Zug um Zug &ndash von Gleis zu Gleis Zug um Zug &ndash von Gleis zu Gleis

Forum

Suche
Forum » Memoir '44 Online - English » New Ranking System???
Anzeigen: Heutige Nachrichten 
  
VerfasserThema
Randwulf
DoW Content Provider
Major

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1367
Registriert:
March 2005
New Ranking System??? Wed, 08 December 2010 20:19
okay, from what I can see, many agree the current system is flawed.

So if we scrap the current system, what do we replace it with??? if at all??? I know that's a lot of programing down the drain, but can it be adapted instead? Or need a from scratch new build?


What do we base skill on?

Winning
Number of medals/units killed
Number of figs killed
Number of dice thrown?
I just threw 77 dice the most of any battle I have had, with only a 34% hit rate... so many flags you would think it was the 4th of July.

Number of dice thrown comes down to maximizing your cards and units, More dice means more hits.


So what do we base skill points on???
Each person could get:

1 point for a win
1 point per medal
1 point for more figs killed
1 point for more dice thrown???
1 point for outperform??? May be hard, the outperform after so many games has gotten to the point that to get it you must also win. Unless you round down the medals needed and equal it to the number and not exceed it, it may work.
Of course this means an automatic 2 points for winning.



so lets add this up... hypothetical Arracourt.
I win +1
I won 6 medals +6=7
I of course out performed +1=8
I threw more dice +1=9
ok I have 9 points

my son lost no points
he scored 5 medals +5
lets say he outperformed +1=6
but he killed more figs +1=7


He has 7 points.

now if we subtract the loser from the winner I have a total of +2 point it was of course a close game.

so my score of 100 go's to 102 and his drops to 98


swap sides

He wins +1
He scored 6 medals +6=7
He outperformed +1=8
and he killed more figs +1=9
He threw more dice +1 =10
He has 10 points

I lost no points
I only scored 3 figs +3
I did not out perform nor killed more figs no points for a total of 3 points

his 10 minus my 3= + 7 for him

my score of 102 go's to 95
his score of 98 go's to 105

For the match I win 9 medals he won 11 he wins the set in normal tabletop.

for online he is a bigger winner. He was penalized less during the first close game.

simple system, gets rid of the big win loss for different ranked players, but still does not take into the win/loss % of scenario difficulty?

so 50/50 is no points
60/40 is an automatic -0 +1 for taking the worse side.
70/30 -1 +2
80/20 -2 +3
90/10 -3 +4

so you while you may win with the more dominant side your points will be less. And depending on the game you could win and still lose points????



Not perfect, but it's a start...













      
gheintze
Senior Member
Brigadier General

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1028
Registriert:
August 2004
Re:New Ranking System??? Wed, 08 December 2010 20:32
I'm actually just starting to think that they should scrap the skill/ranking system. They've already stated that we should be going after Achievements and Promotions rather than being worried about ranking.

I think the ranking works for things like Gang of Four and TTR. It's the same board and the same cards every time. Everyone starts even. Sure there is luck in which cards you draw, but at least everyone is on the same footing initially.

M'44 on the other hand has uneven starting positions. As the Allies at Omaha or the Axis at Paris, you are already at a disadvantage. So how do you take that into account. It seems to me that it would be overly complicated to implement a system that would actually work.

From what I can tell with the current system, the points are primarily based on who you beat. If you beat someone higher ranking you go up more, lower then not as much. Same with losses. I don't think that the medal count, the side you play, or whether you overperform actually influences the points much. Another key indicator to me should be whether your opponent outperforms. I'm not sure that even shows up in the service record.

So, I think the system should just be scrapped. I'm more interested in seeing my won/loss percentage, and how often I overperform (as well as my opponents). I'd also like it to be broken down my scenario, side I played, opponent etc...

Further, although I understand that they want us to hunt for the requirements for the various achievements and promotions and encourage us to play as much as possible, a little more direction would be nice. At least tell us what other achievements are available -- maybe just the title and general goal -- and then let us hunt for the specifics. And just a little more about the promotion requirements would be nice...

But it's a hard line to balance, so I understand DoW's point of view on this. But, the ranking system needs to go...

Geoff
      
sam1812
Senior Member
Brigadier General

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 2975
Registriert:
August 2006
Re:New Ranking System??? Thu, 09 December 2010 02:29
The current system may just need to be re-weighted a little.
      
Scragnoth
Senior Member
D-Day Recon Team - Silver

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 194
Registriert:
October 2005
Re:New Ranking System??? Thu, 09 December 2010 08:24
I really hope that in the end there will be a tournement system in the software, much like the Magic the Gathering online version.

Wouldn't ir be enough to do ranking based on these tourneys? So if someone doesn't want to play them: fine. He/she can go after ranks and achievements.

The MtG online system is a good example where this can evolve to and they have things sorted out pretty well.

Scrag

P.S. I did quit playing it a year of 7 ago so don't know where it went after that.
      
rasmussen81
DoW Content Provider
Lake Express

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 8477
Registriert:
July 2007
Re:New Ranking System??? Thu, 09 December 2010 10:00
gheintze wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 23:32


From what I can tell with the current system, the points are primarily based on who you beat. If you beat someone higher ranking you go up more, lower then not as much. Same with losses. I don't think that the medal count, the side you play, or whether you overperform actually influences the points much. Another key indicator to me should be whether your opponent outperforms. I'm not sure that even shows up in the service record.


The side you play and the difficulty of the battle is taken into account when figuring out how many points you get or lose. I don't know all the math that goes into it (I might have been told once, but I'm not a mathematical thinker and those kinds of things don't stick with me) but I do know that the battle plays a part in the point system.

For example, the most points you can gain would be to play as the Allies in Omaha Beach against a much higher ranked player, and win 6-0! Alternately you will lose the most points if you play as the Axis in Omaha beach against a much lower ranked player and lose 0-6.

The system in place right now is quite complex with a lot of factors...so I'm sure a lot of work went into it. I'm not sure whether DoW will want to scrap the whole thing and I would imagine there are some players who really like the Skill system as a gauge for how they're doing. I'm not one of those people, but I'll bet they're out there. Cool
      
caroper
Senior Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 162
Registriert:
April 2004
Re:New Ranking System??? Thu, 09 December 2010 11:47
Simple solution.
On starting a game it can be started as Ranked or Casual.
Casual games do not count towards ranking.
Ranked games you must swap sides, final score from both plays then effect ranking.
Tournament play is separate and could use either system.

I don't think any extra chrome like achievements etc. are needed to get us to play more, as long as they provide an easy to use, fun Product at a reasonable price, it will be used. There were no incentives to use VASSAL, but a lot of players bought the Game because they were introduced to it with online play.

The way this is headed right now, It is not so much a means to play M'44 online, but rather a totally separate product with a different target market.

Existing Board-game users want to play the way they are used too and have been doing for the past 6 years.

This implementation is aiming rather at attracting PC and Console gamers who like the achievements, medals, rankings and boasting rights. PC gamers are unlikely to buy the boardgames, and board gamers are likely to be put off by the extra chrome and layers of complexity.

Apply the KISS Principal and decide up front what the target market is.

[Aktualisiert am: Thu, 09 December 2010 11:55]

      
rasmussen81
DoW Content Provider
Lake Express

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 8477
Registriert:
July 2007
Re:New Ranking System??? Thu, 09 December 2010 12:07
caroper wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 14:47

I don't think any extra chrome like achievements etc. are needed to get us to play more, as long as they provide an easy to use, fun Product at a reasonable price, it will be used. There were no incentives to use VASSAL, but a lot of players bought the Game because they were introduced to it with online play.


I would agree that the achievements, ranking and promotions aren't needed to get me to play Memoir '44 but the achievements and promotions sure add to my enjoyment of the system!!

Quote:

PC gamers are unlikely to buy the boardgames, and board gamers are likely to be put off by the extra chrome and layers of complexity.


I would be interested to meet a board game player who wins an achievement (for destroying 5 units with Elite Armor, let's say) and is irritated because of the Achievement page that pops up!! I can just see it now,

"What is this all about?! I can't believe I have to sit here while the computer awards me for winning this scenario with a new strategy! I'm so tired of these awards...why don't they just leave me alone to play my battles?"

Laughing Laughing The issue people are having with the rating system is that players are losing skill points even when they fight a good battle. Nobody would be complaining if we all earned skill points no matter what the battle outcome (though a lot of people would have skill points in the millions after a few months of playing).

I don't think there's any problem with the Achievement system or the Promotion system! Cool In fact, I think it adds to my enjoyment of the game.

[Aktualisiert am: Thu, 09 December 2010 12:08]

      
Randwulf
DoW Content Provider
Major

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1367
Registriert:
March 2005
Re:New Ranking System??? Thu, 16 December 2010 22:16
I still think a simpler system would work better than the current.

One not based on how many points a person has or has not. But more on performance.

The system type I proposed takes into account the number of dice thrown, which is a result of good card management. And not just lucky dice.

We have all had games lost by just one fig, that no matter how many times you throw a die at it, it just would not perish, until the other guy gets lucky and finishes off one of yours.

The current system rewards luck.

Good dice and good cards means you rake it in.

You can not get away from this. Even playing the tabletop you have luck of the draw and roll of the dice.

So how do you define skill??? Can we define it?
      
Mecket
Junior Member
Major

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 8
Registriert:
November 2010
Re:New Ranking System??? Thu, 16 December 2010 23:09
to be honest...the boardgame itself is also very random and sometimes, luck is an important factor...
as long as there are dice, random is in place Idea Idea
      
Randwulf
DoW Content Provider
Major

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1367
Registriert:
March 2005
Re:New Ranking System??? Fri, 17 December 2010 00:42
And luck of the draw... I have been burned many times with all left or right cards and no figs to move there.

The ELO system is just fine for Chess, there is zero randomness in Chess. It does not work at all for M44.

So, how do we define skill at M44???

A ladder system for Tournaments would be needed, but that is getting ahead of DOW. We can do our own On line stuff with a basic win lose max of medals killed figs type thing.

But a skill system???? Your win/loss percentage is about the only long run thing we have that would be consistent.





      
sam1812
Senior Member
Brigadier General

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 2975
Registriert:
August 2006
Re:New Ranking System??? Fri, 17 December 2010 01:02
Great question, Randwulf. But there's not necessarily one single answer.

You may be great with tanks, I may be great with Japanese, somebody else may excel in scenarios with a lot of terrain protection. And different ways of weighting the many factors will rank a group of players differently.

The ratings are profoundly impacted by the fact that everybody plays as many or few games he wants, and chooses his own opponents and scenarios (unlike a structured chess tournament). If I play 100 games against you on a Memoir-filled long weekend, and you beat me 70% of the time, your rating will skyrocket, while mine gets clobbered -- while everybody else may stay roughly unchanged.

So the best we can do is come up with a system that seems to be reasonably fair, and recognize that people don't have to take it too seriously. I'm sure there are multiple approaches that would be fair enough. (I've offered some specific suggestions on another thread, but I won't claim to have the only good answer.)
      
Phread
Senior Member
Railway Tycoon

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1777
Registriert:
December 2008
Re:New Ranking System??? Fri, 17 December 2010 01:24
Mecket wrote on Fri, 17 December 2010 11:54

to be honest...the boardgame itself is also very random and sometimes, luck is an important factor...
as long as there are dice, random is in place Idea Idea


The randomness is meant to represent the "fog of war" and the random nature of war.

Orders may not be given or get through (Hilter wouldn't release the armour in Normandy for example).

A smaller force doing the unexpected can win against a larger force.

Phread
      
Brummbar
DoW Content Provider
Artillery Specialist

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1133
Registriert:
June 2004
Re:New Ranking System??? Fri, 17 December 2010 03:01
I played a game today and lost 6-5 dropping 25 points.

We flipped sides and I won 6-0 gaining 13 points.

So even though I won in terms of medals 11-6 overall, I was actually down 12 points?!

While I'm not wrapped up in the skill ranks, I can certainly see that it needs to be fixed and why folks are frustrated.

Achievements and Rank are all fine and dandy but at the end of the day, when those are earned to a large extent, people will turn to skill scores.
      
Randwulf
DoW Content Provider
Major

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1367
Registriert:
March 2005
Re:New Ranking System??? Fri, 17 December 2010 03:26
Been there, done that, frustrated also...

My point system may not be perfect, but at least it's fair.

And while we do have a luck factor, the system I came up with has some skill base to it.

If a solution can't be found, no skill ranking would be better than a flawed one.
      
*player674289
Junior Member
Major

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 25
Registriert:
November 2010
Re:New Ranking System??? Fri, 17 December 2010 07:33
caroper wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 11:47

Simple solution.
On starting a game it can be started as Ranked or Casual.
Casual games do not count towards ranking.
Ranked games you must swap sides, final score from both plays then effect ranking.
Tournament play is separate and could use either system..

Apply the KISS Principal and decide up front what the target market is.


First of all why did we have to start a new thread on this when there is the official one?

And second at least listen to this experienced man's simple solution. Have ranked games be played from both sides and rank on the final cumulated medal outcome. Simplicity in itself. Everybody seems to look down somehow on posters who seem to be obsessed with ranking. So let those who care play proper games from both sides and let casuals play shorter games from just any side. If you want to create a formula addressing single games ranking issues that's the very epitome of ranking score obsession IMHO.
      
Rock Shox Lyrik
Member
Major

Nachrichten: 31
Registriert:
December 2006
Re:New Ranking System??? Fri, 17 December 2010 10:15
Brummbar44 wrote on Fri, 17 December 2010 04:01

I played a game today and lost 6-5 dropping 25 points.

We flipped sides and I won 6-0 gaining 13 points.

So even though I won in terms of medals 11-6 overall, I was actually down 12 points?!

While I'm not wrapped up in the skill ranks, I can certainly see that it needs to be fixed and why folks are frustrated.

Achievements and Rank are all fine and dandy but at the end of the day, when those are earned to a large extent, people will turn to skill scores.


I agree with Brummbar44. Initially I didn't care for the ranking system. But when I started to pile up points I found out that I was in the top 10 and I started to keep an eye on it. At this point it is difficult to find opponents with more points than me and overall I always have more points at stake when playing. And when I lose I lose big time - mass of points! I can't say that this isn't annoying! It's frustrating! The system is encouraging the weaker players by harassing the stronger ones. If it stays this way I won't pay any attention to it, because otherwise it drives me crazy! In fact maybe it's a good idea not to have any rankning system at all.
      
southoftheborder
Member
Colonel

Nachrichten: 41
Registriert:
April 2008
Re:New Ranking System??? Fri, 17 December 2010 11:13
If the problem is high skill level players not wanting to play lower skill players (as in TTR), why not simply reduce the effect of lost points.

Make the points lost per game the same - irrespective whether you are playing someone with 1600 points or 1400 points, or at least rebalance the current points loss.

It takes the 'fear' factor of loosing too many points on a single game.
      
sam1812
Senior Member
Brigadier General

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 2975
Registriert:
August 2006
Re:New Ranking System??? Fri, 17 December 2010 13:19
Brummbar44 wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 21:01

I played a game today and lost 6-5 dropping 25 points.

We flipped sides and I won 6-0 gaining 13 points.

The problem here is that there's currently a large reward for the victory, and a relatively small adjustment for the medal count. This is made clear in the "Skill Ranking" explanation Yann posted earlier this week on the sticky thread. I'll hazard an irresponsible guess, without knowing the scenario or the players' ratings, and speculate that in a close game like your 5-6 loss, maybe a fairer rating cost would have been closer to 3-5 points, instead.
      
Randwulf
DoW Content Provider
Major

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1367
Registriert:
March 2005
Re:New Ranking System??? Fri, 17 December 2010 15:20
Axelb9

This thread was started almost a week earlier... and it was not to talk / complain about the broken system, but to encourage discussion on a "NEW" system.

What elements in a skill system would we want?

What constitutes skill in this game other than plain dumb luck?

So cool your jets, read all the postings, and maybe learn that the guys that have been posting in these forums for 5 or 6 years might know a little also...

We welcome your insight, but timing is everything, and I don't know if you mean to or not. But you come off in your posts as condescending and overly aggressive. I in no way imply any disrespect to you or anyone. But the written word is very hard to convey the inflection in your meaning.

So please pardon us old farts that have been around a long time. We tend to know each other and understand each other with much less soliloquies involved.


With That being said... What would you like to see in a "NEW" system?

      
timjolly
Junior Member
Major

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 17
Registriert:
September 2007
Re:New Ranking System??? Fri, 17 December 2010 17:18
One of the problems I see is the idea of medal counts. I lack the ability to think of a scenario as anything beyond that scenario, hence I will risk losing 6-0 rather than 6-5 if the 6-0 strategy was my best strategy for winning. I've always viewed things win or lose, and I have a blast regardless of the outcome. Don't get me wrong, I like to play both sides, but I view it as two chances to win, not one chance to win and one to lose less. This just might be me, but I willingly lose units that could have been retreated in order to assure victory, even a 6-5 victory. Just my two cents.

As long as both opponents know how many games they are playing before they start, no one will be disappointed.
      
*player674289
Junior Member
Major

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 25
Registriert:
November 2010
Re:New Ranking System??? Fri, 17 December 2010 18:58
Randwulf wrote on Fri, 17 December 2010 15:20

Axelb9
This thread was started almost a week earlier... and it was not to talk / complain about the broken system, but to encourage discussion on a "NEW" system.

So cool your jets, read all the postings, and maybe learn that the guys that have been posting in these forums for 5 or 6 years might know a little also...
With That being said... What would you like to see in a "NEW" system?




You clearly have an agenda against anything I say which I hope works out great for you. I will bother you no more as I am not interested in forum life only the game. Mostly I intended to direct your old eyes to the fact that Dow created a new thread to discuss this issue and asked to direct all posts into that one which even got to be made a sticky. The reason probably is that it would be easier for them to collect ideas in a single thread. All the other threads on the subject have been created more than a week ago.

If you read my posts anyhow you know what my suggestions are.

Bye.
      
philmcd
Member
Major

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 40
Registriert:
November 2007
Re:New Ranking System??? Sat, 18 December 2010 01:05
I don't think the game is random atall.

The strange thing about Memoir '44 is that the poorer you play your cards, the more random it seems.

Smile
      
    
Vorheriges Thema:Anybody know what the point is with writing a review?
Nächstes Thema:Random?
Gehen Sie zum Forum: