qeee1 wrote:Also it seems like the incentive under the new system is to play against lower ranked players:
Imagine you're exactly colonel, 2000 points.
Which is better:
34 points at risk for 86 points gain against five 1000 points players
or
20 points at risk for 100 points gain against five 2000 points players.
I actually like this a lot. It would help to remove some of the elitism out of the CC. Higher ranking players have some incentive for playing lower ranking opponents, and lower ranking players have a chance to take out the big wolves.
Still, high ranking players are also encouraged to play amongst themselves because that's where the big point gains are.
However, in theory, those 86 points in the first game are more easily obtained than the 100 points in the second game. I feel higher ranking games should net a lot more points to the winner, because it will be a more difficult game to win. A problem this new system does not properly address YET.
qeee1 wrote:
These are just the things that appear to me as I run figures through my head, I may be wrong, but it seems to me from looking at these two things there'd be some inflation and the ranks (colonel, captain etc would need to be adjusted appropriatly)
Under the proposed system, point gains would vary greatly, so there would a huge change in the number of points. Porting to the proposing system however, should be very easily done.
Another good point to this new system, score in double games could be assigned proportionally to the winning probability, so tactics like the ones used by Blitzaholic could disappear form CC.
