Please..... TWEAK the point system

[iamkoolerthanu]

Tweaking things is what makes them better and better. Maybe the point system needs to be tweaked a bit, maybe not. Put up a poll, and see where it goes. If it ends up sounding biased either way, i will tweak it for you AoN

Not AoG... Right?

[army of nobunaga]

Ugh, are we having this discussion again?

AoN, the problems with your suggestion are legion, but let's just look at one:
Right now, if I lose a team game to an exactly equivalent team, the point exchange is 20. But Under your formula, I'd, what, lose 30, and the other team would gain 10? Where's that extra 20 points go? That's some massively deflationary shit right there for a game between equals.

This has happened before, quite often in fact. Someone comes along, says the scoreboard is broken, proposes a half-baked cure that would be worse than the disease, and then declares that they have a popular mandate. And this is all because someone gets pissed off about ho the top tenth of a percent of the scoreboard operates, so they want to substantially change the playing experience for all CCers. That's pretty arrogant, mate.

If this is your stance you have never the right of complaining endlessly when someone uses the point system in a cheap way.

never

[army of nobunaga]

And for the record... Have I EvER claimed to be a genius or even smart? If this is flawed.. then help me come up with a better formula... I AM SMART enough to know its idiotic to beat up on people that use the point system and never try to improve it.

Every functional business in life and society grows by tweaking things.. even governments. The point system could be better, point blank.

[Incandenza]

Ugh, are we having this discussion again?

AoN, the problems with your suggestion are legion, but let's just look at one:
Right now, if I lose a team game to an exactly equivalent team, the point exchange is 20. But Under your formula, I'd, what, lose 30, and the other team would gain 10? Where's that extra 20 points go? That's some massively deflationary shit right there for a game between equals.

This has happened before, quite often in fact. Someone comes along, says the scoreboard is broken, proposes a half-baked cure that would be worse than the disease, and then declares that they have a popular mandate. And this is all because someone gets pissed off about ho the top tenth of a percent of the scoreboard operates, so they want to substantially change the playing experience for all CCers. That's pretty arrogant, mate.

If this is your stance you have never the right of complaining endlessly when someone uses the point system in a cheap way.

never

The point system could be better, point blank.

First off, I don't recall ever having much of a beef with people gaming the system. It's certainly not worth getting bent out of shape about.

And second, I don't think the scoring system is perfect. But your solution, sorry to be so blunt, is freakin' terrible. You can't in good conscience make a suggestion like this, based solely on what a handful of people out of tens of thousands are doing, without seriously examining the potential repercussions, which you clearly haven't done. I can't help but note you made no mention of the massive deflationary aspect of your plan, nor did you respond to Chuck's eminently reasonable post about probabilities. Which makes me think you're not at all serious about encouraging debate on this topic, but are instead using it to score cheap points off people who you think sully the game somehow.

When you have a real suggestion, then let's talk. Otherwise, step down off the soapbox.

[army of nobunaga]

Ugh, are we having this discussion again?

AoN, the problems with your suggestion are legion, but let's just look at one:
Right now, if I lose a team game to an exactly equivalent team, the point exchange is 20. But Under your formula, I'd, what, lose 30, and the other team would gain 10? Where's that extra 20 points go? That's some massively deflationary shit right there for a game between equals.

This has happened before, quite often in fact. Someone comes along, says the scoreboard is broken, proposes a half-baked cure that would be worse than the disease, and then declares that they have a popular mandate. And this is all because someone gets pissed off about ho the top tenth of a percent of the scoreboard operates, so they want to substantially change the playing experience for all CCers. That's pretty arrogant, mate.

exactly...its pretty biased against team players as well...There is as much a skill and art to it as excalating players

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TEAM PLAYERS... lol I guess I know where you get your points.

But it has more to do with 4 colonels playing 4 privates. The modifier needs changed or tweaked.

lol... sometimes i feel like im talking to walls you guys are so blatently happily dumb sometimes.

Why should you get X amount of points in a quads game that a computer program can win 50% of the time and you win 80% of the time because you play chumps killing the spirit of the game.


All of you guys complainging... when is the last damn time you ppl have played a 5-8 man singles room??? and what is the percent if you have./.. how many?

you ppl are paper champs.. you get all your points on your highest win percent games, when its a chumps way out.

chumps


try being a player? but wait the point system doesnt support players... it supports ppl playing the highest win percentage games over and over and over..

the next person that replys to this and argues.. im going to go through your games.. then post your stats here... I think that will open eyes.


In CC a small percent of game types (like 5%) are the games that your "leaders" play. The "good" players.
lol


The system needs tweaked so bad it hurts and I can only laugh at your outrages.

[TheForgivenOne]

Tweaking things is what makes them better and better. Maybe the point system needs to be tweaked a bit, maybe not. Put up a poll, and see where it goes. If it ends up sounding biased either way, i will tweak it for you AoN

Not AoG... Right?

The Cosmic forces made me want to yell at AoG

[army of nobunaga]

Tweaking things is what makes them better and better. Maybe the point system needs to be tweaked a bit, maybe not. Put up a poll, and see where it goes. If it ends up sounding biased either way, i will tweak it for you AoN

Not AoG... Right?

The Cosmic forces made me want to yell at AoG

Dude.. me and polls and you mods... dont agree.

I actually refuse.


This will not pass, because 90% of the top 10% of players post a lot of theforums... If EVERY REAL user in CC could vote.. then it would be different..

this proposed poll will just be high ranked ppl protecting their "systems" .... the ones posting outraged here are jsut a handfull that would come.

I give them CC and the weak point system and hollow lifes... If you need something that bad unfair for rank here in your life, that means you are coving for something you lack in other areas... KArma is a bitch.. Ill be fine with the way it is.

Ill just always be the man that steps up and says THIS IS NOT RIGHT... and then tell the wimps that abuse the not right to shut the f*ck up... in any form of life.

We are destined to be who we will be


cheers.

[Incandenza]

FarangDemon, is that you?

You're entitled to your opinion, but I STILL can't help but note you've refused to discuss any of the holes in your plan. Just screaming "the point system needs tweaking!" isn't going to get anything done.

And don't take this the wrong way, but I'm not too terribly inclined to take game selection advice from someone who plays 150 games at a time. Some of us prefer quality over quantity.

[edwinissweet]

3 pages in one day? really? woah. Trolling 1. All the good suggestions waiting for some meaningful discussion 0.

[mgconstruction]

Seems to me the problem with the points system is not the system itself but all the flaming, baiting, finger pointing etc in the forums about how the system is used.

FACT: We all use the same exact point system.
FACT: We all have the same chance as everyone else of making conqueror or keeping a high rank with the current point system in place.
FACT: Some of us choose to use that point system to become Higher Ranked, Conqueror etc.
FACT: Some of us dont really care about points as much as having fun, playing tourneys, playing crazy ass game settings for the fun of it.

Look, I completely understand the reason this whole thing got set off like this. Blitz has his top lists with notations on how people got to the top (farming etc). If people or even MODs have a problem with this then why are those notations allowed to exist in those threads. Are those notations not considered Baiting by insulting the people who earned those achievements?

The funny thing in all this is, all the people who are saying that Blitz is wrong for pointing those things out about other players are doing the exact same thing here about him. Is he breaking any rules?

Plain & simple, if you become Conqueror & don't break any rules along the way or choose to get those points by playing only certain games, settings etc, than more power to you.
Apparently becoming conqueror takes a lot of discipline in what, when & how you play as well as not being able to have fun & play freely. If they give up that right to become Conqueror than they have earned it.

BTW, if there is proof of any Conqueror that has broken the rules on the way up then why not strip them of having that title at all?

The points system is not broken, people are.

[lord voldemort]

Ugh, are we having this discussion again?

AoN, the problems with your suggestion are legion, but let's just look at one:
Right now, if I lose a team game to an exactly equivalent team, the point exchange is 20. But Under your formula, I'd, what, lose 30, and the other team would gain 10? Where's that extra 20 points go? That's some massively deflationary shit right there for a game between equals.

This has happened before, quite often in fact. Someone comes along, says the scoreboard is broken, proposes a half-baked cure that would be worse than the disease, and then declares that they have a popular mandate. And this is all because someone gets pissed off about ho the top tenth of a percent of the scoreboard operates, so they want to substantially change the playing experience for all CCers. That's pretty arrogant, mate.

exactly...its pretty biased against team players as well...There is as much a skill and art to it as excalating players

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TEAM PLAYERS... lol I guess I know where you get your points.

But it has more to do with 4 colonels playing 4 privates. The modifier needs changed or tweaked.

lol... sometimes i feel like im talking to walls you guys are so blatently happily dumb sometimes.

Why should you get X amount of points in a quads game that a computer program can win 50% of the time and you win 80% of the time because you play chumps killing the spirit of the game.


All of you guys complainging... when is the last damn time you ppl have played a 5-8 man singles room??? and what is the percent if you have./.. how many?

you ppl are paper champs.. you get all your points on your highest win percent games, when its a chumps way out.

chumps


try being a player? but wait the point system doesnt support players... it supports ppl playing the highest win percentage games over and over and over..

the next person that replys to this and argues.. im going to go through your games.. then post your stats here... I think that will open eyes.

In CC a small percent of game types (like 5%) are the games that your "leaders" play. The "good" players.
lol

The system needs tweaked so bad it hurts and I can only laugh at your outrages.

why is playing team games a chumps way out...I could argue playing entirely singles is a chumps way out.

[firsal901]

how about this:

+10 per player you beat
ex.5=50

-10 if you lose

in team games +10 to each player

if you lose -10

terminator +10 if Eliminate someone

[Army of GOD]

What's that?

Give 4000 points to AoG?

[Dako]

Your tweak is not a tweak. It will just alter the way people play now but it will not fix the point system.

Somewhere I've seen interesting idea:
if you play someone ... 2000 points lower than you are (ok, we can make it even 3000 or 1000, doesn't matter) you don't win points when you win the game and you don't loose points when you loose the game. But if the cook has won - he gets the points (well, it is out of balance but we can just make 0 for win/loss both ways to keep it simple). This will prevent point farming on all levels (1v1 or team farming). If you want to be a top - win the top guys.

So there is not point in playing weaker players (unless you just like to win) - such wins will not alter your point score, only win/loss ratio.

What do you think?

[Army of GOD]

Your tweak is not a tweak. It will just alter the way people play now but it will not fix the point system.

Somewhere I've seen interesting idea:
if you play someone ... 2000 points lower than you are (ok, we can make it even 3000 or 1000, doesn't matter) you don't win points when you win the game and you don't loose points when you loose the game. But if the cook has won - he gets the points (well, it is out of balance but we can just make 0 for win/loss both ways to keep it simple). This will prevent point farming on all levels (1v1 or team farming). If you want to be a top - win the top guys.

So there is not point in playing weaker players (unless you just like to win) - such wins will not alter your point score, only win/loss ratio.

What do you think?

Makes sense. Will really help farming...though they'll find ways to argue against this.

[porkenbeans]

points should be graded on how statistically probable it is in winning that game!

Quads and 1vs1, you friggin already have a 50% chance of winning. ... So tweak this... Make it really much harder for people that wimp out and only play the games they win 80% of the time at. MAke them prove they are skilled. Make them join the CC masses and not play with 3 other colonels and generals beating up on free account privates.

MAkes no sense not to change it to me... Which means in 1 week this thread will be on page 3 and forgotten.

o well

This thread will go to page 3 and be forgotten because it is a terrible idea. Yes, in 1v1 and team games you have a 50% chance to win, but you are rewarded based off your statistical probability to win. If you win you only make one set of points, so you are risking 1 to 1. In an 8 man standard game you are against 8 players, and you are risking one point for 8 (adjusted for points). So the current system is already in place to do exactly what your first sentence says.

You should learn more about probabilities before making a post like this. An 8 man player can easily climb the scoreboards if they have the patience and do it right. You have to play games that are point positive for you meaning that the relative rank of your opponents needs to be such that you will make positive points in whatever % time you beat that relative rank to make up for the points you will lose compared to that relative rank when you lose the game. The true problem with those games is increasing in a 50/50 game, when your opponent makes a mistake, you can take direct advantage of that mistake. In an 8 player game, when 1 opponent makes a mistake, you have a 1/7 chance to take advantage of that mistake and most likely some one else will get to.

I will even give you another golden idea. Play in sequential 8 man games with a high relative rank, but join the game directly after the player MOST LIKELY to make the mistake that will hand you the game. This will increase your probability of winning games slightly and that slight increase will be shown in moving up the scoreboard.

That last part about the golden idea is brilliant. I have never considered the fact, that I could increase my winning percentage by signing up after a poorly skilled player. This little trick could be worth an extra 3-6% or more. In a game of percentages, every little bit helps.

[mibi]

Your tweak is not a tweak. It will just alter the way people play now but it will not fix the point system.

Somewhere I've seen interesting idea:
if you play someone ... 2000 points lower than you are (ok, we can make it even 3000 or 1000, doesn't matter) you don't win points when you win the game and you don't loose points when you loose the game. But if the cook has won - he gets the points (well, it is out of balance but we can just make 0 for win/loss both ways to keep it simple). This will prevent point farming on all levels (1v1 or team farming). If you want to be a top - win the top guys.

So there is not point in playing weaker players (unless you just like to win) - such wins will not alter your point score, only win/loss ratio.

What do you think?

smart idea.. and yes, it would eliminate farming.

[trapyoung]

It still doesn't make sense, what if a General plays with 3 cooks? How would the formula work besides what seems to be a basic endorsement of an ad hoc determination based on how cheap the perceived tactics are. I actually feel the opposite should be implemented - a point ceiling for amounts to possibly lose. If a cook wins a single game, it does not mean that they deserve 70 pts in a game against a high rank, dice affect things and it just seems lame when the trade off is winning 4 pts v. losing 70. That's the reason that many high ranks use lower ranked guys in team games and the point protect occurs - you want higher quality teams and games in public, should implement a point ceiling, not increase the points lost if a high rank.

[joecoolfrog]

Concise description:
The current point system creates paper champions. We have conquerors and wanna be conquerors that play nothing but 1vs1 freestyle agaisnt slower weaker players, we have top players that actually create private games for privates and cooks. We have a point system in which a good player named blitzaholic is set upon by his fellow players because of his methods to gain rank!
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=119100


why? Why does our point system have to be so biased towards unsportsmanlike like competition? The Spirit of CC is dying because of this point system. And when it is dead, when the average person realizes he/she can never be in the top 50 because they dont want to play cheesey cheat like games, then the site will die.



Specifics/Details:
*Less points awarded for team games won, more points lost for team games lost.. Make it harder for 4 generals that play nothing but quads to move up.
*Less points, far less when you beat a cook or private. Far less. More points taken than current when said cook or private beats you.
*More points for people that win singles matches, and more points as there are more people involved in the match.
*It all just needs to be tweaked. Someone that wins 40% of 5-8 man rooms, should be able to overtake the team playing people and the noob farmers.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
Fair play and sportsmanship that is promoted always benefits all.

I have been in the top 50 consistently for a couple of years , never play 1 v 1 or freestyle and cant remember my last team game . I get invited to most of my games , play on a wide variety of maps and most of the time against similar ranks..........I dont cheat, dont display bad sportsmanship and like the vast majority of people I play dont fit with your ridiculous stereotype.

[joecoolfrog]

Quite simply anyone who is determined enough is going to find a way to boost their score...
And it definately is possibly to climb the scoreboard as an escalating player....thai robert, scott-land come to mind.
I think while several conquerors have used 'cheap' methods to get to the top...They are still decent players...its obvious to most who the better players on the site are. The conqueror symbol is just self reward.

There are in fact a good number of sequential escalating players ( 5-8 player games ) in the top 50 , comic boy actually made it to Conqueror with a win rate around 30% .

[stahrgazer]

Fair play and sportsmanship that is promoted always benefits all.

The way to do that would be that is to limit games to specific points for a win, regardless of rank. Say, ten points per win. That way, someone who just lost a ton of rank because he tried for a specific medal wouldn't suddenly jump up (haven't we all seen pals go from private to major in a day or two simply by picking their games?) just for targeting generals and getting lucky a couple games. In general, it would require 20 wins with no losses to 'rank up'.

Would make it easier to find those who're simply targeting noobs... although while the ruling remains that targeting anyone other than ?s is 'legal' it won't mean much.

[JoshyBoy]

I like the current points system...

[Chuuuuck]

shocking.. .someone that is a 1`00% quads and trips player protests... rofl

whatever man.

have fun in cc.

Sorry I don't check this thread every 2 sec. like you. But why don't you take the time to actually map rank me and look at what I have played instead of looking at my active games. Sure I am in a lot of triples and quads right now because of clan games and tournaments, but that I got here playing just about everything.

[Dako]

Anyone else going to comment my suggestion in this thread?

[TheForgivenOne]

I like it Dako.