Personally, I do not really mind how the point system works. However, I see so many people moaning, especially dugcarr1, about how it allows players like Blitz to have weak teammates in order to gain as many points as possible and very few doing anything about it.
So, this is my idea:
Currently, points in team games are calculated by adding together the scores of each player in a team and then calculating how much is won and lost like is done in ordinary singles.
Instead, to satisfy the moaners, why not calculate the amount lost and gained by every player individually but then dividing that by 2 so that it all averages out quite fairly. I'll give you an example as I know I haven't explained very well.
4 generals of 3000 playing a doubles game:
Points loss for one losing general is now: 3000(loser's score) / 3000 (winner's score) *20 / 2 = 10 points.
The winning generals would get 10 points off this loser and 10 points off the other giving 20. Currently, the points system would give the same result. However, my idea means that if one general was playing with a private, his/her points gain would still be exactly the same. Therefore, it does not matter who your teammate is. Unfortunately, this might mean better players avoiding weaker players all together.
Your thoughts? - feel free to slag me off about this but please give decent reasons.
Thanks.
new points system for team games?
Moderator: Community Team
new points system for team games?
Last edited by RobinJ on Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:45 am, edited 2 times in total.
nmhunate wrote:Speak English... It is the language that God wrote the bible in.
Highest Score: 2437
Highest Place: 84
-
maniacmath17
- Posts: 640
- Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 8:32 pm
good, but i think a better way would be first figure it the normal way, and then multiply for the % that your partner makes up of the total rating.
For example, partners with 3000 and 1000 beat a team of 2000 and 2000. The guy with 3000 would get 10 points and the guy with 1000 would get 30, instead of it being 20 and 20. For the losers do the same thing, although in this case it would be the same for both players since they each make up 50% of the total points.
With your system, this game would result in the guy with 3000 getting 14 total and the partner getting 40. That's not really fair to the losing team which each loses 27 points even though the combined scores were the same.
For example, partners with 3000 and 1000 beat a team of 2000 and 2000. The guy with 3000 would get 10 points and the guy with 1000 would get 30, instead of it being 20 and 20. For the losers do the same thing, although in this case it would be the same for both players since they each make up 50% of the total points.
With your system, this game would result in the guy with 3000 getting 14 total and the partner getting 40. That's not really fair to the losing team which each loses 27 points even though the combined scores were the same.
I like maniac's suggestion. I'm not sure if it won't lead to lots of whining about how lower ranked players are riding the skills of top players for points, but I don't think people will whine as much about lower ranked players. Plus, this has the effect of making it just as risky for a general to play against random pub teams including new recruits as it it for them to play against random pub groups in non team games. It's a good idea.
I concur with maniac's suggestion.
The drawbacks would of course be that higher ranked players would not lose points as easily though. The current system is good in that sense, it keeps scores down.
The drawbacks would of course be that higher ranked players would not lose points as easily though. The current system is good in that sense, it keeps scores down.
Gengoldy wrote:Of all the games I've played, and there have been some poor sports and cursing players out there, you are by far the lowest and with the least class.