DIFFERENT SCORING SYSTEM TO DETER FROM FARMING

[THE ARMY]

they would still be farmed, higher ranks farm anyone these days even if there is a chef worth 300 points.

I would strongly advise using thr ELO system for scoring. It's more accurate in measuring head to head skill, and it's used in many competitive games, like chess, and some sports. It won't deter farming, however. Perhaps if noobs are started at a lower score , such as 800, may make them less desirable to farm. Look up ELO scoring system on Wikipedia for more info.

[King_Herpes]

I have a question.

Who cares if the top ranks farm points?

If you do, why? How does this affect you one bit?

You get a gold star!

[tracedout]

my suggestion in another thread:

round down.

If Conquer Club wants to throttle question mark/low rank abuse they should just have scores round down. As it is, you get a whole point from a player if the 20*theirscore/yourscore formula has a decimal place. so if you get 5.01 points from a player, you actually will be credited with 6 points.

If players are consistently winning 5 points per player, removing rounding up will cut their win points by just under 20% to 4 points per player.

And this only really makes a big difference if scoring differential is wide - closer it is to even, less % of points are cut.

It's like the fraction of penny scheme in office space - each fraction in itself isn't worth much, but over thousands of transactions(games) over hundreds of days, they add up.

an interesting point, but the newbies would have their points garnished too.. but I suppose winning 76 is the same as winning 75 for them... would this really make any difference? Im intrigued.

this system would encourage users to play against opponents of closer score, and would really only affect people who play hundreds to thousands of games against much lower ranked opponents. and it is a throttling mechanism, a form of deflation, but the current scoring is an equally large form of inflation, which again only benefits players who play against lower ranked opponents.

now, would this prevent noob whisperers in the making from reaching 4000 points?

no.

but it will take them around 25% longer.

[Cundy]

1. it isn't supposed to be easy to gain points, it takes skill, when i see a general i want to think "man that dude is good, maybe i shouldn't play against him, he'll kick all our butts he is so smart" i don't want to think "oh, playing against another general, well that should be fun, the player probably farmed for those points and isn't that smart so probably easy to beat"

2. I like your "start a game" menu selection, but this won't solve the farming problem most players have with higher ranks

Its too hard to gain pts at high ranks as is...

I might be able to out play the lower ranks every game but all it takes is one lot of unbalanced dice and bam a #^@* of pts gone. You have to win 9/10 games against a low rank to not lose pts.

A much better idea would be to have score brackets for games:

So in the "Start A Game" menu there would be a option to select say 1000-1500; so no high ranks can play in your game.

The higher ranks would benefit as well; they could select say 2000-max, this would be a nice alternative the all the "rank"+ call out threads

So when i win 8/10 games against some low rank they are more skillful?

Also, yes my idea does solve the problem. How can they farm players in games they cant enter?

[jiminski]

well for starters you could place New players points in limbo until the finishing of their 5th game.

that would, in a stroke, dissuade the tactic of choosing games likely to yield uncontested points from deadbeats.

[Prankcall]

who would play versus some1 where u win no points but lose points????

[jiminski]

who would play versus some1 where u win no points but lose points????

who are you talking to?

if it is me:
The points of a brand new player are not lost or gained until their 5th game is started.
their account is in 'limbo'.

Most New players just start 4 games and leave when they see each go can take 24 hours. This adds new points to the pot but they falsely inflate the scoring system.
It also encourages farmers like Max and Klobber to play lazy games and prey on this loophole.


I have detailed this in the Suggestions thread, i'll find it for you to help any other misunderstandings.

No points for New Recruits who Deadbeat

[THE ARMY]

because newbies join games more often than when they creat them, also i doubt they are aware of the farmers out there so pressing the 1000-1500 button would be overlooked.

1. it isn't supposed to be easy to gain points, it takes skill, when i see a general i want to think "man that dude is good, maybe i shouldn't play against him, he'll kick all our butts he is so smart" i don't want to think "oh, playing against another general, well that should be fun, the player probably farmed for those points and isn't that smart so probably easy to beat"

2. I like your "start a game" menu selection, but this won't solve the farming problem most players have with higher ranks

Its too hard to gain pts at high ranks as is...

I might be able to out play the lower ranks every game but all it takes is one lot of unbalanced dice and bam a #^@* of pts gone. You have to win 9/10 games against a low rank to not lose pts.

A much better idea would be to have score brackets for games:

So in the "Start A Game" menu there would be a option to select say 1000-1500; so no high ranks can play in your game.

The higher ranks would benefit as well; they could select say 2000-max, this would be a nice alternative the all the "rank"+ call out threads

So when i win 8/10 games against some low rank they are more skillful?

Also, yes my idea does solve the problem. How can they farm players in games they cant enter?

[THE ARMY]

I LIKE IT!!!!

who would play versus some1 where u win no points but lose points????

who are you talking to?

if it is me:
The points of a brand new player are not lost or gained until their 5th game is started.
their account is in 'limbo'.

Most New players just start 4 games and leave when they see each go can take 24 hours. This adds new points to the pot but they falsely inflate the scoring system.
It also encourages farmers like Max and Klobber to play lazy games and prey on this loophole.


I have detailed this in the Suggestions thread, i'll find it for you to help any other misunderstandings.

No points for New Recruits who Deadbeat

[PepperJack]

I would strongly advise using thr ELO system for scoring. It's more accurate in measuring head to head skill, and it's used in many competitive games, like chess, and some sports. It won't deter farming, however. Perhaps if noobs are started at a lower score , such as 800, may make them less desirable to farm. Look up ELO scoring system on Wikipedia for more info.

I could be grossly mistaken, but doesn't the site use a simplified form of Elo scoring already. High ranks do risk more points than their lower counterparts, which appears to be the main thrust of Elo.

This might be a regurgitated idea but what if instead of arbitrarily holding to the tenet that we are working in a system with a finite amount of points, we equally arbitrarily decide that there are actually infinite points in the system. We can then let points disappear into and be created out of the void.

This would allow us to stick with the base scoring system, if desired, and also add some form of bonus scale. The scale could be based on rank at game end. Question marks could have no bonus attached to them. A field marshall could have a 20 point bonus. Or the bonus could scale based on differences in rank with lower ranks (PFC and below) always having no bonus. The bonus points would appear out of thin air so it shouldn't encourage rank hunting (noob farming's completely incapable cousin).

I haven't done any math to support this idea, but a properly scaled bonus should encourage all but the most talentless farmers to play less noobs because more points can be won from slightly better (and not completely oblivious to freestyle) players.

Also, implement the No Points For New Recruit Deadbeats suggestion.

-PepperJack

[THE ARMY]

I GOT IT!!!!!!!!

How about:

(loser score/winner score) *20 +/- difference in rank

[THE ARMY]

that would mean higher ranks lose more when playing lower ranks, so the only way not to lose points is to play games with other people AND lower ranks or play higher ranks!!!!

A brilliant and Genious idea

I GOT IT!!!!!!!!

How about:

(loser score/winner score) *20 +/- difference in rank

[rweden]

My Suggestions:

1) Freemiums have no point system...they just play for fun
2) The person who starts a game can restrict access join-ability to people less than 2 ranks below them (so if you are 1600+ and start a game, you have an option to have players that are 1200+ join). This will give the people below you a chance to play some higher ranks without being completely wiped out by a cook.
3) And this one is off topic, but do not allow freemiums, ?'s or cooks to play assassin games....those guys dont read the instruction and end up taking out someone who is not their mark!

[THE ARMY]

look there are so many good ideas out there BUT they are way too complicated, they solve the problem but create a bigger problem for the designers of the site, this is a quick fix, it may be a tiny change but will have the effect the majority of players want.

I GOT IT!!!!!!!!

How about:

(loser score/winner score) *20 +/- difference in rank

[cicero]

I GOT IT!!!!!!!!

How about:

(loser score/winner score) *20 +/- difference in rank

I am not sure that I get it ...
Can you give us an example that shows how/what that formula does ?

[THE ARMY]

winner is a general at 4000, loser is a recruit at 1000

(1000 / 4000) = .25 * 20 = 4 - 12 (difference in rank) = -8

This means that in order to gain points at 1 v 1 games the General would have to play a player that is near or at least sergeant first class

I GOT IT!!!!!!!!

How about:

(loser score/winner score) *20 +/- difference in rank

I am not sure that I get it ...
Can you give us an example that shows how/what that formula does ?

[THE ARMY]

now people think it would hurt the scores they gain after each game but it would only really hurt those higher ranks, and it would only hurt them the most in 1v1 games or 2v2 games when they play noobs, chefs, cadets, privates.

[PepperJack]

winner is a general at 4000, loser is a recruit at 1000

(1000 / 4000) = .25 * 20 = 4 - 12 (difference in rank) = -8

This means that in order to gain points at 1 v 1 games the General would have to play a player that is near or at least sergeant first class

I GOT IT!!!!!!!!

How about:

(loser score/winner score) *20 +/- difference in rank

I am not sure that I get it ...
Can you give us an example that shows how/what that formula does ?

I respectfully disagree with this as THE solution. While it might work for 1v1 games, what about the farmers that actually do display some talent? Its not easy to win 8p Waterloo games at an 80%+ clip when anyone can join.

Also, it further discourages high ranks from playing public games because they can unwillingly be entered into a game where they literally have nothing to gain and 100 points to lose.

[THE ARMY]

If the farmers are good then let them farm against corporals or sergeants.

Also it won't effect them when they play larger games like the 8p game you brought up. At the most, THE MOST, when a chef beats the conquerer you would only be losing 16 more points and it won't matter because if THAT happens you have already reached your 100 point limit.

winner is a general at 4000, loser is a recruit at 1000

(1000 / 4000) = .25 * 20 = 4 - 12 (difference in rank) = -8

This means that in order to gain points at 1 v 1 games the General would have to play a player that is near or at least sergeant first class

I GOT IT!!!!!!!!

How about:

(loser score/winner score) *20 +/- difference in rank

I am not sure that I get it ...
Can you give us an example that shows how/what that formula does ?

I respectfully disagree with this as THE solution. While it might work for 1v1 games, what about the farmers that actually do display some talent? Its not easy to win 8p Waterloo games at an 80%+ clip when anyone can join.

Also, it further discourages high ranks from playing public games because they can unwillingly be entered into a game where they literally have nothing to gain and 100 points to lose.

[PepperJack]

I think my issue with your idea is that it potentially eliminates rewards for people that are not farming (ie; playing 8p public games on a variety of maps). There are many inept players on this site that are familiar with all styles of play, they just suck. To allow these people to be able to play high ranks and further minimize the damage that they can do to themselves makes no sense to me. I find your suggestion akin to bubblewrapping the scoreboard.

My idea (not a solution, as there is no math) of points from beyond marginalizes the benfits of farming by rewarding playing not-?s and other higher ranks and winning. Your solution encourages stratification of games based on rank since it further constricts the rewards that high ranks can garner.

I believe you are looking at this too narrowly, almost exclusively 1v1 actually. You need to further contemplate the effects of your proposed solution on 6p and 8p games to realize its downside.

My point is this, if theres some random 8p game I win that has a cook (that played) in it it, I want all 12 points I've earned, not 8 or if I ever make the first page, 2. He was in the game, he played, gimme points.

[kerntheconkerer]

no matter what the system is, there will always be ways to get around it, wouldnt it be easier to just make it so that new recruits can only play players with ranks below 1500. that way the highest a farmer can get is to 1500, then he is up to his own merit.

True, as long as people of that high rank are allowed to play people of low rank, it will always be there.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

no matter what the system is, there will always be ways to get around it, wouldnt it be easier to just make it so that new recruits can only play players with ranks below 1500. that way the highest a farmer can get is to 1500, then he is up to his own merit.

good suggestion

however

when you set up 50 triples/quads, it takes 1-2 weeks for them to fill and in most cases it is by players under 1500 points. take that option away from them and it will take over 2 weeks, if not up to a month, just to fill games.

[gdeangel]

The way to stop point farming with a formula change could be very simple.

When someone wins by another player deadbeating any time in the first five rounds, instead of scoring them the formula way, you should just get a flat out 2 points (right now, a colonel with 2500 points playing a noob with 1000 points gets about 8 points).

There have been countless other suggestions made, but each time it is the thing... they will never change it! Suggestions to limit who can play who (whether mandatory or by choice) also similarly end in the dead letter box around here.

(BTW - I was being sarcastic above when I said there is no point farming problem on this site)

[Cundy]

im pretty sure bad people with terribad strats still wining with complete BS dice is a much MUCH bigger problem

[THE ARMY]

A. Cooks suck and i even feel like im taking candy from a baby when i play them so i don't think that anyone should want "all 8 points"
B. Those 8 points are minute compared to the amount of points on the scoreboard and by the amount people fluctuate from high's and low's
c. You don't have to join games with cooks
D. This scoring system will make it more exponential so staying atop the leaderboard is for the truley skilled

I think my issue with your idea is that it potentially eliminates rewards for people that are not farming (ie; playing 8p public games on a variety of maps). There are many inept players on this site that are familiar with all styles of play, they just suck. To allow these people to be able to play high ranks and further minimize the damage that they can do to themselves makes no sense to me. I find your suggestion akin to bubblewrapping the scoreboard.

My idea (not a solution, as there is no math) of points from beyond marginalizes the benfits of farming by rewarding playing not-?s and other higher ranks and winning. Your solution encourages stratification of games based on rank since it further constricts the rewards that high ranks can garner.

I believe you are looking at this too narrowly, almost exclusively 1v1 actually. You need to further contemplate the effects of your proposed solution on 6p and 8p games to realize its downside.

My point is this, if theres some random 8p game I win that has a cook (that played) in it it, I want all 12 points I've earned, not 8 or if I ever make the first page, 2. He was in the game, he played, gimme points.