Conquer Club

Concise description:
Revise the way "Most Improved" scoreboard is calculated. Instead of comparing final score against the score on the first of the month, compare it to the average score from the entire previous month.

Specifics/Details:
Maintain a list of the last 30 daily scores. On the first day of the month, the starting score will be the average of the last 30 daily scores.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
There are repeated claims and C&A reports of point dumping by players planning to make a run at the most improved medal. This medal no longer has anything to do with actual improvement but with the player best able to manipulate the scoreboard. By using a 30-day moving average for starting score, it will make it far more difficult to manipulate scores with a brief end-of-month loss of all games. Newer players on the site would be far more likely to be in the running for a true improvement-based medal. This would also significantly reduce the motivation for point dumping, and thus also reduce the number of C&A complaints related to this infraction.

+1000 anything to get rid of the monthly C&A reports

Yeah, this probably is a good idea.

+1 best idea this year

By far the best idea to solve this problem

- Gotta do it! +100%

+1
Anything would be an improvement over the current farce. And this looks like a rather good one!
Nice one Doc.

There will still be people abusing this system, but it's harder to abuse and not a difficult one.

It would actually be quite difficult to circumvent this. I thought about it for a little while and couldn't really see many scenarios where point dumping would substantively help you. Basically the only thing I could think of was dumping points at the end of the month, playing no games for nearly the rest of the next month, and then getting your score back up just before that month ended. But you can already do that, so at least there's no harm to this proposal, and I think it's not a very realistic scenario anyway.

Some player with the patience of a dragon can cheat this. I feel dumb for not thinking of this myself. The old Suggs HQ is missing, so I might have and I just forgot in the meantime.

Metsfanmax wrote:It would actually be quite difficult to circumvent this. I thought about it for a little while and couldn't really see many scenarios where point dumping would substantively help you. Basically the only thing I could think of was dumping points at the end of the month, playing no games for nearly the rest of the next month, and then getting your score back up just before that month ended. But you can already do that, so at least there's no harm to this proposal, and I think it's not a very realistic scenario anyway.

I am high on the most improved chart. I quit a year ago with active games and unfinished auto enroll tournaments. CC was getting in the way of RL and I needed to go cold turkey. It tanked my rank. I came back after playing risk with my nephew over Christmas. January 1st, I won a speed BR and I gained 650 points and went from 830 to 1490.

I am guessing I am an outliner. Without the battle royal win, my rank would be much lower.

Would averaging the last 6 active months help show the most improved?

I like it, with this it should give those medals a bit more sense to have...

I personally think median might work better for the intent than average, assuming stopping point dumping is the intent.

Edit: This really just makes skipping a month of playing necessary which could encourage lapses in premium memberships during that time

Another thought here: The 30 day moving average could only count days in which a turn was played. That way a player can't tank his score, go inactive for a month, and then come back and win the improvement medal. This variation would also better account for people that take an extended absence from the site. It would also put players that deadbeat out of a bunch of games at a disadvantage for the medal.

I'm not convinced that median is a better metric here than mean. With median, a player could tank his score, keep tank his score 2.5 weeks before the end of the month, keep it low for the last 16 days, and then do the same thing they've been doing. 30 day moving average will include the highs and the lows.

Would having the most improved only for players that have played the game less than one year solve anything?

bobdakota wrote:Would having the most improved only for players that have played the game less than one year solve anything?

Yes, but would it be a solution we want? It hurts more than it solves, I'm afraid.

Extreme Ways wrote:

bobdakota wrote:Would having the most improved only for players that have played the game less than one year solve anything?

Yes, but would it be a solution we want? It hurts more than it solves, I'm afraid.

I don't know. Right now we have the same players winning 2xs a year. In sports, we don't give the most improved award to the starting quarterback that was injured. We give it the the guy who started with little skill and got better. Guys that have played 10,000 games winning "most improved" just isn't right. They are not becoming "better players." They are just gaming the system.

What about a min starting level for years played? 800 year 1, 1000 year 2, 1200 year 3, 1400 year 4.....

This would help a little.

Not sure how 'most improved' can be said of players reaching a score a long way below their best? A (very) few players in the top 20 are either close to their best ever or have clearly pushed it up during the month, surely these are the players that have actually improved?

This scoreboard is here to reward activity as well as improvement. Many players have strong variation in their scores due to their gaming style, and have up and down.
It's not about reaching a higher score than your best but about improving within a month.
Maybe in December you play a lot of speeders 1vs1 and lost points, then in january you win some 8 -12 players escalating and have less time to play 1vs1 speeder and then you score make a bump, then I think you deserve the most improved medal even if you reach a high score which is below your best.

After that, people abusing the system to be sure to have the award, like players that have around 3k points falling around 1k points to then reach again smthg like 2,5k very quickly, well, that's another story. And I think that is what you are referring to Vid ?

Anyway, improvement, real improvement of your skills in the game, wouldn't result in a sudden increase in points so high that you'd win the most improved. Most improved medals are won by people starting with a very low rank at the beginning. People that are major and then become brig wouldn't win the most improved medal, they win the monthly leader ( best performance the other scoreboard).

Now this is the way to deal with the ongoing C/A Situation.....
Discuss options instead of epenis fights.

Just to put my 2 cents in about making a change.....
Maybe for Most Improved
Take January 2016's end of January score and compare it to January 2017's ending score?
Make it a long term goal not short term......less manipulation.
It seems you should want to reward long term improvement (yearly) not short term (monthly).

Example:

Username:
willedtowin1 [ OSA ]
Rank:
Major Major
Score:
2351 (Range: 2077-3390)

Maybe the starting range 2077 could reflect the January 31st 2016?
That way its a ongoing yearly....instead of Monthly? Maybe be harder to manipulate?


BTW....
In before someone accuses me of preparing to manipulate the Most Improved score board
lol

Donelladan wrote:This scoreboard is here to reward activity as well as improvement. Many players have strong variation in their scores due to their gaming style, and have up and down.
It's not about reaching a higher score than your best but about improving within a month.
Maybe in December you play a lot of speeders 1vs1 and lost points, then in january you win some 8 -12 players escalating and have less time to play 1vs1 speeder and then you score make a bump, then I think you deserve the most improved medal even if you reach a high score which is below your best.

I disagree with this, because this scenario doesn't measure improvement at all, it just measures a change in playstyle. But let's not get hung up on this. For better or worse, this is the scheme we have, and right now we're focused on how to make it less susceptible to intentional abuse. We could discuss also how to make it more robust to things like this but that's actually a separate issue for a separate suggestion.

sorry for no reading everything in details, but I remember reading someone in C&A (was it extreme ways?) suggesting something I liked much better.
Only counting the games started during a given month. (And probably stop counting them after 3 month pass and they are still not finished?)

betiko wrote:sorry for no reading everything in details, but I remember reading someone in C&A (was it extreme ways?) suggesting something I liked much better.
Only counting the games started during a given month. (And probably stop counting them after 3 month pass and they are still not finished?)

That would result in a system biased in favour of people who play fast settings and small maps.

Dukasaur wrote:

betiko wrote:sorry for no reading everything in details, but I remember reading someone in C&A (was it extreme ways?) suggesting something I liked much better.
Only counting the games started during a given month. (And probably stop counting them after 3 month pass and they are still not finished?)

That would result in a system biased in favour of people who play fast settings and small maps.

yeah really biaised! we'd give you 3 month to finish your games started on a given month; the actual system counts the ones finished during a given month.
even if you're slow, at least 90% of your games are finished in less than 3 month, unless you play 12 player trench escalating sequential