Option for players to set, stake or bet points [REJECTED]

[DiM]

our current scoring system is screwed up, but the higher powers are keen on keeping our current scoring formula and our current scoreboard format and your suggestion would screw everything up.

if this suggestion were to be implemented i'm imagining within a month somebody will hit the 10k points mark.
farming would become so much easier, point dumping would be a daily problem and abuse would reach new heights.

i consider myself a pretty decent 1v1 player, especially at some maps. i can easily get a winning percentage of over 70% especially if i play agains low rankers than are new to those maps and settings.
right now a 70% win rate versus low rankers will barely get me a profit.
if what you're suggesting gets implemented all i have to do is start a bunch of games on my favourite map and settings, set the highest point bid possible and then invite people that never played that map and i'll make thousands of points.

[Lindax]

our current scoring system is screwed up, but the higher powers are keen on keeping our current scoring formula and our current scoreboard format and your suggestion would screw everything up.

if this suggestion were to be implemented i'm imagining within a month somebody will hit the 10k points mark.
farming would become so much easier, point dumping would be a daily problem and abuse would reach new heights.

i consider myself a pretty decent 1v1 player, especially at some maps. i can easily get a winning percentage of over 70% especially if i play agains low rankers than are new to those maps and settings.
right now a 70% win rate versus low rankers will barely get me a profit.
if what you're suggesting gets implemented all i have to do is start a bunch of games on my favourite map and settings, set the highest point bid possible and then invite people that never played that map and i'll make thousands of points.

It would not replace the current system DIM, it would be an additional option.

As for farming and quasi-farming: Should the vast majority on this site suffer because a small percentage of players does this and will always do this? By suffer, I mean, is it a reason to not implement ideas and options that would make this site better?

It's high time something is done about farming and quasi-farming as it is, with or without implementing this suggestion.

Lx

[Master Kai]

I particularly like the benefits people have discussed by this idea.

But I am not too fond of the cons people have discussed either.

Interesting idea, but I can not say i have a solution for the cons that would make this implementable.

[DiM]

our current scoring system is screwed up, but the higher powers are keen on keeping our current scoring formula and our current scoreboard format and your suggestion would screw everything up.

if this suggestion were to be implemented i'm imagining within a month somebody will hit the 10k points mark.
farming would become so much easier, point dumping would be a daily problem and abuse would reach new heights.

i consider myself a pretty decent 1v1 player, especially at some maps. i can easily get a winning percentage of over 70% especially if i play agains low rankers than are new to those maps and settings.
right now a 70% win rate versus low rankers will barely get me a profit.
if what you're suggesting gets implemented all i have to do is start a bunch of games on my favourite map and settings, set the highest point bid possible and then invite people that never played that map and i'll make thousands of points.

It would not replace the current system DIM, it would be an additional option.

As for farming and quasi-farming: Should the vast majority on this site suffer because a small percentage of players does this and will always do this? By suffer, I mean, is it a reason to not implement ideas and options that would make this site better?

It's high time something is done about farming and quasi-farming as it is, with or without implementing this suggestion.

Lx

i know it would not replace the current system but let's be honest. given the chance to wage points like this most high ranked players would use it. and even if they won't farm there will still be a massive transition of points from bottom to top.
it's safe to assume that in most cases a colonel is better than a cook. with this suggestion a colonel could play cooks everyday and get a lot of points not by farming on a particular map but by simply being better. we'd then get the top 10% of the board having mad scores because they're are better than average and the top 1% having insane scores because they're not only better, they're also farmers.

i agree something has to be done about farming. i suggested a new formula that takes into account a lot of things like map/settings experience/proficiency. using that formula would completely eradicate farming and reward overall skill on all maps and all settings not specialization on one map/setting. the official response: "the formula would indeed work and terminate farming as well as reward skilled players, but it is too complicated and we prefer a simple yet skewed formula over a complicated but better one."

[Lindax]

i know it would not replace the current system but let's be honest. given the chance to wage points like this most high ranked players would use it. and even if they won't farm there will still be a massive transition of points from bottom to top.
it's safe to assume that in most cases a colonel is better than a cook. with this suggestion a colonel could play cooks everyday and get a lot of points not by farming on a particular map but by simply being better. we'd then get the top 10% of the board having mad scores because they're are better than average and the top 1% having insane scores because they're not only better, they're also farmers.

i agree something has to be done about farming. i suggested a new formula that takes into account a lot of things like map/settings experience/proficiency. using that formula would completely eradicate farming and reward overall skill on all maps and all settings not specialization on one map/setting. the official response: "the formula would indeed work and terminate farming as well as reward skilled players, but it is too complicated and we prefer a simple yet skewed formula over a complicated but better one."

Mmmm.... I agree that a colonel is probably better than a cook. On the other hand, I play sergeants who are better than colonels.

Maybe it could be implemented for the "middle-groups" with the most players, say sergeants to colonels. Or maybe it could just be for speed and tournament games. Or limit it to 5 ongoing games or something.

I understand the point you guys are making, but I still think it would be a great option for the vast majority of CC players....

Lx

[agentcom]

Mmmm.... I agree that a colonel is probably better than a cook. On the other hand, I play sergeants who are better than colonels.

Maybe it could be implemented for the "middle-groups" with the most players, say sergeants to colonels. Or maybe it could just be for speed and tournament games. Or limit it to 5 ongoing games or something.

I understand the point you guys are making, but I still think it would be a great option for the vast majority of CC players....

Lx

What?! A person that can objectively look at his own argument's strengths and weaknesses?! On CC?! OK, sorry for the cynicism, but there's a couple of other threads that have pissed me off in the last couple days.

Anyway, I kind of like the idea of using it for middle groups. "You can use this to get points, but you'll never be able to get to the top with it (nor will you be pushed to the bottom, a limited limitation on point dumping)." It's kind of a good middle ground. Unfortunately, defining the middle ground will be tough and it will, by definition, alienate many people who think they should be able to use it but can't.

You'd also have the problem that you would have to limit players' ability to join games by their points. Thus, this would be a compound with a (good) suggestion that has not been implemented.

Limiting it to 5 ongoing games (without any other restriction) might just make the farming process slower and more methodical but doesn't really stop it.

I like the suggestion and I would definitely use it. But even I can't say I wouldn't abuse it depending on your definition of the term. I would certainly take into account my chances of winning points on a certain map/settings against a certain opponent, just as I do now to some extent.

Now, this "solution" suffers from many of the same problems to varying degrees, but you could also limit the implementation by the rank of BOTH players. So, perhaps you could only wager points with a person that is within 300 points of you. But this obviously decreases the benefits you've cited along with potentially decreasing some of the problems that others and I have cited.

I hate to say, but I just don't think this is workable.

[agentcom]

i agree something has to be done about farming. i suggested a new formula that takes into account a lot of things like map/settings experience/proficiency. using that formula would completely eradicate farming and reward overall skill on all maps and all settings not specialization on one map/setting. the official response: "the formula would indeed work and terminate farming as well as reward skilled players, but it is too complicated and we prefer a simple yet skewed formula over a complicated but better one."

DiM, is this one of the formula adjustments that I've commented on? Could you link to it or PM me it? I've seen a couple of these come up and I've pointed out problems with them, too. I think that there is a workable solution, but it is pretty darn complicated. Even so, I've expressed my support IF certain issues can be worked out.

[DiM]

apparently my suggestion thread is gone. i can't find it anywhere.
luckily i have the formula saved and it looks like this:

show: dynamic scoring formula

[Master Kai]

Interesting idea, and that would certainly discourage some people from actively joining players with less experience.

I think this has been mentioned before, if not in this thread but another; What happens to the Colonel who starts a game and a cook joins it? Unfortunately, this further discourages higher ranked players from creating games and we could see a lot more private games created, ultimately impacting the entire community with less available games to play.

Again, i apologize for not having a solution as I do not know anything about coding for the game.

.mk

[Renee_W]

and if he tries a new map with new settings vs a new recruit he will gain 7 points like the current formula because his variables for the new map and new setting will be at the base value.

So basically your formula just punishes playing familiar settings. There is no counterbalancing concept to cushion the difference when playing unfamiliar maps/settings? Your formula claims that a player is always atleast as good as her score and if she's playing her favorite settings she's better than her score. I don't think that reflects reality very well. It may be brutally effective in breaking farming at the very very top ranks, but it's totally non-reflective of reality at the rest of the ranks.

ps. What this site really needs isn't wagering points, as pointed out that is madly open to abuse. What it needs is non-rated games.

[Lindax]

ps. What this site really needs isn't wagering points, as pointed out that is madly open to abuse. What it needs is non-rated games.

The abuse is already there. What are non-rated games?

Lx

[Renee_W]

ps. What this site really needs isn't wagering points, as pointed out that is madly open to abuse. What it needs is non-rated games.

The abuse is already there. What are non-rated games?

Lx

Just because abuse exists doesn't mean it should be amplified. Non-rated in your terms would be waging 0 points.

[Lindax]

ps. What this site really needs isn't wagering points, as pointed out that is madly open to abuse. What it needs is non-rated games.

The abuse is already there. What are non-rated games?

Lx

Just because abuse exists doesn't mean it should be amplified. Non-rated in your terms would be waging 0 points.

Never thought of that. Having games without playing for points: brilliant!

Lx

[Pikeman_Poon]

I really like this idea and believe it is a workable concept. Limit the point betting structure to say cooks can only join games where the bet is 10 or below and so forth up the ladder. Those that farm wouldn't get anymore points off of this option then the regular one. Also, a person wouldn't be allowed to have tied up in bets more than say 40 to 70% of their available pts. I think this is doable and very excellant suggestion and would love to able to use it.

[agentcom]

Hmm, Renee that's an interesting idea. Lx, I believe s/he means games that are for 0 points. Games that are "just for fun." Although, I would add that if they're not for points, they also shouldn't be for medals. Then the site wouldn't have to monitor them at all for gaming abuse.

DiM, that is an interesting idea. I'd have to think about it more. Obviously, this isn't the place for in depth discussion of it, but I think it could have merit and solve the issues that I was concerned about.