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.

[redhawk92]

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.

[redhawk92]

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.

[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

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?

yes, its to try and stop farming

i dont see why you can get a score reset for one type of farming and not another - both give you a rank you dont deserve and hence mess up the score system

[ubersky]

But at some point, who cares what other people do? If someone you really don't like gets a lot of points via one map, then don't play that map. Also people will tend not to play that map with them over time.

Also, if they are truly poor players, then their win ratio will be low (showing overall skill) and their points will come down over time.

Unless they are somehow ridiculously lucky to win a vast majority of the games they play, then at some point, doesn't that prove they are good players?

[FredVIII]

But at some point, who cares what other people do? If someone you really don't like gets a lot of points via one map, then don't play that map.

so why do we have a scoreboard and a points system if no one cares anyway?

Also, if they are truly poor players, then their win ratio will be low (showing overall skill) and their points will come down over time.

dont you get it? they play the same map over and over again. they are good at that one thing and hence their points do not go down but up.

Unless they are somehow ridiculously lucky to win a vast majority of the games they play, then at some point, doesn't that prove they are good players?

not really, anyone can keep playing the same thing and eventually get good at that one thing, i dont consider that skill.

[demonfork]

But at some point, who cares what other people do? If someone you really don't like gets a lot of points via one map, then don't play that map.

so why do we have a scoreboard and a points system if no one cares anyway?

The scoreboard is for the individual, to gauge their own progress.
I don't care how other players gain or lose their points or what game settings they chose to play to get those points.

Also, if they are truly poor players, then their win ratio will be low (showing overall skill) and their points will come down over time.

dont you get it? they play the same map over and over again. they are good at that one thing and hence their points do not go down but up.

Show me one player on the site that only plays one map, this phantom person does not exist.

Furthermore, if a player only played one map it would reflect in the amount of medals that they were able to achieve.

Unless they are somehow ridiculously lucky to win a vast majority of the games they play, then at some point, doesn't that prove they are good players?

not really, anyone can keep playing the same thing and eventually get good at that one thing, i dont consider that skill.


Luckily for the rest of us, your convoluted thinking does not dictate reality.

The inevitable conclusion of this proposed nonsense is that each player will gain their max amount of points per map and it will no longer be possible for them to gain new points.

Eventually everyone will have the exact same score.

[flexmaster33]

This is silly...why mandate that people play a variety of games. Personally, I enjoy 1 vs. 1 sequential the most and they make up the bulk of my play, but I still venture into multi-player games or doubles once in awhile. I don't see a reason to limit players like this.

[Rocketry]

No no! Are you crazy?

[FredVIII]

But at some point, who cares what other people do? If someone you really don't like gets a lot of points via one map, then don't play that map.

so why do we have a scoreboard and a points system if no one cares anyway?

The scoreboard is for the individual, to gauge their own progress.
I don't care how other players gain or lose their points or what game settings they chose to play to get those points.

Also, if they are truly poor players, then their win ratio will be low (showing overall skill) and their points will come down over time.

dont you get it? they play the same map over and over again. they are good at that one thing and hence their points do not go down but up.

Show me one player on the site that only plays one map, this phantom person does not exist.

Furthermore, if a player only played one map it would reflect in the amount of medals that they were able to achieve.

Unless they are somehow ridiculously lucky to win a vast majority of the games they play, then at some point, doesn't that prove they are good players?

not really, anyone can keep playing the same thing and eventually get good at that one thing, i dont consider that skill.


Luckily for the rest of us, your convoluted thinking does not dictate reality.

The inevitable conclusion of this proposed nonsense is that each player will gain their max amount of points per map and it will no longer be possible for them to gain new points.

Eventually everyone will have the exact same score.

1. i never wrote that, do not quote me and then edit what i wrote

2. if this was implemented you would drop rank a lot because you are only 'good' at one setting - maxatstuy (allong with other ? farmers) tried hard to stop the "no points for new recruit deadbeats" suggestion, it doesnt surprise me you are trying to prevent this from happening

Feudal War Colonel329 +1671 375 from 450(83%) 247 Warmonger (83%)300 Point Hoarder (0.564)

thats 1671 points, turn that to 200 and you drop from general to low colonel which is what your real rank should be

now you are not the only person to farm like this, im only pointing it out because you said no one does it

[demonfork]

But at some point, who cares what other people do? If someone you really don't like gets a lot of points via one map, then don't play that map.

so why do we have a scoreboard and a points system if no one cares anyway?

The scoreboard is for the individual, to gauge their own progress.
I don't care how other players gain or lose their points or what game settings they chose to play to get those points.

Also, if they are truly poor players, then their win ratio will be low (showing overall skill) and their points will come down over time.

dont you get it? they play the same map over and over again. they are good at that one thing and hence their points do not go down but up.

Show me one player on the site that only plays one map, this phantom person does not exist.

Furthermore, if a player only played one map it would reflect in the amount of medals that they were able to achieve.

Unless they are somehow ridiculously lucky to win a vast majority of the games they play, then at some point, doesn't that prove they are good players?

not really, anyone can keep playing the same thing and eventually get good at that one thing, i dont consider that skill.


Luckily for the rest of us, your convoluted thinking does not dictate reality.

The inevitable conclusion of this proposed nonsense is that each player will gain their max amount of points per map and it will no longer be possible for them to gain new points.

Eventually everyone will have the exact same score.

1. i never wrote that, do not quote me and then edit what i wrote

2. if this was implemented you would drop rank a lot because you are only 'good' at one setting - maxatstuy (allong with other ? farmers) tried hard to stop the "no points for new recruit deadbeats" suggestion, it doesnt surprise me you are trying to prevent this from happening

Feudal War Colonel329 +1671 375 from 450(83%) 247 Warmonger (83%)300 Point Hoarder (0.564)

thats 1671 points, turn that to 200 and you drop from general to low colonel which is what your real rank should be

now you are not the only person to farm like this, im only pointing it out because you said no one does it

1. I don't know what you are referring to, I have not edited any of your quotes.

2. So are you suggesting that a player like LFAW who has a current point total of 2714, who has won 4484 from Feudal, should have a score of -1570?

For the record, I like to play Feudal War. I have told gimil on a few occasions that I believe that FW is the best map on cc. I love the fact that there is no such thing as an unfair starting position and I love the different strategy's that one can play. I like to play 1v1, dubs as well as trips. I thoroughly enjoy each and every game that I play on that map.

That said, it's not the only map that I play and it's not the only map that I enjoy, I wouldn't have 21 medals under my belt if it was.


One last thing Jeff...

What would you suggest that the player(s) do once they have reached the max points on every game, should they just retire from cc?

[sailorseal]

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 ?

Concurs all around

[FarangDemon]

FredVIII, I think deep down there is a good idea lurking here. That good idea is to recognize players that are more versatile, that can succeed on many different maps and map settings. Let's just make sure it does not punish those players who are very good at only one particular setting, because that skill should also be recognized.

I for one, do not like to play freestyle anymore, but I think someone who is really good at sequential, thought out games AND lightning freestyle games should get some recognition for their skill. That would make things more competitive. However, I wouldn't want my score to be adversely affected because I don't like to play freestyle.

So let's find ways to provide recognition while limiting negative effect on other player's scores, because otherwise most players won't be able to stomach it. And it can be easily done. Just provide more calculations in addition to score.

2. So are you suggesting that a player like LFAW who has a current point total of 2714, who has won 4484 from Feudal, should have a score of -1570?

Yeah that would not work out very well for any player who has played a long time and accumulated many points because they will eventually reach whatever threshold, but there is more than one way to skin a cat. You could track the ratio of how many points a player has gained on their top maps against their total points gained on all maps.

Taking n = 3 maps for example. Lets say I gain 9% of my points on Rail Europe, 7% of my points on Waterloo and 5% of my points on Arctic. That means that my top 3 maps are providing me with 9+7+5 = 21% of my point gain.

This measurement could be tailored to provide insight into whether a player's map specialization is limited to only a few or a large variety of maps.