Suggested

Reputation calculation changesThis thread is closed. Threads older than 6 weeks are closed automatically. To continue this discussion, create a new thread.

an account that does not follow and never does the strategy, in a championship where everyone does not follow or do the strategy, at this exact moment it has more reputation than me that I am in a competitive championship and I do the strategy .... I think it is useless discuss this new formula, considering that the new reputation system must be flushed in the toilet

Afternoon Darren!

The are a couple of problems with the system:

1 - It, unfortunately, will favor strong managers on average to low reputation leagues as the gaps between leagues and the reputation gained were reduced considerably.

2 - Williams charge to get a championship gained him 817 points (discounting the prize) and after a couple more iterations with him getting similar performances, he would start gaining less and less reputation as his league reputation being very low as his fellow competitors.

3 - William, in this new system, will gain 34 reputation for winning the championship as a prize, as his league has 15 out of 22 races (the correct maximum). But in our league, which run 19 races out of 22, someone finishing in 5th would get 32 reputation points and there was great gap between the top 4 and 5th. As someone suggested earlier, it should have a races per week balance ( [ 7 / (# of races per week)] * (the rest of the formula)) as not everyone can race 22 races in a month to get the big points. But even this would mess it up as William could climb 2 championship in a month easier than someone racing 22 races.

4 - The math on the changes' post is wrong! If you divide 50 by 0.5 you get 100, so it should say multiply. On the second part you forgot to mention the formula is X/3, where X is the tier. Then, again, multiply instead of dividing. The last bit with the maximum races I haven't got it yet as the maximum races on a month is 29 and in a season is 22, different from the arbitrary 25 you wrote.

My suggestion is: hold the next reset for a 3-4 month and work on a better solution for the HoF in the meantime.

Have a good day!

The are a couple of problems with the system:

1 - It, unfortunately, will favor strong managers on average to low reputation leagues as the gaps between leagues and the reputation gained were reduced considerably.

2 - Williams charge to get a championship gained him 817 points (discounting the prize) and after a couple more iterations with him getting similar performances, he would start gaining less and less reputation as his league reputation being very low as his fellow competitors.

3 - William, in this new system, will gain 34 reputation for winning the championship as a prize, as his league has 15 out of 22 races (the correct maximum). But in our league, which run 19 races out of 22, someone finishing in 5th would get 32 reputation points and there was great gap between the top 4 and 5th. As someone suggested earlier, it should have a races per week balance ( [ 7 / (# of races per week)] * (the rest of the formula)) as not everyone can race 22 races in a month to get the big points. But even this would mess it up as William could climb 2 championship in a month easier than someone racing 22 races.

4 - The math on the changes' post is wrong! If you divide 50 by 0.5 you get 100, so it should say multiply. On the second part you forgot to mention the formula is X/3, where X is the tier. Then, again, multiply instead of dividing. The last bit with the maximum races I haven't got it yet as the maximum races on a month is 29 and in a season is 22, different from the arbitrary 25 you wrote.

My suggestion is: hold the next reset for a 3-4 month and work on a better solution for the HoF in the meantime.

Have a good day!

4 - The math on the changes' post is wrong! If you divide 50 by 0.5 you get 100, so it should say multiply. On the second part you forgot to mention the formula is X/3, where X is the tier. Then, again, multiply instead of dividing. The last bit with the maximum races I haven't got it yet as the maximum races on a month is 29 and in a season is 22, different from the arbitrary 25 you wrote.

Are you looking at the main announcement post or one in a sub forum? I have checked and the math appears right to me.

4 - The math on the changes' post is wrong! If you divide 50 by 0.5 you get 100, so it should say multiply. On the second part you forgot to mention the formula is X/3, where X is the tier. Then, again, multiply instead of dividing. The last bit with the maximum races I haven't got it yet as the maximum races on a month is 29 and in a season is 22, different from the arbitrary 25 you wrote.

Are you looking at the main announcement post or one in a sub forum? I have checked and the math appears right to me.

Darren i know the math is very important to you, no offence but i think there’s a bigger problem.

By changing end of season rep reward, you do delete a small competitive advantage for winners. So HOF-wise it makes sense. But this end of season reward is the only reward for winning a season, so motivation to win a season is also a linked issue.

The perfect solution would be an end of season reward, adjusted to season lenght and number of races per week, but a good enough reward to keep us motivated. This is a grey area, i know, motivation is hard to measure and even harder to predict.

Also, i believe the base rep calculation (after each race) is good (i know not all will agree with me) it just needs a small mutiplier as it resets after a month. Without the multiplier, we’ll be on rookie rep next month.

I personally also think only elite tier should be included, all too often i find rookie leagues filled with inactive managers (which is normal, people trying the game) and/or pro tiers with fake accounts (to keep promotion running).

I must admid this rep thing got me and the community stirred, we all have our profound beliefs on how it should be done (don’t we Bastian, Lai, Lolita, Dome Nico, Peter Man etc etc).

Last but not least: please don’t take the critics personal, i for one love playing the game, and we know how much effort goes into it and went into it over the past years. The fact this got fierce reactions is because we’re all interested, invested, hooked.

The Problem is not the Math, but the assumptions of the calculation...

It assumes that every league and every tier has the same strength and activity and that is totally wrong...

A p9 and p10 in some leagues is worth more than a p1 and p2 in other leagues...

P 32 in Elite is worth more than p1 in Pro....

It assumes that every league and every tier has the same strength and activity and that is totally wrong...

A p9 and p10 in some leagues is worth more than a p1 and p2 in other leagues...

P 32 in Elite is worth more than p1 in Pro....

The Problem is not the Math, but the assumptions of the calculation...

It assumes that every league and every tier has the same strength and activity and that is totally wrong...

A p9 and p10 in some leagues is worth more than a p1 and p2 in other leagues...

P 32 in Elite is worth more than p1 in Pro....

It assumes that every league and every tier has the same strength and activity and that is totally wrong...

A p9 and p10 in some leagues is worth more than a p1 and p2 in other leagues...

P 32 in Elite is worth more than p1 in Pro....

I totally agree. To implement this, in my opinion there are two ways. One is to insert a multiplicative coefficient in the reputation earned each race, which takes greater account of the average reputation of the league. The other way is to insert the multiplicative coefficient in the final prize, which is perhaps the easiest way since it has recently been modified.

I use only one example to support Bastian's thesis, but there would be many others. Please look at the gap between the various teams and the difference in competitiveness that exists between the two leagues.

This is Grzegorz Bak's race in Spain, who finished

https://igpmanager.com/app/d=result&id=28647325&tab=race

League:

MTWTFSS at 18:00 | |||

75% race distance | |||

Rookie | Pro | Elite | |
---|---|---|---|

Teams | 0 | 3 | 12 |

Reputation | 4987 | 5326 | 5549 |

This is Doe Hache's race in Spain, finishing

https://igpmanager.com/app/d=result&id=28634424&tab=race

MTWTFSS at 19:00 | |||

75% race distance | |||

Rookie | Pro | Elite | |
---|---|---|---|

Teams | 8 | 14 | 16 |

Reputation | 5079 | 5310 | 5647 |

The Problem is not the Math, but the assumptions of the calculation...

It assumes that every league and every tier has the same strength and activity and that is totally wrong...

A p9 and p10 in some leagues is worth more than a p1 and p2 in other leagues...

P 32 in Elite is worth more than p1 in Pro....

It assumes that every league and every tier has the same strength and activity and that is totally wrong...

A p9 and p10 in some leagues is worth more than a p1 and p2 in other leagues...

P 32 in Elite is worth more than p1 in Pro....

I totally agree. To implement this, in my opinion there are two ways. One is to insert a multiplicative coefficient in the reputation earned each race, which takes greater account of the average reputation of the league. The other way is to insert the multiplicative coefficient in the final prize, which is perhaps the easiest way since it has recently been modified.

I use only one example to support Bastian's thesis, but there would be many others. Please look at the gap between the various teams and the difference in competitiveness that exists between the two leagues.

This is Grzegorz Bak's race in Spain, who finished fourth in season n. 2 of the HoF:

https://igpmanager.com/app/d=result&id=28647325&tab=race

League:

MTWTFSS at 18:00 | |||

75% race distance | |||

Rookie | Pro | Elite | |
---|---|---|---|

Teams | 0 | 3 | 12 |

Reputation | 4987 | 5326 | 5549 |

This is Doe Hache's race in Spain, finishing seventh in the HoF and participating in a much more competitive league with a much higher average reputation.

https://igpmanager.com/app/d=result&id=28634424&tab=race

MTWTFSS at 19:00 | |||

75% race distance | |||

Rookie | Pro | Elite | |
---|---|---|---|

Teams | 8 | 14 | 16 |

Reputation | 5079 | 5310 | 5647 |

Thats absolutely right, in Addition the online activity is low in Grzegorz Bak's league i watched in one race of him and he was the only one online....

It is much harder to finish 9th and 10th when 10 managers are online than to finish 1 and 2 when you are the only online Manager...

just scrap the HOF, it brings nothing to the game and is clearly a problem.

i looked at it yesterday and there are managers high in the rankings with more DC in a season than races yet they have 8k points,lol

give us more strategy not gimmicks

i looked at it yesterday and there are managers high in the rankings with more DC in a season than races yet they have 8k points,lol

give us more strategy not gimmicks

So true, the HOF is a pointless waste of time. I don't care who the best player in the world is if I've no idea who they are, if I've never raced them, if I've never said Hi to them.

All I care about is where I finish in the league I race in and who I need to beat and how I can beat them.

Another member in my league had an idea, give each team a trophy room instead of the HoF, give us trophies for podium finishes in races and championships and somewhere to display them

You must be logged in to post a reply.