Jump to content


Photo

Adjust ELO tiers up 1 level so Gold & Platinum are potentially achievable


  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#1 SpacemanSpiff

SpacemanSpiff

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Colonel

Posted 02 November 2013 - 01:08 AM

I posted about this topic many moons ago and predicted that as the site community grew and became more skilled, Gold and Platinum levels would be unachievable (contrary to site adminstrator claims). Looking at the rankings today, it certainly appears that my prediction is playing out as expected. If the site wants Gold and/or Platinum levels to come into play, the ranking level threshholds need to be calibrated up one full level - i.e., all those in Silver league now would move up to Gold, and all those in Bronze would move up to Silver and many of those that don't show up at all in the rankings today would be in Bronze.

 

Benefits:

 

1) Much better visibility to more players rankings in the site community

2) Put to use Gold Level rankings (the way things are trending today, will never be used)

3) Platimun becomes the elite of the elite (and I still think realistically unachievable - ask Satan-NL)

 

I would think this would be a relatively easy programatic fix - please implement!

 

Spiff

 


  • Dekaeneas-Spy likes this

#2 Sohal

Sohal

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 615 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 06 November 2013 - 01:57 PM

i talked about that months ago,

it's pretty stupid : 2 leagues are empty, and a bunch of players are ranked but not displayed in ranks

 

 


  • Dekaeneas-Spy likes this

#3 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,469 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 06 November 2013 - 09:12 PM

I would like to re-add my contention that having different "Leader Boards" for different "leagues" is a bit hokey.  

 

Shouldn't we opt for a single player Leader Board?  It seems to me that a single board that shows every player on the site would give the truest picture of who's really at the top, rather than the system we have today, where the top Bronze player always has to find out how many players are above him to really know his true position on the site.  Indeed, in a short order, that will be even more difficult because the information will not be readily available to him.

 

The situation today is that if a Bronze player rolls above 600, he automatically moves up to the Silver Leader Board.   It is something to shoot for.  But, that will soon be a thing of the past.  We currently have 234 Silver players.  Once there are 251, somebody is not going to be listed.  Player 251 will be in a kind of limbo not on either the Silver or Bronze Leader Boards, though clearly fully deserving to be recognized. The Bronze player trying to ascertain his standing is not going to have all the information he needs. There could be 260 people above him, or 300.  How would he know if they aren't listed?

 

So why not go for a single "Leader Board" showing every player and not run into this problem?  The following link is something that was created in the spring and still works, but it is not as user friendly as it might be to my way of thinking.  Still, it's a good start.  It's kind of fun to see where one is, exactly, on the site.  (As I write this I'm 1053 on the site...definitely not Leader Board material!)

 

http://game.stratego...html?leagueid=1

 

GLS



The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#4 dfc0613

dfc0613

    Spy

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Miner

Posted 06 November 2013 - 09:32 PM

There are some very interesting mathematics you can observe from the ranking. there are about 6 players with > 900 points, 22 players with > 800 points, 76 players with > 700 points, 234 players with more than 600 points. So it is roughly a factor 3 for each 100 points less in ranking. By prolongating this statistics you can anticipate that there must be > than 234x3^5 which means > 56000 players registered. SO in other words to gain another 100 points in the ranking for the player N°1 (from 1000 to 1100 points) you mathematically need to have about 3x56000 players registered, so another 100'000 more than today, that will last for some time!

the other interesting observation is that according to some special member on this forum from which I don't remember the name when the system is searching for a matching between 2 players it considers only players with less than 677 points difference, so a player with 877 points will never be playing against a player with less than 200 points etc... This means that the first player could never have more than 677 points more than the second because if this happens the system will never find another player to play against him. So assuming that somebody would today be able to reach such +677 points more than the today's N° 1 he would only have 1041 + 677 = 1718 points maximum which corresponds probably to a gold colonel.

This is all to say that platinum ranking is definitely not and will most probably never be achievable.

 

But personnally I like very much that ranking system which sets a real challenge on that website and is certainly a great factor of motivation to play more. And fighting for something that is really difficult to reach is a correct target, otherwise if the target is to easily achievable, people who would have reach it would  think to stop playing because of no more fun. So for me the system should be kept as such but improved in order for people in lower ranking to be able anyway to see where they are. I can imagine that even a bronze captain ranked N° 1200 would also like to know where he is on that "world stratego champions ranking".

 

hope the people who invented this website would soon have something to propose.


  • Dekaeneas-Spy, GaryLShelton, Strobe and 1 other like this

#5 Hielco

Hielco

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 07 November 2013 - 05:02 PM

 
 
there are also some rank sitters what can be done about that?


#6 Hielco

Hielco

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 07 November 2013 - 06:08 PM

http://img823.images...23/483/fzew.png



#7 Luckypapa

Luckypapa

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 688 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 07 November 2013 - 06:43 PM

I'm gonna write this down in Dutch, because I don't want to be misunderstood. Maybe another member of this site will translate this in good English. Thanx for the help.

 

Ik ben het met SATAN-NL eens dat er een aantal 'ranksitters' in de tabellen voor komen. Een aantal is hierboven al getoond, maar er zijn legio andere voorbeelden te noemen (Simply the best, To the top). Ik heb in een eerdere topic al eens voorgesteld om de resultaten van x-maanden geleden te laten vervallen zodat een speler wordt gedwongen zijn rating te onderhouden. In de tenniswereld en bij het voetbal is dit niet anders. Nu worden spelers als Werner niet langer geprikkeld om partijen te spelen totdat er een speler komt die door een net iets betere rating de eerste plaats overneemt. Daarnaast is het niet logisch om maar te blijven cumuleren, jaar in, jaar uit.

Het moet toch niet zo moeilijk zijn om een systeemaanpassing te doen zodat de resultaten van - zeg - één jaar meetellen voor de ranking? Kan me ook niet voorstellen dat topspelers als SATAN-NL, Manning2Cruz en Nortrom - om maar een paar willekeurige te noemen ;) - hier bezwaar tegen zouden hebben. Het moet tenslotte voor iedereen een uitdaging blijven!

Ik zou graag eens een reactie willen hebben van de bouwers van deze site in hoeverre dit kan (tijd, geld kan een bezwaar zijn)  en van de andere spelers hoe zij hier tegenover staan. 

 

Lucky


  • Dekaeneas-Spy likes this

The secret of happiness is not in doing what you like, but in liking what you should do.


#8 Midnightguy

Midnightguy

    Colonel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,752 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Colonel

Posted 08 November 2013 - 06:03 AM

Instead of many different ratings, I think this site would  be better off following chess ratings since they use an ELO system.  I took notice with all the ratings of chess equaling to that of how many pieces we have on the board, we should make a chart like this:  

 

World Champion (Marshal) 2600+ 

Grand Master (General) 2400–2600

Master  (Colonel) 2300–2400 

Candidate Master (Major) 2200–2300

Expert (Captain) 2000–2200

Class A (Lieutenant),  1800–2000

Class B (Sergeant), 1600–1800

Class C (Miner),  1400–1600

Class D (Scout),  1200–1400

Below 1200 novices (Spy)


  • GaryLShelton, maxroelofs and Gaius Marius like this

#9 LearningThisGame

LearningThisGame

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 08 November 2013 - 07:12 AM

 

 
 
there are also some rank sitters what can be done about that?

 

 

This is not necessarily a problem. Personally, I would prefer a system like in chess that balances rating with "freshness" of rating. But folks can certainly sit if they want to. It's their loss not to play.


How can I help you?

#10 Midnightguy

Midnightguy

    Colonel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,752 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Colonel

Posted 08 November 2013 - 07:55 AM

Learning, I'm sure those players who have high ratings who are sitting idle just do it because they have other names they are playing on.  I'm certain they still playing in some form.



#11 Hielco

Hielco

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 08 November 2013 - 03:32 PM

if they dont play here anymore ,why let them be ranked?


  • Dekaeneas-Spy and GaryLShelton like this

#12 trickz

trickz

    Major

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,450 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 08 November 2013 - 03:52 PM

if they dont play here anymore ,why let them be ranked?

 

If they don't play, eventually they will fall down cuz' new players will find their way up instead of the one that doesn't play.

I've parked several accounts in the silver league and I hardly play with them and still they are there.

I will play them again if I see they're about to fall off in the silver league which will happen eventually if you don't play anymore.

The silver league has almost got 250 players in it so if you have a rating of 600, it could very well be that your name won't be shown anymore after a time.  

I also think most players here have a second or third account.  There's nothing wrong with that in my eyes.


I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#13 LearningThisGame

LearningThisGame

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 10 November 2013 - 06:33 AM

if they dont play here anymore ,why let them be ranked?

 

It just comes down to philosophy. Some would argue that one a rank is earned, it should be their right to keep it until lost. 

 

Other legitimate, different arguments could be made arriving at an opposing conclusion. 


How can I help you?

#14 Sohal

Sohal

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 615 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 18 November 2013 - 06:46 PM

can't quote satan's post, about sitters, but i'm answering about that post ;

 

Yeah, what about removing ALL players 1 point/day or week.

Sitters who are not going to play one single game anymore with their accounts will go down slowly but surely.

 

That would sucks a lot if SATAN-NL would stop playing and would sit the first spot for the next 15 years.

Good luck to go there (1065 points)  with people becoming better at the game.

I know HE would not, just an example, but some others would (Mission_Wait_and_do_nothing from meta for example)


  • Dekaeneas-Spy and GaryLShelton like this

#15 Dekaeneas-Spy

Dekaeneas-Spy

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,391 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 18 November 2013 - 07:14 PM

This is not right way Scoring(in stratego.com).

10 accounts satan-nl and 10 sohal other 10 nortrom, the standings will starts from 30th position down. Player Ratings is this?
If you do not change the way Scoring why should it be played.
What motivation would we have?
Moderator Please convey to the owners of the site.

 

My proposal:

 

1 point down / 3 days without playing one game.

 

 

 

 

Dekaeneas-Spy



#16 Manning2Cruz

Manning2Cruz

    Miner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 197 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 18 November 2013 - 07:22 PM

It doesn't matter... We should stop posting on suggestions and wasting our breath.

 

This site has no programmers working for them and are not doing anything to update ranking system, gameplay system or anything.. Luckily they still have one person working for them which allows us to ban cheaters at least... That's all we are going to get here... Keesing games is not even a company anymore, google it.



#17 Dekaeneas-Spy

Dekaeneas-Spy

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,391 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 18 November 2013 - 07:29 PM

thank you Manning2Cruz

 

       -_- Understand -_-



#18 Luckypapa

Luckypapa

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 688 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 18 November 2013 - 07:55 PM

Can't find anything about Keesing, Manning, saying they are no longer a company.
In july this year the asked for a:
Cloud engineer / sysadmin intern

Where did you read it? Post a link.

Lucky

PS moderators: what do you know about it? Does it have any sense to suggest anything to improve this site?
  • Dekaeneas-Spy likes this

The secret of happiness is not in doing what you like, but in liking what you should do.


#19 Dekaeneas-Spy

Dekaeneas-Spy

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,391 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 18 November 2013 - 09:04 PM

I found it in the google

 

Keesing Games Goes Social with Stratego

 

Amsterdam-based Keesing Games has launched an online social version of the classic board game Stratego through a website, Facebook page and paid iPad app. Stratego, for those not familiar with it, is a two-player board game and a variant of chess. It is a more elaborate version of "capture the flag," in which the ranks of each player's pieces are hidden and become revealed through attacks and moves on the board.

Keesing is starting online social Stratego modestly, with 18,000 users participating in a beta version that began operating in October to prepare for its full public launch made last week, according to Dennis Maas, commercial manager for the company. On Facebook, Keesing's Stratego has collected about 1,200 "likes" so far, he adds.

In addition, as part of Keesing's launch strategy, the company has partnered with SpielAffe.de, a German social online gaming site, to reach that site's users; Free Online Games (freeonlinegames.com) internationally; and the International Stratego Federation, which organizes the annual Stratego World Championships, according to Maas. "The Netherlands, Germany and the US are the biggest markets for Stratego," he says.

The Stratego online site, the Facebook portal and the iPad app are all linked through a common client, explains Wojciech Przedzimirski, lead developer of the game. Players who already know each other can find each other through a chat window on the right side of the screen, or choose to challenge new acquaintances on the game. This makes online Stratego more social than other games in the space, adds Maas.

"On Zynga's games, you are actually playing on your own," he says. "This is the first good translation of a board game where you can challenge each other, battle for ranks and communicate in a social way."

Przedzimirski adds, "You get into a lot more interaction with an opponent directly than you do in Farmville, where you visit a friend's farm but that's it, and they don't even have to be there."

Online, Stratego can be played in "quick mode," a simplification of the full board game in which pieces of lesser rank and importance are eliminated and players just place and play with the top few ranked pieces, plus the standard flag, bombs and spy pieces. Maas and I played a game online in "quick mode" in about three minutes. However, players can also play the complete original form of the game, which can take about 30 minutes, using all ranks of pieces.

Along with income from the iPad app, Keesing's business plan for online Stratego includes small charges for "Battle Coins." These will be used to buy extra capabilities for use in the game, such as the ability to freeze one of an opponent's pieces, other offensive and defensive capabilities, and even "distractions" such as animated chickens running around the board or decoys of the flag they are trying to capture. Battle Coins will also be used for added display and interface choices, expert game-play set-ups and a "sci-fi" version of the game that Keesing is developing, like a version of the board game that already exists.

The extra capabilities offered this way will not be so extreme as to tip the outcome of games, Maas promises. "We want to leave the original gameplay in such a way that you will never be able to buy your way to the top," he says. "We're still testing how we will implement this."
 



#20 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,469 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 18 November 2013 - 10:30 PM

if they dont play here anymore ,why let them be ranked?

 

I play table tennis at my local club and if I am gone for a period of 3-4 mos., my name somehow disappears from the club rankings.  But then, when I return to play I find my old ranking still intact, and it then reappears as previously.  

 

How would this sound here?  It would make the leaders real and true leaders and not absentee position holders, and the ranking boards would certainly be cleaned up.    If someone's rank wasn't forgotten by the computer, what would be unfair about just dropping their name from the leader boards until they played again?  Then they return with their old ELO ranking number.

 

GLS



The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users