Simple farming fix

[AAFitz]

I might be confused, but this system seems to reward poor players.

A high rank has nothing to gain from playing anyone, but low ranks can gain points at a far faster rate than anything seen to date. Now I am fully aware of the farming problem, but I fail to see this as logical. have you even considered the effect this would have on clan challenges? They would disappear overnight along with most of the tournaments. Not what lack wants to see at all.

You don't make a society richer by punishing the successful, you do it by a more egalitarian approach to wealth (in this case points). From what i can see you just want to introduce an effectively higher taxation on high ranks without giving them anything in return....

I think an escalating system like that will skew it too much... perhaps a tiered system would work better, so that only those ranks that are wildly higher, like 2000 more points would get a reduction/penalty

in other words, multiply the point difference by .5 so that they will only get half as many points...but, will still only lose the 100

at 3000 point difference, you can half it again, which would give them nearly nothing

this will penalize only targeting low ranked players by the extremely high ranked ones but not overly penalize them for getting beat.

To do this truly fairly, game point limits would actually have to be enacted though...and thats a whole other situation entirely

[Fruitcake]

I am almost certain you would see wholesale point dumping in a form unimaginable. Just about every good player on the site would see an easy way to dump their points, drop like a stone to the bottom of the points chain, then shred everything on the way back up. Once this situation had calmed down (and you just imagine the wholesale outcry while it happened and the side effects of people leaving in droves) then you may get a flatter scoreboard. However, what would then happen is cliques would appear like confetti. private games amongst friends of equal rank would be the norm with all others cut out.

How would this help those who want to learn? How would this be more egalitarian and reward success?

[a.sub]

EQUATION: (L/W)^(2.1) * 4
L=loser's score
W=winner's score

[Fruitcake]

EQUATION: (L/W)^(2.1) * 4
L=loser's score
W=winner's score

I am not sure what you are saying with this...you have put so very little explanation.

[lancehoch]

EQUATION: (L/W)^(2.1) * 4
L=loser's score
W=winner's score

I am not sure what you are saying with this...you have put so very little explanation.

The third column is the point exchange given his new formula the fourth column is the point exchange given the current formula. The fifth column is a comparison of the third and the fourth columns (third divided by fourth multiplied by 100%).

@a.sub: What if you have someone with 100 points beat someone with 6000 points? The winner would get 21,686 points. Are you planning on keeping the 100 point limit?

[AAFitz]

I am almost certain you would see wholesale point dumping in a form unimaginable. Just about every good player on the site would see an easy way to dump their points, drop like a stone to the bottom of the points chain, then shred everything on the way back up. Once this situation had calmed down (and you just imagine the wholesale outcry while it happened and the side effects of people leaving in droves) then you may get a flatter scoreboard. However, what would then happen is cliques would appear like confetti. private games amongst friends of equal rank would be the norm with all others cut out.

How would this help those who want to learn? How would this be more egalitarian and reward success?

i agree, it should only really address the massive point differences in my opinion. To be honest, I dont even think its that bad the way it is. As you say, it does give players a chance to learn.

I join games as an absolute noob, against players that I absolutely know will win. I like the challenge of trying to beat them, and enjoy seeing how they do it. It isnt a good way to earn points, but it is fun.

[a.sub]

EQUATION: (L/W)^(2.1) * 4
L=loser's score
W=winner's score

I am not sure what you are saying with this...you have put so very little explanation.

The third column is the point exchange given his new formula the fourth column is the point exchange given the current formula. The fifth column is a comparison of the third and the fourth columns (third divided by fourth multiplied by 100%).

@a.sub: What if you have someone with 100 points beat someone with 6000 points? The winner would get 21,686 points. Are you planning on keeping the 100 point limit?

oh ofc! i think the 100 point limit should be mandatory because a 100 could beat a 6,000 anyday simply out of luck! 100 point max stays

[Fruitcake]

EQUATION: (L/W)^(2.1) * 4
L=loser's score
W=winner's score

I am not sure what you are saying with this...you have put so very little explanation.

The third column is the point exchange given his new formula the fourth column is the point exchange given the current formula. The fifth column is a comparison of the third and the fourth columns (third divided by fourth multiplied by 100%).

@a.sub: What if you have someone with 100 points beat someone with 6000 points? The winner would get 21,686 points. Are you planning on keeping the 100 point limit?

oh ofc! i think the 100 point limit should be mandatory because a 100 could beat a 6,000 anyday simply out of luck! 100 point max stays

So this is just increasing the differential really. Would that be correct?

[Woodruff]

First of all, I agree with many of the disagreements against the proposal (though I think some good is coming of this thread through alterations of that proposal). However...

I am almost certain you would see wholesale point dumping in a form unimaginable. Just about every good player on the site would see an easy way to dump their points, drop like a stone to the bottom of the points chain, then shred everything on the way back up.

If they're points-dumping, then they hopefully wouldn't get the opportunity to "shred everything on the way back up", as points-dumping is illegal.

Once this situation had calmed down (and you just imagine the wholesale outcry while it happened and the side effects of people leaving in droves) then you may get a flatter scoreboard.

Why would people be leaving in droves?

[quote=Fruitcake"]However, what would then happen is cliques would appear like confetti. private games amongst friends of equal rank would be the norm with all others cut out.[/quote]

Why? What is your rationale for believing this?

[The Neon Peon]

Yeah, when I went through that equation of mine, I knew that all high scores would drop, yet when you point out examples like a players only one or two ranks below you taking that many points, it seems like a bad system.

Should have given this more thought before posting.

[Artimis]

However, what would then happen is cliques would appear like confetti. private games amongst friends of equal rank would be the norm with all others cut out.

Why? What is your rationale for believing this?

It's simple Woodruff, by adding an exponent to the ratio derived from dividing the winners score into the losers score, you end up with an amplified bonus/penalty. If you're a low rank you gain more, if you're a high rank you lose more. It's effectively compressed the range of the current calculation with it's minimum and maximum points gain capped at 5 for the floor and 100 for the ceiling. It would be very easy for a New Recruit(starts with 1000 points) to hit their points ceiling by taking on a player with +2237 points. Where as with the current calculation they'd have to play either sjnap or King_Herpes to hit the maximum ceiling.

The same goes for losing points, as a result the high ranks would stick to themselves and a lot of Captains and Majors(if not all) would refuse to play in tourneys without rank restrictions. Because they'd only have to play a Cadet or Private to get clobbered for 100 point when they stand to gain only 5 points out of it for themselves.


EDIT: Neon, it's not a 'bad' idea, just needs tweaking. As was mentioned back on page 2 somewhere, maybe make the exponent 1.4 or something close? It's just a case of finding a number that's balanced in it's consequences rather than going from one extreme to the other.

[Woodruff]

However, what would then happen is cliques would appear like confetti. private games amongst friends of equal rank would be the norm with all others cut out.

Why? What is your rationale for believing this?

It's simple Woodruff, by adding an exponent to the ratio derived from dividing the winners score into the losers score, you end up with an amplified bonus/penalty. If you're a low rank you gain more, if you're a high rank you lose more. It's effectively compressed the range of the current calculation with it's minimum and maximum points gain capped at 5 for the floor and 100 for the ceiling. It would be very easy for a New Recruit(starts with 1000 points) to hit their points ceiling by taking on a player with +2237 points. Where as with the current calculation they'd have to play either sjnap or King_Herpes to hit the maximum ceiling.
The same goes for losing points, as a result the high ranks would stick to themselves and a lot of Captains and Majors(if not all) would refuse to play in tourneys without rank restrictions. Because they'd only have to play a Cadet or Private to get clobbered for 100 point when they stand to gain only 5 points out of it for themselves.

It sounds like you're saying that all of the high-ranking players would become cowards, though I'm sure that's not what you meant.

And I agree with you that the original idea needs tweaking.

[a.sub]

EQUATION: (L/W)^(2.1) * 4
L=loser's score
W=winner's score

im still curious to what ppl think about this, YES THERE IS STILL THE MAX LIMIT AT 100 POINTS

[Timminz]

EQUATION: (L/W)^(2.1) * 4
L=loser's score
W=winner's score

im still curious to what ppl think about this, YES THERE IS STILL THE MAX LIMIT AT 100 POINTS

I think it's ridiculous. It's too much of a departure from what we have now. Equal-scored opponents would only exchange 4 points in your suggestion, rather than the 20 they exchange now.

[a.sub]

EQUATION: (L/W)^(2.1) * 4
L=loser's score
W=winner's score

im still curious to what ppl think about this, YES THERE IS STILL THE MAX LIMIT AT 100 POINTS

I think it's ridiculous. It's too much of a departure from what we have now. Equal-scored opponents would only exchange 4 points in your suggestion, rather than the 20 they exchange now.

well if two people are equally matched then beating one isnt an accomplishment really.

[General A-Ron]

Hello All Experienced Point Protectors ,

I am a noob, it is my understanding that 'noob farming' is when an experienced player wanting to boost their rank / score preys on noobs assuming that they will prob. win... if this is correct then... Why not take a players score and calculate the ratio using your opponents average (all opponents average in any given game) - then use a bracketed system for scoring. If your ratio for any given game drops below x% then you don't have get any points for a win. Like chess scoring - a grandmaster beats a 1200 and their score does not move.

[a.sub]

Hello All Experienced Point Protectors ,

I am a noob, it is my understanding that 'noob farming' is when an experienced player wanting to boost their rank / score preys on noobs assuming that they will prob. win... if this is correct then... Why not take a players score and calculate the ratio using your opponents average (all opponents average in any given game) - then use a bracketed system for scoring. If your ratio for any given game drops below x% then you don't have get any points for a win. Like chess scoring - a grandmaster beats a 1200 and their score does not move.

that would be unfair because the top players have to have below 1 as their ratio.

[Timminz]

well if two people are equally matched then beating one isnt an accomplishment really.

so, you wish to discourage people from playing their peers?

[a.sub]

well if two people are equally matched then beating one isnt an accomplishment really.

so, you wish to discourage people from playing their peers?

i wish ot make people fight players above them, personally i like getting my as handed to me on a silver platter (as can be seen by my rank ) you learn more, and the struggle is funner (yes thats a word now)

[lancehoch]

i wish ot make people fight players above them, personally i like getting my as handed to me on a silver platter (as can be seen by my rank ) you learn more, and the struggle is funner (yes thats a word now)

If you wish to make people play others above them, then how would I play someone above me, if they are supposed to play someone above them?

[Gregster60]

This may not be the right forum to bring this up, but bear with me please, Why have a point system based on rank? Why not assign points based on how long you last in a game with the winner collecting say, 100 points, the runner up gets half that, 2nd runner up gets half that and so on with the first person eliminated getting 0 points.

[blakebowling]

This may not be the right forum to bring this up, but bear with me please, Why have a point system based on rank? Why not assign points based on how long you last in a game with the winner collecting say, 100 points, the runner up gets half that, 2nd runner up gets half that and so on with the first person eliminated getting 0 points.

But then there's no way to loose points, which is not an accurate scale of your talent, it's more of a wagering system.

[a.sub]

i wish ot make people fight players above them, personally i like getting my as handed to me on a silver platter (as can be seen by my rank ) you learn more, and the struggle is funner (yes thats a word now)

If you wish to make people play others above them, then how would I play someone above me, if they are supposed to play someone above them?

be versatile, i play both people that are challenging and ppl below me. infact right now im in a game with a lieutenant and two ? marks