Conquer Club

Sorry, but in war you are either first, or last. There's no prizes for second place if you're dead.

dwilhelmi wrote:This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Decrease frequency of suicides/dropouts

And this is horribly wrong. There will be more suicides. "Oh, I can't win but I can make sure I finish higher than player A".

Terminator games already let you earn points and not win. It does tend to encourage suiciding, but no more than your proposal does.

I had been thinking that it would reduce suicides due to the fact that the person suiciding might then be knocked out sooner than they otherwise would if they attempted to hold out for longer. However, I see your point.

My main thought had been that right now, there would be no way to tell the difference between someone who was just terrible and always got knocked out first, and someone who was reasonably skilled but consistently finished in second. I see this as a flaw if the point system is supposed to be an indicator of skill level.

That being said, I didn't really think out how said system could be manipulated by people.

dwilhelmi wrote:My main thought had been that right now, there would be no way to tell the difference between someone who was just terrible and always got knocked out first, and someone who was reasonably skilled but consistently finished in second. I see this as a flaw if the point system is supposed to be an indicator of skill level.

I felt the same way when I started, and as a result, played Terminator games almost exclusively. My thought was, "if I kill 5 of the 8 guys, but run into bad luck, and finish 2nd, I should get some sort of recognition - right?" The reality is, people with good strategies will win their fair share of games, and their ratings will reflect that. If you're constantly coming in 2nd, but never winning, you're doing something wrong, and you need to tweak your strategy.

Fair enough, makes sense. Thanks for the responses, and I hope I didn't sound too terribly ignorant.

None of this should matter much anyway, considering I have every intention of decimating every time I play, and plan on never losing

(wanted to polish off the n00b image there, in case any were in doubt...)

Thanks!

This idea...






















... will not work. Sorry.

I REALLY like the idea but I feel like it'd make games drag on a long time because no one wants to finish last or in the lower half which would be the half of people that lose instead of gain points. But the idea is great.

It could work as a separate game type. If u know that points will be awarded at the end and it goes 75% to winner, 15% 2nd, 10% to 3rd then u know what u will be getting in to. It could also lead to some additional tactics - it's in ur interest to help the lowest rank player win so that there's more points in the pot from the higher ranks

I don't mind it as a suggestion, keep them coming!

The problem is, you'd have people who couldn't win fighting for 2nd place. If there are three players left in the game, this could mean the weaker player suiciding against one of the stronger players in an attempt to get points for 2nd.

We already have terminator games.

I would like this idea a lot more if we didn't have the option of terminator, but since we do, this seems redundant. also there are lots of tourneys where you can advance by being the last to lose, so I feel there are already ample opportunities for runners-up to be rewarded across the site.

I would like this to be implemented a bit differently. We already have terminator games to gain points by eliminating players regardless of who wins the game.
I would rather modified the current formula so that the order of elimination would affect the score one will lose. I.e. In a standard game, the first person to be taken out would lose more points than he/she would lose being taken out last.

E.g. in an 8-player standard game, in the order of elimination:
1st player to be eliminated would lose: (loser's score / winner's score) * 20 * 1,15
2nd player to be eliminated would lose: (loser's score / winner's score) * 20 * 1,10
3rd player to be eliminated would lose: (loser's score / winner's score) * 20 * 1,05
4th player to be eliminated would lose: (loser's score / winner's score) * 20
5th player to be eliminated would lose: (loser's score / winner's score) * 20 * 0,95
6th player to be eliminated would lose: (loser's score / winner's score) * 20 * 0,90
7th player to be eliminated would lose: (loser's score / winner's score) * 20 * 0,85
the winner would win the sum of the above points

There would be 35% difference between the points lost if someone would be taken out first or last in an 8-player game - probably a good incentive to:
* Decrease frequency of suicides/dropouts
* Increase reward for doing well.

This has been asked and rejected numerous times. Rejected