En Garde Scoring

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

I've been thinking about changing the way En Garde handles the tournament (ranking) scores, and I'd like some feedback from everyone.

To recap the current scoring: You get a point for every touch in every game. If you beat someone who has more points than you, you get also get their points. Points expire after two weeks.

What I like about this scoring is, it gives newbies a chance to get their name up on the board. They won't be frustrated with someone having 400 points and never having a chance of overtaking them. Also, I think if you beat the #1 player, then you should be the new #1 player. This system does that.

I've wanted to add Team scoring to En Garde. Here's how it would work:

Score boards would have a new "Team" mode that would display team scores, in addition to the World and Local modes they have now.

Anyone who has purchased En Garde would have the right to make a Team. Any player can join a team by clicking a team owner's scoreboard (or other prim). You can only join one team at a time; if you join a different team you leave your previous team.

The question is, how do we calculate team scores?

The obvious approach is to just add everyone up. The team score is simply the sum of the tournament score of all its members. The problem with that is, all team members will have roughly the same score. Since you get someone's score by beating them, if everyone on the team loses occasionally, their scores will be about the same. So the easiest way to improve your team score is to add lots of members to your team, and I don't want that. This is En Garde, not Tiny Empires.

So now my thought is, what if the losing player lost points. Everything else about the scoring would stay the same, except: If you beat someone with more points than you, you get half their score, and they lose half their points.

That way, a team with less members wouldn't be at a disadvantage. When team members played between themselves, they'd just be spreading points around (you do get a small increase, because you still score your touches). The way you increase your team score is by beating members of other teams. That takes points away from the other team and adds it to yours (as well as your individual score of course).

The disadvantage of this system is it makes it harder for new players to get on the board. And, beating another player doesn't guarantee that you'll rank above him on the ladder. But I don't think those are terrible disadvantages, and I'd like to try it

What do you think?



I like the scoring convention in which you get half the other player's score. It may take longer to get on the board, but you'll still be scoring high if you beat high ranked players, and you'll be bringing them down effectively closing the gap by whatever that player's score is. I think it works well for teams too.

I have also thought about ranking in general. In addition to having points, you could have ranking like in RL fencing: U, E, D and so on through A. Tourneys of certain sorts (magnitudes?) could decide ranking and players would have the option of attending such tourneys or not. As I am sure has been described to you, there are ideas bubbling about how to grow the good competitive En Garde demographic. I definitely have more ideas along these lines and you should feel free to keep in touch about them.

Anonymous said...
October 23, 2007 at 9:19 PM  


The present system works well because I think that it help remind us that the game is not 100% skill. When I was #97 out of 2000 active Othello/Reversi players from all over the world, I was very particular about my ranking, I tried my best not to get beat by someone who was ranked behind me. Oh, it happens because sometimes some new person comes along and you really do become a rung in the ladder if you aren't as good as they are. With En Garde, it is really all in the cards. I like to consider myself a decent player, sometimes though it just doesn't happen. I don't believe that even the best player can deal with all itterations of bad luck that you can get.

The present system, and the half-ponts system proposed are both good as far as I can see. I wish I could remember how the Internet Othello Server did their ranking. It was not a straight win/lose counter either. It had something to with the ranking of each player and possibly the number of pieces each player had on the board at the end.

My only significant add to this is that I think in team games should not rank as high as cross-team matches. That is, you won't be able to really sure advance if you are playing amongst your own team, however if you play people on another team the points are more highly weighted.

Good hunting.
-Itico Spectre

Unknown said...
October 24, 2007 at 6:24 AM  

I like the idea and wouldn't mind it being a bit harder to get on the board in general. Right now it feels like it doesn't really mean anything. I got a few friends to play En Garde, and in the first day or two everyone had placed themselves in the top 5 at some point.

Like Itico said, half the game is luck. But that also means that if you have to win more games to get a high ranking, the luck factor will decrease somewhat. Anyone can beat a better player once by getting lucky with the cards, but if they play ten matches the more skilled one will probably win.

I understand the idea behind the current rankings, but unfortunately it ends up feeling a bit like "everyone gets first price for trying".

- Snowflake Chaika

Anonymous said...
October 24, 2007 at 8:21 AM  

This is copied from case's ladder just part that I thought would apply. I understand engard is set up different in sl than on the internet but its an idea. Something of this nature would prevent cheating and make Number one a position to work for and be proud of when and if you achieve it. It would be based on skill not the determination of two people just trying to move up the board.

I hope there can be some balance between this ranking system and SL . Maybe it would be possible to have local matches at there own sims and come to Rifkins sim to play for the ladder under a different system this would make it fair and supervised..

The Ranking System
Case's Ladder has one of the simplest ranking systems ever used for competitive play. We call it a "Ladder" because each player has a unique rank or "rung" that represents their standing among other players. The highest ranked player holds the #1 position. Someone ranked #2 is ranked below the #1 player. So, the goal is to "climb" the Ladder all the way to the top.
When you first join you are placed in the "Unranked" category of the Ladder.
You become "Ranked" after winning your first Ladder match. (Unranked users can play each other and the winner becomes ranked at the bottom of the ladder.)
o When you defeat a higher ranked player you move up half the distance between their rank and your own. Example
o Your rank on the Ladder does not go down if you lose a match unless your opponent is ranked DIRECTLY below you.
o When other players beat people above you and jump over you in rank you will slide down.
o Some special rules exist for players ranked in the Top Ten. These rules will be covered in a later section.
o Multiple Users
 We only allow a set number of accounts from one location. If this number is exceeded your accounts will be investigated and possibly removed. We have an automated security system to keep track of this information, and all new account info is logged.
 It is illegal for one person to have multiple accounts. Only one account is allowed per person, PERIOD.
 It is illegal for more than one person to use or share the same account. You are more than welcome to each participate in the Ladder, but you will have to create separate accounts for each individual playing.
Whether you are the one looking for a match or the one being asked to play there are someguidelines that need to be followed. Violating these could result in penalties. If you noticeanyone violating these rules please feel free to contact us using the SUPPORT area.
o Chat
 The best way to find matches is to announce in chat that you are looking for a Case's Ladder match. You will see other's doing the same. This lets everyone know you are interested in Ladder play.
 When you are in a chat room trying to find a match you should be courteous and respectful to other people in the room. Repeatedly asking for a Ladder game tends to annoy people very quickly. This could make them not want to play you, and make it harder for YOU to move up the Ladder.
o Once Per Day: Once Per Day: You can only play the same person once a day. You can play as many different people as you'd like on any given day.
Top Ten
Because everyone dreams of being in the Top Ten we have some special rules that applyfor these users. This keeps the competition for these slots in high gear. Only players whoare ranked in the Top Ten need to worry about these.
o Top of the Heap: Everyone wants a shot at #1; consequently there should be a lot of activity and movement in the top ranks of the Ladder. Remember that rank has priority when it comes to challenges. Keeping that in mind, the number one player should play the number two player as often as possible.
o Inactivity: Players in the Top Ten must play at least once every 7 days. If they don't they are automatically dropped five rungs and their inactivity counter is reset. There are no exceptions to this rule.
o Rank Hounding: Players in the Top Ten are expected to be as active after they reach the top ranks as they were before. In other words, if you are playing 20 games a day to make it to the Top Ten and then only play once a week to hold your rank you may be penalized.
o Leapfrogging: Leapfrogging: Players in the Top Ten must play the person ranked directly below them at least once every three days. It is the lower ranked players responsibility to challenge up, but the higher ranked player is also responsible for making sure they are in chat and available to play. If you are found to be avoiding challenges that put your rank at risk your account will be penalized.

Anonymous said...
October 24, 2007 at 2:38 PM  
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anne-Grethe said...
October 25, 2007 at 3:46 AM  

There seem to be several very good suggestions here for a new scoring system, which I am all for. We play the game daily and for a while our names stayed at the top because of volume. Now that we have a lot of competitors coming onto my island, it's become even more fun because we like to see the board changing with new names being added. We like to see it less about the owners being on top and more about the opportunity being spread fairly, which a new scoring system may accomplish.

We played a tournament today with over 30 people and it was great fun! This is the type of game that brings together a variety of groups and we look forward to being able to form teams.

We're sure whatever you decide will work fairly for all involved. Thanks for a great game Rifkin!


Anonymous said...
October 27, 2007 at 8:23 PM  

Count me in -- I'm ready for a new scoring system. As has already been pointed out, the same names have been dominating the World Championship board lately. Yawn!

As it stands now, the scoreboards are merely reflecting the sheer volume of games being played and not on skill. Let's face it, most people work for a living, have real lives, families and can't play En Garde all day, everyday, like some.

Wonderful ideas have been proposed and I hope with a new scoring system in place the scoreboards will shift to better mirror what it truly means to be a "champion" and only enhance the game for all.

Teams sound like a lot of fun. In preparation of same, Fauxy Shepard and I have informally gotten together some people and formed several teams already. These teams encompass those impassioned with fencing and the team spirit that goes along with good company and camaraderie. Any like-minded individuals interested, please contact Fauxy or I for details.

In the meantime, having a blast playing random games with friends, and making new ones in the process.

As always, you never cease to amaze me, Rif! Great game!

~Musique Gable

Musique Gable said...
October 29, 2007 at 9:19 PM  

Post a Comment