Conquer Club

• Many of the highest ranked players are inflating their scores into the stratosphere by teaming with low ranked players known as "muppets". (I'm not saying this to blame or belittle anyone, just stating the facts)
• By counting the score of each team's highest ranked player twice in computing team point totals, it reduces the extent to which high ranked players are able to inflate their scores or maintain inflated scores by playing with lower ranked players.

• Say the conqueror teams with 3 cadets and takes on a team averaging 1000 points a player. Doubling the highest ranked team member's scores you would get:
  
  Conqueror team = 2*6000+800+800+800 = 14400
  Beginner's team = 2*1000+1000+1000+1000 = 5000
  
  Now the conqueror would win 6 / lose 57 points. This would require winning 90% of games for the conqueror to consistently increase his score instead of only 82% of games in the current system.
  
  
• Against the average majors:
  
  Conqueror team = 2*6000+800+800+800 = 14400
  Major team = 2*2250+2250+2250+2250 = 11250
  
  Conqueror would win 15 / lose 25 points. This would require winning 63% of games for the conqueror to consistently increase his score instead of only 46% of games in the current system.
  
  
• Against the average colonels:
  
  Conqueror team = 2*6000+800+800+800 = 14400
  Colonel team = 2*2750+2750+2750+2750= 13750
  
  Conqueror would win 19 / lose 20 points. This would require winning 51% of games for the conqueror to consistently increase his score instead of only 37% in the current system.

• Taking into account the effect of the superior leadership of the highest ranked member of each team
• Reducing the effectiveness of being able to gain or maintain 6000 points purely by playing with very low ranked team members
  
  By lowering the effectiveness of this point harvesting technique:
  
  • Decreases gap between Conqueror and highest ranked players that engage in harvesting to a lesser extent
  • The effect of the formula is very slight in most games, only becoming noticeable in games that advance/maintain scores of the extremely high ranked
  • As the gap decreases, so does the effect of the formula (because it doubles the highest ranked player) so that after deflation of the highest ranked, the effect will be almost unnoticeable.
  • Yes, you lose an avenue of making it to the top quickly, but the apex of the pyramid gets shrunken so you actually end up closer
  • Conqueror rank will be more attainable by people that don't want to engage in harvesting techniques

FarangDemon wrote:Make it more possible to become conqueror without having to resort to harvesting techniques.

FarangDemon wrote:Concise description:

• Many of the highest ranked players are inflating their scores into the stratosphere by teaming with low ranked players known as "muppets".
• By counting the score of each team's highest ranked player twice in computing team point totals, it reduces the extent to which high ranked players are able to inflate their scores by playing with lower ranked players.

Mr Changsha wrote:If I want to play fruitcake in a trips game (as we sometimes do) then my team is usually around 2400, 1400, 1400. (BTW there is no point inflation going on here...my friends just happen to be at that level). Fruitcake would naturally take two minus 800 players to even up the points a bit...as it is highly unlikely he would win 5 out of 5 against me, but would rather be aiming for 3 out of 5 (I would think).

Or take this game as an example...

Game 5093370

Team 1 and team 4 are pretty standard officer teams but teams 2 and 3 have some of the highest ranked players on the site. I suggested to both Herpes and Fc that they would be welcome to take as 'cookish' a player as they could find..to even up the points.

How would your change affect this games' scoring and would it be of benefit in this case?

Fruitcake wrote:At what point does a low ranked player qualify as a muppet?

I think you malign those of us who spend hours sweating over training sessions, exhorting our trainees to conduct the correct procedures when rolling the 'assualt cubes', sharing all but our squirrelest of secrets and generally being all round damned fine chaps and good eggs.

I can no longer count on two hands some quite senior players within cc that have come to me as lowly ranked players to be moulded and recreated as lean fighting machines that they are today. What you are suggesting edges towards reward for not being very good.

I say nay, nay and thrice nay to this, it just won't do you see. I may tell you I shall be informing the other Generals in the mess of your henious strategy and all being well we shall ensure the bar staff take heed and the serving chappies no longer deliver your freshly cooked exact temperature poached egg in the morning.

Meanwhile I'm off to give one of the punkawallahs a damned good thrashing for keeling over whilst fanning me at this afternoons tea.

Timminz wrote:Also, having a cook on your team is a huge risk to take anyway. There's no need to make it even more so.

King_Herpes wrote:

Timminz wrote:Also, having a cook on your team is a huge risk to take anyway. There's no need to make it even more so.

Nail on the head. They miss turns and often make crucial mistakes costing the game. They just simply aren't the super soldiers that you believe we have the ability to turn them into. One of my favorite go to cooks(simply because he rarely missis turns) for example has a deterring case of dyslexia, no joke, making him a willing teammate at best. There's nothing wrong with going head to head with the even team. Unfortunately this is the only way I can currently raise my relative rank on any given map so this is what I've been resorting too lately. It's a tough game against stiff compition, and they're not easy wins. I aim to win around 50%.

King_Herpes wrote:Balderdash. Every player I call upon shares their input and is respected as my teammate. Many of you players just can't concieve that someone who doens't keep their own rank above the given 1000 is a complete tosspot. This is not the case. If you look deeper into the men/women under the chef's hat you'll find compitent players who often would make the exact move I would or something similiar. Not every round no, not every game of course not. They just need guidance is all and someone to have faith in them. They also are fun people who don't care so much about losing but are willing to take advice on how to win. I enjoy my games with these players for this reason alone and just because some of you can't wrap your head around the concept doesn't make it wrong. It's perfectly legit so kiss my pasty white ass.

King_Herpes wrote:Furthermore, there is a pipedream of mine. A clan consisting of 12 cooks and I maybe one other person. It's to be called the baker's dozen and will focus on teaching them the basic rules, principles and strategy for team play. Once this clan is formulated I can constantly bring in a new line of fresh faces once the old members have fully benefited from their experiences of going against tough teams who only make minor mistakes. Keep an eye out for it because when this clan is off the drawing table and in gear you'll all be hearing a lot more about it. Most likely, how it is immediately another abuse of the scoring system mainly because some guy with herpes in his name is associated with it. Honestly, you people just aren't happy unless you have something to bellyache about.

King_Herpes wrote:Because I want my own clan and have every right to do so. That's why. Besides the Society of Cooks is just an open forum and mentoring program. This will be highly specialized training against the finest of team players. A colosal difference from your monthly read of random suggestions by a barage of opposing view points.

King_Herpes wrote:Balderdash. Every player I call upon shares their input and is respected as my teammate. Many of you players just can't concieve that someone who doens't keep their own rank above the given 1000 is a complete tosspot. This is not the case. If you look deeper into the men/women under the chef's hat you'll find compitent players who often would make the exact move I would or something similiar. Not every round no, not every game of course not. They just need guidance is all and someone to have faith in them. They also are fun people who don't care so much about losing but are willing to take advice on how to win. I enjoy my games with these players for this reason alone and just because some of you can't wrap your head around the concept doesn't make it wrong. It's perfectly legit so kiss my pasty white ass.

hwhrhett wrote: you should really check out the society of cooks, they are suprisingly well organized and get more done than you think, that would actually offer you an endless amount of cooks to feed off of/train. because if you start a clan, your cooks will quickly become captains, no?

pmchugh wrote:Theoritically yes, practically no.

I teamed with you once in the Whack a Mod! games in a quads game and I was basically a muppet and I am not a cook. The biggest desicion I made was between which two reinforcements you gave me the choice between. Don't get me wrong I chose to listen to you as I knew you knew better than me and I am not having a go at you or saying you did anything wrong, in fact I enjoyed teaming with you as I did learn a lot from you. However you simply cannot say that in an ideal world for you, that you make every move and decision and this is what happened in our game with a few decent players on our team.

Mr Changsha wrote:Of course, my attitude about these things is probably the main reason King_H does play me sequentially. He knows I rate him regardless of the result, and he knows I would find prospect of me winning +50 from a sequential game against him to be frankly embarrassing.