limit amount of points that can be gained on one setting

[FredVIII]

Concise description:

• have a limit of points that can be gained on one setting and map

Specifics:

• some people gain all their points by playing the same thing over and over again
• to stop this type of farming and to enable truely skilled players to get to the top of the scoreboard i suggest a maximum of points that can be gained on a certain map and setting
• for example, if the limit was 300 and a player has gained 300 or more from playing the same settings and map they could lose but not gain any more points on exactly those settings
• limit is lower for team and 2 player games than it is for other things

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• score/rank would mean a lot more
• prevents another type of farming

[cicero]

Fred I have to say this idea looks like a complete non starter to me ...

I, for example, have gained almost all my points from playing sequential, standard games. Those are the games I enjoy. And perhaps I'm quite good at them.

What reason could their possibly be to cap my points won and force me to play say triples and quadruples freestyle ?

Insert your own favourite options and least favourite options as indicated by the colours and consider whether such an condition would improve the site for you and more importantly the majority of members ... I don't currently see how it can. What am I missing ?

[FredVIII]

every setting would have to be the same, not just some of them

a made up example:

lets say cicero farms on World 2.1 - he plays the exact same settings (World 2.1, 2 player, standard, sequential, unlimited, sunny, esc,casual/speed) over and over again to use the fact that he has more experience on those settings to his advantage

if the limit was 200 points for 2 player games then he could gain a maximum of 400 points by doing this. (200 for the speed games and 200 for casual)

[ubersky]

I think this is how the ratings are done. You can't blame someone if they, as a cook, beat everyone on an 8 player World 2.1 game, and they were all Lieutentant or higher. That basically rewards players with lower ratings for beating players with higher ones.

Evolutionarily, it evens out over time. If the player is really not that good, they will lose games and lose points. As they rise in points and rank, when they lose games, they will lose more points, and gain less points for wins.

You've basically described exactly how the ratings system works.

[ManBungalow]

This just opens the way to the top for freestylers who gain points by playing any map against unexperienced sequentuiallers. People should be able to play the maps they enjoy, and the point system should be as simple as it can be for a game like this.

Evolutionarily, it evens out over time. If the player is really not that good, they will lose games and lose points. As they rise in points and rank, when they lose games, they will lose more points, and gain less points for wins.

Quoted for truth.

[kylegraves1]

set at like 1500 per map and i would like this idea

[lanyards]

I think this is stupid.

If someone is good at certain settings and enjoys playing them why stop them?

[TheBro]

Great idea, but should not be implemented. Score should not matter that much where someone should get less points for winning on a setting. Would you have to limit how many points one can lose on a certain setting? If score meant anything it would work, but it doesn't have any real purpose besides bragging rights.

[kylegraves1]

i wish more players were not so obsessed with score

it matters to me but i play for fun not score

[FredVIII]

I think this is how the ratings are done. You can't blame someone if they, as a cook, beat everyone on an 8 player World 2.1 game, and they were all Lieutentant or higher. That basically rewards players with lower ratings for beating players with higher ones.

Evolutionarily, it evens out over time. If the player is really not that good, they will lose games and lose points. As they rise in points and rank, when they lose games, they will lose more points, and gain less points for wins.

You've basically described exactly how the ratings system works.

the limit would be a lot higher for 8 man games then for 2 player games

[FredVIII]

guys i know what im talking about. ive been there. i played the same setting over and over again and got from 3000 to 3800 points. i could have kept going but i got bored and started playing other things too (i did well in those too so my score kept on rising but thats not the point). it is far too easy. scores will mean a lot more if people have to be good at more than just one setting to get a rank.

[Thezzaruz]

• for example, if the limit was 300 and a player has gained 300 or more from playing the same settings and map they could lose but not gain any more points on exactly those settings

So I only get to play less than 10 games on a map/setting I like??? I could possibly have seen a point if you had suggested a limit of 300 games but 300 points? Got to be one of the worst ideas I've ever seen in here. You do realise that your suggestion means that the only way to have a chance of a good rank would come from the most planned farming ever right???

scores will mean a lot more if people have to be good at more than just one setting to get a rank.

Nope, scores will mean nothing at all if I can't score form the games I enjoy playing.

[ubersky]

I think this is how the ratings are done. You can't blame someone if they, as a cook, beat everyone on an 8 player World 2.1 game, and they were all Lieutentant or higher. That basically rewards players with lower ratings for beating players with higher ones.

Evolutionarily, it evens out over time. If the player is really not that good, they will lose games and lose points. As they rise in points and rank, when they lose games, they will lose more points, and gain less points for wins.

You've basically described exactly how the ratings system works.

the limit would be a lot higher for 8 man games then for 2 player games

Fred, can you explain really what you are trying to avoid here? Farming is an issue, but after a while, people just don't play those games anymore (for me, the AoR maps).

Are you upset that someone else (personally) is able to get alot of points "cheaply"? I mean.. at some level, who cares what other people are doing?

[FredVIII]

• for example, if the limit was 300 and a player has gained 300 or more from playing the same settings and map they could lose but not gain any more points on exactly those settings

So I only get to play less than 10 games on a map/setting I like??? I could possibly have seen a point if you had suggested a limit of 300 games but 300 points? Got to be one of the worst ideas I've ever seen in here. You do realise that your suggestion means that the only way to have a chance of a good rank would come from the most planned farming ever right???

no, it means you have to be an allround good player, not good at one setting only

scores will mean a lot more if people have to be good at more than just one setting to get a rank.

Nope, scores will mean nothing at all if I can't score form the games I enjoy playing.

if you only play/are only good at one setting then you dont deserve a good rank, simple as that.

[yeti_c]

I think that this is a good idea...

However - it's presentation is not defined enough.

I for instance would set it to 400 points...

But this isn't a 400 points incoming only - this is 400 points "GAIN"...

i.e. if on one setting you gain more than 400 points - then you don't gain anymore...

Obviously if you win 50% of your games - then you don't really gain many points... thus wouldn't get close to the 400 cap.

On another side tho - can't see it happening - too many naysayers - and too little time.

C.