New Score Equation: (loser's score / winner's score)^2 * 20
Specifics:
We have outlined new recruit farming as "bad," yet it is quite clear that the general community also dislikes low rank farming. Let's face it, nothing good comes out of it, and therefore even if you believe that it is a perfectly normal thing, then the complaints about it alone make it have an overall negative effect.
The new fix will do the following: the farther away your opponents score is from yours, the more points you will win or lose from that person. If you play people about your rank (give or take 5% of score), you might see a measly 1 point difference in the transfer of points. If you choose to play people of half your rank, you will gain 5 points instead of 10 and lose 80 points instead of 40. Meaning, that playing people below your rank is now definitely not worth it.
The overall effect is that those who play against higher ranks will rise in points, those who play against lower ranks will fall in points, and then those who play about their own rank will experience no change in score.
This will improve the following aspects of the site:
No more low rank farming (the people who do it will become low ranked themselves)
No more complaints about low rank farming.
Answering some things before they come up:
The farming will probably switch from high ranks farming on low ranks, to low ranks trying to join any game they possibly can with high ranks. We might make the cap different depending on score, the one that right now says no more than 100 points can be lost by any rank, we might adjust that to be influenced by your score somehow. Would not be too hard.
There will be point deflation. Many of the high ranks we have now will no longer be able to keep their scores (even if they continue to play against majors ad captains.) However, all the high-er ranks will drop, the drop increasing more and more the higher up you go, meaning that the scoreboard positions are unlikely to change much, although the people who play their own rank, will get higher.
No, this is not a jealousy attack on King H*****, I would think that his rank would fall, although I do think he will stay in the top few among the scoreboard. He is a good player at freestyle and 1v1s, win rate being high enough to maintain a high score even if he earns only a third of the points he does now.
this is obviously not gonna pass...just the fact that you said playing people at your own level will only get you a point change of around 1-5 points...people don't like deflation.
I like this idea a lot. My one concern is that the squared seems kind of arbitrary, maybe we could try this out and adjust the numbers a little to see how different ones work. Assuming it gets implemented, of course.
DarthBlood wrote:this is obviously not gonna pass...just the fact that you said playing people at your own level will only get you a point change of around 1-5 points...people don't like deflation.
Deflation happens, and seeing as CC has been going through a point inflation for the past 3 years, I think it is eventually necessary. At the rate we are going, we'll have about 50 generals and 15 field marshals by June it seems.
Low ranks cannot be stereotyped, I am at a low right now but I just beat a major and a captain (Well they were)
so my point is that there needs to be more to describe the low rank n00b then just their rank...
sailorseal wrote:Low ranks cannot be stereotyped, I am at a low right now but I just beat a major and a captain (Well they were)
so my point is that there needs to be more to describe the low rank n00b then just their rank...
If you actually read my post, then you will find that I said nothing about anyone being a "n00b" or having bad strategy or anything about low ranks other than that they are the target of farming these days (if you want to debate that there are no high ranks that prey on low ranks, you might want to take a look at the first few spots on the scoreboard).
But seeing as I assumed you had based your accusation on something you might have found in my post about cooks being bad or something, I answered it anyways before I actually thought about reading my own post: Spoiler
Reasons why someone is a low rank:
1. Have no clue what they are doing and just can't grasp strategy in general
2. Play CC too rarely to get a clue as to what they are doing
3. Play mostly team games with random people
4. Play mostly against other low ranks (most common mistake I see)
5. Miss a large amount of turns
Okay, under the first two the reasons, the person is actually not good at CC.
Under the third and fourth reasons, it is impossible for them to get to any moderate-high rank. Third category players might be good but their teams are bad, probably happens. Players in the 4th category might be good players, but it is kind of unlikely that they learned some "high rank strategy" (strategy that gets you to a high rank) by playing cooks and cadets. There is nothing bad about playing these ranks, but it is not going to improve your skill.
And the 5th reason is stand alone since it does not matter whether they are good or not, they will not win games.
So you can claim that low ranks are good, and I would agree that some are. However, it can be easily stated that a high rank (in general) is better than (for lack of a better term) than a low rank (in general)
this defo wont work- what happens if a low player joins a game witgh a high ranked player- that doesnt make him a farmer yet he would only get 1 point!
The Neon Peon wrote:If you choose to play people of half your rank, you will gain 5 points instead of 10 and lose 80 points instead of 40. Meaning, that playing people below your rank is now definitely not worth it.
whoa, how retarded is that!
if i played against a captain/major i have to win 16 out of 17 games just to break even
the current system already means i have to win 4 out of 5 which is very hard because a lot of low majors/high captains are very skilled and with a bit of luck they can win 1 out of 5 easily, making it 16 out of 17 would be complete bullshit and would make it impossible for high ranks to start games regularly
Don't forget maximum points gained are capped at 100, so the points transferred would max out for a player with 1000 points when beating a player of approximately 2237 in score.
Section of interest wrote:
Player 1... Player 2...ratio … ratio^2...... New points…Old Points…% diff
2200 ...... 1000 ...... 2.2...... 4.84........... 96.8 ......... 44.........220%
2300 ...... 1000 ...... 2.3...... 5.29........... 105.8 ........ 46.........230%
.44
The side effects will be:
1) Makes high ranked players a massive target, points snobbery will increase ten fold(Bad).
2) Points dumping becomes even more viable as an option for catapulting up the score board(Very Bad).
3) Deflation is guaranteed(Don't know).
The real question is can we accept the side effects of this suggestion as the price for permanently crippling the farmers ability to accrue points?
==================================================
This post was sponsored by Far-Q Industries.
Far-Q Industries: Telling you where to go since 2008.
Right now the scoring formula is ((loser's score/winner's score)^1)*20, and it is easy for high ranking players to amass points by playing very low ranking players. It seems that most people's concern is that by changing the formula to ((loser's score/winner's score)^2)*20, we would reverse that, making it easy to get points by targeting high ranks. As I said in my first post, squared seems kind of arbitrary, so perhaps there is a middle ground. If using 1 as the exponent benefits high ranks and using 2 benefits low ranks, perhaps there is some middle ground that would be fair to everyone? Just because the details might not be perfect yet does not mean that we should discount this suggestion.
First off lets get one thing strait, high ranks abusing all the low ranks for easy points is not the only form of farming there are people who farm higher ranks. the way this is done in in high rank partner games. here say a general and a cook may face off against two generals. what happens is because one team has a cook they get more point when in reality the general is making all the calls and the cook is just there to make the point difference higher.
this idea makes one better and the other more problematic
Occasionally I'll be beaten by a low-ranked player (say, 1000 points or so) in a large game. Usually it's due to plain bad luck, which happens. Do you think I deserve to lose 100 points for that?
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
I might be confused, but this system seems to reward poor players.
A high rank has nothing to gain from playing anyone, but low ranks can gain points at a far faster rate than anything seen to date. Now I am fully aware of the farming problem, but I fail to see this as logical. have you even considered the effect this would have on clan challenges? They would disappear overnight along with most of the tournaments. Not what lack wants to see at all.
You don't make a society richer by punishing the successful, you do it by a more egalitarian approach to wealth (in this case points). From what i can see you just want to introduce an effectively higher taxation on high ranks without giving them anything in return....
Due to current economic conditions the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off
