Please..... TWEAK the point system

[army of nobunaga]

Concise description:
The current point system creates paper champions. We have conquerors and wanna be conquerors that play nothing but 1vs1 freestyle agaisnt slower weaker players, we have top players that actually create private games for privates and cooks. We have a point system in which a good player named blitzaholic is set upon by his fellow players because of his methods to gain rank!
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=119100


why? Why does our point system have to be so biased towards unsportsmanlike like competition? The Spirit of CC is dying because of this point system. And when it is dead, when the average person realizes he/she can never be in the top 50 because they dont want to play cheesey cheat like games, then the site will die.



Specifics/Details:
*Less points awarded for team games won, more points lost for team games lost.. Make it harder for 4 generals that play nothing but quads to move up.
*Less points, far less when you beat a cook or private. Far less. More points taken than current when said cook or private beats you.
*More points for people that win singles matches, and more points as there are more people involved in the match.
*It all just needs to be tweaked. Someone that wins 40% of 5-8 man rooms, should be able to overtake the team playing people and the noob farmers.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
Fair play and sportsmanship that is promoted always benefits all.

[ljex]

Concise description:
The current point system creates paper champions. We have conquerors and wanna be conquerors that play nothing but 1vs1 freestyle agaisnt slower weaker players, we have top players that actually create private games for privates and cooks. We have a point system in which a good player named blitzaholic is set upon by his fellow players because of his methods to gain rank!
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=119100


why? Why does our point system have to be so biased towards unsportsmanlike like competition? The Spirit of CC is dying because of this point system. And when it is dead, when the average person realizes he/she can never be in the top 50 because they dont want to play cheesey cheat like games, then the site will die.



Specifics/Details:
*Less points awarded for team games won, more points lost for team games lost.. Make it harder for 4 generals that play nothing but quads to move up.
*Less points, far less when you beat a cook or private. Far less. More points taken than current when said cook or private beats you.
*More points for people that win singles matches, and more points as there are more people involved in the match.
*It all just needs to be tweaked. Someone that wins 40% of 5-8 man rooms, should be able to overtake the team playing people and the noob farmers.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
Fair play and sportsmanship that is promoted always benefits all.

LOL that just makes it better for the 5-8 man players...the point system is flawed but most people realize that points dont indicate a players skill

[army of nobunaga]

LOL that just makes it better for the 5-8 man players...the point system is flawed but most people realize that points dont indicate a players skill

for harder games to win like 8 man doubles and singles (non 2 man or 3 man) there should be a kicker bonus

there SHOULD be.

You admit the point system is flawed yet you are against a point tweak?

[army of nobunaga]

points should be graded on how statistically probable it is in winning that game!

Quads and 1vs1, you friggin already have a 50% chance of winning. ... So tweak this... Make it really much harder for people that wimp out and only play the games they win 80% of the time at. MAke them prove they are skilled. Make them join the CC masses and not play with 3 other colonels and generals beating up on free account privates.

MAkes no sense not to change it to me... Which means in 1 week this thread will be on page 3 and forgotten.

o well

[danfrank]

The job of the moderator is to put down and make you feel less than what you are. They feel as if they should be put on a pedastil since there names are in a different color and they have a banner under there name...

[army of nobunaga]

well man, you are preaching to the choir on that one... but because you posted this... edinsweet will lock this soon im sure. A few of them are ok though... just ljex and edin and lord potter make it seem like its their mission in life to follow me from post to post.

[TheForgivenOne]

danfrank, keep it on topic.

One thing i didn't get in your explanation - *Teams awarded less for team wins, *Teams lose more for a loss. How does that make sense O.o

[army of nobunaga]

danfrank, keep it on topic.

One thing i didn't get in your explanation - *Teams awarded less for team wins, *Teams lose more for a loss. How does that make sense O.o

atm there is a set amount for when you lose or win agaist a team based upon their combined rank.

well if you win against that team, modify or tweak it where its not as many points. There is a modulation formula im sure, It needs different modifiers.
If you lose against said team make it worth more points.

This is off rank. So its hard to explain. the modifying standard needs to be pretty much be less points for a win against a team with less rank.
And in GENERal team games where you already have a 50% chance of winning going in, should be worth far less in points than a game that you have a 13% chance of winning going in.

there should be less points on the table for games that are easy to win in other words, and the modulater for that point distribution needs to be increased for rank discrepancy.


God Im not good at communicating online. I know what I mean, but I doubt anyone gets this.

[Chuuuuck]

points should be graded on how statistically probable it is in winning that game!

Quads and 1vs1, you friggin already have a 50% chance of winning. ... So tweak this... Make it really much harder for people that wimp out and only play the games they win 80% of the time at. MAke them prove they are skilled. Make them join the CC masses and not play with 3 other colonels and generals beating up on free account privates.

MAkes no sense not to change it to me... Which means in 1 week this thread will be on page 3 and forgotten.

o well

This thread will go to page 3 and be forgotten because it is a terrible idea. Yes, in 1v1 and team games you have a 50% chance to win, but you are rewarded based off your statistical probability to win. If you win you only make one set of points, so you are risking 1 to 1. In an 8 man standard game you are against 8 players, and you are risking one point for 8 (adjusted for points). So the current system is already in place to do exactly what your first sentence says.

You should learn more about probabilities before making a post like this. An 8 man player can easily climb the scoreboards if they have the patience and do it right. You have to play games that are point positive for you meaning that the relative rank of your opponents needs to be such that you will make positive points in whatever % time you beat that relative rank to make up for the points you will lose compared to that relative rank when you lose the game. The true problem with those games is increasing in a 50/50 game, when your opponent makes a mistake, you can take direct advantage of that mistake. In an 8 player game, when 1 opponent makes a mistake, you have a 1/7 chance to take advantage of that mistake and most likely some one else will get to.

I will even give you another golden idea. Play in sequential 8 man games with a high relative rank, but join the game directly after the player MOST LIKELY to make the mistake that will hand you the game. This will increase your probability of winning games slightly and that slight increase will be shown in moving up the scoreboard.

[ljex]

LOL that just makes it better for the 5-8 man players...the point system is flawed but most people realize that points dont indicate a players skill

for harder games to win like 8 man doubles and singles (non 2 man or 3 man) there should be a kicker bonus

there SHOULD be.

You admit the point system is flawed yet you are against a point tweak?

There is said bonus in the current point system, the more people you beat the more points you get...also the point system is only flawed in that there are so many different settings on cc and they are all under the same score. This in my opinion is a flaw but i would never want to have different scores for different settings so it is flawed but i dont want it to change...

[army of nobunaga]

points should be graded on how statistically probable it is in winning that game!

Quads and 1vs1, you friggin already have a 50% chance of winning. ... So tweak this... Make it really much harder for people that wimp out and only play the games they win 80% of the time at. MAke them prove they are skilled. Make them join the CC masses and not play with 3 other colonels and generals beating up on free account privates.

MAkes no sense not to change it to me... Which means in 1 week this thread will be on page 3 and forgotten.

o well

This thread will go to page 3 and be forgotten because it is a terrible idea. Yes, in 1v1 and team games you have a 50% chance to win, but you are rewarded based off your statistical probability to win. If you win you only make one set of points, so you are risking 1 to 1. In an 8 man standard game you are against 8 players, and you are risking one point for 8 (adjusted for points). So the current system is already in place to do exactly what your first sentence says.

You should learn more about probabilities before making a post like this. An 8 man player can easily climb the scoreboards if they have the patience and do it right. You have to play games that are point positive for you meaning that the relative rank of your opponents needs to be such that you will make positive points in whatever % time you beat that relative rank to make up for the points you will lose compared to that relative rank when you lose the game. The true problem with those games is increasing in a 50/50 game, when your opponent makes a mistake, you can take direct advantage of that mistake. In an 8 player game, when 1 opponent makes a mistake, you have a 1/7 chance to take advantage of that mistake and most likely some one else will get to.

I will even give you another golden idea. Play in sequential 8 man games with a high relative rank, but join the game directly after the player MOST LIKELY to make the mistake that will hand you the game. This will increase your probability of winning games slightly and that slight increase will be shown in moving up the scoreboard.

shocking.. .someone that is a 1`00% quads and trips player protests... rofl

whatever man.

have fun in cc.

[TheForgivenOne]

Hm, i think i know what you are saying.

Currently it is ((loser's score / winner's score) * 20)

But you are saying, that if:

The winners score, is far higher than the losers score, they should win less than what it is set to now.
And if the losers score is a lot higher than the winners score, they should lose more than it is now.

Maybe (loser's score / winner's score) * 30?

So instead of (3000 / 6000) X 20 = 10, (3000 / 6000) X 10 = 5?

Or (6000 / 3000) X 20 = 40, (6000 / 3000) X 25 = 50?

Correct me if i am wrong.

[army of nobunaga]

Hm, i think i know what you are saying.

Currently it is ((loser's score / winner's score) * 20)

But you are saying, that if:

The winners score, is far higher than the losers score, they should win less than what it is set to now.
And if the losers score is a lot higher than the winners score, they should lose more than it is now.

Maybe (loser's score / winner's score) * 30?

So instead of (3000 / 6000) X 20 = 10, (3000 / 6000) X 10 = 5?

Or (6000 / 3000) X 20 = 40, (6000 / 3000) X 25 = 50?

Correct me if i am wrong.

thats it EXACTLY!
thank you

[ljex]

well man, you are preaching to the choir on that one... but because you posted this... edinsweet will lock this soon im sure. A few of them are ok though... just ljex and edin and lord potter make it seem like its their mission in life to follow me from post to post.

Really you think it is my mission to follow you and post in your threads. FYI most of my posts are as a user and would be made the same way if i wasn't a moderator...

[TheForgivenOne]

I see how that would work. It would be so much harder to get up high, because you risk losing more then normal if you play against the lower ranks. A slope for when your score goes up, and your opponent score goes down.