Points Per Game Scoring

[zorba_ca]

I foresee a problem now that we have "Premium" Memberships (which are a very good thing, BTW). Since "Premium" members do not have game limits, they will be able to play many, many more games than non-Premiums. As a result, they will be able to move up in rank much faster.

Some people do not want to become Premium (either they can't afford it, or enjoy CC just this side of obssessive), but will be essentially punished on the Scoreboard.

I suggest that in addition to points and rank we create points per game (PPG). This would be a true rank of players ability since it would account for the number of games they play, the caliber of their competition and the number of players in their games. Except for hockey, all major sports use a variation of this (NBA = PPG, MLB = AVG., NFL = Completion %)

To eliminate statistica anomalies, we should probably have a minimum of 20 games to qualify.

[Romber]

Since "Premium" members do not have game limits, they will be able to play many, many more games than non-Premiums. As a result, they will be able to move up in rank much faster.

Not trying to be mean but thats why you pay. And if they play this as a non member just for fun, not obsessed, then why would they care for rank. And if they wont pay, then they will havold time gaining points and finishing games. Also 20$ is very cheap. I know some people just cant afford it but that is extremley cheap for such an awesome site(and everything you get). And its like 1.66$ a month. That is incredible!!

Dont take offence but this is how I look at it. If you pay, you deserve more. which in this case is faster rating growth, more games, less downtime.

[zorba_ca]

This site is not just for the hard-core gamer. Lack made that clear by promising to always keep the site free for those who want it. All I'm saying is that while $20 is no doubt cheap, money isn't the only issue. Some people, such as myself, just cannot devote a significant amount of hours due to family and work constraints.

What will happen is the good casual gamer will end up slowly falling down the rankings which will get them locked out of many private games and possibly other "invite only" benefits as the site grows.

I know most on this site are young, single, male students (high school and university), but the Average Point per Game system is more universal and retains the competitive nature.

I like to think that "Premium" members are not paying to move up in ranks, but are paying to play an unlimited amount of games with additional features. You should have to earn your rank...not just be able to buy it.

[Romber]

You have to win to get points. Paying 20$ doesn't gurantee a win. And that 20$ covers you for a year. Youll find time sometime. And if you cant? Big whoop. You helped a great site out. But the 20$ covers such a time that you will get your moneys worth within a year.

[max is gr8]

Maybe you could join a load of games before your PreMem runs out then you have loads

[General Mayhem]

Its probably already been brought up, but would it not be more fair in the scoreboard to have an equation that takes into account the ratio of a players score to the number of games played to decide position.
ie score divided by games played??

Russ