how is placement decided in ranked cap run

[young quail]

everyone knows the player with all caps wins but how are points distributed as there is no 2nd and 3rd place

[craggy shale]

There is a 2nd 3rd etc. when someone wins with an alternative win condition. It's determined by territory and troops count. We don't know the exact weight of either of them. And there should be more tiebreakers down the line that are just unknown (like in speed blitz games).

[dull lily]

^ Yeah its an x* troops + y* territories equation. I believe y is weighted heavier than x

[young quail]

thanks if we ever get a confirmed answer from devs on the specific weights of these factors let me know

[dull lily]

We will probably get that when we get the code for how the zombies work

[craggy shale]

Or when we get the code for the estemation technique

[reef heron]

Are you sure it multiplies like that?

I thought Luci said it was most troops, then if troops are the same then most territories

[polar fossil]

Troops tend to be the deciding factor because the number of territories tends to be very small in comparison - pretty sure it's the way Ace has written it (same way I do)

Y is definitely > X - but troops is almost always massively > territories - so troops are a larger weight in practice

[reef heron]

Is there any factors after troops and territories?

[polar fossil]

I don't know - @spark chasm claimed to have tracked down all of the tiebreakers but not confirmed - they'll maybe be able to provide more info on that

[spark chasm]

I havent collected ALL of the tie breakers just the next 3-4

1st Tie - Territory Count
2nd Tie - Troop Count
3rd Tie - Income Count
4th Tie - Card Count
*5th Tie - Kill (Higher) to Loss (Lower)
*6th Tie - 2nd player wins

*Only in 1v1 without bots

[dull lily]

That's for 5RR right? I'd imagine the tiebreakers are the same for caps but has anybody actually tested it? Is it even possible to test positioning in caps?

[spark chasm]

caps tie breakers are alike yes

but not confirmws

confirmed

[dull lily]

Just curious, why isn’t information like this published? It’s hardly proprietary IMO so there’s no real reason to keep it a secret and it may help players figure out how they can give someone 2nd for example.

[polar fossil]

No idea - I don't think it's something that impacts 99% of players - it's more of an interesting rabbit hole

[craggy shale]

The only way to test it would be by breaking the rules. The game only says who won so you would have to play with people you know to see the ranked point change after the game. But nobody is going to test that for obvious reasons.

[snow haven]

All of this would be solved instantly if the game would just show an end message like "you finished 3rd"

[reef heron]

Could post in #risk_ideas

[dull lily]

I like that idea but I don’t think it solves the issue here. That would tell you what placement you got but not why. If you don’t know what the tiebreakers are it doesn’t do you much good here. You could get 3rd and have more troops than the person who got 2nd and now you’re just confused how you got 3rd

[snow haven]

I'm done posting basic stuff.
It's a competitive game and you don't know how many points you got - nor what your placement was.
Imagine CounterStrike and you are not allowed to see the score when the game ends
Any game, basically, Imagine playing Pacman but there is no score - would you even play?

Feel free to post this as an idea/rant in my name 😉

[dull lily]

Well those are very different games. How many times have you played a game of Risk and not known your placement? It’s pretty obvious when you die how many people are left. In the CS/Pacman it’s very unlikely you will know your score without the game telling you

[reef heron]

Everyone hates posting normal good ideas in Risk ideas, so it ends up just being moslty whacky goofy ideas that only benefit the person posting it 🥲

[snow haven]

Thx for noticing the difference between Pacman and CS when I'm on a rant!
The point was and still is: In any serious game you get a SCORE when the game ends

[dull lily]

Maybe my knowledge of chess is a little limited but I’m pretty sure when the game ends it announces the winner and your ELO is adjusted accordingly based on the result and the ELO of your opponent. Exactly what happens in Risk. So unless you’re implying Chess isn’t a serious game…

[snow haven]

In chess the ELO change is displayed after (and even during) a game.

All I'm (not) asking (again in #risk_ideas) is that your placement and rating change are displayed

[weak niche]

Take it one step further, why not post under each player’s icon their placement and the +/- they earned or lost at the end of the game.

[craggy shale]

Problem with that is, that the rank is only calculated at the end of the game. So for example if you join a meta settings game as a master die turn 2 tilt out of your mind and drop down to novice before that first game concludes you are counted as a novice for the other players. That means not everybody will get that information (because they are no longer in the lobby).

[weak niche]

I think it would be obvious to all, that what information can be given, should be given under each picture. IE. Starting Rank, Starting rating points: and Points Gained/points lost. So if you were the first one eliminated, you would see the ranks/starting points of each player, and you would then ONLY see you points lost, however, if you decided to stay to the end, you would then see it for all players.

If you were the second person eliminated, you would see all of the previous in addition to your + or - points as well, and so on and so forth.

[craggy shale]

Yes but player 1 would gain no information from that at all, because player 5 and 4 and 3 can drop out early too and change their points

[weak niche]

Player 1 would gain knowledge as he could evaluate the points that they lost based upon the starting rating points of the other players.

And if he stayed later to see the next player eliminated, when they leave, they should be given the chance to see all of that data.

[weak niche]

I’m rereading your post Hokaras. I may have learned a new nugget of information from it (always a good thing.) I always thought that points (whether positive or negative) were based on your starting ranking ratings points. So let’s play this out with an example. Player 1 starts at 26,000, Player 2 starts at 26,000, Player 3 starts at 16,000, Player 4 starts at 10,999.Player 5 starts at 6,000. Finally Player 6 starts at 3,000. In this example the 2 base level GM’s go to war on round 1-2, and player 3 defeats them both at great cost to themselves. So Player 1 is eliminated first and Player 2 is eliminated second. They both lose points and drop below 26,000. Let’s say that trend continuing with Player 6 winning the game. Each person leaves the game as soon as they were defeated. What does each person (let’s focus on players 1, 2, and 3) see? Player 1 sees Player 2 as a GM, right. Does player 2 see Player 1 as a GM (his starting rank) or as a Master because in losing they dropped below 26,000? Same question for Player 3.

[craggy shale]

They would see a master. That's how you can see beginners in intermediate + lobbies. They die early and lose another game before your current game ends.

And I think there is a simple reason for that. If they would update ranks after each elimination there would be a lot of floating points in the system. This way up to 6 ranks for updated at once and that's it.

It would be nice to have a match history that shows the rank changes and position for every player afterwards tho.

[weak niche]

Agreed!

[crude dune]

We know rank points for everyone are only calculated after the whole game concludes (which isn’t necessary, since all the info is there at elimination). I’m under the impression (would be nice to test) that the input of all players their rank points are also determined at that moment, which can mess with the order (based on points gained directly after season reset in rank+ lobbies; plus, how would you calculate a players points consecutively, if the order of calculation is different than the game results).

Example, extremely long game with only bots fighting in the end. You died first, takes 20 hours to process. In the mean time you won a bunch of games, went from 8k to 20k RP. Hypothesis is the changes for all players of the first game are calculated as if you’re 20k.

[reef heron]

Could also be useful to see the numerical skillpoints of the opponents at the end, along with the name of their rank.

For example the difference between 26k and 52k is quite big, but both would only say Grandmaster.

[weak niche]

I am not the numbers guy (as I have said on many occasions), but doesn’t this seem bizarre to you? Should the +/- points be based upon each players’ starting points?

[craggy shale]

Let's say it takes the starting position and we use the 20 hour game example (extreme case of course). You start the game with 1000 ranked points and grind up like a god to 20k while the first game is still ongoing. But because the first game gets concluded after the other matches all the games you did in those 20 hours would have to be recalculated. That would change the ranked points for at least 10 other games, with player that also played games. It would make a super messy point system that is way too floaty. They would have to "store" your lost (and gained) points until the game is concluded.
With the current way they look at the point every player has once the game is done and that's it.

[crude dune]

Yeah, I think the only alternative (with the current method of doing the calculation only after the game is finished) is that you consider the points at the start of the game. While that sounds simpler, it's even messier in practice. Since you still have games that are not finished/processed at the moment you start the game, so you would need to keep a backlog of points to add. And from practice I don't think that's happening, but I'm not sure.

[craggy shale]

I have no idea on programming, but that would require them to store the game start account data somewhere and do the calculation at the end of the game to update it and re merge the profiles. And that sounds like a lot of sources for errors to occur. It would also cause more server requests for the profile, which could lead to even more instability.