DIFFERENT SCORING SYSTEM TO DETER FROM FARMING

[PepperJack]

THE ARMY, we obviously have different viewpoints, so lets agree to disagree. I would prefer a solution that lures players away from noob farming, you seek one that pushes them away, its a subtle difference and without much middle ground for us to stand on.

Another idea that jumped into my head that does not involve score tweaks. What if the scoreboard had criteria for appearing on it? The criteria could be set over a predetermined period of time such as 1 or 3 months and include variety of games.

A possible criteria would be having 20% of your completed games not have a new recruit opponent. Or X% of games have 6+ players. If the criteria isn't met, then you can have your score, but it counts for nothing as its not on the scoreboard.

This is a really rough idea, but I feel like it could limit one of the main draws of farming (the epeening).

[Georgerx7di]

Um, I didn't read the whole thread, but I think what he's suggesting is basically

((opponents score/your score)^2) * 20 if you win. So basically just square it before multiplying by 20.

with this, a 3,200 point player say, beating a 800 point player, would normally get 5 points, would now get 1.25 points, so either 1 or 2 depending on how the site rounds, should be 1 point.

[MajorRT]

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

CC uses a vague form of this. The ELO formula is more complex and after you are established it is harder to gain or lose points quickly, unless you play many games. This system would create more stability, and would allow more competitive play. On the other hand , the highest scores would be around 3K, like chess.(Anand the champ is at ~2900)

[MajorRT]

more details here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

It looks like once you're established the K number (ie. 20 in CC), goes down based on score and games played...

[PepperJack]

more details here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

It looks like once you're established the K number (ie. 20 in CC), goes down based on score and games played...

I looked into it and strict Elo systems don't have allowances for multiplayer games. Variants score everything as individual duels within a match (which is exactly what CC does already).

Elo doesn't do anything to deter farming so far as I can see. Its just replacing the our current simple scoring formula with a more complex one. As many have previously stated, slowing down the ascent of farmers (and everyone else) on the scoreboard does not deter farming itself.

[THE ARMY]

i think this helps because it is a more exponential scoring system though... do you think that it might cause MORE farming since playing any other game except for "sure wins" against noobs, chefs, and cadets would lose more points in the long run instead of gain?

Um, I didn't read the whole thread, but I think what he's suggesting is basically

((opponents score/your score)^2) * 20 if you win. So basically just square it before multiplying by 20.

with this, a 3,200 point player say, beating a 800 point player, would normally get 5 points, would now get 1.25 points, so either 1 or 2 depending on how the site rounds, should be 1 point.

[MrMoody]

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)

Now this would be interesting. Makes me wonder if it would cut down on multi's as well. Easy to look and see how many noobs suddenly play 5 rounds before they start to deadbeat

[MajorRT]

Or you could stop deadbeat noob farming by giving the farmer 0 (Zero) points for deadbeat games done < 5 turns, but subtract the points from the deadbeat. Thus, there would be no incentive to play probable deadbeats.

[Mentos-]

Um, I didn't read the whole thread, but I think what he's suggesting is basically

((opponents score/your score)^2) * 20 if you win. So basically just square it before multiplying by 20.

with this, a 3,200 point player say, beating a 800 point player, would normally get 5 points, would now get 1.25 points, so either 1 or 2 depending on how the site rounds, should be 1 point.

The only problem with this equation is what if the 800 point player wins?
((3200/800)^2)*20 = 320

Way too many points to gain, and if they kept the 100 point cap then it would be far too easy to hit that cap.

Here's my solution:
((loser's score/winner's score)*20) - ((winner's score - loser's score)/1000)

4000 vs. 1000, 4000 wins: (originally 5)
((0.25)*20) - ((3000)/1000) = 2

1000 wins: (originally 80)
((4)*20) - ((-3000)/1000) = 83

[THE ARMY]

interesting, i like it, can you show more examples with more score range because im too lazy to do it myself

Um, I didn't read the whole thread, but I think what he's suggesting is basically

((opponents score/your score)^2) * 20 if you win. So basically just square it before multiplying by 20.

with this, a 3,200 point player say, beating a 800 point player, would normally get 5 points, would now get 1.25 points, so either 1 or 2 depending on how the site rounds, should be 1 point.

The only problem with this equation is what if the 800 point player wins?
((3200/800)^2)*20 = 320

Way too many points to gain, and if they kept the 100 point cap then it would be far too easy to hit that cap.

Here's my solution:
((loser's score/winner's score)*20) - ((winner's score - loser's score)/1000)

4000 vs. 1000, 4000 wins: (originally 5)
((0.25)*20) - ((3000)/1000) = 2

1000 wins: (originally 80)
((4)*20) - ((-3000)/1000) = 83

[MajorRT]

Um, I didn't read the whole thread, but I think what he's suggesting is basically

((opponents score/your score)^2) * 20 if you win. So basically just square it before multiplying by 20.

with this, a 3,200 point player say, beating a 800 point player, would normally get 5 points, would now get 1.25 points, so either 1 or 2 depending on how the site rounds, should be 1 point.

The only problem with this equation is what if the 800 point player wins?
((3200/800)^2)*20 = 320

Way too many points to gain, and if they kept the 100 point cap then it would be far too easy to hit that cap.

Here's my solution:
((loser's score/winner's score)*20) - ((winner's score - loser's score)/1000)

4000 vs. 1000, 4000 wins: (originally 5)
((0.25)*20) - ((3000)/1000) = 2

1000 wins: (originally 80)
((4)*20) - ((-3000)/1000) = 83

but the problem with THIS is if SJ (5393) beats Alangary(1), then SJ would get :

((1/5393)*20-((5393-1)/1000) = 0-5.4 = -5.4 (rounded), a NEGATIVE number! He'd lose points, even though he won. THAT would stop farming cooks!

[Mentos-]

but the problem with THIS is if SJ (5393) beats Alangary(1), then SJ would get :

((1/5393)*20-((5393-1)/1000) = 0-5.4 = -5.4 (rounded), a NEGATIVE number! He'd lose points, even though he won. THAT would stop farming cooks!

Well there could be a bottom cap at 1 or 0, there is a top cap at 100 so there's no reason for there not to be one on bottom.

[Cundy]

change it so you can only play in games with people around your score/rank, so no one has to play against/with complete #(*^&($ing retards lol

[THE ARMY]

We've discussed changing the system to only play certain people but it is just to complex. The easiest way to stop the farming is by a new scoring system, and i like the newest idea i think it would work, we just need more support to implement it.

change it so you can only play in games with people around your score/rank, so no one has to play against/with complete #(*^&($ing retards lol

[DAT_WAT_SHE_SAID]

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.

that is a brilliant idea, making 1000 points or lower not be able to play people 1500 or over?
Becoz sargents and corprals no how to play, its the noobs, inxperienced people and cooks that we need to stop getting farmed

[THE ARMY]

but this would take a lot of the fun out of the game for many people and i don't think a move like this would fall through. What is the % of people that are below 1500, like more than half, so that means were going to limit the games and players those people can play in?, not very fair or fun if you ask me

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.

that is a brilliant idea, making 1000 points or lower not be able to play people 1500 or over?
Becoz sargents and corprals no how to play, its the noobs, inxperienced people and cooks that we need to stop getting farmed

[Cundy]

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.

that is a brilliant idea, making 1000 points or lower not be able to play people 1500 or over?
Becoz sargents and corprals no how to play, its the noobs, inxperienced people and cooks that we need to stop getting farmed

i like it, but it doesn't stop them from joining high ranked players games, which isn't fun for either side

[DAT_WAT_SHE_SAID]

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.

that is a brilliant idea, making 1000 points or lower not be able to play people 1500 or over?
Becoz sargents and corprals no how to play, its the noobs, inxperienced people and cooks that we need to stop getting farmed

i like it, but it doesn't stop them from joining high ranked players games, which isn't fun for either side

Farmers never start there own games, they always join noob games, if they start them they run the risk of playing someone who knows how to play--so it would solve the problem completely

[Cundy]

lol i was thinking more along the line low ranks that join team games against a bunch of high ranks.

As far as i see it there are 3 types of people:

1: the nubs, dont care enough work out the rules or are very young.

2: the nub farmers, only ever play "?"s 1v1 to get a high rank... only 2s know why lol

3: the rest, they play everyone and anyone their ranks go up and down with the dice.

3s (myself) dont care about the 1/3s, so why should we work on a new system?

2s dont want a new system.

1s dont care enough to work on a new system.

it is, in fact, a system itself. works in theory... whats the prob?

[jiminski]

I really don't think new players should be prevented from playing any rank.

i don't farm at all and it is a little questionable to my sense of fair play. But i do see the risk in it, so it is not completely without 'honour' (heh if we can use the word 'honour' seriously regarding a virtual game without physical endeavour.)

more importantly - playing experienced high ranked players, taught me how to play better when i fist got here.
Losing with the feeling of being absolutely outclassed makes you analyse how it happened. Seeing a completely alternative, successful tactic unlocks the pool of learning. If we expand that; it is part of CC culture and how shared learning is spread.

what should be addressed is free points and the tactic of choosing games to specifically play deadbeats. That undermines the point system and demeans their worth completely.

[owenshooter]

what should be addressed is free points and the tactic of choosing games to specifically play deadbeats. That undermines the point system and demeans their worth completely.

AND as twill pointed out in a thread about maxatstuy and his cheating/farming (when he was stripped of his premium and removed from the scoreboard), most of the players that max farmed never returned for another game on CC. granted, alot of them were multiple accounts, but not all of them. that is the most harmful aspect of farming that these guys don't get. ultimately, they are harming the site and everyone's enjoyment, by chasing a few easy points that nobody respects them for gaining.-0

[THE ARMY]

so what are we going to do, i personally like the exponential scoring equation last brought up and there hasn't been any bad remarks on it, so should we bring that back to suggestions?

[THE ARMY]

this one

Um, I didn't read the whole thread, but I think what he's suggesting is basically

((opponents score/your score)^2) * 20 if you win. So basically just square it before multiplying by 20.

with this, a 3,200 point player say, beating a 800 point player, would normally get 5 points, would now get 1.25 points, so either 1 or 2 depending on how the site rounds, should be 1 point.

[jiminski]

this one

Um, I didn't read the whole thread, but I think what he's suggesting is basically

((opponents score/your score)^2) * 20 if you win. So basically just square it before multiplying by 20.

with this, a 3,200 point player say, beating a 800 point player, would normally get 5 points, would now get 1.25 points, so either 1 or 2 depending on how the site rounds, should be 1 point.

I think that there could be a real danger with high ranked players joining tournaments under that method.

honestly i am not sure 5 points is too many .. hahah .. maybe if new players are concerned about being farmed there could be a filter on who can join?

not quite what was suggested before with fixed brackets - but as with the greasemonkey script which allows you to search for specific ranks, perhaps players could limit the rank of those who can join their game?

This would have to be a site feature not an add-on, as new players are very unlikely to have add-ons.
If it were a site feature they could make it very clear option on the Game page.
This would give them security but also choice if they actually want to play high ranked players!


NB this does still not solve the problem of players reaping points from deadbeats! that is my biggest bugbear!

[oVo]

As long as there are ranks determined by points there will be farming, but it would be an improvement if recruit/multi/whatevers who never take a turn or deadbeat in the first 6 rounds or so
don't surrender any points.

Non-competitive games, such as the ones where klobber "out plays" seven recruits who all deadbeat,
should be as pointless as a game with no active participants actually is.