Scoring algorithm?

Recent

Hottest

Forum Index » New Feature Request

Author

Message

Jun 12, 2009 06:52

Subject: Scoring algorithm?

zCRP

Messages: 21,
Joined: Jun 12, 2009,
Location: Milan, Italy
Offline

How are scores determined?

Jun 12, 2009 08:47

Subject: Re:Scoring algorithm?

Gargoyle

Messages: 57,
Joined: Jun 11, 2009,
Location: Celebration, FL
Offline

I agree. This would be great to know. For example, do I lose more points for surrendering or for fighting to the death. How does the level of my opponent figure into the scoring (i.e., do I get more points for winning against a Top 10 player than against a noob)? Do different maps provide different points for winning?

Jun 12, 2009 09:28

Subject: Re:Scoring algorithm?

rebelxt

Messages: 46,
Joined: Jun 03, 2009,
Location: Texas, US
Offline

scores only depend on your and opponent's rating at the moment when game ends. if ratings are equal, score diff is 15. one can lose up to 30 rating points if he/she loses to a player with much lower rating (by a few hundred points).

whether you surrender or fight to the death does not matter.

Jun 12, 2009 09:33

Subject: Re:Scoring algorithm?

Gargoyle

Messages: 57,
Joined: Jun 11, 2009,
Location: Celebration, FL
Offline

Thanks, Rebel. How does it work in team games where there could be a big swing between teammate ratings?

Jun 12, 2009 09:42

Subject: Re:Scoring algorithm?

rebelxt

Messages: 46,
Joined: Jun 03, 2009,
Location: Texas, US
Offline

in team games they seem to calculate average score for each team, and then calculate score change using the same algorithm. i noticed both team mates always get the same rating change even if there is big swing between teammate ratings

Jun 14, 2009 03:49

Subject: Scoring algorithm?

DEvil

Messages: 4,
Joined: Jun 14, 2009,
Offline

Will this algorithm be extended in future versions? I think the count of units destroyed/lost (depending on the kind of unit) and bases captured/lost should also be considered.

Jun 15, 2009 09:33

Subject: Re:Scoring algorithm?

Gargoyle

Messages: 57,
Joined: Jun 11, 2009,
Location: Celebration, FL
Offline

I agree with DEvil. More carnage should equal more points.

Jun 15, 2009 18:49

Subject: Re:Scoring algorithm?

brainiac

Messages: 88,
Joined: Jun 10, 2009,
Offline

also staying alive for more rounds before losing should result is less score loss.

does anyone understand how scoring works in multiplayer games (not team matches)? i remember one game when the guy that came in second had a bigger minus than the guy who can in third which doesn't make sense

Jun 16, 2009 23:30

Subject: Scoring algorithm?

Anonymous

In a free for all game, each player that is knocked loses as many points as he would in a 1v1 - so, around 15 if his level is around the average of the other players, 20 if slightly above, and so on.

These lost points are then split evenly between the survivors.

So, in a 4-way FFA, supposing all have equal rank and will lose 15 points (I'm actually not sure 15 is right, but anyway):

4th player is -15. (Which gives 5 points to each survivor)
3rd player loses 15, but has gained 5 so net is -10. His -15 gives 7 points to each survivor.
2rd player loses 15 but has gained 5 + 7 so net is -3. His 15 goes entirely the only survivro.
1st payer gains 5 + 7 + 15 = 27.

Jun 18, 2009 14:33

Subject: Scoring algorithm?

Anonymous

I wouldn't want to see scoring based on duration, bases captured, or units destroyed. As in chess, it's winning that counts.

What I would like is a system that considers the odds of winning a given scenario. For example, if one map favors first-turn sapiens against second-turn titans so much that the former win 75% of the time (as recorded by the uniwar server), there should be more points awarded for winning as a second-turn titan than as a first-turn sapiens.

Jun 21, 2009 14:22

Subject: Re:Scoring algorithm?

lion37

Messages: 112,
Joined: Jun 13, 2009,
Offline

I think that any player ranked above 1900 should get zero points for winning against players ranked less than 1700.
This would prevent all the "farming" that we are seeing.
Some highly ranked players just set up these no-win games hoping that a new player joins in.

If my suggestiuon is adopted, then the only way to advange beyond a score of 1900 is to win against experienced players that know what they are doing and will not enter into no-win games.

This will also make it easy to tell who is really a master since anyone with a score much higer than 1900 would clearly be someone that earned his score.

A more general sugestion is simply that you cannot earn any points defeating someone that is ranked over 200 points less than you.

Jun 22, 2009 01:32

Subject: Re:Scoring algorithm?

lorfje

Messages: 28,
Joined: Jun 12, 2009,
Offline

Maps with a large first-mover advantage should be improved anyway (this is happening). As for maps that have a clear race-advantage, maybe a warning could be given if the map cannot be made more balanced.

On the issue of strong vs. weak players, to play a strong player also means you get to learn fast, so you do get something in return for your (modest) investment of points...

Jun 22, 2009 09:32

Subject: Re:Scoring algorithm?

rebelxt

Messages: 46,
Joined: Jun 03, 2009,
Location: Texas, US
Offline

I also wouldn't want to see scoring based on duration/units captures/etc. Winning is the only thing that should count.

Sometimes a game is decided within first 5-6 rounds (especially on small maps), and if I'm at a disadvantage against a good player, it doesn't make sense for me to turtle and drag the game for days, so I'd rather just surrender but not take extra penalty for it.

Jun 22, 2009 18:20

Subject: Re:Scoring algorithm?

magic molly

Messages: 72,
Joined: Jun 21, 2009,
Offline

Oh, not this again.

Why does everyone question the ever-perfected 1500 point system? It has been used by countless different games, with almost no changes made, to great ability. Changes to it may make it seem more perfect, but as rebel said, the currently proposed changes would simply encourage turtleing, instead of simply recognizing defeat and surrendering.

Also, think of the coders. Would you rather they made you your update, or shot the rating system to hell? Would you rather they fixed all the bugs in this forum, or that they shoot the rating system to hell? Would you rather they made the game and the community aspect of the game better, or that they shoot the rating system to hell?

However, it would be nice to know the exact algorithm, rather than just guessing based on what we've seen.

And lion, (his idea was to limit the points gained by 1900+ pointers v 1700- pointers) it's already a rather small gain for them to waste time playing versus lower point people. When they win, they get 4-5 points, but if they lose, they might lose up to 25 points. I remember i got 22 points off a very high pointed player when i had only about 1500 points.

Jul 04, 2009 10:46

Subject: Scoring algorithm?

Anonymous

the "1500 point system" (a.k.a the Elo Rating System) is just fine.

my biggest issues are :

- all games vs bots should be unrated
- ranked FFA games give an incentive for collusion and/or foulplay (multiple accounts for one)

Forum Index » New Feature Request