Conquer Club

While I do think that we can pick and choose which players we play.... I believe that the point calculation is not asfair as it could be. I think that if a low ranking player is skillful enough to win a game against a higher ranked player then they should be rewarded accordingly. This does, however, make it so that the higher ranked players end up just playing doubles games or only trying to play the higher ranking players since 1 loss to a lower ranked "noob" has to be matched with at least 8 wins. I think that on a regular basis this is not possible if nothing more than due to the fact that you cannot control the roll of the die.

Maybe something like this...

Take the current calculation and then divide this number by the number of ranks that the player is below the other player!!??


any thoughts?

This idea's fantastic. Maybe, if that turns out to be too drastic, divide by a different factor

If you would need to win 8 out of 9 against someone to keep your score the same, then you should be able to do it. If you're not good enough to do it, then your score should be lower and/or their's should be higher, and that's exactly how it works.

No. What if like, say if that whole score reset thing goes through, then all the good players will only lose 20 points to the bad players if they lose their first game, denouncing Timminz's point.

ParadiceCity9 wrote:No. What if like, say if that whole score reset thing goes through, then all the good players will only lose 20 points to the bad players if they lose their first game, denouncing Timminz's point.

What if the scoreboard is reset? That's your response? If/when that happens, the system will obviously be different. I was merely commenting on the current system. If you would like me to consider theoretical, future scenarios, you're going to need to tell me next time.

I'm also saying that if someone of say, Warsteiner's stature just joined the site then they'd be winning "too many points".

ParadiceCity9 wrote:I'm also saying that if someone of say, Warsteiner's stature just joined the site then they'd be winning "too many points".

No. They'd be winning the right amount of points, until they reach a high enough score.

Not the way you said it.

"If you would need to win 8 out of 9 against someone to keep your score the same, then you should be able to do it. If you're not good enough to do it, then your score should be lower and/or their's should be higher, and that's exactly how it works."

I don't give this a much thought since I basically just keep on playing and hope for some good games regardless of who joins them. On the few occassions I've played doubles it's for the fun of it and not to maintain by rank. This is a game after all, so I come here to play and not worry about the points I may lose or how long I'll manage to keep this party hat.

If the scoreboard were to be reset annually I'm fine with that. Then you could have a Hall of CC Fame/Records with the statistics and other stuff that accumulates with each new "season."

ParadiceCity9 wrote:Not the way you said it.

"If you would need to win 8 out of 9 against someone to keep your score the same, then you should be able to do it. If you're not good enough to do it, then your score should be lower and/or their's should be higher, and that's exactly how it works."

Are you saying that if someone with the skills of a Conqueror joined, and played Warsteiner that Warsteiner's points wouldn't deserve to go down? In that situation, if they were exactly the same skill level, then they're points should be equal, and they would be after enough games. By saying "then your score should be lower and/or their's should be higher", I meant "in relation to the players in the game", sorry for not being more clear. In the example using Warsteiner, his score would go down, because, in realtion to the new recruit, it should. If I understand your point correctly, you're saying that when his score goes down, he'll be below poo-maker on the scoreboard, even though he's better, and that's not fair (is that correct?). My point is that a series of games between Warsteiner and this new recruit would not measure his ability compared to Poo, only compared to the person he's playing.

All I'm saying is that according to you, if two people with the same skill level play each other, they should lose/win 20 points. The thing you just said implies that you're fine with the current system.

ParadiceCity9 wrote:All I'm saying is that according to you, if two people with the same skill level play each other, they should lose/win 20 points. The thing you just said implies that you're fine with the current system.

Yes. I'm fine with the current system. And yes. 2 players of equal skill should win/lose 20 points from each other.

If high ranking players are to be incentivized to play lower ranked players, it cannot be done by lowering the amount they might lose. All this would do is make it that much more attractive to engage in the very unfortunate practice of high ranking players teaming up and fishing for newbs in the public ranks.

For all the pissing and moaning that goes on about the scoring system, it's actually completely logical and no more likely to be abused than any other system presented. It is simple and essentially accurate. That it fails to recognize the difference between those who are good at a number of formats as opposed to those who just play one map or format over and over is less a fault of the system and more a problem of everyone caring far too much about something that doesn't matter all that much in the big picture.

I've got a better idea. Rather than changing the scoring system, we should just change how we feel about ranks. Basically, we should think less about them and worry more about how much fun you have playing and whether or not you're getting better as a player. Did you figure out a new way to get through a situation that often beats you? Something like that.

There's at least two reasons why players over 2K avoid low ranking games and only one of them is the fear of losing points.

I guess maybe my point wasn't taken exactly as I was intending it to be. I guess for me with a rank of colonel I tend to get emails about people who want to play with just colonel and above. This to me suggests that others in here try to not play the lower ranks due to the point spread that occurs.
I myself play whatever, wherever and whoever. As a matter of fact if you check my games you will see that I play alot of games regardless of the ranks. I just love the game

But with that being said... I do find it frustrating at times when the lower ranks just tend to gang up to grab the points that are available. This got me to thinking that maybe there might be a better way. I really dont have a problem maintaining a 40-50% winning level but even with this it is hard to move up at all in the standings. I dont mind my score going down either if I play baddly (as is the case sometimes)

With all of this I still think that there is room for improvement in the point spreading.

currently, it is (loser's score / winner's score) * 20, up to a maximum of 100 points from each opponent.

so if I play a private with a score of 900 then the result would be;
a loss : (2500/900)*20 = 56
a win : (900/2500)*20 = 7


Therefore it takes 8 wins to make up for one loss as I stated before.

Maybe this calc works?? with the different system it would be (loser's score / winner's score) * (20/ (the number of ranks lower than the loser/3 or 1 if higher rank)), up to a maximum of 100 points from each opponent.

a loss : (2500/900)*(20/(9/3)) = 19
a win : (900/2500)*(20/1) = 7

NOTE: the number of ranks lower than the loser/3 should be rounded up to the nearest whole number.

Timminz wrote:

ParadiceCity9 wrote:All I'm saying is that according to you, if two people with the same skill level play each other, they should lose/win 20 points. The thing you just said implies that you're fine with the current system.

Yes. I'm fine with the current system. And yes. 2 players of equal skill should win/lose 20 points from each other.

But how do you judge skill?? The points system has been in place since the site started and like everything does in life, needs a makeover. With the introduction of Speed games, 8 players escalating games and conquest maps, I ask you what is skill??

I know many privates that time and time again will be Colonel on AOM....

I just lost 60 points to privates coz i had bad dice (now im not moaning) but did these privates win with skill or because i had bad dice??

tmclay99 wrote:Maybe this calc works?? with the different system it would be (loser's score / winner's score) * (20/ (the number of ranks lower than the loser/3 or 1 if higher rank)), up to a maximum of 100 points from each opponent.

a loss : (2500/900)*(20/(9/3)) = 19
a win : (900/2500)*(20/1) = 7

Not a terrible idea in my opinion (although I'm fine with the current scoring method), but my only potential concern is that the spread between ranks is not even. It only take 100 points to move up in the lower ranks, so that could mess things up.

In fact, if a Corporal loses to a Private, they would actually lose MORE points because the ranks/3 value would be 2/3 (and cause the original division to be multiplied by 30 )

Night Strike wrote:

tmclay99 wrote:Maybe this calc works?? with the different system it would be (loser's score / winner's score) * (20/ (the number of ranks lower than the loser/3 or 1 if higher rank)), up to a maximum of 100 points from each opponent.

a loss : (2500/900)*(20/(9/3)) = 19
a win : (900/2500)*(20/1) = 7

Not a terrible idea in my opinion (although I'm fine with the current scoring method), but my only potential concern is that the spread between ranks is not even. It only take 100 points to move up in the lower ranks, so that could mess things up.

In fact, if a Corporal loses to a Private, they would actually lose MORE points because the ranks/3 value would be 2/3 (and cause the original division to be multiplied by 30 )

the number of ranks lower than the loser/3 should be rounded up to the nearest whole number.

That isn't really a bad idea there, but I think the division is too much there.

It really shouldn't go lower than half the value it would be now, imo. 28 points is reasonable. Otherwise, you lose more (20) playing the same rank, than you do playing a lower rank.

I'm strongly against changing the points system. Reducing the amount a high rank loses to a low rank would just encourage the practice of picking on newbs for easy points.

Timminz wrote:I'm strongly against changing the points system. Reducing the amount a high rank loses to a low rank would just encourage the practice of picking on newbs for easy points.

There is definitely that, too, which is a heavy consideration.

I could go either way, but it is definitely a potential for abuse if changed.

Plutoman wrote:

Timminz wrote:I'm strongly against changing the points system. Reducing the amount a high rank loses to a low rank would just encourage the practice of picking on newbs for easy points.

There is definitely that, too, which is a heavy consideration.

I could go either way, but it is definitely a potential for abuse if changed.

there are already a handful of players who prey on players who "don't know what they're doing". If the scoring system were changed, there would surely be more, and it would be more lucrative than it is now.

tmclay99 wrote:While I do think that we can pick and choose which players we play.... I believe that the point calculation is not asfair as it could be. I think that if a low ranking player is skillful enough to win a game against a higher ranked player then they should be rewarded accordingly.

Except the score already IS weighted. You get more points for playing a higher player, less for playing a lower-ranked player.

OK then maybe cap the limit. Currently the max is 100. how about a lower maximum?

hulmey wrote:I just lost 60 points to privates coz i had bad dice (now im not moaning) but did these privates win with skill or because i had bad dice??

The entire point is that the point system doesn't work on a game by game basis, it works over multiple games.

You may have got bad dice that cause you to lose 60 points now in one game, but then the likelihood is that, at your rank and/or score, you should be able to bounce back and beat that private 10 times to get your 60 points back (or other people with more risk skillz, less times, and you lose less points). If you really can't do it, tough break, you probably don't deserve your rank (and the fact hat you;re losing it to bad luck is fine, if you got it then by good luck).

The1exile wrote:

hulmey wrote:I just lost 60 points to privates coz i had bad dice (now im not moaning) but did these privates win with skill or because i had bad dice??

The entire point is that the point system doesn't work on a game by game basis, it works over multiple games.

You may have got bad dice that cause you to lose 60 points now in one game, but then the likelihood is that, at your rank and/or score, you should be able to bounce back and beat that private 10 times to get your 60 points back (or other people with more risk skillz, less times, and you lose less points). If you really can't do it, tough break, you probably don't deserve your rank (and the fact hat you;re losing it to bad luck is fine, if you got it then by good luck).

Thats a pile of crap. unless you play doubles/triples games almost exclusively you get suprememly boned every time you play some low ranked person that gets better rolls. Or they gang up in order to get the points. Its kind of a joke that you have to be selective on who you play just so that you dont lose 50 friggin points to someone while you only gain 8 like in a terminator game. Its retarded!!!!