Cap number of points possible to lose in one game

[trevor33]

I'm sure this has been discussed before but after just winning 1 out of 3 games in an assassin tournament and still ending up down 30 points from the experience you have to wonder about the scoring system.

Maybe the rank conscious higher ranked would play in a few more games with the lower ranked instead of avoiding them. I'm playing in the assassin tournament because it's fun but being 100 points away from reaching Brigg for the first time, not a lot of people are going to want to play in 3 random games with low ranked players.

[greenoaks]

I'm sure this has been discussed before but after just winning 1 out of 3 games in an assassin tournament and still ending up down 30 points from the experience you have to wonder about the scoring system.

Maybe the rank conscious higher ranked would play in a few more games with the lower ranked instead of avoiding them. I'm playing in the assassin tournament because it's fun but being 100 points away from reaching Brigg for the first time, not a lot of people are going to want to play in 3 random games with low ranked players.

there is a cap - it is 100

The points to be awarded is calculated as (loser's score / winner's score) * 20, up to a maximum of 100 points from each opponent.

[trevor33]

100? I was thinking about 30. Who is going to join a game where they can lose 100 points to a lucky hat? Points are hard enough to get the higher your rating gets without possibly getting stung for 100 in one game.

[AAFitz]

100? I was thinking about 30. Who is going to join a game where they can lose 100 points to a lucky hat? Points are hard enough to get the higher your rating gets without possibly getting stung for 100 in one game.

Hundreds if not thousands of players.

Further, many of the highest ranking players of all time, have played those games at those odds.

Without the current system, the point inflation, would make scoring, especially on the high end, absolutely pointless.

Further, if someone is so low that you might lose 100 points to them, maybe its time to find someone closer to your own ranking, and if you cant beat them....

[trevor33]

Further, if someone is so low that you might lose 100 points to them, maybe its time to find someone closer to your own ranking, and if you cant beat them....

Cheeky bastard. Average ranking of opponent would be a nice stat though.

[AAFitz]

Further, if someone is so low that you might lose 100 points to them, maybe its time to find someone closer to your own ranking, and if you cant beat them....

Cheeky bastard. Average ranking of opponent would be a nice stat though.

It was less civilized than it could have been, but the conversation has played out so many times, at this point, its difficult to take it seriously.

I think maprank gives you something close to that average..ill check...which I cant until they fix maprank to work with ff17, or i download ff16...or the pocolips happens

[trevor33]

Yeah i know... still though, frustrating to win an 8 players game and lose two with the same players and end up down 30 points. Especially an assassin game, 33% win percentage is excellent, regardless who the players are.

[stoicbird]

My last 11 games have seen me lose 39 points even though I've won 8-3. I've lost 51 to a cadet, 47 to a private and 39 to a corporal. Its all part of the struggle though.

[AAFitz]

My last 11 games have seen me lose 39 points even though I've won 8-3. I've lost 51 to a cadet, 47 to a private and 39 to a corporal. Its all part of the struggle though.

Its the only thing that gives the score meaning. If not for the differential, the score would just be a tally of the number of games you played.

[Funkyterrance]

Alas, it seems like this situation is just one more price to be paid for retaining rank. It seems like the rank/fun ratio is in a lot of ways inversely proportionate?

[Mr Changsha]

A few months ago I lost 100 points to a cook in a large standard game. The sequence of events that led to this abomination were convoluted to say the least. I have to say that I am still annoyed by it.

However, I have always agreed with the 100 point maximum loss. Every once in a while my team will come up against a team of cooks/cadets and while we have yet to lose such a game (and it is very difficult to do) the drama comes from the possible massive point loss if they do find a way to win.

So we need the danger of fighting cooks.

Personally I don't seek them out and have always preferred playing teams with a higher rank...of course I don't play farming settings.

[Catarah]

while the scoring might not be perfect right now, if you would add such a limit, scores would inflate incredibly.

the best ranked players now have to win 9 out of 10 games or more to get that score, apparently that is possible currently. if they suddenly only have to win 7 out of 10 games to get that score, they'll be able to get some 5000 points more until they get to the same level again.

its quite a problem, you'll always want to get better, and thus its quite frustrating if you've hit your max and start losing points often, but thats just the way it is.

the major problem, though, is that different settings and maps have different "score caps". the best 1v1 random map player will be a master at his game if he maxes out at 1800 points, while a quad team on a highly specialized map, or an 8p freestyle conquest map player, could easily max out on 3500 points or so. which means that these players will start losing points once they play other game types.

unfortunate, but i can't think of a better system.

[Funkyterrance]

However, I have always agreed with the 100 point maximum loss. Every once in a while my team will come up against a team of cooks/cadets and while we have yet to lose such a game (and it is very difficult to do) the drama comes from the possible massive point loss if they do find a way to win.

Lol this is such a good point. In games I have with some regular teammates we will be fit against some of these situations and while we have our share of "oh shit" moments, usually openings where the other team could gain the upper hand (generally bad dice at the wrong moment), we almost always end up pulling through since they generally miss this window anyway.

[Mr Changsha]

However, I have always agreed with the 100 point maximum loss. Every once in a while my team will come up against a team of cooks/cadets and while we have yet to lose such a game (and it is very difficult to do) the drama comes from the possible massive point loss if they do find a way to win.

Lol this is such a good point. In games I have with some regular teammates we will be fit against some of these situations and while we have our share of "oh shit" moments, usually openings where the other team could gain the upper hand (generally bad dice at the wrong moment), we almost always end up pulling through since they generally miss this window anyway.

5 of my 88 trips games have involved these kinds of players. If we assume I made 30 points from the wins, I would have to win roughly 16 times in a row before ONE loss would not have made the whole thing an enormous waste of time - at least in terms of points.

I don't search out these players - I think for perfectly obvious reasons - and the first round or two in these games is genuinely stressful on the settings I play. One of the reasons for this is that it is so difficult to judge what the opposition is going to do. Mentally, I try to put myself into the shoes of the cook, to view the board as only he really can. Does he look at the whole map? Does he actually notice where his allies are? Has he understood the bonus structure? Is it possible that he could lay on an ally? In a situation where the original spread is disadvantageous and the early dice have been more than unkind, these musings of mine are not just a fun mental exercise but a really rather important attempt to avoid losing my team 300 points collectively. That is no joke. It has only happened to me once where a team of cooks has properly got an advantage, and I sorted the situation out within a few moves, but I probably put as much mental effort into those moves as I do usually when facing a top team.

[Paddy The Cat]

its just a game play for fun!

i played 19 BRs today, and won 2... not bad really (one was standard) and made multiple other eliminations in other games, and ended up down like 300 pnts.

BUT it was fun