Top 100 - Do you have what it takes?

[planarbox]

There's plenty of people who also abuse the fact that ending a game early, wont result in a loss of points.

Except leaving early does make you lose points.

[Boraxx]

Except leaving early does make you lose points.

Is the amount of lost points equal to a regular fully played lost game?

[Pat Jay]

You do lose rating for quitting early

But you don't earn points for games won via people quiting early

[planarbox]

Is the amount of lost points equal to a regular fully played lost game?

Yep, a loss is a loss

[Pat Jay]

Except leaving early does make you lose points.

You can never lose points for being defeated in a game. You just don't earn any points for being defeated

You can lose rating for being defeated in a game

[planarbox]

You can never lose points for being defeated in a game. You just don't earn any points for being defeated

You can lose rating for being defeated in a game

I assumed that's what you meant considering you don't lose points ever.

[wongheungwing]

My rating is 239 and my in game name is Wongtinlong.
My current score is 500248 and should become the player with the highest score this season.

The original poster has ignored the fact that it takes much longer for high rating players to find opponents, thus limiting the total number of games they can play each day. From my personal experience, the best rating for getting scores should be between 230 and 250. Games played within this range usually end within 7 minutes and it normally takes less than 10 seconds to find opponents. So one lunch break allows me to play 7 to 8 games. Plus another 20 games during commute. It is extremely easy to play and win 30 games a day without even knowing it.

If you compare the chart of scores and that of ratings, you will see that players of high ratings are rarely players with high scores. While some high rating players may be campers who quit playing any games after reaching 3xx, the true reason is that it takes an extremely long time for high rating players to find opponents. I was once 366 rating in this season. And in the worst scenario, it took me over five minutes just to get a match. Since the system only matches 3xx players with other 3xx players, if all other 3xx players are busy or sleeping, then there will be no games!

It was so annoying that I needed to deliberately lose a few matches to lower the rating in order to shorten the time it took to get opponents.

I do understand that the scores I can get from each victory will become lower if my rating is low. But I keep getting scores while others with higher ratings are still waiting.

[Gondorian]

My rating is 239 and my in game name is Wongtinlong.
My current score is 500248 and should become the player with the highest score this season.

The original poster has ignored the fact that it takes much longer for high rating players to find opponents, thus limiting the total number of games they can play each day. From my personal experience, the best rating for getting scores should be between 230 and 250. Games played within this range usually end within 7 minutes and it normally takes less than 10 seconds to find opponents. So one lunch break allows me to play 7 to 8 games. Plus another 20 games during commute. It is extremely easy to play and win 30 games a day without even knowing it.

If you compare the chart of scores and that of ratings, you will see that players of high ratings are rarely players with high scores. While some high rating players may be campers who quit playing any games after reaching 3xx, the true reason is that it takes an extremely long time for high rating players to find opponents. I was once 366 rating in this season. And in the worst scenario, it took me over five minutes just to get a match. Since the system only matches 3xx players with other 3xx players, if all other 3xx players are busy or sleeping, then there will be no games!

It was so annoying that I needed to deliberately lose a few matches to lower the rating in order to shorten the time it took to get opponents.

I do understand that the scores I can get from each victory will become lower if my rating is low. But I keep getting scores while others with higher ratings are still waiting.

Thanks for sharing your experience on this. Very enlightening!

The pairing system will progressively increase the allowable gap if you are waiting a long time, but I can see how just being lower rating would get you paired up faster.

As the top scoring player, what do you think of the way the system does not penalise at all for a loss (aside from rating loss)? Would you prefer if there was some loss of score, which would fairly penalise the whole field for their losses and maybe make it easier for someone skillful like yourself to come top without having to play so many games? It would also reduce the risk of being beaten on the score ladder by someone with a lot more time to lose a lot more games but also time enough to achieve enough wins to score some points.

[wongheungwing]

Thanks for sharing your experience on this. Very enlightening!

The pairing system will progressively increase the allowable gap if you are waiting a long time, but I can see how just being lower rating would get you paired up faster.

As the top scoring player, what do you think of the way the system does not penalise at all for a loss (aside from rating loss)? Would you prefer if there was some loss of score, which would fairly penalise the whole field for their losses and maybe make it easier for someone skillful like yourself to come top without having to play so many games? It would also reduce the risk of being beaten on the score ladder by someone with a lot more time to lose a lot more games but also time enough to achieve enough wins to score some points.

Do not deduct scores or do anything to punish players for losing a match, as it will only discourage people from playing quick match and kill the game once and for all.

People generally dont like the idea of an entrance fee. And thats why meltdown in Shadow Era does not really work. If you punish losers in QM, chances are QM will become as quiet as meltdown.

I think Wulven should do anything that can encourage more people to play more frequently. So instead of punishing losers, you should grant them some scores for their effort and time, say, 50 for each defeat and 100 for each draw. Or you may award players who play more than 10 matches on a day with an extra 500 scores regardless of victory or defeat.

Doing so will never affect the chart as a few hundred scores actually make no difference. But it gives a message to players that as long as they come and play QM, they will get something back. Remember, it is players' desire and willingness to play QM that keeps SE alive.

[Gondorian]

Do not deduct scores or do anything to punish players for losing a match, as it will only discourage people from playing quick match and kill the game once and for all.

People generally dont like the idea of an entrance fee. And thats why meltdown in Shadow Era does not really work. If you punish losers in QM, chances are QM will become as quiet as meltdown.

I think Wulven should do anything that can encourage more people to play more frequently. So instead of punishing losers, you should grant them some scores for their effort and time, say, 50 for each defeat and 100 for each draw. Or you may award players who play more than 10 matches on a day with an extra 500 scores regardless of victory or defeat.

Doing so will never affect the chart as a few hundred scores actually make no difference. But it gives a message to players that as long as they come and play QM, they will get something back. Remember, it is players' desire and willingness to play QM that keeps SE alive.

OK, I appreciate the honesty. But does anyone really care about the score unless they are going for Top 100? If it actually went up with win and down with loss then it would mean something to everyone and those not likely to get in Top 100 could aim to just achieve a better score each season based on their overall win-rate.

As it stands now, getting higher score each season just means playing enough games to get enough wins out of those games, assuming similar rating each season, which gives no clue as to improvement.

I'd guess right now maybe 300 people might be competing for that Top 100, but the rest of the player-base are not. They are likely either playing for fun or for rating or for practise or a challenge, so losing score for a loss should mean little to them. I guess it really depends how much it hurts a player to lose score for a loss. But they already lose rating and other similar games have a system where loss means you lose something.

For what it's worth, we originally tried giving score for a loss and it led to so many people just starting and quitting. We don't want that. It negatively affects that core majority playerbase who are not playing for Top 100.

That's my two cents anyway. I'd be interested in knowing your thoughts on that. Thanks.