Conquer Club

This suggestion arises from the Remove maximum point lost to deter farming. From posts in that thread it became clear there was resistance to using log and exponential scales (but i'm not sure of the deatils). Shame, so we have to keep it to plus, minus, times, divide, minimum and maximum (+, -, *, /, max and min). Hence my new suggestion:

Concise description: Change max number of points a player can lose in a game.

Specifics:

• Current scoring: The points to be awarded is calculated as (loser's score / winner's score) * 20, up to a maximum of 100 points from each opponent.
• Proposed scoring:
  
  
  • Remove the overall maximum
  • Include a minimum winners score
  • so you getThe points to be awarded is calculated as
    
    (loser's score / max(winner's score,max(winner's score, limit)) * 20.
    
    
  • if limit could be 500 points.

Example:
That's one solution which is fine for the the 1 v 1 case

• 1 beating 4,200 means 168 points are exchanged rather than 4,200 if the limit is 500.
• 1 beating 4,200 means 336 points are exchanged rather than 4,200 if the limit is 250.

But another tweak is required for games with more players... and I think that is simpler.

Concise description: Change the maximum number of points a player can lose in a game AND limit the maximum TOTAL points a player can win in a game
Same as above but with a tweak

• rather than have a maximum a winner can take from an individuial loser
• have a larger maximum TOTAL win a winner can gave from a game. So...
  
  • One player on 1 beats seven players on 4,200 in eight player game.
  • Each 4,200 player loses 168 points if the limit is 500.
  • Each 4,200 player loses 336 points if the limit is 250.
  • Set a maximum that the loser can gain, say 500.

More examples, all with a limit of 500.

General (4000) invites Cook (500) for a 1 v 1.

• Current: General can win 3 but only lose 100.
• New: General can win 3 but lose 160.

This is fairer as there is more risk involved for taking on the Cook.

Cunning Cook (1) invites 1 Generals (4000).

• Current: General can win 1 from the Cook.
• New: General can win 1 from the Cook.
• Current: Cook can only win 100 from the General (minimum of (100 and 4000*20)
• New: Cook can only win 500 in all, each General loses 100.

This is fairer as there is still risk involved for taking on the Cook but if the Cook can only benefit from this once - their next game will score as above.

Cunning Cook (1) invites 7 Generals (4000).

• Current: General can win 1 from the Cook and 20 each from the generals (141).
• New: General's winnings stays the same.
• Current: Cook can win 100 from each General, 700 total..
• New: Cook is limited to 500 points.

This is fairer as there is still risk involved for taking on the Cook but if the Cook isn't getting the additional benefit from hoodwinking 7 generals.

this kills the purpose of battle royales and other special games where a person is suppose to gain tons of points when he/she wins

Joodoo wrote:this kills the purpose of battle royales and other special games where a person is suppose to gain tons of points when he/she wins

No problem.

You just make "limit" a parameter and set it at different values for different games.

Problem solved!

your 2nd post "This is fairer as there is more risk involved for taking on the Cook."

what if the general started the game and the cook joined? that's not fair at all. it will be fair only if you put a limit to who can join what games (ex. must be 3000+ points to join general's games), but we all know this won't happen...

DarthBlood wrote:it will be fair only if you put a limit to who can join what games but we all know this won't happen...

So, we both agree on that!

What else do we agree on?

• The scoring system needs to be simple?
• There is a strong preference to keep it to plus, minus, times, divide, minimum and maximum (+, -, *, /, max and min).

The debate for what should be used can go on forever, the reason why one should use a system is another.

For example, a cook plays a general 100 times. If their rank is a fair reflection of their ability then the general win most of the games and the cook a few. The scoring should also reflect this. The general should win the same number of points as he loses. At this moment, that doean't happen.

For me it comes down to this.

You want a system where when players of different ranks play each other lots of times, at the end of the games their scores remain unchanged. [Note the argument is a little more subtle than that].

If one players rank isn't true to their ability then their score and rank will rise (or fall)

I used to play on another website which I believe to be better than this website in some ways, but not others. The two things that I think the other website has over this website are:

1. When you create a game you can set Minimum and/or Maximum points limits. You do not have to set limits, but you do have the option to set either or both. For example, if I have 2100 points and I don't want to play anyone with less than 2000 points, I can set that criteria when I create the game and everyone who wants to join my game must have 2000 points or more. If you're scared to play anyone with more than 3000 points you can cap the maximum points limits if you want. But most importantly it means you never have to play against a chef again. I can't believe that during this thread people were making the argument of a player with 4000 points playing against a chef with 1 point. I mean honestly who would ever do that. It's the most insane idea ever. After many games of hard work to get up to 4000, you could literally lose hundreds of points in one game if you get screwed by lady luck. I've lost 26 armies on 3 before on this website. I think the dice are rigged, but that is another subject for other threads. Anyway...

When I look for new games these days I search through all the pending games looking for players with high point scores because I don't like playing anyone who is a lieutenant or less. Personal preference, maybe, but I think you'll find a lot of other people do that too. I know that I'm much more likely to win games against people who know how to play the game than against games with chefs. Not only that, but if you ever get beaten by a chef then you get screwed hardcore in the points department. I think that by implementing this simple idea you would find that your initial problem would be solved and you would also find a lot of the really good players playing in singles games rather that in team games (because you will have probably noticed that's all they usually play). To be honest, all I want to do is play the guys with lots of points so I can take their points off them.

(I am aware that this is not part of the initial thread, but thought i'd add it here anyway while i'm having my spiel)
2. In the game playing interface the other website has a stats table listing each player, number of territories, armies killed, total current armies, number of cards, and their current points score. This table is so valuable and saves so much time rather than having to count the armies of each player and their territories.

Being a programmer myself, I know these two ideas would be extremely easy to implement and add a lot of benefit to the game.

Please feel free to criticise or agree as you wish.

Play well.

Number 2 is available by use of the BOB script. Look in the Plugins & Addons forum for it.

Oh awesome. I'll check it out now.

Thanks heaps!

If anyone else is interested, I also found a result to my first point. If you go to forums and then callouts, there are a bunch of threads relating to games created for players with specific ranks. Another alternative is to join tournaments. Excellent!

fuzzball wrote:If anyone else is interested, I also found a result to my first point. If you go to forums and then callouts, there are a bunch of threads relating to games created for players with specific ranks. Another alternative is to join tournaments. Excellent!

Those are both excellent ideas. Another I have found useful, is to add someone to your 'friend' list each time you've had a good experience playing them, and then create your own private games, sending out invitations to all those on your friend list. Also, joining a clan can be a good way to ensure you always have decent people to play with/against.

Wait a minute. What's this thread about again? Max points? I say 100 is plenty. It's quite the rare occurrence that the maximum is exchanged as is. Upping the limit would not make any significant difference.