Conquer Club

i'm not going to bitch about the point system.

however, it does lead to people wanting to "protect" their rank by not playing lower-ranked players and it does not always accurately reflect strength. some weak players have high ranks, some strong players have low ranks.

here's a suggestion:
winner takes 20 points every time they defeat someone in terminator.
winner takes 20 points for each person they defeat in a standard game.
the loser loses 10 points every time they are eliminated, period.

this means that 1 kill in a terminator game is worth 2 losses in any other kind of game.

winning a six-person game would be worth 100 points (20 x 5), a 5 person game is worth 80 (20 x 5), and so on.

the risk to enter any game at all is only 10 points of your score. this means high ranked players can enter games with noobs without fearing that they will lose too much.

these numbers could be adjusted, but what do you guys think of this "flat" approach? it more accurately represents winning percentages, which might be a slightly better reflection of strength.

Doesn't take skill into account, completely removes the want to play good players, everyone will want to play the noobs with no skill to gain points.

... a bad suggestion imo.

shouldn't you want to play "good" players because they will give good games? the current system doesn't really give any incentive for anyone to play noobs. except noobs.

Maybe this could be another option, unlike Lackattack, I like options for my games.

Randomize, randomize, randomize the opponents!

Perhaps a fixed point investment by rank would be more appropriate, consider this:

New recruit - Private : 10 points
Sergeant: 12 points
Lieutenant: 14 points
Captain: 16 points
Major 18 points
Colonel: 20 points
General: 30 points

Still, I like the median thing suggested in another scoring tweak better.

that's a lot like what i was suggesting... except i said the maker of the game should have options ranging from

10 points per person for smaller go-getters

to 50 points per person for big betters

that way skill would still be involved, the better players will more likely join the higher risk games. Or there could even be a point limit you must have to join certain games.

Anyway, the way it is now many of the high-level players are complete douches about points, this way if a lower-level player joins and begins to win, there wont be any reason for the other to make sure just he doesn't win.

supercram wrote:shouldn't you want to play "good" players because they will give good games? the current system doesn't really give any incentive for anyone to play noobs. except noobs.

yes you should, BUT, if you're gonna lose all your points by playing good players, you're not gonna want to play them.

I think http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9434&highlight=

is the best solution we've seen so far...

supercram wrote:i'm not going to bitch about the point system.

however, it does lead to people wanting to "protect" their rank by not playing lower-ranked players and it does not always accurately reflect strength. some weak players have high ranks, some strong players have low ranks.

here's a suggestion:
winner takes 20 points every time they defeat someone in terminator.
winner takes 20 points for each person they defeat in a standard game.
the loser loses 10 points every time they are eliminated, period.

this means that 1 kill in a terminator game is worth 2 losses in any other kind of game.

winning a six-person game would be worth 100 points (20 x 5), a 5 person game is worth 80 (20 x 5), and so on.

the risk to enter any game at all is only 10 points of your score. this means high ranked players can enter games with noobs without fearing that they will lose too much.

these numbers could be adjusted, but what do you guys think of this "flat" approach? it more accurately represents winning percentages, which might be a slightly better reflection of strength.

This is a terrible idea (and note: it has been suggested before).

First of all, as qeee mentioned, there would be no benefit in playing good players. Every semi-decent player could start 1000 games against noobs just to pad their score, and then any quality scoreboard would be tossed out the window.

And that brings me to my second point: Your proposed system would make having a high score much less about how good you are and much more about how many games you can play. Any decent player can win about 1 in 3 games. With your system That would yield a 200 point gain and a 10 point loss. So if I played 300 games I would have 19000 points. People on this site have already played about 4-5 times as many games as that, so as you can see the scoring system would be utterly ruined.