[Rules] Two-Tier Score Board

by **el-presidente** on Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:52 pm

I'm not sure who this benefits. If you don't want to play against someone who is worse than you just don't join games with them. Could you add a minimum rank option to the game finder choices?

by **hulmey** on Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:57 pm

el-presidente wrote:I'm not sure who this benefits. If you don't want to play against someone who is worse than you just don't join games with them. Could you add a minimum rank option to the game finder choices?

now thats a good idea!!! you could have option whereby you dont play any one higher/lower than a Captain. Could turn out to be a farming tool :lol:

by **The Neon Peon** on Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:18 pm

hulmey... why would they throw games?

Firstly, it is obvious to anyone that the last person on the top scoreboard is better than the top on the lower scoreboard. Their score is higher. If you only switched from one to another ever 3 months or so (seasonal scorebaord), then there would be dumping to be on top. But if you switch as soon as you get to 1400, then you don't have the point dumping.

Okay, to be at the top, you have to have exactly 1399 points for the second scoreboard. How are you going to get that? If you win a game and get one more point, you are at the next scoreboard. The whole top person on the lower scoreboard is all luck. Why point dump for that spot if it is taken by a luck factor more than anything?

by **hulmey** on Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:43 pm

The Neon Peon wrote:hulmey... why would they throw games?

Firstly, it is obvious to anyone that the last person on the top scoreboard is better than the top on the lower scoreboard. Their score is higher. If you only switched from one to another ever 3 months or so (seasonal scorebaord), then there would be dumping to be on top. But if you switch as soon as you get to 1400, then you don't have the point dumping.

Okay, to be at the top, you have to have exactly 1399 points for the second scoreboard. How are you going to get that? If you win a game and get one more point, you are at the next scoreboard. The whole top person on the lower scoreboard is all luck. Why point dump for that spot if it is taken by a luck factor more than anything?

whats the point in having this second board?? it would be easier to have an option whereby you dont play any one higher/lower than a certain rank.

by **Jeff Hardy** on Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:46 pm

a lot of high ranked players (me included) set up the games

if a low rank thinks hes got what it takes to win then why not let him join?

its his choice, if he wants the chance, why not give it to him?

by **blakebowling** on Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:51 pm

I wouldn't change the current scoreboard, just leave it alone.
The problem I see with this idea, (as well as people intentionally throwing games to stay at the top of the bottom scoreboard) is that people would throw games to stay in the same scoreboard as their friends, so that they could play them.

Having said that, I do support some of the other ideas to add to the scoreboard (like the yearly scoreboard, and scoreboards for each game type and for each game setting), but I don't think changing/removing the current scoreboard is a good idea.

by **FarangDemon** on Thu Jan 01, 2009 1:29 pm

blakebowling wrote:I wouldn't change the current scoreboard, just leave it alone.
The problem I see with this idea, (as well as people intentionally throwing games to stay at the top of the bottom scoreboard) is that people would throw games to stay in the same scoreboard as their friends, so that they could play them.

Having said that, I do support some of the other ideas to add to the scoreboard (like the yearly scoreboard, and scoreboards for each game type and for each game setting), but I don't think changing/removing the current scoreboard is a good idea.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying implement the policy of barring <1400's from playing with >1400's but just don't create a separate scoreboard.

I think it is possible that there will be losers who try to stay at the top of the enlisted scoreboard. But it's not a big deal unless their point dumping is on such a scale as to make farming lieutenants viable. I think this is not the case because all you need is 1 out of 17 Lieutenants to beat the farmer for him to net a loss. (note: if conqueror deflates to 4000 points, then 1 out of 9 Lieutenants would need to beat him to net a loss)

The region where most players are concerned with and where farming begins to lift some higher out of the pack than they could otherwise attain is around Major and not the Private/Lieutenant cusp.

A little monkey business at the Private/Lieutenant cusp should be tolerated if not expected.

by **blakebowling** on Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:02 pm

FarangDemon wrote:
blakebowling wrote:I wouldn't change the current scoreboard, just leave it alone.
The problem I see with this idea, (as well as people intentionally throwing games to stay at the top of the bottom scoreboard) is that people would throw games to stay in the same scoreboard as their friends, so that they could play them.

Having said that, I do support some of the other ideas to add to the scoreboard (like the yearly scoreboard, and scoreboards for each game type and for each game setting), but I don't think changing/removing the current scoreboard is a good idea.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying implement the policy of barring <1400's from playing with >1400's but just don't create a separate scoreboard.

No, I don't want the barring either, I don't like this suggestion at all.

by **gimil** on Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:37 pm

blakebowling wrote:
FarangDemon wrote:
blakebowling wrote:I wouldn't change the current scoreboard, just leave it alone.
The problem I see with this idea, (as well as people intentionally throwing games to stay at the top of the bottom scoreboard) is that people would throw games to stay in the same scoreboard as their friends, so that they could play them.

Having said that, I do support some of the other ideas to add to the scoreboard (like the yearly scoreboard, and scoreboards for each game type and for each game setting), but I don't think changing/removing the current scoreboard is a good idea.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying implement the policy of barring <1400's from playing with >1400's but just don't create a separate scoreboard.

No, I don't want the barring either, I don't like this suggestion at all.

What are your reasons? Decisions arn't made on: 'I don't like it so i don't want it' Or at least not in the foudny there not

by **Qwert** on Thu Jan 01, 2009 6:59 pm

i think that these is not good idea, everybody can play to everybody. These is anoter attempt to split players into good and bad.
Montly or yearly scoreboards is much better ideas.

by **gimil** on Thu Jan 01, 2009 8:50 pm

qwert wrote:i think that these is not good idea, everybody can play to everybody. These is anoter attempt to split players into good and bad.
Montly or yearly scoreboards is much better ideas.

It doesn't split them up, and I don't see how there has been other attempts to split players.

With my suggestion you can still move to the top or bottom, you jsut can't play people outside your league.

by **blakebowling** on Thu Jan 01, 2009 11:26 pm

gimil wrote:
qwert wrote:i think that these is not good idea, everybody can play to everybody. These is anoter attempt to split players into good and bad.
Montly or yearly scoreboards is much better ideas.

It doesn't split them up, and I don't see how there has been other attempts to split players.

With my suggestion you can still move to the top or bottom, you jsut can't play people outside your league.

Right, it splits them, it makes it where people on the top and people on the bottom cant play each other, thats why I don't like it.
Thats one reason why i don't like it. Another is because it would encourage farming.

by **Qwert** on Fri Jan 02, 2009 9:43 am

Gimil
It doesn't split them up, and I don't see how there has been other attempts to split players.

With my suggestion you can still move to the top or bottom, you jsut can't play people outside your league.

Im confused? You say that you not create any barriers,but players who have more then 1400 points can not play with low ranked players.
They have many sugestions for split players into divisions before.
Play every one with everybody,its best option for me. Im not look on players rank i play with everybody.

by **FarangDemon** on Tue Jan 06, 2009 3:21 am

top ranks CAN play low ranks but it won't be for points

WAKE UP PPL

farming will always be the only way to get to the top unless we have a system that does something like this

by **Kotaro** on Tue Jan 06, 2009 3:45 am

WAKE UP PPL, IT'S JUST A GAME (that was 100% at Farang)

So, you'd split the players on the scoreboard. Terrible idea. You say people can still play each other, just not for points? Terrible idea.

Maybe while we're at it, we'll just ban all the high ranks, since the only way to get to the top is by farming. This is assuming, of course, that we believe blanket statements that people like Farang make.