Better point system

[porkenbeans]

Make all games for 20 points. You can not join a game if the other players are more than, say, 3 or 4 ranks below yourself. But, you can join against all ranks above yourself. This will improve CC in many ways. 1.) It will allow everyone to play on an even playing field. ( no more of this affirmitive action attempt to even things out) Why should anyone have to risk 50 or 60 points to win 5 ? 2.) It will allow for a better, and more true leaderboard. Also you could arrange it so the leaders of each rank are the ones with the highest average rank opponents. This would hinder those that play only lower ranks. You can have a ZERO- POINT option for those that wish to mentor or play friends for no wager of points.

[lozzini]

so people will go into - points?

[lozzini]

so people will go into negative points?

[porkenbeans]

so people will go into - points?

please explain.

[porkenbeans]

so people will go into negative points?

everyone simply anties 20 points each and winner takes all.

[The Neon Peon]

So this is increasing farming because the farmers get more points, and it will be more profitable for me to go and play a cook because I win the same points as I would if I managed to beat a general?

[cicero]

so people will go into negative points?

yes

So this is increasing farming because the farmers get more points

yes

it will be more profitable for me to go and play a cook because I win the same points as I would if I managed to beat a general?

yes

Apart from that though, and a few other flaws not yet mentioned, a great idea

[lozzini]

sorry about double post

this is a very bad idea - it will increase farming dramatically and is very unworkable

[porkenbeans]

So this is increasing farming because the farmers get more points, and it will be more profitable for me to go and play a cook because I win the same points as I would if I managed to beat a general?

No, You can not join games against players that are X ranks below yourself (3 or 4). also the players in each rank are listed on the leaderboard in order of the highest average rank opponents. so, a certain score will only get you the rank, but those with highest average rank opponents will be listed at the top of said rank.

[PLAYER57832]

The system is weighted for good reason.

If you play someone clower in rank, you have "acheived" less and therefore get fewer points than if a lower ranked person wins against a high ranked person.

The problem is actually the opposite of what you suggest. The problem right now is that while the system works pretty well for the lower ranked folks, att he very highest ranks it doesn't.

Why? Because every game is partially luck. A certain percentage of games will always be won on pure, dumb luck ... when your opponent starts with 2 whole continents and gets perfect dice to boot, the only way you will win is if you are playing an absolute and complete numbskull or a deadbeat.

At the very highest ranks, the number of points they can win from low ranked players is less than they will almost certainly lose due to pure luck. This is particularly true when some of those cooks are really half-way decent players masquerading as cooks "for fun".

The reasons why are somewhat debateable. Personally, I think that its because when the formula was set up, there were not so many ranks. The ranks were added, but the formula was not adjusted to even things out up there.

On the other hand, if the higher ranks are gauranteed to win points against cooks, then all they have to do is just play a bunch of cooks (farming) and the conquerer will end up being the one who has the time to play the most. ...but that is a while debate onto itself.

Bottom line I feel that this suggestions, while well intended, won't really solve the problem of farming.

[PLAYER57832]

So this is increasing farming because the farmers get more points, and it will be more profitable for me to go and play a cook because I win the same points as I would if I managed to beat a general?

No, You can not join games against players that are X ranks below yourself (3 or 4). also the players in each rank are listed on the leaderboard in order of the highest average rank opponents. so, a certain score will only get you the rank, but those with highest average rank opponents will be listed at the top of said rank.

Except you already have people who "pretend" to be cooks so they can then have the "fun and glory" of grabbing points. Perhaps not precisely farming, but very similar.

The graduated score system works, though some tweaks might be appropriate.

[Jeff Hardy]

terrible idea

[porkenbeans]

The system is weighted for good reason.

If you play someone clower in rank, you have "acheived" less and therefore get fewer points than if a lower ranked person wins against a high ranked person.

The problem is actually the opposite of what you suggest. The problem right now is that while the system works pretty well for the lower ranked folks, att he very highest ranks it doesn't.

Why? Because every game is partially luck. A certain percentage of games will always be won on pure, dumb luck ... when your opponent starts with 2 whole continents and gets perfect dice to boot, the only way you will win is if you are playing an absolute and complete numbskull or a deadbeat.

At the very highest ranks, the number of points they can win from low ranked players is less than they will almost certainly lose due to pure luck. This is particularly true when some of those cooks are really half-way decent players masquerading as cooks "for fun".

The reasons why are somewhat debateable. Personally, I think that its because when the formula was set up, there were not so many ranks. The ranks were added, but the formula was not adjusted to even things out up there.

On the other hand, if the higher ranks are gauranteed to win points against cooks, then all they have to do is just play a bunch of cooks (farming) and the conquerer will end up being the one who has the time to play the most. ...but that is a while debate onto itself.

Bottom line I feel that this suggestions, while well intended, won't really solve the problem of farming.

I dont think that you quite understand. Farming is eliminated by not being able to join against players lower than 3 ranks below yourself. and you are also protected from loosing 60 points when a cook joins your game. also your possition within a certain rank is determined by your average rank opponent, so those that play on average the highest ranks will be listed above those that do not. The point system as it stands now is nothing more than an attempt at affermitive action. lol.

[spiesr]

Farming is eliminated by not being able to join against players lower than 3 ranks below yourself.

But, you can join against all ranks above yourself.

So noobs will still join games with high players.

[PLAYER57832]

I dont think that you quite understand. Farming is eliminated by not being able to join against players lower than 3 ranks below yourself. and you are also protected from loosing 60 points when a cook joins your game. also your possition within a certain rank is determined by your average rank opponent, so those that play on average the highest ranks will be listed above those that do not. The point system as it stands now is nothing more than an attempt at affermitive action. lol.

I believe this will just change the nature of farming.

You would have a few players at the top who would consistantly win and, before long, be well above everyone else. (at the top)


I can see optional "slot limits", but then why the point change?