hey,

ok im a idiot.

ive won 72 games and lost 48.

so why am i listed in the elite and general.

id like to suggest that if you lose.....it subtracts points. and that there is a 3rd colum, adjusted score. wins minus loss = score.

for exapmle that guy listed 18th.. 84 wins 83 loss... shouldnt be 18th. adjusted score is 1......1 win...

now with that being said....point score is screwed also.


if a game times out or ends after 1 turn the points awarded should have a differnt value. and if the game runs for 25 turns there should be a higer point value and greater loss value....this way... you dont have to play never ending games against a guy that refuses to surrender....if he loses more points after every turn. he will quickly relize its in his best interest to just surrender already.

yes, im a idiot.... i lose alot. and i surrender alot.

from now on, i refuse to play againt any marshall...the points scores mean nothing.... if you have 900 loses and zero wins...you can still be marshall and top of the list.....and if you want me to prove it...watch me post 900 challenges and then surrender on the first turn. ha!

yes im a idiot.....but ill still give you a good game.
unless your a marshall, then i wont give you a game at all.

see you in game

In short, the MA scoring is a good measure of a player's experience, but does not necessarily show a player's skill level. This subject has been discussed in detail, if you have the time to take a look at our thougts:
http://massiveassault.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=327

One solution has been presented, and is being used by several players as a means of truly comparing players' skills rather than experience:
http://massiveassault.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=811

I know these topics are long, but if this is something you care about, you may be interested in skimming the great ideas and solutions found therein.

And interestingly enough, though the current scoring system has its flaws when you see it as a skill measure, it still does its job ok. The players that have made it to Marshall have all earned it. They are not easy victories. The problem is that there are some players that don't play nearly enough to ever reach the Marshall mark, and yet they still are some of the best players in the community. The Glicko system discussed in the second thread rewards these people well.

i have 200 wins and like 80 losses
so what? nothing....
marshall shows that i played awhile...so that means that i have quite a lot of experience...so that shows to newbies what am i
however when it comes to comparing me with other marshalls...some of them have same or more amount of wins but like half of my losses...that means that they generally better.
only way to define someone's skill is to - play with him

The MAN ranking system is REALLY bad. You don't have to be the BEST player or strategic thinker all you need to do is play/start the most games. To get the top position all you need is to send masses of challenges and surrender on the first turn. And do it everyday. Or at least more than anyone else. When you have surrendered enough you start getting 10points every surrender !!!! Thats more than other players get after winning a long game against a "medium" rank player !! And to think of the time they have to spend winning one game and how long the game lasts.. Jeezuz. Even if they win the top ranked surrender player (don't mean you Tiger ) They get something like 40points(?). Even as the best strategian wins the top surrenderer every time he wount achive the top rank !!! The MAN scoring/ranking system should be abandon and a new system introduced !

Ratings – Alternative system

The main idea behind this rating is that victories can be carried over: if player A wins player B and player B wins player C there is a good chance that player A wins player C. The chance depends on win/loss ratio and the number of games played.

It’s also assumed that different maps test different “amount” of player skill. Games on small maps end faster and have lower number of tactic and strategic decisions made by players. Due to this reason a game on New Paradise influences your score more than a battle on Emerald.

Relative Score:

12 Emerald
40 NewParadise
25 NobleRust
18 Antarticus
8 Bizzaria
40 Wasserland
30 Anubis
10 Brimstone
15 Crateus

It’s also assumed that a player can have a bad setup of allies. So the rating encourages players to know when to retreat from battle and decreases the significance of those matches that were ended in few turns. In general 3 turns are allowed on small maps(20% value), 4 turns on medium (Anubis, Noble Rust) for 30% value and 5 turns on large (Wasserland, New Paradise)(40% value) to decide whether you want to play. The value of a game reaches 100% at turn 5,6,7 respectively.

The last but not the least feature: it reduces the significance of old games to represent your current skill, not your average skill.

Conclusion:
This alternative rating system is much fair in terms of identifying the strongest player of Massive Assault Network then the one experience-based used in game. So the best way to take the first place is to challenge a player from top-20 and win.

More info: http://www.massiveassaultnetwork.com/ratings.php

Regards,
Wargaming.net Team

NOW THIS IS REALLY COOL!!!
(dragging the page to fauvorites)

Turns should have nothing to do with score. If turns ever become a factor then I will never surrender a game, what would be my motivation to do so?

I agree that Turns shouldn't be a factor, and if they are a factor it should act the opposite way. If you are a good player with a bad start, you will be able to make the game last longer than a poor player, even if you are fighting a losing battle. The method assumes that if you have a bad start you'll immediately surrender.

I don't like this at all, since there are many games where a really good player has the possibility of turning the game around even with a bad start. Why then should we force them to consider surrender rather than fighting the game out? The winner is not necessarily determined in the first few rounds, and the rating system should reflect that.

Besides this point, however, I see this system as a vast improvement over the in-game system. Good job! The planet weighting factors are great as well.

Is there any way we can see the calculations that are made for this system for how many points you get for a given battle? I didn't see them anywhere.

This system is good, but not as good as the system what measures your average skill ( how good you are playing compared to others).

http://www.massiveassault.com/clans/nwo/allratings2.php

The difference between the two ratings, to me, is that the official ratings are much easier to jump into. I dont need to know/research RD/Pessimistic Ratings and such. I think the official ratings are better represented.

Add me to the list of those who doesn't like the "Quick surrender = Less points lost." I don't think it adds anything to the game other than people surrendering early when things don't go their way.

Ok. I'm back here and here are some comments.

turns:
Quitch, maelstrom: it's your only choice whether to surrender or not. The idea was taken from Prefferance game (if you have bad random cards you can say "pass", but don't complain about it). The other thing: rewards for longer defensive fights were implemented originally, but now they are off because we don't want to force longer games. The turn count also deal with "multiple challenges" problem.

Points awarded: points are recalculated every 12 hours on the basis of games finished. There is a simple iterative process to distribute points of each game between players (player A wins B on Emerald, B wins C on Wasserland, C wins A on Noble Rust...). It's like a affiliate (referential) program. The degree of affiliation of first level between players depends on their relative score in matches between them and the total score of their matches. Other levels of affiliation are calculated when needed.
A one global coefficient applies here to determine the percent of points gained through affiliation.
The total sum of all scores in table equals the total scores of all games.

One more thing: games with MENTORs are ignored.

My choice to surrender, currently, is based on whether it is worth fighting on. Were turns to matter, my choice would depend entirely on whether surrendering would benefit my score.

I'm waiting on the improved Glicko system to come into effect. That, IMO, is the most accurate measure of skill MA is going to enjoy.

Glicko is the best so far. Can't wait that Glicko gets map different scores added to overall score. The developer idea that games with MENTORs don't count on score is brilliant ! A option-button "Count Mentoring games to score" enable/disable could be added into this alternative score and Glicko. If Mentoring games woulden't count as defeats beginners woulden't leave the game pissed with their 0wins 20losses scores. Because they woulden't have lost a single game, only gotten mentoring for the real games.
And a option to count mentoring games to score would be good for all of us who want to hunt tige.. erh.. mentors


http://www.massiveassault.com/clans/nwo/allratings2.php