real bad results in c and a (case resolved.)

[Funkyterrance]

So he's an above average player but this seems like proof that there are players at least as talented as him, arguably MORE talented.
Woodruff, how many times have you played Blitzaholic?

[Chariot of Fire]

Depends what one is playing.

If it's playing with oneself while standing in front of a mirror wearing a bicorne then some are without equal.

[Funkyterrance]

lolz

[Robinette]

Yet I'll probably never better my 5th place on the scoreboard, even if my individual records against those at the top are better than theirs against me.

pffffttt... 5th place you say...
if you can't get to 4th, you may as well be last..HA!



As for me...
I've played him 12 times... all 6p std games

Blitz won 2
manaicmath won 2 (another Conqueror)
and little 'ole me won 2 as well (probably just good luck)

oh.. and 6 were won by others

Hey... that's how it works with 6 player escalators...

[Funkyterrance]

This all supports what I feel is generally believed by most experienced players. There is no one player who is so outstandingly skilled that their score could be thousands of points higher than an equally skilled player without some sort of "edge" that has nothing to do with actual gameplay. The level of honor involved in this "edge" is obviously debatable. The game only has so many angles and the dice can be fickle but not THAT fickle. Therefore, it seems that something has to change. Either the system needs to be tweeked, which may or may not happen, or a group has to band together and do something pro-active.

[Woodruff]

So he's an above average player but this seems like proof that there are players at least as talented as him, arguably MORE talented.

Certainly there are more talented, though that depends on what type of game is being played.

Woodruff, how many times have you played Blitzaholic?

Only once, in a tournament team game. Apparently, I am not considered "farmable" quality. Plus, team games are dumn and stupidl, so I don't get farm attempts as often as many others. However, just because I haven't played him doesn't mean I don't recognize his skill.

[Rodion]

Either the system needs to be tweeked, which may or may not happen, or a group has to band together and do something pro-active.

Theoretically speaking, a good player could possibly gather a team that has less points than a "farmer's" team and play the farmer on his map with about 50% chance to win. The farmer can then proceed to foe every player from the team they played against. That means each pro-active person/group could only deliver 1 (50% successful) blow on the farmer's plot. Unnefective, in my opinion.

[Chariot of Fire]

lol 'Nette. OK I'll rephrase that to "Never better my 4,380pts"

Nice results in your 6 player esc when u win 1:6 - very equitable. My multiplayer esc stats absolutely stink (I think there was one phase where I won just one game in a sequence of 45!). I blame Comic Boy coz I always seem to be following him and he's a genius at spoiling the next player's chances if he can't clear the board himself. Not everyone's that diligent.

>Terrance. You're quite right mate. Truth be told once a player has reached a rank of major (my yardstick only) he/she knows pretty much every map and every trick in the book, so it's a very level playing field even when a team of high-rankers face a team containing just one major+ (it's what makes winning points so damned hard and prompts some players to farm or cheat). The only aspect of the game that perhaps favours me - or to be more precise my playing style - is quads on a complex map, and this is only because I have more time than most to look at every turn and devise a long-term strategy. Singles....doubs....it wouldn't surprise me if - even if my win % is over 50 for these two formats - my nett points are actually a deficit.

The only other observation I've made is that the lower the rank the more active games they seem to play, thus their time and ability to study strategy become greatly reduced thus giving me an edge (I hope).

p.s.

dumn

- I like that!

[Funkyterrance]

Hmm your last post really got my gears turning Chariot. I was thinking how could you prevent farming by players with exceptionally high scores and the only solution I could come up with was the limit the point spread between two players in ALL games including those where the lower ranked player is on the same team. This would even out scores across the board, especially at the very top, assuming the high scored players continue playing games. I have a feeling this is exactly what would happen unfortunately, since it would basically be a guaranteed loss in status for some unnamed individuals. This solution would most likely never come to fruition, however, since it would exclude players from playing their friends if they weren't close in score and I don't think that would go over well. The other idea I did have that may have a little more merit however is to reduce the ratio of points gained when a higher rank beats a lower or when a high rank plays with a low rank on his/her team, etc.. Furthermore I think that all these things considered, a point reset would have to follow any changes so that things would settle naturally. I really think that a lot of the problems are due to the fact that this game is based on a board game that was designed to be played in person between a set group of people and everyone who played was present. The translation to an online gaming club is a rather sticky situation to say the least lol. I am a believer that there is a definite solution to this problem but it would be temporarily messy. It would be like using a fire hose to clean out a dog kennel but thats better than cleaning it all by hand right?

[SirSebstar]

just an observation: there is already a point cap on the pointspead between players.

may I suggest this as an alternative:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=142997

[Funkyterrance]

I don't think we mean the same thing when we are talking about pointspread, SirColdWaterOntheGroin. A cook can play against or on the same team as Blitzaholic so there is no limit on the difference between two players being in the same game. I also wrote that this is not an option really. My suggestion was that the gain in playing with/against a player with a massively lower score should be even FURTHER reduced. Maybe even exponentially.

[SirSebstar]

I don't think we mean the same thing when we are talking about pointspread, SirColdWaterOntheGroin. A cook can play against or on the same team as Blitzaholic so there is no limit on the difference between two players being in the same game. I also wrote that this is not an option really. My suggestion was that the gain in playing with/against a player with a massively lower score should be even FURTHER reduced. Maybe even exponentially.

Cold water on the where.. never mind, i dont want to know Always smart namecalling a volunteer...

Exponentially.. I can see that this would really really tick everybody off. Just an observation based on 3 years of the same discussions.

For now I can only conclude that you are indeed not alone in the feeling that highrankers get too many points for winning.. But anybody with any (higher) rank is complaining that if they play a 1vs1 with cooks they loose more points then the win if they win the majority of the games.
I have stated before that the problem is not with the ELO system, that expects you to win from a lower ranked player and rewards you accordingly (read lower) then vice versa. The problem lies in the fact that the ELO system does not properly reward teamgames. The assumtion has been made to reward teams as a whole, as if they were 1 person, and that does make sense. A lot of sense in fact. However in practice it turns out that it might be a bad idea to continue this way.

I propose that someone who can come up with a better way to distribute point winnings, please please post this in the suggestions forum asthis is not the actual place to discuss current suggestions. I propose to change the venue to either suggestions for an indepth discussion on the merits of both suggestions. I suggest you start however with reading past and rejected sugggestions so you do not repeat the same old rejected idea's. again.

[Dako]

I disagree with you, SirPowerEnforcer. This is a great place to discuss current problems, because suggestions are fit for lesser changes, like small medals, or maybe new game modes. Something as global as a point system and rules are not just "suggestions". They should be discussed, viewed and analyzed by many members, and I am afraid Suggestions is just a graveyard of ideas.

I am not sure I can contribute much on the ranking systems or point distribution, but it seems we need to look into existing ladder systems and steal some ideas from them. And by systems I mean systems used in other games (not sports) - like Warcraft and Starcraft. They should be pretty balanced in terms of team games, so I think we should peek there and see what we can do about that.

[SirSebstar]

edited my text to make my point come across clearer.
I am not against discussing it here, unless it would be about an actual suggestion. However any result from the discussions here should really find its way to the suggestionsforum eventually, this does not always happen, and thats a shame.

warcraft/starcrat. I know the games from name, but how do they solve this? I believe there is no such ranking system for teams (as such), but then I might be wrong.

I disagree with you, SirPowerEnforcer. This is a great place to discuss current problems, because suggestions are fit for lesser changes, like small medals, or maybe new game modes. Something as global as a point system and rules are not just "suggestions". They should be discussed, viewed and analyzed by many members, and I am afraid Suggestions is just a graveyard of ideas.

I am not sure I can contribute much on the ranking systems or point distribution, but it seems we need to look into existing ladder systems and steal some ideas from them. And by systems I mean systems used in other games (not sports) - like Warcraft and Starcraft. They should be pretty balanced in terms of team games, so I think we should peek there and see what we can do about that.

[Dako]

You can get some insight on their system from this article - http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmes ... _id=118212

Basically, they have 5 leagues and you will have some rating there. To promote to the next league you need to maintain 50+% win ratio against people from your current league (that is the key - playing players from lower league will not promote you). You do not need to be #1 in your league to promote to next one. In the end each player will be placed in the league where he will win about 50% of the games against the same opponents. Also, if there are 5 leagues, then each league will have 20% of the players there. They will be ranked inside the league in some order. When you get promoted you kick out the bottom player to your division. Also, there is some kind of points decay, where you sink to the bottom if you go inactive for a period of time. I am quite sure there are separate leagues for solo players, FFA, random teams and arranged team games.

[SirSebstar]

mmm. I cannot acces the article because my the firewall. But it looks like they have a seperate ranking, aka scoreboard for teams and indivuduals.. I guess a radical change to cc would be to have multiple scoreboards, but I dont think that is what is wanted, or rather you would really like to find a way to incorperate it in your 1 scoreboard...
still, interresting
Funkyterrance, what is your observation? what could be idea's to solve a leaderboard with different types of gameplay, and how to rank them underling on an individual bais?! more thoughts are needed.

[Dako]

The most interesting thing is that rank and points are not tied there. To promote to a new rank you need to beat your current opponents ranks with 50+% frequency. You can have 5k points by farming lower people and still be stuck in the middle league.

We can have 1 scoreboard for people, but I think it will be great to disconnect rank from points.

[SirSebstar]

mmm interresting, but then that would mean you would really only play those who are better or equal and not lower.. that would be totally counterproductive right?

I think the design should also consider that CC is a casual game, but everybody could play everybody else. If you could only loose, i;d not longer play low(er) rankers at all.. Now i loose a lot of points when I loose, but at least there is the chance i get ahead overall.
i assume they have solved such a thing as well, so some lower levels can be played to gain your next level, i think...
They also have decaying points so no play, you loose your place.
it would turn cc away from fixed points and a closed system to an open system. that might work.

[Dako]

They have automative system for matchmaking. So you do not pick your opponents - they always try to give you the same ones from your league.

Playing with lower people will still work, because you get points to stay in your league (because you can drop if you get close to the bottom) and because it is fun :). If you want to be truly competitive - you will try to play people from your league only to promote. However, being in the top league any point you can get will rank you on top so farming might be an issue there like it is right now when we have 1 league only.

I need to think more about this, I kind of feel how this idea is shaping in my mind.

[eddie2]

They have automative system for matchmaking. So you do not pick your opponents - they always try to give you the same ones from your league.

Playing with lower people will still work, because you get points to stay in your league (because you can drop if you get close to the bottom) and because it is fun . If you want to be truly competitive - you will try to play people from your league only to promote. However, being in the top league any point you can get will rank you on top so farming might be an issue there like it is right now when we have 1 league only.

I need to think more about this, I kind of feel how this idea is shaping in my mind.

i thought you would have 2 play your own rank to stay up because the way you are saying this is it is the percent of wins in your league not the points that determine your place.

[SirSebstar]

automatic matchmaking is always a worth option ofcourse.
But that would/ should only consider those online and not those absent.. rt's would be quicker
although... it could pick everybody who signed up for it.
that can be done, but it would be a drastic change..

Also like eddie2 wrote, i dont get that part either

[Dako]

Percentage is what you need to advance to the next league. Inside the league... I am not sure, you might be ranked by win % or by points. If it is by points - then we have farming back in the top league. If we have win % - people might not want to play low ranked players.

[SirSebstar]

Percentage is what you need to advance to the next league. Inside the league... I am not sure, you might be ranked by win % or by points. If it is by points - then we have farming back in the top league. If we have win % - people might not want to play low ranked players.

Neither result is desirable. In that case id rather prefer seperate scoreboards..

[Dako]

win % inside your league, not a total win %.

[eddie2]

Percentage is what you need to advance to the next league. Inside the league... I am not sure, you might be ranked by win % or by points. If it is by points - then we have farming back in the top league. If we have win % - people might not want to play low ranked players.

win percentage would not stop you playing lower ranks because it would not affect your position.