Babbalouie wrote:

Amidon37 wrote:

Babbalouie wrote: Perhaps if you were to show me a before the recalc and after the recalc maybe I could make some sense of it. 

I agree this would absolutely show you what is going on, but that can't be done.  As Snake Eyes said Tom essentially went back in time and stopped you from losing those points.  We don't have records from that alternate time stream any more.

So, if I did not lose those points from the 119 games, where would I be if I did lose them? You are talking about 119 games equaling over 2000 points? Wouldn't that make me an awful player? There must be records from the past somewhere where tom and his support team has access to them. Is not everything archived?   

It has been written over.

Again, Can you point to on e single game where you actually lost points to a disabled player?

If so, please throw up a link so that we all know what we are all talking about.

Snake Eyes wrote:

Babbalouie wrote:

Amidon37 wrote:

Babbalouie wrote: Perhaps if you were to show me a before the recalc and after the recalc maybe I could make some sense of it. 

I agree this would absolutely show you what is going on, but that can't be done.  As Snake Eyes said Tom essentially went back in time and stopped you from losing those points.  We don't have records from that alternate time stream any more.

So, if I did not lose those points from the 119 games, where would I be if I did lose them? You are talking about 119 games equaling over 2000 points? Wouldn't that make me an awful player? There must be records from the past somewhere where tom and his support team has access to them. Is not everything archived?   

It has been written over.

Again, Can you point to on e single game where you actually lost points to a disabled player?

If so, please throw up a link so that we all know what we are all talking about.

http://www.wargear.net/games/view/324818

I can supply you with 118 more.

Babbalouie wrote:

Snake Eyes wrote:

It has been written over.

Again, Can you point to on e single game where you actually lost points to a disabled player?

If so, please throw up a link so that we all know what we are all talking about.

http://www.wargear.net/games/view/324818

I can supply you with 118 more.

Thank you.  This one should be sufficient.
Do you see the part at the bottom there is a column titled "status?"  In that column, you are not listed as a looser, not listed as booted, and most importantly you are not listed as Eliminated.  The "z_disabled" player is also not listed as booted or more importantly, Winner.  It is just terminated.  There is no winner and no looser.  No points lost, no points gained.  That is why there is no ranking message for you or for any other player in this game.

As far as the points and ranking goes, it is as if the game did not happen.  More specifically, it is as if the game did not end (no winner, no looser).

You can recreate this yourself.  Join a two player game and both of you agree to "terminate" the game.  The option is there next to the "surrender."  There will be no points exchanged.  It is a way for both (all) players to simply walk away.

Good now?

Babbalouie,

Are you questioning why, if you lose an average of 20 points (or whatever) for each loss, and you lost 119 now canceled games, how come you don't see your score rise by 20 * 119 = 2,380? 

If so, it's because scores for ALL your games are recalculated. For each game you won, you go into it with a higher score, and therefore receive fewer points than you did before the recalculation. Similarly, for each game you lost, you lost more points than you did before the recalculation.

I've played around with the effect of swapping wins and loses before. It's surprising how little impact taking out a bunch of games has, once you've played quite a few.

I understand the effect of an escalating score. What I don't seem to understand is while I was playing these 119 games along with a few hundred others my scores would rise up to as high as 2200 and dip to as low as about 1400 and then the recalc did nothing to change my score. 

It would be nice if before each recalc, Tom could save off our old stats, and then after the recalc send us an email with a summary of the recalc changes.  Maybe only  if you sign up for it.

Babbalouie wrote:

I understand the effect of an escalating score. What I don't seem to understand is while I was playing these 119 games along with a few hundred others my scores would rise up to as high as 2200 and dip to as low as about 1400 and then the recalc did nothing to change my score. 

lol ... if you "understand the effect of an escalating score" then you do understand why the recalc would have done little. You've played over a thousand games, removal of less than 10% is going to have a small impact overall. If, as you say, the recalc truly did "nothing" -- no perceptible change, then something else is going on. But, instead, if you saw a small change, a few percent, that wouldn't surprise me based on how the math works out. 

As for the highs and lows, you put a win or loss streak (or near streak) together, you'll see big changes in your score. It's one of the reasons there's some dissatisfaction with the scoring system, it bounces around a lot, and doesn't steady out with increasing number of games played.

Believe me, I get that it's counter-intuitive. But you can fire up Excel and see for yourself.

smoke wrote:

Babbalouie wrote:

I understand the effect of an escalating score. What I don't seem to understand is while I was playing these 119 games along with a few hundred others my scores would rise up to as high as 2200 and dip to as low as about 1400 and then the recalc did nothing to change my score. 

lol ... if you "understand the effect of an escalating score" then you do understand why the recalc would have done little. You've played over a thousand games, removal of less than 10% is going to have a small impact overall. If, as you say, the recalc truly did "nothing" -- no perceptible change, then something else is going on. But, instead, if you saw a small change, a few percent, that wouldn't surprise me based on how the math works out. 

As for the highs and lows, you put a win or loss streak (or near streak) together, you'll see big changes in your score. It's one of the reasons there's some dissatisfaction with the scoring system, it bounces around a lot, and doesn't steady out with increasing number of games played.

Believe me, I get that it's counter-intuitive. But you can fire up Excel and see for yourself.

Are you trying to say that 119 games isn't even worth 1 point per game in the recalc?

Babbalouie wrote:

Are you trying to say that 119 games isn't even worth 1 point per game in the recalc?

Yep, especially because of a secondary effect I just noticed. I looked at a few of your recent wins. These disabled players are in them, but their rankings are now less than 200 points. So each time you beat one of these guys in your recalc'd games, you only got a point for beating them. So, in a typical 8 man game, assuming average score of 1000, you'd roughly get (1000 * 20)/1800 (where 1800 is your score) for each of the 7 players beaten, or 7 * 11 = 77. However, if two of those 7 are zdisabled, you'd get 5 * 11 + 2 * 1 = 57. Big drop.

Again, it's because it's not 119 games affected, it's 1171, in all manner of ways. You're getting fewer points on your wins, dropping more points on your losses.

Maybe terminating those games didn't effect your GR as much as you were expecting ti to because chronologically you had won and lost many other games between them.  As of such, some of your losses in that period cost you less because you were not as high and some of your victories won you more points,again, because your score was not as high.  So, when they were removed your losses now cost you more and your victories won you less and as a net result your gr didn't change a whole heck of a lot, or at least not as much as you were expecting it to.  To say it in another way, terminating those games didn't just cancel those possible losses but in fact erased the games and your gr was recalculated chronologically as if they never existed while having an effect on all the games that still count in determining your gr.

Edit, just noticed that smoke wrote a response that adds to this as well.

Thanks guys. I would still be interested to see the actual impact of the recalc.  

I remember when Tom did his first major recalc because of this issue a year or so ago. 

I expected to see big changes in a number of people's scores, but ended up barely noticing it.

I would think 119 games might be noticeable. 

Enough said about this. If Tom still had the records I know that he would produce them. I am still new enough to WarGear to not fully understand what is totally involved in a recalc. I do know that Tom has always been fair and consistent always thinking about what is best for the whole WarGear community.

On a side note, I hope that Tom still considers my proposal for a 4 rank system (or 5 rank system as per Cona Chris) that I had previously brought up in the forum. I believe  it would skyrocket competition and recruitment. Before I joined WarGear I belonged to a different "risk-type" gaming community that I thought was good, but this WarGear site is far superior especially with the support and this forum.  

Babbalouie wrote:

Enough said about this. If Tom still had the records I know that he would produce them. I am still new enough to WarGear to not fully understand what is totally involved in a recalc. I do know that Tom has always been fair and consistent always thinking about what is best for the whole WarGear community.

On a side note, I hope that Tom still considers my proposal for a 4 rank system (or 5 rank system as per Cona Chris) that I had previously brought up in the forum. I believe  it would skyrocket competition and recruitment. Before I joined WarGear I belonged to a different "risk-type" gaming community that I thought was good, but this WarGear site is far superior especially with the support and this forum.  

To further the side note, does it make any sense at all that the last rated player on the Global Ranking is a Lieutenant?

Thanks for the explanation everyone, completely agree with what's been posted.

As regards a before / after snapshot between recalcs, I'll add to the list.