Hey Kingmudd, I'm Calling You "Butch"!

IamTheBiggs
IamTheBiggs Posts: 215 Tile Toppler
edited December 2014 in Off Topic
You can keep taking me down to gain 8-10 points per round, and I'll keep retaliating, beating your "superior" star.pngstar.pngstar.png team and getting 25-30 points each time.

Can you say "diminishing returns"? I knew you could...

Comments

  • IlDuderino
    IlDuderino Posts: 427 Mover and Shaker
    If you are hitting him for 25 - 30 points, he is probably hitting you for 20 - 25 points
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    Exemple of how the PVP is ridiculous :>
  • famousfoxking
    famousfoxking Posts: 245 Tile Toppler
    Clems wrote:
    Exemple of how the PVP is ridiculous :>

    It's not really ridiculous. They're both gaining 25-30 points, and losing 8-10, which just means they're injecting points into the economy. That's how it's designed to work. Otherwise, everyone would be passing the same 100 points around and no one would get anywhere.
  • IamTheBiggs
    IamTheBiggs Posts: 215 Tile Toppler
    So then, my understanding of the pint system is a bit "off" then. I was made to believe that the awarding of pints was based off more of a chess league system where the higher you are in point total, the more you will lose to an opponent of lesser point total (and vice versa). Is this not the case?

    Also, Kingmudd is okay in my book. I'm just poking some fun using an old west euphimsm to start a conversation about retaliation and point totals (which seems to have worked).
    Also, is there a limit to the number of times one can retaliate back-and-forth before the option to retaliate is no longer available witha particular opponent?
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    There is no retaliation limit that we know of.
    Since everyone starts at 0, the amount of points lost is probably about 80% of those gained by the winner. It is sort of a chess system where points are roughly something like

    15 - 200 points below
    20 - 100 points below
    25 - same rank
    30 - 100 points above
    35 - 200 points above.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    The point you get for beating someone is (1 - chance you're supposed to win) * 50. For example if you have 1000 and so do I and you beat me, you're predicted to have 50% chance of winning based on rating so you get 25 and I lose 25. There's a modifier that decreases the point you lose up to a certain point and I think it pretty much becomes 1 point at around 900 (e.g. you get +25, I lose 24) though it's so small that you might as well view it as 0. Someone who is 400 above you is expected to win around 90% of the time, so beating him gets you (1-0.1) * 50 = 45 points while losing costs you 5 points. Note that if these predictions are actually accurate then this is quite fair because in 10 games you'd lose 9 times and lose 45 points and get 45 points back on the one time you do win. Of course, it should be pretty obvious these predictions are never accurate because ELO is predicated on a system where chance of me beating you + you beating me = 100%, while this is definitely not true in MPQ.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    daibar wrote:
    There is no retaliation limit that we know of.
    Since everyone starts at 0, the amount of points lost is probably about 80% of those gained by the winner. It is sort of a chess system where points are roughly something like

    15 - 200 points below
    20 - 100 points below
    25 - same rank
    30 - 100 points above
    35 - 200 points above.

    If you gain X points your opponent lost X points, but there's a modifier that softens the loss up to a certain point. It ceases being relevent at around the 700 range and is either nonexistent or not-verifiable at the 900+ range (even if it's causing you to lose 1 less point than expected, there's almost no way to verify that).

Categories