[06-Feb-2006] Major gameplay changes

[moz976]

But at the moment with the current scoring system the people at the top of the scoreboard aren't necessarily the most skilled.

They might be but it's difficult to tell.

How does the current scoring system not show who is the most skilled. It takes skill to win and if you win you get more points and if you get more points you move higher on the ranking.

[Zepy12]

I'm new to this Conquer Club...a refugee RISK II player from MSN Zone, and a member of XI. I'm glad you have this site, and welcome the new changes...I've only played a few games, but know the changes are good.

Keep up the good work, and see you on the killing fields.

Zepy12

[Tr0y]

Aphid what do you propose for a new scoring system?

Just saying the current one sucks isnt constructive.

[Aphid]

How does the current scoring system not show who is the most skilled. It takes skill to win and if you win you get more points and if you get more points you move higher on the ranking.

Take a player who wins on average 60% of the games they play and another who wins 90% of the time. The 60% winner can easily have a higher score simply by playing more games.

Lets say for example that a win is worth 100 points on and a loss is 20 points off your score and the starting score is 1000. After 10 games the player who wins 90% of the time would have a score of 1880. If the 60% winner had played 20 games then they would have a score of 2040.

This is how a less skilled player can have a higher score.

[Aphid]

Aphid what do you propose for a new scoring system?

Just saying the current one sucks isnt constructive.

Whoa, slow down dude!! I didn't say the existing system sucks! In fact I think it's kind of helpful. But as I just mentioned above I don't think it shows who is the most skilled.

What would I propose? An extra column on the scoreboard that shows a players win rate. To me the win rate is more important than the score.

As for something constructive.....Here's a link to something I wrote a few days ago where I made a few suggestions about scoring etc.

http://tinyurl.com/cbcu6

[seraphesy]

How does the current scoring system not show who is the most skilled. It takes skill to win and if you win you get more points and if you get more points you move higher on the ranking.

Take a player who wins on average 60% of the games they play and another who wins 90% of the time. The 60% winner can easily have a higher score simply by playing more games.

Lets say for example that a win is worth 100 points on and a loss is 20 points off your score and the starting score is 1000. After 10 games the player who wins 90% of the time would have a score of 1880. If the 60% winner had played 20 games then they would have a score of 2040.

This is how a less skilled player can have a higher score.

whoa...

how many games have you played?

The more skilled player you beat, the MORE points you get.

If you play low rank people, and u lose, you will lose MORE points.

your scenario above assumes that you get a flat points per win. that is not true.

a player who wins 60% of the time vs average players, his rating will stabilize after a while, and it will remain the same no matter how many games he play.

[Aphid]

whoa...

how many games have you played?

I've played 9 games and you have played 12.

The more skilled player you beat, the MORE points you get.

If you play low rank people, and u lose, you will lose MORE points.

your scenario above assumes that you get a flat points per win. that is not true.

a player who wins 60% of the time vs average players, his rating will stabilize after a while, and it will remain the same no matter how many games he play.

In the 9 games I have played there has been 38 players. Of the 29 non winning players the average score deducted has been 20. If you play a game with 6 players and 5 of them lose about 20 points each then the winner will gain about 100 points. This is why I used these numbers previously. I know that if you have a higher score you win and lose at a different rate but if you are a mid-ranked player these have been the numbers that I have seen.

Let's look at the scoreboard leader at the moment. In their most recent games rlcfast1 is getting around 14 points from each player they win against and losing about 29 points for each game they don't win. At that rate if they were to play 10 six player games and win 6 and lose 4 their score would still advance by 304 points. Let's use this unrealistic scoring method for one player from the beginning starting with 1000 points and have them competing against someone else who has the advantage of scoring points as I used them in the previous post. The 90% win rate player has 1880 points after 10 games. The 60% win rate player has 1912 points after 30 games. The less skilled player is still on top.

I could give more examples but I don't know the exact method that lackattack uses for awarding points. Let's look at the scoreboard as it is now. You have a score of 1233 after 12 games and the next player up has a score of 1237 after 16 games. There is only 4 points the difference so it's pretty much the same to me but you have played only 3/4 the number of games the next player has. Or you could say that they have played 33% more games than you. You would have a higher win rate and to me that makes you a more skilled player. You might disagree but that's the way I see it.

You could also look at the top of the scoreboard. It looks like 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place players are more skilled than rlcfast1.

I could go on but at the end of the day this is just a game. It really doesn't matter to me what scoring system is used I enjoy playing for the fun of it. The only point I am making is that the current system doesn't tell you who is the most skilled.

[wacicha]

i know a player gets kicked after 3 missed but a kicked player is not a deadbeat so does a kicked player from a winning team share in the winning points

[Nobunaga]

Way to go Lack! :P Tired of deadbeats ruining my games!

I wasn't aware that this was your coded creation. You'z a genius, man!

[Quicksand]

I like the idea of realtime events with a 5 minute start your turn timer, but the problem, as discussed above, is that someone starts the game and 4 hours later the game is full and the starter is asleep.

1...time limit on real time game startings. like an hour. If the hour passes and the game hasn't started, then game is cancelled.

2...a visible link on the main page for someone to click that will take them directly to one of the realtime events. Kinda like the "play now" button yahoo uses. That or a "Realtime Event Page"

3...Same deadbeat rule. I like it very much, especially in real time events. If you don't have time to play, don't start a game.

4...everyone sends me 5 dollars so I can buy some gas. help the game, it doesn't, but it sure would relieve my bank account.