Score Modification Dependent on Games Played?

[MajorRT]

How many people are interested in modification of your score , dependent on the number of games you have played?
For instance, if you played many games, your score wouldn't change as much as a noob, after a win or a loss. This would make score changes less volatile, like chess or golf. A possible formula , for more than 10 games played would be the current score change for a game, * a factor for games played , such as 1/ log10 (n) , where n is the number of games played. This would mean if Poo or War or Sky lost to a cook, and have played >1000 games the most they could lose is 100/log(1000)= 33 points.This would alleviate the fear of losing many points, after working hard to get them, in many games, I believe.What do you guys think?

[Herakilla]

wouldnt this include points you won... i think war ans skyt would like to win more points

[gdeangel]

I'm not crazy about this idea. This one really isn't fair to lesser ranked players, cause look at how much effort it takes to beat a good player with a lot of games under their belt.

I'd like to see a voluntary wager system based on the type of inverse rank formula they use now, but instead of fixing the bets at 20, let people set the stakes when they start the game. Some people would a hard-core top 10 player for a game that's going to last weeks and only pay out a couple of points... sure. But not that many, so you'd have to really stake points to make points.

[MajorRT]

This system would imply an unequal amount of points given to the winner and loser, unless they had played the same # of games. A cook with 10-20 games would get the max of 100 if they won, but a cook with 1000 games would max out at 33 points; I think the higher ranks would be less timid this way and open up from their private games...

[Hotdoggie]

I have over 5000 games and I still have a crap rank...nty to this suggestion.