6 ledder points. Why?

[Igor]

Hello! I just won a game 1x1 on stratego map playing with Razurandal. I take only 6 ladder points!
How is it possible? I am first, Razurandal is third, only 2 places after me. What man ought I win on stratego to get 12-20 ladder points? Stratego map have 40 (!) cities - not 10/12 and not even 20 but 40 cities! How could I get only 6 ladder points?? Is it joke?
Stratego is a middle-size map, it has 40 cities. It's not so tiny like many popular very little map. Why only 6 ladder points?? Where is other points? That must be a big bug in raiting calculation!

Secondary. I have 21 extra points for games 1x1. Why I didn't got them with these 6? How to get them, if I have them?

[SnotlinG]

Hello Igor,
It looks like there is ~200 points difference (1511 vs 1331) between yourself ans razurandal, which I think explains why you didnt get that much points. Also, this map has only average turntime of about 10-11 turns for a game, which gives a K-value of 12. So I think it checks out, but we can ask piranha to doublecheck
You got 3 points for the game, and then 3 points from your "extra points"

[LPhillips]

So it's point difference, not ranking?

That means there is no one that Igor can play for any points! Granted, he often just runs Stratego over and over, but still, there's no way he can be rewarded for any wins

What does the community think? I like the system just as it is, but perhaps it deserves some consideration. Firstly, Igor has run so many games on that same map, using the same strategy for a quick win, that he's literally lowered the average to 10-12 turns by his own abuse of the map. So I can see where the numbers work. On the other hand, there's no one in the community whom he can play, even directly below him, that will significantly increase his ladder points. Is this a good thing? It seems to me that it is. This way the ladder might remain competitive. However, he also has no incentive to play anymore, so it could be a bad thing for anyone looking to catch up!

[Moonknight]

I think the point system is working as desired...if Igor wants to earn more than 6 points, try playing a different map.

If someone wants to be able to take over Igor, learn how to beat him on his preferred maps.

[KGB]

Looking in my friends list, I see Smursh just won a 4 player game on Battlefield that took 49 turns and yielded 86 points (27 from each player). So his game took 4x as many turns (49 vs 12 average) and gave 4x as many points per player (27 vs 6).

That seems about right (no idea how Smursh ranked against the other 3 opponents). However I am pretty sure that a 4 player game takes a lot longer in real time (days) to finish than a 1v1 so if anything, the Battlefield game under rewarded Smursh.

A couple of other 1v1 games in my friend list show 10 and 12 points won/lost for 15/19 turn games. That seems to be in line with 6 points for a 12 turn average game.

KGB

[Igor]

Hello Snotling!
The thing is in that 10-11 turns is unreal for stratego. More possible looks 14-16 turns. And sure I played with ChickenChaser games with 27-30 turns.
I think the results might wrong to the less time because of some players are surrender too early in the game, when it was 5 or 10 turns more for the winner to complete the game. That is why we can have 10-11 turns.
Do you think it's real time to complete this map having 40 cities per 10 turns? This looks like time to complete very little map with 12-20 cities, not more.

[KGB]

There is nothing that can be done about players surrendering early. Players surrender when they think they can't win. If a map facilitates a rush that can end a game quickly then that map is going to have short game times regardless of how many cities it has on it.

While Stratego features lots of cities about half are probably not used in most 1v1 games. Just the initial base each player starts with (1/4 of the cities). Then whomever loses control of the middle probably resigns immediately because their opponent then gets access to the other 2 sections of the map giving them a 3-1 city advantage.

You can always make games longer by deliberately not crushing your opponent making them think they still have a chance to win even if they don't. If you know you have a superior position/armies/heroes there is nothing that says you can't just wait a few turns before attacking in order to generate a few more points

KGB

[LPhillips]

Protip: Play more challenging maps.

[Igor]

KGB, man, you are probably never play new stratego. Your words about that who have the center that have the game is true for old version where a bless-temple was in the center of the map.
Now there is nothing in the center that matters much. I don't wish to speak with you about strategy and tactic for this map, but if you play it you will know.
So your prosecution to me of to make games long, is empty of sense.
I think you should apologize for them, and never to say again such a full shit.

[smursh]

I haven't played the new stratego yet so I don't know how quick it is. However in general I find that tightly packed cities play faster that cities that are spead out. If you have played the Jimmy H map you see this also. So it's not just the number of cities that affect the game length.

In this case you may have a lot of players surrenduring early because they remember how the old map played. Over time they will get used to the new map and the average turn length may increase.

As for how few points Igor gets, that's the price for being number one. They always say it is harder to stay on top than to get there.

It might be nice if the K value of a map was shown in the map selction screen when setting up a game. That way players like Igor who need a high K value to get some poin ts from a win could at least check that out and pick a map they can get some points on.

One good thing for you Igor, if anybody starts to close in on your level they also will get fewer and fewer points for wins. So it will still be hard for anyone to catch you. Probably not much consolation, but number one is a lonely place.