Conquer Club

i think that their should be a minimum score cap so that certain people wont take advantage of how the games scoring works and earn a bunch of points for winning only one game

the score system works so that when you beat a player who is better than you you get more points. If you suck so bad and you beat someone who's really good you desserve more points.

i know that, but i think people may be trying to abuse that by purposefully lowering their score so they can get the big payoff at the end

and why the hell would they do that?

they would get a few more points, but would it matter, by te time they win THAT many games to be up from like 700 points, they'd be in like 1800. I'm confused why someone would ever even think of doing that, it makes absolutely no sense

i had a talk with twill about it recently, i dont want to give anybody any ideas but....

Twill wrote:: so, if he beat someone with 2000 points, he would get 2000/1 (i.e. loser/winner gets given to him) =2000, * 20 = 40,000 - then add to that any other players in the game

Twill wrote:: sooooo assume he's in a 6 player match with 1 2000+ person and 4 1000 people, that's 120,000 points for 1 win

why do i think that's not accurate?

stevesparty wrote:the score system works so that when you beat a player who is better than you you get more points. If you suck so bad and you beat someone who's really good you desserve more points.

i disagree. we've all been in games with someone ranked considerably lower than us, and due to poor starting placements and sucky dice, we have lost to said person, resulting in a large loss of points (i once lost 40).

I agree with you Fieryo that you have some bad games and loose points, but I think those happen less often and if you are good enough you can come back from a bad game.
Also I see your point iceman that a player could purposely loose points to gain back tons, so a cap on the points someone could make would be a good idea.

I know for a fact that there are people who are trying to get as low as they can so they can do just that and I think a Max score cap would work wuite well to stop that...

Alright, AK has asked me to comment on this and so I will...

The concern is directly with this stb guy....

the point system works by taking (loser/winner)*20 and giving the points to the winner.
So, what AK is worried about is this player making it to 1 point and playing a 6 person game with 5 other people @ 1000 points (to illustrate)

If that happens, then the player with 1 point would get

Per player:
(1000/1)*20 = (1000)*20 = 20,000
with 5 players
20,000*5=100,000 points = uber unbeatable score if they chose to never play again.

Now, here's the deal, in order to GET to 1 point, the player would have to lose TONS of games because they lose fewer points the lower they go:

currently, at 400 odd points, if stb were to lose to someone with 1000 points, he would only lose 8 points, if they had 2000 points, he would lose 4...then once he gets to 100 points, he loses 2 points per game against someone with 1000 points, or only 1 if he plays someone with 2000 points.

Is this a possible exploit, yes.
Can we cange it? it would be hard - but if you can come up with a plausible solution, then we would be happy to hear it

<edit>

OK, here's the rub that I need to check with Lack:

At the end of each game, the winner takes points away from each loser

Now, what if the system takes more than a player has, sending them into negative numbers...and if it wont let someone go negative, will it only give as many as it takes.

ALSO:

If there was to be a cap, what would it be...are we talking of 100 points per person or are we talking 50% of the loser's current points max.

I would suggest capping the points any one could lose in a single game at 50. This game involves a huge amount of luck and 50 points per opponent is more than enough for any single win.

i want try it
lol

Scorba wrote:I would suggest capping the points any one could lose in a single game at 50. This game involves a huge amount of luck and 50 points per opponent is more than enough for any single win.

I agree scorba i have not yet felt the bane of a 50 point lose but 42 was bad enough (evil pope i will have my revenge) but a 50 point cap would be a little less trobles in keeping up your score

Yeah I think 50-100 would probably be fine for a cap.

i might have mis-heard this, but havent people been kicked off for playing poorly in the past? (anandonaqui?)

I believe you heard wrong,he told me he was busted for having a multi (amandahugandkiss).

ooo, ouch. that is better than being booted for sucking though....

Yeah, though I don't think Lack would be that cruel....

I think the answer can be found in two areas:

1. Bring back the ignore list. Players seemed to have used it in good faith in the past, and this would allow serious players to be able to avoid games with players who are merely going to throw matches (which can be determined from the grievances against that player)

2. I would suggest putting in a points floor similar to the SATs (where no matter how poorly you do, you cannot end up with under a 400). We can implement either a fixed (e.g. min. 200 points) or a floating scoreboard floor (e.g. where the minimum number of points a player can have on the scoreboard is 5% of the #1 ranked player).

i think it should be a minimum points

I agree that the ignore list should be brought back. I don't really see the point of grievances if I can't stop someone with a lot of grievances from joining games with me until I've actually played them.

The problem with a points floor is that if someone is at the minimum then no one gets any points at all for beating them. If I was playing someone at a minimum of say 400 I would be risking 90+ points for no gain whatsoever. A cap on the number of points lost for a game would be better.

i agree with scorba, there should be a cap on how many points you can lose

it just gets crazy when u can lose more in a game than u can win in one

Hey Twill I am not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet, but if someone has; my apologies for the wasted post.

I was thinking that maybe you should put a low score that players cannot go below; like 800 points. Then they won't be able to pull that point scam by getting so low and taking huge points in one victory.

Also that would make it safer for those people who work hard and are consumed by points to not be so fearful of one of these guys joining and beating them in a game. I have seen how more high ranked people have stopped creating games and clans have started to play against higher ranked people.

Just a thought, but this would also stop players who are trying to get so low to win big points.

Are there people actually doing this? I know it's a sneaky maneuver that we all know about, but has anyone actually done it yet? And if so, can we prove that they're really sharking the system?