Minimum points gain

[meathead]

Concise description:

Make a minimum of points that can be taken from a losing player

Specifics:

Currently, if you have a high rank and beat someone with a rank of >500 toy get around 2-3 points. If you lose you would lose 100 points. Fair enough you should beat that person much more often than not but the luck of the dice would make it impossible to beat then 50x for every 1 loss. I propose a minimum point loss from each player of 5-10.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

It will make playing lower ranks more worthwile.

[Joodoo]

No offence but if you have skill then you would probably be able to beat low ranked player most of the time...

[B Mac Attack]

No offence but if you have skill then you would probably be able to beat low ranked player most of the time...

I think I have to disagree. Just because someone has a lower rank does not mean they are necessarily any worse than other players. It could just be a string of bad luck losses that led to a lower rank. Also, the newer person could just be more inclined to these types of games just from their own previous experiences and they could be difficult adversaries. Then, of course, there are always players who are returning from a long absence or players who have decided to start new accounts for new screen names or even to be used as multis in the future. In addition, as was said, if the dice truly are completely random, then there is an equal chance that the lower ranked player could get amazing rolls while you get terrible ones and vice versa. I agree that because you never know exactly what the situation is with these lower-ranked players, there should be a minimum score limit.

[qeee1]

If you're gonna implement a minimum score because the ranking system can be innacurate sometimes, you may as well do away with the whole ranking system.

Top players already make too many points from grinding against legions of noobs/poorly ranked players. This should be discouraged not encouraged.

[gdeangel]

This is much needed. I think a 10 point floor is a start. Let's face it, 10 points to a guy with 500 points is about the same as losing 10 points to a guy with 700 points, perhaps even less significant to the guy with 500 because there is no psychological drop in rank.

But this is just a start. A cap is needed on the points lost that is lower than 100 in many cases. There is another thread that discussed this here recently.

On the question of luck, if you want to make these odds work out, and I'm not saying by any stretch that it can every work out to taking 50 for every 1 loss (unless you count deadbeating noobs - no fun) then you end up having to be very selective about maps and settings. Thus some people only play green on freestyle to avoid the other guy starting first. Some people only play certain maps and avoid others where "unbeatable" drops are possible. All of this DETRACTS SIGNIFICANTLY from the richness of this site, and no matter how many people are happy maintaining their rank by just playing triples with other high ranked players, that just is not all that much fun and is not going to keep the majority of us here.

[LFAW]

I'm probably going to have to go against my brethren but I disagree with meathead. The points system works well as it is.

[KLOBBER]

This is a great idea.

There should be a minimum points gain per player defeated per game of at least 10 points, if not more.

There should also be a maximum points lost per player per game of 100, or even less.

[Incandenza]

^^^

This is the type of player that would benefit most greatly from this proposed point floor.

If you really really want to play with a cook a bunch of times, play team games, or mentor them so they can get their score to a respectable level, or just don't sweat the point loss. As has been often said elsewhere on the site, a major reason why high ranks don't play cooks is not due to potential point loss but rather due to poor play (suiciding, deadbeating, irrational moves, abusive game chat, etc).

So, yeah, bad idea.

[Mentos-]

I think the best way to stop these extreme low or high point gains would be to change the point formula, but I'm sure that will never happen.

If it did though, I think this would be the best way to go:

Current formula: (loser's points)/(winner's points)
New formula: 10 + (.5)(loser's points)/(winner's points)

This new formula would cut the impact of points in half, the minimum point gain/loss would be 10, and if the cap for (loser's points)/(winner's points) remained at 100, and the maximum gain/loss would be 60.

I don't have a problem with the current point system, just thought I'd throw this out there.

[Mr_Adams]

minimum points would allow -scores though.

[gdeangel]

I think the best way to stop these extreme low or high point gains would be to change the point formula, but I'm sure that will never happen.

If it did though, I think this would be the best way to go:

Current formula: (loser's points)/(winner's points)
New formula: 10 + (.5)(loser's points)/(winner's points)

This new formula would cut the impact of points in half, the minimum point gain/loss would be 10, and if the cap for (loser's points)/(winner's points) remained at 100, and the maximum gain/loss would be 60.

I don't have a problem with the current point system, just thought I'd throw this out there.

This is genius. Not everyone that agrees with the OP is looking for a free ride. Take down the max loss and increase the minimum gain because there is too much volatility ... you hit the nail on the head here in that you should start with a flat rate, and then introduce the regressive correction factor on top of there.

If you guys think playing a cadet for 10 points rather than 2 is somehow going to give unfair advantage, you are just trying to insulate the system against the people (like me) who generally do not pre-judge game quality by rank and will play with people of lesser rank. And that is precisely the reason why the numerous suggestions here to add a feature to limit rank of who can join a game have been rejected by the powers that be - because the site wants to purportedly foster more inter-level play.

Mentos formula would be an all around win. If you are worried about people who join 8-player games with people who deadbeat, then change the formula so that from each deadbeat, you get no points if the game doesn't go a certain number of minimum rounds. And, remember that if you are talking about people who pwn noobs, noobs have 1000 points, so for anyone up to colonel, they're already still getting 8-10 points from this type of conduct even under the current system.

And also it's highly unlikely that anyone on this site will have <10 points. Right now the lowest score on the site is 65.

[Mr_Adams]

Mentos formula would be an all around win. If you are worried about people who join 8-player games with people who deadbeat, then change the formula so that from each deadbeat, you get no points if the game doesn't go a certain number of minimum rounds. And, remember that if you are talking about people who pwn noobs, noobs have 1000 points, so for anyone up to colonel, they're already still getting 8-10 points from this type of conduct even under the current system.

"Mento's formula" just made me think of the Myth busters episode with the Mentos and Cola. ok, ADD moment over.

And also it's highly unlikely that anyone on this site will have <10 points. Right now the lowest score on the site is 65.

the minimum loss of 10 points makes it much easier to get player with <10 points though.

[Mentos-]

err I just realized I messed up the formulas a bit, the (loser's points)/(winner's points) is actually multiplied by 20, not just left as it is..so change my formula to
10+(10)(loser's points)/(winner's points), that makes more sense.

[Mentos-]

And also it's highly unlikely that anyone on this site will have <10 points. Right now the lowest score on the site is 65.

the minimum loss of 10 points makes it much easier to get player with <10 points though.

This is why I highly doubt a new formula would be implemented, all the low ranks will have a much harder time gaining points.

[gdeangel]

Mentos formula would be an all around win. If you are worried about people who join 8-player games with people who deadbeat, then change the formula so that from each deadbeat, you get no points if the game doesn't go a certain number of minimum rounds. And, remember that if you are talking about people who pwn noobs, noobs have 1000 points, so for anyone up to colonel, they're already still getting 8-10 points from this type of conduct even under the current system.

"Mento's formula" just made me think of the Myth busters episode with the Mentos and Cola. ok, ADD moment over.

And also it's highly unlikely that anyone on this site will have <10 points. Right now the lowest score on the site is 65.

the minimum loss of 10 points makes it much easier to get player with <10 points though.

I took a look at the guy with 65 and as a case study you'd be right because he is playing against lots of high ranked players in team games. On the other hand, you would be hard pressed to find someone over 2000 who would play this guy without a solid crew of 3-4 other good players to cancel out unlucky drops, first move advantage, and all the other "luck" elements. And once people see the "hunt in packs" play, etc. etc. they realize that the site is biased in favor of certain types of gameplay and against others. And thats not good for the site.

To the extent these "ultra low score" players are fall to zero, I think they should be sent to mandatory cook school and banned from public games until they can get their score up above say 50... I'm sure no one agrees with me on that part. But this issue shouldn't negate the idea of using mentos formula cause there are dozen different work arounds to the negative score concern that would be less politically incorrect than mine...

[Incandenza]

Well, right off the bat, there have been people in the past who got their score down to 1.

But it's also worth bearing in mind that people don't drop below 100 (or even 500) just because of bad dice or what not. No one is that catastrophically shitty at this game. Rather, these people are serial deadbeaters who figured since they can't make it to the top of the scoreboard, they'd "earn" a little notoriety by going to the bottom.

And I don't disagree that the allocation of points could be a bit more even-handed, a point floor is the wrong way to do it, given that noob-hunting in various forms is endemic to (and arguably an inescapable part of) the site.

Lowering the point ceiling, or reworking the formula so that higher ranks lose a bit less, would be a better way of going about it. It would still feed the noob-hunters a bit more, but since the whole concept of noob-hunting is that one wins far more than one loses, it would have far less of an impact that a point floor.

[gdeangel]

There should bey in the case of noobs a different standard for games where the other player deadbeats in less than 6 rounds (i.e., they missed >= half their turns). In those games, it should be flat rate 5 points for your trouble. As now, that would be what a 4000 player going against a 1000 noob would get. For everybody else, this would lower the value of those games, and I think this should apply even if you are talking about cadets or cooks who get into these game.

[trapyoung]

i suggested a cap for point losses, check the discussion on it. pg 1 or 2 of forum

[FabledIntegral]

higher ranks shouldn't be playing them in the first place - if they need to learn strategy from someone like suggested, they should probably learn from someone like a sergeant, not a colonel or brig.

[Herakilla]

minimum points would allow -scores though.

not possible since lack put in a point floor that doesnt allow you to drop under 1 point already. if you are at 1 point and lose to another person with 1 point they win 20 points but you stay at 1