KoE_Sirius wrote:Its not a fair system where players feel they can't play lower ranks,because they'll lose to many points and where cooks that have won more games then a general.
I hope that has cleared up what I posted before..I know I was ranting a little.I'm sorry.
As was said before, if its only about points then you need to pick your battles carefully. But over a longer period of time, the score will even out. The last time a Battle Royale was a standard game the guy who won made it to the #1 spot. He did not last there very long.... However, lots of player have been accused of farming low rankers. So you mean they were mathematically challenged? let me try a different tack. The system is what it is, people will try to take advantage anyways.. they always do. now i am wondering what your personal position is on what are highrankers and what are low rankers, and why highrankers dont want to play low rankers. its a slightly different debate, but i am interested because in the end its a game. I stink at assassin, but now that i have my gold medal i stink slightly less. Lost 75% of my rank, was close to becomming a cook, and i am back up today, so no big deal. pmy point, play enough games and you will make good any loss, .. provided you are that good. There are only a few players with low amounts of games in the top 100. they got there because of planning. that alone makes them decent players. if you plan as well you can get anywhere, whatever the system.. dont let imaginary points distract you from having a fun game.
stahrgazer wrote: SirSebstar wrote:
ksslemp wrote:Well, I think they should change the formula at the least.
Just beat a newb and was awarded "3 POINTS"!!! weeeeee
Then lost to one and lost 54. Where is the fairness in that????
i suggest you visit the suggestions forum and make a post there.
otherwise. a low ranker half your points should be beatable by you twice at much as he can beat you... Maybe you should better pick on someone your own size..
Which means the lower ranker should get 6 points for a win to ksslemp's 3 points for a win.... not 54 to 3.
It should only be 54:3 if the newer player was 18 times more 'beatable' than the higher player.
Take a 1000 point player versus an 6666 point player.. 3 points the the champion and 133 to the noob. the noob needs to be beaten aprox 44 times to even loose once for the champ. not 18.. and there are no 6666 players, so he must have taken on a player even lower.. much lower below the 1000 mark line.. i have to wonder why?
But to get back on your comment, you mean the reward should outweigh the risk?, in time it will, but maybe that player was underrated, then you can just be glad you gave some points to get him to the place he belongs. if is was not underrated you won an easy victory..
can you be clearer with an example for me so i can understand what your problem is?
eh no... or actually yes, in your example the noob is actually 18 times more beatable then the higher player so i wonder what your point is. unless you want to state that that particular noob has been underrated and is actually much stronger then he appears... well the system did not put him there. unless you t