[Rules] [GO] Option for Players to Set, Stake or Bet Points

[BeakerWMA]

pen to manipulation.

Multi 1 bets 1000 pts, multi 2 bets 1000, owner of multi bets 1000 and surprise surprise wins the game.

It would indeed be interesting, but the abuse would be constant.

[greenoaks]

i'm all all for betting.

i'm also betting all members under 18, 21 in highly religious areas are no longer allowed to be members of a gambling site such as this which will eventually lead to the collapse of cc.

unfortunately if the above does occur i will be to morose to collect any winnings due from any takers of the above mentioned bet.

[bspride]

its not money that is being wagered...its points, this would allow people with more score a chance to level up quickly and also would help new players play experienced players by not wagering many points...this would be a great addition to clan wars and would be a different aspect to the game.

[greenoaks]

its not money that is being wagered...its points, this would allow people with more score a chance to level up quickly and also would help new players play experienced players by not wagering many points...this would be a great addition to clan wars and would be a different aspect to the game.

it won't allow people to level up more quickly. it would do the opposite.

we already have high ranked people complaining they lose too many points when they play lower ranked players, ie lower ranked players get too many points for defeating them. they will not be signing up for games that would mean risking an even larger number points. so the opposite is likely to happen. higher ranked players agreeing to play only if the points at risk are less than what is now the norm which protects their rank and slows the advancement of those below them.

[herndawg]

its not money that is being wagered...its points, this would allow people with more score a chance to level up quickly and also would help new players play experienced players by not wagering many points...this would be a great addition to clan wars and would be a different aspect to the game.

it won't allow people to level up more quickly. it would do the opposite.

we already have high ranked people complaining they lose too many points when they play lower ranked players, ie lower ranked players get too many points for defeating them. they will not be signing up for games that would mean risking an even larger number points. so the opposite is likely to happen. higher ranked players agreeing to play only if the points at risk are less than what is now the norm which protects their rank and slows the advancement of those below them.

Yes, if I could get 20 points out of cooks instead of like 8 then all my public games would cash out big time instead of half the eliminations being 10 points or so. And if I only lost 20 to cadets and whatnot then I would have much more points than I do now.
oh Edit: I don't support this, I think it would be to easy to get points by what I said

[Optimus Prime]

I don't think it's going to happen guys. It's been brought up time and time again.

[Twill]

Yeah, it has been suggested and rejected on multiple occasions before.

The multi aspect is one but also the fact that the scoreboard would no longer be related directly to skill.

Thanks for the suggestion but I doubt we will add this in any time soon, if ever.

Have a good one
Twill

[lord voldemort]

its not money that is being wagered...its points, this would allow people with more score a chance to level up quickly and also would help new players play experienced players by not wagering many points...this would be a great addition to clan wars and would be a different aspect to the game.

i know rejected (thankfully) but that was funny
they already do that ey
cook plays colonel cook wins he gets 100 points
colonel wins he get 5 max pretty good odds id say

[Simon Viavant]

What if you could enter a game knowing how many points are at stake? Maybe each game you could stake 15, 25, 40, 50, 75, or 100 points. If someone loses, they lose that many points. I don't think 75 or 100 would work, though, because, then someone could gain 700 points in a game.

[mibi]

Concise description:

• Players are allowed to enter into an agreement with other players before the start of the game to wager an amount of points on a game. The winning player takes all points wagered.

Specifics:

• The amount wagered could be limited to 100 to prevent abuse.
• Or it could be limited to 50. Or limited to 25, in addition to the regular amount of points won/lost.
• Players could also be limited to 2.5% of their total points. Thats 50 points for 2000 points. Less than 25 for noobs.
• It could also be limited to premiums so points arnt siphoned off fremium multis.
• This would allow 1 or 0 point games which could be played for 'fun' or map testing purposes.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• There are numerous ways this would benefit the site. It would add a whole new dimension to games and add a lot of fun
• High ranked players could play against skilled lower ranked players without having a lopsided point total award to the winner.
• Players could set their own points risked, so that a player could risk 50 points to another persons 25 if they thought it was needed.
• There would be some fun to watch high points risked games.
• Super high ranking players might not like this because it threatens their comfy levels of superiority, but they can manage.
• It would become a very sought after incentive to getting a premium. Premiums would soar, and lack gets filthy rich.
• yes!

[lancehoch]

Already been suggested, kind of. Link

[mibi]

Already been suggested, kind of. Link

i know, i was combining all the best ideas into one, since people really want this feature.

[Soloman]

Cool Idea but ripe for abuse...

[wcaclimbing]

Lots of multi abuse.
Instead of winning 20 points against each multi, you could be winning 50+, and it wouldn't matter how low his points get.

[max is gr8]

No he said premium only, can you people read? Unless your willing to pay US$25 to get some extra points it isn't worth it.

[BeakerWMA]

No he said premium only, can you people read? Unless your willing to pay US$25 to get some extra points it isn't worth it.

a recent bust had 4 premiums as mutlis IIRC.


But this idea is definitely worth re-examining with the rules suggested.

[Simon Viavant]

This is a good idea. I suggested it a while ago and it got bumped to page two before anyone noticed.

[cicero]

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• High ranked players could play against skilled lower ranked players without having a lopsided point total award to the winner.
• Super high ranking players might not like this because it threatens their comfy levels of superiority, but they can manage.

High ranked players would in fact love this.

Instead of playing a game against weaker opposition and risking, say, 80 points and only picking up 10 points if they win, they'll now be able to risk 50 and win 50. This will only serve to encourage those who, already, play weaker players just to take the few easy points from them. With this they'll get lots more points. It might even encourage more players who are honestly striving to increase their score to pick on new/weak players. Why play someone who is good when you can win just as many points by playing a weaker player?

I know lots of people like the betting idea, but it can't work with ranking points. In fact it breaks ranking points. Ranking points are intended to measure a player's skill at playing the ConquerClub game. Turn them into betting chips and they'll measure a person's skill at getting good odds on the outcome of a game (regardless of the actual outcome). Instead of sportsmen playing a sport and the best players being rewarded betting will change ConquerClub to reward the best gamblers and the playing of the game itself will become a sideshow - like horse racing - where the jockeys and horses are just a means to an end.

It could be made to work by giving players a skill point ranking and also giving them a betting point account, but I'm not advocating that. That's simply not what ConquerClub is about.

[Incandenza]

Fantastic idea. This will definitely improve 1v1s, as I've played opponents with substantially higher and lower ranks than I in tough competitive games, and t'would be nice to even out the points at stake. I feel bad about winning 25 points off someone who would've won 15 or so if they'd beaten me, and I really don't like laying 40 points on the line against a striper that I know is a badass.

One of the things that's always bigged me about CC is that good ideas are often squelched due to the possibility (infinitesimal at times) for abuse. So I'd add one thing to this proposal: anyone caught using the point wagering system with a multi is subject to an immediate point reset on the first offense, bannination for the second.

There will be a few wankers that are willing to spend an extra 25 bucks to artificially inflate their score. The funny thing is that the greedy ones will be even easier to catch, as their inflated point totals will draw that much more attention.

[AndyDufresne]

This suggestion would seem to encourage a general lack of playing with "everyone" ...which is far worse than the multi argument that is also against it.


--Andy

[BeakerWMA]

This suggestion would seem to encourage a general lack of playing with "everyone" ...which is far worse than the multi argument that is also against it.


--Andy

Maybe, but doesn't allowing Private Games already do this? I would think it would open things up as high ranks might be more willing to play noobs or lower ranked players than they might otherwise do.

[Incandenza]

This suggestion would seem to encourage a general lack of playing with "everyone" ...which is far worse than the multi argument that is also against it.


--Andy

Maybe, but doesn't allowing Private Games already do this? I would think it would open things up as high ranks might be more willing to play noobs or lower ranked players than they might otherwise do.

I concur. One of the main obstacles in playing with "everyone" is the point disparity, and as much as people say "well, if there's that much of a difference in ranks, you're expected to beat the lower guy", we all know that the best laid plans can go awry when faced with the grim reality presented by our fickles six-sided mistresses. If anything, I think a wagering system might promote even more play between people of vastly different ranks.

[TaCktiX]

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• High ranked players could play against skilled lower ranked players without having a lopsided point total award to the winner.
• Super high ranking players might not like this because it threatens their comfy levels of superiority, but they can manage.

High ranked players would in fact love this.

Instead of playing a game against weaker opposition and risking, say, 80 points and only picking up 10 points if they win, they'll now be able to risk 50 and win 50. This will only serve to encourage those who, already, play weaker players just to take the few easy points from them. With this they'll get lots more points. It might even encourage more players who are honestly striving to increase their score to pick on new/weak players. Why play someone who is good when you can win just as many points by playing a weaker player?

I know lots of people like the betting idea, but it can't work with ranking points. In fact it breaks ranking points. Ranking points are intended to measure a player's skill at playing the ConquerClub game. Turn them into betting chips and they'll measure a person's skill at getting good odds on the outcome of a game (regardless of the actual outcome). Instead of sportsmen playing a sport and the best players being rewarded betting will change ConquerClub to reward the best gamblers and the playing of the game itself will become a sideshow - like horse racing - where the jockeys and horses are just a means to an end.

It could be made to work by giving players a skill point ranking and also giving them a betting point account, but I'm not advocating that. That's simply not what ConquerClub is about.

cicero, one thing you missed is that it is agreed upon beforehand. If a noob would rather get the 80 points off of you to beat you, do you think he'll accept 50? If I'm not mistaken everyone has to agree that wagering will be allowed in the game beforehand, at least according to the suggestion.

[mibi]

This suggestion would seem to encourage a general lack of playing with "everyone" ...which is far worse than the multi argument that is also against it.


--Andy

Maybe, but doesn't allowing Private Games already do this? I would think it would open things up as high ranks might be more willing to play noobs or lower ranked players than they might otherwise do.

I concur. One of the main obstacles in playing with "everyone" is the point disparity, and as much as people say "well, if there's that much of a difference in ranks, you're expected to beat the lower guy", we all know that the best laid plans can go awry when faced with the grim reality presented by our fickles six-sided mistresses. If anything, I think a wagering system might promote even more play between people of vastly different ranks.

correct, proper wagering would reduce stress levels of high ranked players and give lower ranked player a shot to play with the big boys instead of noobs and dead beaters.

[AndyDufresne]

It is an interesting idea. I still worry about the abuse mentioned earlier (either from multis or a group of people intentionally throwing games)...Mostly because we'll be the ones investigating while you guys are playing and enjoying!


--Andy