't be penalized if it is legit playing vs trying to boost their "ranking".

Like I said above, personally if the ranking got removed, it would allow for more people playing and not "protecting" their precious ranking.

Cab
      
yangtze
DoW Content Provider
Major

User Pages
Posts: 1842
Registered:
July 2005
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Mon, 03 January 2011 13:39
I think this problem is possibly eased by disallowing invitation games from the ranking system. Also, I suppose the system could be tweaked to prevent more than 2 games per day between the same two players from being ranked. And/or I guess if it became clear that one account was only ever playing one other account, and the result always went the same way, both accounts could be suspended?
      
Caboose
Senior Member
First Lieutenant

User Pages
Posts: 1597
Registered:
May 2004
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Tue, 04 January 2011 01:41
yangtze wrote on Mon, 03 January 2011 05:39

I think this problem is possibly eased by disallowing invitation games from the ranking system. Also, I suppose the system could be tweaked to prevent more than 2 games per day between the same two players from being ranked. And/or I guess if it became clear that one account was only ever playing one other account, and the result always went the same way, both accounts could be suspended?


One problem - and I know I might be in this group of players - is if I want to play with someone I know. I think the only way of getting around the ranking problem is just to remove ranking - in my opinion, it has not worked out well in TTR since you get people only playing with high ranks and never low ranks due to the fact they MIGHT lose lots of rank points (BFD to me but you should see how some of those people are over there). So if it is removed, people can play whomever they want and no issue of playing with people they want to play with.
      
Phread
Senior Member
Stiff Upper Lip

User Pages
Posts: 1778
Registered:
December 2008
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Tue, 04 January 2011 02:21
As I've written before I don't play for the "glory" of having a high rank.

But, having a reasonable rank I am finding myself more often invited to scenarios by lower players and given the unfavoured side. However I often get the last laugh as I win from the unfavoured side and gain more points!

Remember it is only a game. Your life doesn't depend on it.
Have fun, enjoy yourself.

I would be disappointed if the ranking was removed, or restricted.
Sometimes I don't have time to play both sides of a scenario. Why should I be penalised if that's the case.

      
AJBQC
Member
Lieutenant Colonel

User Pages
Posts: 69
Registered:
April 2009
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Tue, 04 January 2011 05:35
The thing is that you want to encourage people to play, so you don't want to restrict.
      
Phread
Senior Member
Stiff Upper Lip

User Pages
Posts: 1778
Registered:
December 2008
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Tue, 04 January 2011 07:11
AJBQC wrote on Tue, 04 January 2011 18:20

The thing is that you want to encourage people to play, so you don't want to restrict.


Exactly. I agree. We (and DoW) want players.
      
yangtze
DoW Content Provider
Major

User Pages
Posts: 1842
Registered:
July 2005
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Tue, 04 January 2011 07:55
[quote title=Caboose wrote on Tue, 04 January 2011 00:41]
yangtze wrote on Mon, 03 January 2011 05:39

One problem - and I know I might be in this group of players - is if I want to play with someone I know.


Yes, but such invitation games could be disallowed from the ranking system.
      
gheintze
Senior Member
Brigadier General

User Pages
Posts: 955
Registered:
August 2004
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Wed, 05 January 2011 04:50
After all the discussiong about the ranking system, I started to pay attention. Tonight I played a player whose skill was around 1450 when we started, mine was at 1600 (ranked 90-100 and he was in the mid 200s).

We played at Montelimar. I won first as the Axis 6-2, then he won as the Axis 6-5. So since I won the match, I should go up a little or at least stay the same -- at least that's what I thought.

No, i dropped 11 points in skill!! This system has got to be changed if that's how it works.

Geoff
      
SAS KAS
Junior Member
Major

Posts: 5
Registered:
March 2008
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Thu, 13 January 2011 22:17
Agree something is wrong. While i have not and will not let my selection of opponents determine by the skill ranking, it doesnt make sense to have a system where you stand to loose a lot and gain only a little - even from bigger victories (over 2 games).
      
Phread
Senior Member
Stiff Upper Lip

User Pages
Posts: 1778
Registered:
December 2008
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Fri, 14 January 2011 00:25
Anyone else noticed that the #1 ranked player is only playing "Johnny" at the moment.
He/she hasn't played a human opponent since Jan 6. I guess that's how you stay at the top.

I would not find that very interesting though.

I also find it annoying that when you play a much lower ranked opponent one has much to lose and not much to gain.
That said I enjoy playing and especially offering advice and hints to newer opponents.

[Updated on: Fri, 14 January 2011 00:27]

      
Nygaard
Senior Member
Général de brigade

User Pages
Posts: 1014
Registered:
May 2006
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Fri, 14 January 2011 11:28
I don't really care much about the skill system, but I think it would be sad if it kept people from playing because they fall too low, or because nobody with high skill want to risk loosing against low skill people, or any of the other examples given above.

Couldn't displaying the skill be optional? Or even if you want to have a skill rating at all?

I personally prefert to play the harder side, always - and if that costs me skill because I loose more often, so be it.

Now the achievements, on the other hand! Very cool.
      
SAS KAS
Junior Member
Major

Posts: 5
Registered:
March 2008
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Mon, 17 January 2011 21:12
Overall, I think the skill system is fun to have available. There are many opportunities for tournaments, including free sign up, sign up based on skill level or possibly nation based (either your country of origin or the one you have set up for your account) with winners meeting in finale rounds etc.

However, it can be truly horrible to witness the exising system. Another example: a both sides game, both players have approx same ranking (difference of approx 50 points) and are of equal rank. During the first game of Twin Villages, I wipe him 6/0 as US and earn a meager 12 points. In the following game he wins marginally 6/5 as US and earn 17 points.

Anyway, I am still playing ...
      
Vulch
Senior Member
Colonel

User Pages
Posts: 404
Registered:
May 2009
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Mon, 17 January 2011 21:24
Phread wrote on Thu, 13 January 2011 23:25

Anyone else noticed that the #1 ranked player is only playing "Johnny" at the moment.
He/she hasn't played a human opponent since Jan 6. I guess that's how you stay at the top.



Where do you see that information?
      
Phread
Senior Member
Stiff Upper Lip

User Pages
Posts: 1778
Registered:
December 2008
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Mon, 17 January 2011 21:47
Vulch wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 10:09

Phread wrote on Thu, 13 January 2011 23:25

Anyone else noticed that the #1 ranked player is only playing "Johnny" at the moment.
He/she hasn't played a human opponent since Jan 6. I guess that's how you stay at the top.



Where do you see that information?


From http://www.daysofwonder.com/en/scores/ranks/?game=MM click on the player's name then click on their Memoir 44 (online) history link. You can then see who they've played (and when they've played).

The #1 ranked player is only playing against cadet johnny. I guess none of the rest of us are good enough to play against.
      
Vulch
Senior Member
Colonel

User Pages
Posts: 404
Registered:
May 2009
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Mon, 17 January 2011 22:07
Phread wrote on Mon, 17 January 2011 20:47

Where do you see that information?

From http://www.daysofwonder.com/en/scores/ranks/?game=MM click on the player's name then click on their Memoir 44 (online) history link. You can then see who they've played (and when they've played).


Didn't know that was there. Wadda ya know, just snuck in the top 100 at 99 Smile

[Updated on: Mon, 17 January 2011 22:07]

      
Randwulf
DoW Content Provider
Major

User Pages
Posts: 1363
Registered:
March 2005
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Tue, 18 January 2011 01:01
????? ok... if he has only been playing the Bot, then how did his score get so high??? yeah he has been winning a lot, but against people of much lower rank, and even lost a few there...

each 5 points he makes over the last 5 games he would lose 30 on a loss of only one game. If not more...

I don't ever remember anyone having that high of a score????

and again, this is an example of someone gaming the system.

to keep the rank, he does not dare play anyone of to low a rank or he would lose big time...

and yes the current system is broken.

Better to do away with it than use a broken one.





      
Phread
Senior Member
Stiff Upper Lip

User Pages
Posts: 1778
Registered:
December 2008
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Tue, 18 January 2011 01:46
I don't think the skill system is broken or that it should be thrown away.

I don't think there is much honour in getting to the number 1 rank and then not playing any human opponent. But that is allowed.
The player in question won't get promoted until he risks playing an opponent!

I was once as high as #5, but that did not stop me playing lower ranked opponents (there weren't many above!!). I've since been ranked much lower. I don't play for rank.

Those who aren't happy with the points can and should simply ignore them.
I use them as an indicator of the opponent's ability - but as we can see it can be gamed. A good battle can be had with anyone.

My worst games are where I'm dealt unhelpful cards and roll poorly (my worst was a 16% hit rate). Those games are hard to enjoy - fortunately they are a minority.

[Updated on: Tue, 18 January 2011 01:48]

      
AJBQC
Member
Lieutenant Colonel

User Pages
Posts: 69
Registered:
April 2009
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Tue, 18 January 2011 01:54
touché
      
sam1812
Senior Member
Brigadier General

User Pages
Posts: 2278
Registered:
August 2006
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Tue, 18 January 2011 03:22
Accusing somebody of being dishonorable without knowing his circumstances? For all we know, he could be testing out the bot's next generation of changes.

I've played 6 games against him, and he's a very good player. (We split three matches.) If somebody that good is playing that many games against the bot, instead of having the fun of playing against humans, I'll bet he has a better reason than "gaming the system." (And whatever that reason is, he has every right to keep it private, if he wishes.)

What does anybody gain by judging someone like this?
      
AJBQC
Member
Lieutenant Colonel

User Pages
Posts: 69
Registered:
April 2009
Re:Discussion about the Skill system Tue, 18 January 2011 04:22
Sam,

I am very impressed by your statement. I myself will be more careful to always give people the benefit of the doubt.

Alan
      
Pages (3): [ «  <  1  2  3  >  » ]     
Previous Topic:Armor Excellence
Next Topic:the first Major General
Goto Forum: