Forum
Can someone explain the rank vs. rating situation to me
![]() |
Sassback wrote
at 8:27 AM, Friday March 16, 2007 EDT
I don't understand how the rank (score) number is determined. my rating is 1804 but my rank is .03. I have only played 42 games but i have won more than 1/4th of those games. so shouldn't my rank be a little higher than a .03? any explination would be helpful.
|
![]() |
MadWilly wrote
at 10:30 AM, Friday March 16, 2007 EDT Top player page gives a hint. if you still dont get it try:
http://kdice.wikispaces.com/Scoring+System its work in progress. So feel free to contribute. |
![]() |
accountx3 wrote
at 11:37 AM, Friday March 16, 2007 EDT fuzzycat will thank you for promoting the sire. anyway, it's easier just pasted it from the site.
The initial Elo-scoring system took into account only the final places at the end at the game, players getting more points for placing higher. A seemingly obvious problem is that it rewarded a "hiding strategy" (players with a couple of territories outlasting stronger players, often by trucing with the current leading player), while penalizing opponents that fought for the top spots but were quickly defeated by an alliance or the dominant player. The current Elo-scoring system, introduced to eliminate this problem, intends to better reward those trying to conquer. The idea is to reward the players that played the game both offensively and successfully, as measured by their domination of the map during the game. So, the new scoring system uses two adjustments: - 50% rank adjustment: based on time of elimination (as in the initial system) - 50% dominance adjustment: based on the average of the territory counts taken at the beginning of each turn (excluding the first three rounds). Issues with the current scoring system: chaotic play in the first rounds of the game kamikaze suicides and "kill me" pleas fear of dominance abuse by evil alliances dominance not being correctly reflected by average size Rank from Score As you will notice your Rank from Score will differ from your position in Elo rating. This was implemented to help get a better overall track of who actually performs well in the long run. How does Rank from score work? Now here comes where Ryan tries to screw your brains so be sober: Your score which is taken for your overall Ranking is measure in a value wich looks like this: 0.0004567 Ryan in his ultimate wisdom decided to show only the vale in that way: 0.00 if your new to the game or 21.45 if you happen to be an awesome Player. Now how do you get such a score? Everytime you finish a game the Elo-rating you finish with is calculated and looked up which relativ position you got. So this should give a number between 1 (if you happen to be ranked highest Elo) 40000 (when you happen to be the player rated Lowest Elo). Your so called Rank_from_rating=(r) is then given into the formula x=1/(r) All the values you get are added up into your Score. So coming in 1000th in elo mean +0.001 100th +0.01 10th +0.1 1st +1 As you can see you have different ways of achieving a score of say 1. you could finish one game in 1st 10 games in 10th or 100games in 100th. This score then is finally used to measure your overall ranking. Thats it. Its easy as this. |
![]() |
fuzzycat wrote
at 11:48 AM, Friday March 16, 2007 EDT "fuzzycat will thank you for promoting the sire."
Well I don't have any personal advantage from it eitherway ;-) |
![]() |
accountx3 wrote
at 12:09 PM, Friday March 16, 2007 EDT i never mentioned any personal benefits. you don’t need to be that sensitive if there’s no personal benefits involved.
by the way, there are some good information there but I am just worried about it’s accuracy because of it’s user edit content. |
![]() |
fuzzycat wrote
at 12:19 PM, Friday March 16, 2007 EDT The old wikipedia discussion ;-)
Nevertheless wikipedia is quite successfull! On the other hand of centuries things have been thought by "certifies" people top-down principle, that were clearly wrong. So who does know it better? |
![]() |
Cyron wrote
at 2:19 PM, Friday March 16, 2007 EDT Sassback, the short version is that each game you win, you get 1/yourcurrentELOrank.
So, if you're ranked 500th on the site when you win a game, you get 1/500 points. If you don't win, your points get divided by some large amount, making your winnings even smaller |
![]() |
i_break_truces wrote
at 2:49 PM, Friday March 16, 2007 EDT cyron, thats incorrect.. winning or losing is irrelevent. after each game, you get 1/your_newly_adjusted_elo_rank no matter what.
|
![]() |
Cyron wrote
at 5:19 PM, Friday March 16, 2007 EDT truces, I believe (and hope) you are incorrect, because that would make the scoring system favour simply playing games over playing well way too much.
|
![]() |
accountx3 wrote
at 5:25 PM, Friday March 16, 2007 EDT i think truces are correct.......playing more games does give an advantage......it certainly favour those who eat and breath kdice......
|
![]() |
MadWilly wrote
at 5:47 PM, Friday March 16, 2007 EDT cyron. It is one way to put it.
The scoring system though favours playing and winning alot. and that is pretty much what it should do. IMHO |