Scoring is so flawed.

2»

Comments

  • Unknown
    Unknown
    WorstAvenger wrote:
    A little explanation by D3 on how scoring works would make PvE events much more well-received and enjoyable.

    I'm actually adamantly against this idea whole heartedly. The idea behind being a mobile game, and ipso facto a casual game, is to make it enjoyable for everyone to play. As with any game, the forum population/participation is probably a fraction of what the overall player base is.

    Now, if you discuss the way that scoring works to the forums, you give a distinct advantage to those that read the forums, and those that do not get left out to dry.

    Even those that do manage to read how the system operates may not be able to fully utilize the system to their benefit either. Some have jobs, families, etc. to deal with, and can't play when the optimum time to play would be. Others just have so much time on their hands that they can and probably do play the game nonstop.

    So now you have further split the player base equalizer, in the end giving the diehard players a distinct advantage over other players, which is detrimental to the casual aspect and also to players wanting to play and getting more players into the game.

    I would rather never hear any kind of scoring explanation from the devs, because at least this gives everyone a fair (enough) chance at doing good.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    The scoring system doesn't really need much explanation. As long as you played a lot and make sure you get your last set of missions in before time runs out, it's pretty close to optimal. Now, there's some interesting mind games and when you're supposed to move in, but that has nothing to do with the system. That is, you ideally want to do it as late as possible but you can't do it so late that you don't have enough time to finish them all, so you're hoping the bracket leader would do his missions before you do. However, since the bracket leader is in control of the situation (if he and you both do nothing, he'd still win), it's difficult to outmanuever the bracket leader. Certainly, whoever led the bracket before the final mission reset has a rather significant advantage since he gets to dictate when other people do the missions.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    I too am confused -- the game is played by many people, and only a few of them finish first in their bracket, even less win top10 of main. But all those non-winners can't enjoy it? And everyone should be first to have fun? Huh?

    This even t have some serious flaws that are being summarized in the suggestions group. But that seem not related to OP's point.

    I too was sorry, as at start I was confident to get a yellow patchie at least. Then I messed up the event completely -- doing it in wrong order and at wrong timing too -- should have started mid session an hour earlier. Then I'd have time for another run on the last mission for the missing 39 pts. Dropped out to the 3 tokens. And must work with non-regenerating volverine in the second chapter. But it's not to blame on the others people who did better in the bracket. Or the others.

    And I bet lots of people were all too happy to get the 3 tokens in the first place and even more would change in ther 2 or the iso pack on any day. 800 pts of OP is quite some amount, could be source of joy too.

    I recall the 2nd hulk mission started with like 1 pts missions, that really was odd -- here we seem to get something close to preset values in good 2 digits.

    On a different track, what I really hate in this ranking system is not handling ties correctly. Where 'correct' IMO would grant all tied people the same set of prizes. (Say in current sub 6 people tied in first position, all six get the 3 covers, and the 7th guy gets the 3 tokens.)

    With such system there would be less constraints on when to play, those doing every mission 6 times would all be first regardless timing, no need to leave stuff to the last minutes just to be last with the same score. And maps with all nonrepeatables would play out fine. At all-virtual cost of generating little more digital items.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    pasa_ wrote:
    On a different track, what I really hate in this ranking system is not handling ties correctly. Where 'correct' IMO would grant all tied people the same set of prizes. (Say in current sub 6 people tied in first position, all six get the 3 covers, and the 7th guy gets the 3 tokens.)

    I'm not happy with the current tie system either but if they changed it they would have to make all tied scores receive the lowest ranked prize (rank 6 in your example).

    Otherwise they leave themselves open to collusion by players to ensure multiple 1st place finishes in each bracket.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    pasa_ wrote:
    I too am confused -- the game is played by many people, and only a few of them finish first in their bracket, even less win top10 of main. But all those non-winners can't enjoy it? And everyone should be first to have fun? Huh?

    This even t have some serious flaws that are being summarized in the suggestions group. But that seem not related to OP's point.

    I too was sorry, as at start I was confident to get a yellow patchie at least. Then I messed up the event completely -- doing it in wrong order and at wrong timing too -- should have started mid session an hour earlier. Then I'd have time for another run on the last mission for the missing 39 pts. Dropped out to the 3 tokens. And must work with non-regenerating volverine in the second chapter. But it's not to blame on the others people who did better in the bracket. Or the others.

    And I bet lots of people were all too happy to get the 3 tokens in the first place and even more would change in ther 2 or the iso pack on any day. 800 pts of OP is quite some amount, could be source of joy too.

    I recall the 2nd hulk mission started with like 1 pts missions, that really was odd -- here we seem to get something close to preset values in good 2 digits.

    On a different track, what I really hate in this ranking system is not handling ties correctly. Where 'correct' IMO would grant all tied people the same set of prizes. (Say in current sub 6 people tied in first position, all six get the 3 covers, and the 7th guy gets the 3 tokens.)

    With such system there would be less constraints on when to play, those doing every mission 6 times would all be first regardless timing, no need to leave stuff to the last minutes just to be last with the same score. And maps with all nonrepeatables would play out fine. At all-virtual cost of generating little more digital items.


    I only read 1st paragraph and had to stop to correct your math.

    Sub bracket 200
    Main bracket 2000

    For every sub there is 1 winner.
    Approximately 10 subs per main.
    1x10 = 10
    1 main = 10 in top 10.

    Saying there are even less people getting top 10 in main than #1 in subs is totally inaccurate. They in fact should be nearly dead even.

    Now I shall go read the rest of your comment.
  • Spoit
    Spoit Posts: 3,441 Chairperson of the Boards
    beezer37_84 wrote:
    pasa_ wrote:
    On a different track, what I really hate in this ranking system is not handling ties correctly. Where 'correct' IMO would grant all tied people the same set of prizes. (Say in current sub 6 people tied in first position, all six get the 3 covers, and the 7th guy gets the 3 tokens.)

    I'm not happy with the current tie system either but if they changed it they would have to make all tied scores receive the lowest ranked prize (rank 6 in your example).

    Otherwise they leave themselves open to collusion by players to ensure multiple 1st place finishes in each bracket.
    How so? It would only take one person grinding an extra mission to screw everyone else out. And the rubberbanding means that the scores will start to separate even more. It's only in the first subevent or two that you're likely to have identical scores
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    Spoit wrote:
    beezer37_84 wrote:
    pasa_ wrote:
    On a different track, what I really hate in this ranking system is not handling ties correctly. Where 'correct' IMO would grant all tied people the same set of prizes. (Say in current sub 6 people tied in first position, all six get the 3 covers, and the 7th guy gets the 3 tokens.)

    I'm not happy with the current tie system either but if they changed it they would have to make all tied scores receive the lowest ranked prize (rank 6 in your example).

    Otherwise they leave themselves open to collusion by players to ensure multiple 1st place finishes in each bracket.
    How so? It would only take one person grinding an extra mission to screw everyone else out. And the rubberbanding means that the scores will start to separate even more. It's only in the first subevent or two that you're likely to have identical scores

    Before this event you'd be right but now with the 1 point missions if a group decided (not easy to do, other than with the forums) to get up to a certain number and stop it would benefit all of them if they got the top rank because then they wouldn't have to grind. An individual player that agreed to this would have no incentive to deviate other than to be jerk.

    The issue is way more complicated than I'm making it (what with main and sub brackets to think about) but the 1 point missions is what made me post that.
  • Spoit
    Spoit Posts: 3,441 Chairperson of the Boards
    beezer37_84 wrote:
    Spoit wrote:
    beezer37_84 wrote:
    pasa_ wrote:
    On a different track, what I really hate in this ranking system is not handling ties correctly. Where 'correct' IMO would grant all tied people the same set of prizes. (Say in current sub 6 people tied in first position, all six get the 3 covers, and the 7th guy gets the 3 tokens.)

    I'm not happy with the current tie system either but if they changed it they would have to make all tied scores receive the lowest ranked prize (rank 6 in your example).

    Otherwise they leave themselves open to collusion by players to ensure multiple 1st place finishes in each bracket.
    How so? It would only take one person grinding an extra mission to screw everyone else out. And the rubberbanding means that the scores will start to separate even more. It's only in the first subevent or two that you're likely to have identical scores

    Before this event you'd be right but now with the 1 point missions if a group decided (not easy to do, other than with the forums) to get up to a certain number and stop it would benefit all of them if they got the top rank because then they wouldn't have to grind. An individual player that agreed to this would have no incentive to deviate other than to be jerk.

    The issue is way more complicated than I'm making it (what with main and sub brackets to think about) but the 1 point missions is what made me post that.
    My point is, that the rubberbanding is going to cause separations of at least 10 points, soon, and if you really want to grind 230 missions like that, more power to ya. And if there's a single person who's not 'in on it' they could easily mess it up
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    Ties should just just go in the order where the score is achieved. It should count for something for getting that score first. Right now it's the other way around and really makes no sense.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    Spoit wrote:
    My point is, that the rubberbanding is going to cause separations of at least 10 points, soon, and if you really want to grind 230 missions like that, more power to ya. And if there's a single person who's not 'in on it' they could easily mess it up

    I hear ya, and I'm not saying it would be an easy thing to pull off consistently but I think the possibility is non-trivial enough that the devs would worry about it.

    in any case:
    phantron wrote:
    Ties should just just go in the order where the score is achieved. It should count for something for getting that score first. Right now it's the other way around and really makes no sense.

    is the best/easiest/most fair way to fix the current method.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This isn't Mickey Mouse Clubhouse. Not everyone gets to be first place
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    beezer37_84 wrote:
    pasa_ wrote:
    On a different track, what I really hate in this ranking system is not handling ties correctly. Where 'correct' IMO would grant all tied people the same set of prizes. (Say in current sub 6 people tied in first position, all six get the 3 covers, and the 7th guy gets the 3 tokens.)

    I'm not happy with the current tie system either but if they changed it they would have to make all tied scores receive the lowest ranked prize (rank 6 in your example).

    Otherwise they leave themselves open to collusion by players to ensure multiple 1st place finishes in each bracket.

    IMO collusion is way too unlikely in this arena or limited to insignificant amount. The game doesn't even have chat built-in, neither any info on other participants besides screen name. And the problem could be fixed *after* proved to exist.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    pasa_ wrote:
    beezer37_84 wrote:
    pasa_ wrote:
    On a different track, what I really hate in this ranking system is not handling ties correctly. Where 'correct' IMO would grant all tied people the same set of prizes. (Say in current sub 6 people tied in first position, all six get the 3 covers, and the 7th guy gets the 3 tokens.)

    I'm not happy with the current tie system either but if they changed it they would have to make all tied scores receive the lowest ranked prize (rank 6 in your example).

    Otherwise they leave themselves open to collusion by players to ensure multiple 1st place finishes in each bracket.

    IMO collusion is way too unlikely in this arena or limited to insignificant amount. The game doesn't even have chat built-in, neither any info on other participants besides screen name. And the problem could be fixed *after* proved to exist.

    You're probably right, but you're thinking like a player, not a designer.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    Phantron wrote:
    Ties should just just go in the order where the score is achieved. It should count for something for getting that score first. Right now it's the other way around and really makes no sense.

    Sure, at least that should be the case. The most recent jumping to front screws the whole system to force odd behavior.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    beezer37_84 wrote:
    You're probably right, but you're thinking like a player, not a designer.

    Well, this year will be the 30th anniversary my first game hit the shelves, and though I'm developing non-games for ages, believe I have some good ideas about design too on all levels of the system.

    And a good system designer is the one who can think as most of the involved parties, especially the "consumers"/users of the product.

    Sure we learned the hard way that systems fork differently in life than on paper and you can't predict too many things reliably, hence experiments and feedback-based iterations.

    Are actual devs seem reluctant to look into observed and reported fishy patterns, so imagined scenarios could be left for the future. icon_e_surprised.gif
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    Another event, another round of score-whining.


    Same as it ever was ...
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    pasa_ wrote:
    beezer37_84 wrote:
    You're probably right, but you're thinking like a player, not a designer.

    Well, this year will be the 30th anniversary my first game hit the shelves

    Congrats!

    I thought about it some more and I was wrong when I said it wouldn't be easy for players to collude for a tie. There wouldn't be any need for player communication if everyone knew that was the tie procedure before hand because anyone who has a good enough team and the time to do so would grind to a 1st place tie. If at any point a new 1st place took over (just through doing missions, not grinding) those who wanted to would grind again.

    The only incentive the first place player would have to grind would be a higher score in the other bracket (main/sub, whatever). Otherwise extra, unnecessary grinding just leads to more of the same whereas everyone staying put would guarantee a tie.
  • Spoit
    Spoit Posts: 3,441 Chairperson of the Boards
    Phantron wrote:
    Ties should just just go in the order where the score is achieved. It should count for something for getting that score first. Right now it's the other way around and really makes no sense.
    Yeah, pretty much this
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    Spoit wrote:
    Phantron wrote:
    Ties should just just go in the order where the score is achieved. It should count for something for getting that score first. Right now it's the other way around and really makes no sense.
    Yeah, pretty much this

    I agree as well
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    Daedelus wrote:
    Spoit wrote:
    Phantron wrote:
    Ties should just just go in the order where the score is achieved. It should count for something for getting that score first. Right now it's the other way around and really makes no sense.
    Yeah, pretty much this

    I agree as well

    +1

Categories