Conquer Club

Concise description:

Anytime a ? player is in a game, he loses and gains no points regardless of the outcome. Once he has a rank, all is as usual. In the case of a multiplayer game, all other players still gain and lose points as normal. The noob is basically in "practice mode". I'm still trying to work out how this would work in team games. Any suggestions in that regard would be appreciated. Also any criticisms regarding opportunities for abuse, etc. are welcomed.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

This will eliminate the spurious complaints about farming of new recruits. New recruits will not be targets for farming, as they won't net players the 3 points or whatever. Players will not be falsely accused of farming because ? players join their games, over which they have no control.

Since no one seems to think that "farming" is taking place once the noob has 5 completed games, this will allow noobs to join and deadbeat their 4 initial games and never come back, without someone screaming "farmer". If the noob actually does stay, people can rape and pillage them for points all they want once they have their 5 games under their belt.

I suggested this awhile ago. Its a good idea but what about other areas besides points? Win ratio goes up. Unique defeats are counted towards medals. cross maps go up. etc.

i think it's a great start to fix the problem

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:I suggested this awhile ago. Its a good idea but what about other areas besides points? Win ratio goes up. Unique defeats are counted towards medals. cross maps go up. etc.

I could see this happening this way:

A defeat of a ? would not be counted as a unique defeat, because it really doesn't count at all. In the case of a multiplayer game, all of the non-? players will count as unique defeats, but the ?s won't. It would only count as a win, and thus win percentage would only go up, if you win the entire game and it's not all ? opponents, meaning you beat at least one non-noob.

Any games against only ? players would not count as a completed game, so it would not affect win percentage at all.

This would mean that ?s can play games against only other ?s forever and not reach their 5 games completed to earn a promotion. They can practice to their hearts' content against other noobs. Once they have played 5 games against a non-noob, they are open for exploitation as is the case today.

Does anyone else have any comments/questions/concerns with this?

Right, it is an interesting suggestion. I'd like to see more expanded upon in regards to Johnny's question about other aspects. What is limited, what isn't, what is counted, isn't, and reasons for or for not.

And always keep in mind the larger picture of points, inflation, user retention, and game winner happiness.


--Andy

Who would want to play ?? for free? That would be POINTLESS.

jefjef wrote:Who would want to play ?? for free? That would be POINTLESS.

Well, it would be free of points, but wouldn't be pointless. It would be fun for all; after all, it's a game.

It would give ?s a chance to learn and play without having to be farmed. As has already been stated, there are plenty of poor players with 5+ games under their belts that are available to siphon points from.

It would decrease the likelihood that people would leave right away, as they would have to complete 5 games before their wins would count. Everyone here knows how addictive it is to try to get a higher score.

AndyDufresne wrote:Right, it is an interesting suggestion. I'd like to see more expanded upon in regards to Johnny's question about other aspects. What is limited, what isn't, what is counted, isn't, and reasons for or for not.

And always keep in mind the larger picture of points, inflation, user retention, and game winner happiness.


--Andy

I think I hit on most of what is counted and what isn't in my response to Johnny above, at least my idea of it.

I don't see how this would negatively impact points or inflation. If anything, it ensures that drive-by noobs don't start a handful of games and deadbeat, never to be heard from again, which does create points inflation.

I think user retention would go up, because it would be like a "trial" period. If they win a game out of their first 5, sure, they wouldn't get any points, but they'd realize that they are certainly capable of winning when the points do matter, so they'd stay. If they don't win a game out of their first 5, they wouldn't automatically leave as is frequently the case today, because they'd still have 1000 points and a PFC ranking instead of starting as a cadet or a cook as their first promotion.

Winner happiness, I don't know about. I guess it might make the farmers sad that they don't get anything out of shellacking noobs in 1v1 games, but reasonable people would not be too concerned about 3 or 4 points from a newbie, and would instead encourage more players on this site to get more funding for cooler stuff, more contributors for maps and tournaments, and more diverse opposition.

In my proposal above, as long as the entire game isn't filled with noob opponents, you will still win or lose points, so there is still a reason to play.

jefjef wrote:Who would want to play ?? for free? That would be POINTLESS.

Uh..."having fun and enjoying the game" aren't pointless.

jefjef wrote:Who would want to play ?? for free? That would be POINTLESS.

Anyone who has other reasons for playing than growing his e-penis aka. rank.

natty_dread wrote:

jefjef wrote:Who would want to play ?? for free? That would be POINTLESS.

Anyone who has other reasons for playing than growing his e-penis aka. rank.

Sorry for the word play. didn't mean to confuse ya.

Since the farming accusations are once again dominating the board, I'll revive this topic to maybe get some more feedback.

I think this is an excellent idea. The OP mentioned that he wasn't quite sure how to deal with team games. That shouldn't be too difficult. New Recruits aren't allowed to join team games unless they start them or receive an invitation, so there shouldn't be too many cases of this anyway. Regardless, calculating the point exchange for the other players wouldn't be a problem. The players on the team without a NR just won't win (or lose) as many points as they normally would (since they only win off of or lose to the non-? players). Players teamed with the ?s stand to gain or lose as many points as if they were playing with more experienced players, but they won't be surprised by a NR joining their team anyway, since again, ?s have to either be invited or start the game themselves.

Just to clarify how the points would work, assume you have a 4 player doubles game:
team 1:
player A: (New Recruit) 1000pts
player B: 1400pts

team 2:
player C: 1200pts
player D: 1200pts

The two teams have equal points, so normally everyone would stand to gain or lose 20 points.
If team 1 wins: A gets nothing. B gets 20 points - 10 off of C and 10 off of D.
If team 2 wins: A loses nothing. B loses 20 points - 10 to C and 10 to D.

In the general case, assume there is a NR on team 1 and there are N players on each team.
If team 1 beats team 2, each non-? on team 1 would gain (20/N)*(sum(points on team 2)/sum(points on team 1)) from each member of team 2.
If team 2 beats team 1, each member of team 2 gains (20/N)*(sum(points on team 1)/sum(points on team 2)) from each non-? member of team 1.