Guild Wars, Point-Scoring for Battles, and You!


#740

My higjest yesterday was 1450 exactly i didnt keep any stats tho other than full mono-color and no troops lost


#741

Since Monday I believe my highest single battle net me 1473 averaging about 1440 with the odd 1300ish score on a difficult match. Overall mean 1400 and change.


#742

I think max battle score is 1500 now, I get about 13xx to14xx.
So 300 then whatever else included. Maybe max 300 for each addition scoring bonus.


#743

There was a change in the formula somewhen in between this week.
… But if neither you nor anyone else has passed 1500 points at any point …

Who else knows what I’m implying? :smirk:


#744

Yeah I have been following the thread although most of it isn’t very palatable. Frankly I don’t think it matters a great deal as I would expect changes before the next week launches.

The scoring change people may not agree with but it will achieve certain goals that were the biggest points of community contention while preserving aspects that were the original design of the event. So the team did achieve successes here even if it isn’t quite polished.


#745

Once the code was changed, I could confirm I would be satisfied with its current state.
… And so far, I am.

So long they don’t test my nerves of steel and change it again. Because if the numbers I have are correct - they have found a nice and feasible way to give points for GW.
If my theory is correct - I think the numbers might welcome only a slight cinch of adjustments. They are about right where they currently are.

“Currently” being the key word for any data enthusiasts out there.


#746

I’d like to see it a little better tweaked to gap pharric victories and well played matches a bit more. Weather tweaking the variables existing or adding a baseline penalty for troops lost regardless of how many you finish with.


#747

I’ve given up caring, I’m on 19-1 with 24,982 and am just playing like I always do.


#749

@Gilgamesh I understand your point completely.
… The thing is, I couldn’t come up with any way how to justly include “skilled” in the variety of teams capable of winning. For example… What if your team focused on Constantly healing Gloomleaf up front, and baiting skulls in it? That would, by all means, be a completely feasible strategy (maybe not a good example, but you get my point). You could use that against Wraith, or something (impervious).

How does a single formula determine this decision-making?
… The truth is - it indeed is the best solution to deny enemy as much mana as you can and deny as much damage as you can. If your enemy cannot do anything while you annihilate all enemy troops - that is what is the most difficult and most rewarding. And I agree with that criteria.
Plus - there is always luck involved. Sometimes you will not have that lucky starting board. Which directly inputs the decision making into your team building. You can either focus on luck, and win in very few turns … Or focus on statistics and be sure to have an answer for every situation, even if it is slower.

Plus, there is one more thing to say.
… I kind of understand now why they decided to hide the numbers.
But that doesn’t mean I am fine with that decision.

If they decide to reveal the numbers now, though … I think I would have to go play a very bloodthirsty game to get my feelings off.


#750

my problem with your rng range numbers is not when it works(it will surely work in most cases)
but when it doesnt work

thats false, i was talking about a case where there is no tie to begin with. but the rng factor changes the outcome (to make victory into a loss)
if the numbers are chosen the way that rng factor can solve ties but otherwise doesnt chage the outcome - thats when im completely satisfied

and i disagree with you that the bigger or lower range wouldnt make a difference. there will always eventually be cases where it does make a difference - if its possible it will happen doesnt matter the statistics
i prefer a system where unfairness have 0 % chance to happen

designing a chance of unfairness into a scoring system is a desaign flaw


#751

Well, you could just drop the random component entirely and flip a coin at the end of the week for all ties. I suspect that would make players a lot more unhappy though.

There are some subtle differences based of how extreme the magnitude is chosen. That’s approaching a level of complexity few readers will be able to follow though. The relevant part is that the random component doesn’t favor anybody. In the very rare cases it changes placements, it has the same chance to do so for both sides, and is guaranteed do to it equally often for both sides in the long run.

As weird as it sounds, randomness actually guarantees 0% unfairness when distributed evenly. You seem to be looking for something that doesn’t involve any randomness at all, I’m afraid that’s impossible unless you play something entirely deterministic like chess.


#752

the devs have done a good job. Monday aside.

it is clear you get rewarded for quick battles as it maximises all components. When you fail to go quickly but still dominate you still get a good score.

The scoring is pretty good.

The random concept is terrible. The current scoring is still mostly random but at least it is based partly on skill through the starting board dominates.

I think the devs have done a good job. They have created a new meta if you care about maximising, but if you dont the old teams are still pretty good.

In terms of tweaks. I second the suggestions given above to give benefits to margin gain and healing


#753

I could not disagree more. The topic of conversation is now, hey this scoring is actually not that bad. In my mind thats not the point. Basically everyone has been distracted from every other problem in the game by being posed a new (and ridiculously unnecessary) “problem” of trying to figure out the new scoring system.

The issue is, who asked for a new scoring system? Why, of all the possible problems that could have been fixed in this game was instead a new scoring system, for an already broken Guild Wars, foisted upon us?

Took our car into the shop because it kept dying every other day for some unknown reason. Mechanic says welp, gotta take that car in for 2 weeks so it can be fixed. Gives you car back, still all same problems. Mechanic tells you that now, you may be able to get better gas mileage if you can just figure out exactly what speed you should be driving and with how much weight in the car and where the weight is situated. Wont tell you any of the details though, but figures you will spend so much time figuring it out, you will forget your car still dies a lot.


#754

I find 90km/h is about right. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


#755

I don’t want to go down the rabbit hole of another strained metaphor, but we’re effectively driving a loaner right now while our car is still in the shop. An update is coming which will eventually address the other PVP problems that they decide to address, in whatever way they decide to address them. I’m sure there will be plenty to argue about then, but for now, all we have is the scoring system.


#759

Having car trouble @Saluki?

@stan why argue at all? I dont understand why we cant all just get along… -___- lol


#760

Don’t worry, we took it private so the popcorn crunchers didn’t have anything to get excited about.

(We’re all good BTW).


#761

Awww man… I just started heating up the oil


#762

On the contrary, the metaphor is very good. This is no loaner. That scoring system is here to stay and most of the existing problems, that everyone has forgetten this week, will probably still be ignored…


#763

I’m not going to stop complaining about the real issues, and I doubt you will either. But whether the devs fix the underlying problems is up to them.

They said they’re working on it for a future update and I’m willing to wait and see what comes. That’s all I’m saying. Granted, GW is less important to me (both personally and to my casual guild) than it is to a lot of players here, so some of these things don’t hurt me quite as much. I don’t mean to minimize the problems that exist.

I used to play a game that literally never (and I played for over 2.5 years) took itself out of beta. It was a running joke, in a game full of running jokes, but it gave the developers some leeway to screw up once in a while. That may have shaped my attitude toward things like this somewhat.