Flat Rate of Points

[tals]

Previously I didn't have an issue with this - however the current points system means that higher ranked players will 'gang' up against a lower ranked player to ensure he doesn't win. Its not correct. The only solution I can see if to have a points system that does not take rank into effect i.e a flat rate of say 30 points.

If this can't be done then I would like a way of stopping any player more than 1 rank higher than me joining.

Both for me high priority as it totally stuffs the gameplay

Discussion thread also in here
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 193#147193

Tals

[Pedronicus]

I'm one of those players who nowdays only wins 14 points by killing a colonel on 2000 points. Staying in the top ten is really hard work with the scoring as it is - But I don't want it changed to a flat rate scoreline. the top ten still contains me because of the way things are currently scored - there are a lot of people in the top 30 who have played 5-800 games against piss poor opposition in doubles games just to get a colonel hat. these people would be higher in the leader board if all games were flat rate scoring and therefore make a mockery of skill versus number of games played. (I don't have enough spare time to play 60 games at once)

I prefer to pit my wits against established players and play less games - but against skilled players where the point reward (and satisfaction of beating them) is greater.

I agree with tals idea about setting parameters of who can join a game - but don't think that the scoring needs to be tweaked.

[tals]

So ped if we were playing a 3 player game 2 higher ranked and me (Private) - i've whupped your backside and you're about to die, it can happen

Would you fall on your sword to the other higher ranked player or play fair and try to make the best of the game. If you would fall in favour of the other higher ranked player then the points MUST change. I want to play higher ranked players and prove I can beat them. But its just no good if you're all going to hide behind your points to win the game.

Tals

[moz976]

I'm by no means a top player here but even if I was I wouldn't manipulate the system to stay on top. I think that the established players at the top of the score board wouldn't use a tactic like you mentioned.

[Pedronicus]

So ped if we were playing a 3 player game 2 higher ranked and me (Private) - i've whupped your backside and you're about to die, it can happen

Would you fall on your sword to the other higher ranked player or play fair and try to make the best of the game. If you would fall in favour of the other higher ranked player then the points MUST change. I want to play higher ranked players and prove I can beat them. But its just no good if you're all going to hide behind your points to win the game.

Tals

When I'm in a singles game - I play to win (or survive till the next round)
I've only ever thrown a game to a higher scoring team in doubles where my team mate has requested it.
I've never thrown a singles game to date, and don't expect to in the future.
I haven't joined a public singles game for ages where such a situation can arise - but here is the last one I made: http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=84941#gmtop
Nobunga was on a shit score and he killed me - but yellow won the game. I still lost 45 points - but at no time was i thinking about point loss. I was purely trying to win the game outright.
The thing that happens with games that I've started in the public games section - is that people see me and the classic map together and know - it's going to be a good game (everyone loves the classic map) - and well known people join because I'm well known.

[A Mans Part]

I can say I wouldn't completely suicide / sabotage to let a higher rank win, but if they are both equal strength and I have an option to attack 1, I would probably attack the lower rank player. I think it is a viable strategy. When you have a higher score, you are ALWAYS a target in every game you play, so you are typically fighting against more than 1 player gunning for you.

[andre the giant]

Not that I'm a colonel or anything, but I do have an above average score.

I play to win. Sometimes that means surviving to the next round and lying in wait for the right moment to strike, sometimes it means taking a risk and trying to wipe someone else off the board to get their cards. Unfortunately for lower ranked players, they tend to be less experienced, less organized, and easier to kill. They are usually the better target.

Conversely, when I play terminator games, the lower ranked players tend to gang up on me and the higher ranked players because there's a bigger payoff.

As far as suiciding a game, the only one I recall actually doing that in was a no cards game with friends, where we reached round 36 and all got tired of it. we agreed to all suicide ourselves and go from there. I didn't win, lost 30 pts or so, and was glad to be out of that game.

[AndyDufresne]

I'm going to have to agree with much of what has been said here. War isn't always pretty, and sometimes it isn't fair. We've tried to make it 'as fair' as we can make it, without making a mockery of games / skill like Ped said. Perhaps the system still needs some tweaking, there are quite a few that think that, but I'm not quite sold on a flat rate point system.


--Andy

[tals]

I'm going to have to agree with much of what has been said here. War isn't always pretty, and sometimes it isn't fair. We've tried to make it 'as fair' as we can make it, without making a mockery of games / skill like Ped said. Perhaps the system still needs some tweaking, there are quite a few that think that, but I'm not quite sold on a flat rate point system.


--Andy

I've since chatted with ped about this and see his point re the flat rate system. With a flat rate system what is to stop someone taking on new players just to gain the points? I don't think there are that many lame players that hook into there points so much that they will fall on there sword rather than risk loosing a game. Those that do are a pain in the backside and will happily join my ignore list.

Tals

[Selin]

how about keeping the existing system, but limiting the maximum points that can be lost with 35

[SirSebstar]

I have just posted in another thread where I discovered high-ups gang up on noobs just so they would loose less points. I don’t think I made any friends with that one post. My apologies to the board.

I would like to offer another few possible suggestion.

First ill suggest a few.
You could give out flat rate points for every game finished, combined with a %win /loose. Those who play lot of games will have a worse win loose stat, but higher points, getting them higher into the overall charts.

You could also just keep a tally of won/lost games over the past 60 days.
No need to count points from older games. It would keep the ranking system more dynamic, even is still using a point based ranking system. Mm this even sounds like a non solution to me...

But you could still keep count of the say last 10 games or so (and limited in time, say 120 days). And base your ranking on those. Combined with point gains based on the weight of the game.
Let me expand on this last one:
A weighted game would mean the total of ranking combined divided by the amount of players would give a (lower) max lost result even if the noob wins. This would prevent noobs from gaining too many points (and derive high ranking players of the need to gang up on noobs). It would also mean that high ranking games should get some other reward. This means that someone who plays 10 games vs. generals and wins, gains more point for the overall ranking score even if they manage to win less on a point scale.

Anyways, these are just some suggestion on the top of my head.

[HotShot53]

I posted this first in the general section of the forums, but then followed the link to this thread, and it'd probably fit better here...

What would happen if the points you gained/lost was based on the people playing the game, and not on who won the game? Like everyone puts points in based on the other players' average points, and then the winner takes all. Then it wouldn't matter who you lost to, cause the amount of points you lose is fixed, but beating a bunch of weaker players wouldn't gain you much and you'd still be risking a lot if you lost.

It seems that this should work, though being new here I'm sure I haven't thought of all the possible problems with it yet

[longboreder]

i think tals has a point:

If this can't be done then I would like a way of stopping any player more than 1 rank higher than me joining.

so does selin:

how about keeping the existing system, but limiting the maximum points that can be lost with 35

suggestion:
in public games, whoever starts a game, only players at rank, one above, or one below can join. noobs can only join games created by other noobs or privates. Privates can join or be joined by noob, private, or sarge created games. Sarges by privates, sarges, and luetenants. and so on

that would keep the amount of points won/lost by a player from being disproportionate. it would keep deadbeating noobs out of games where 4 or 5 mid rank players have to suffer 3 days of noob deadbeating.

in private games, anybody can play anybody with a cap on points won/lost. i like selin's 35.

[ga7]

That would prevent all the thrill from challenging a general for beginners It would make sense however to limit the access to pure noobs... Privates don't seem to deadbeat so much already after all.

[tals]

That would prevent all the thrill from challenging a general for beginners It would make sense however to limit the access to pure noobs... Privates don't seem to deadbeat so much already after all.

I agree - as i've gained 200 points in the last 2 days i've kind of got over my annoyance at this. I still thinks it stinks and should I ever get to th eheadier heights I hope I never employ the tactics myself.

Good thread in the discussion area (link I posted at the beginning) regarding it.

Tals

[joeyjordison]

remember that this can happen in the reverse. a high ranked player playing terminator games will b an immediate target.