Conquer Club

Base the system on a players winning percent as opposed to their points total, this is a better indicator of a players skill level.

lol.

GTE wrote:The current system looks as if it was developed by a bunch of braindead socialists!
Fixed points per player per game, now that's fair!

Why would it possibly be fair for a chess grandmaster to play my six-year-old brother and get good points for it?

Woodruff wrote:

GTE wrote:The current system looks as if it was developed by a bunch of braindead socialists!
Fixed points per player per game, now that's fair!

Why would it possibly be fair for a chess grandmaster to play my six-year-old brother and get good points for it?

Well woody. Terrible analogy. Chess is a beautiful game of pure strategy. This wonderful game isn't quite the same thing.

But yeah. Doing this would only make farming a larger issue. Keep letting them harvest 8 points a game.

GTE wrote:The current system looks as if it was developed by a bunch of braindead socialists!
Fixed points per player per game, now that's fair!

And this would only skew the Scoreboard more so. Think about it. Anyone could join a bunch of 1v1's vs. cooks, and jump up the scoreboard if they knew what they were doing.

ljex would get a TON of points from his 8 man speeders on Classic. I'm sure his score would be at 8000 or so right now. This would only make it a lot easier for players to farm people on complicated settings/maps and shoot up the scoreboard easily.

I bet Ayn Rand could fix our points system

Is this guy for real? I think this is a joke. This must be a joke. Is this a joke?

jefjef wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

GTE wrote:The current system looks as if it was developed by a bunch of braindead socialists!
Fixed points per player per game, now that's fair!

Why would it possibly be fair for a chess grandmaster to play my six-year-old brother and get good points for it?

Well woody. Terrible analogy. Chess is a beautiful game of pure strategy. This wonderful game isn't quite the same thing.

Of course, the games aren't the same. But the points systems are similar in nature. Thus, the analogy is valid.

TheForgivenOne wrote:

GTE wrote:The current system looks as if it was developed by a bunch of braindead socialists!
Fixed points per player per game, now that's fair!

And this would only skew the Scoreboard more so. Think about it. Anyone could join a bunch of 1v1's vs. cooks, and jump up the scoreboard if they knew what they were doing.

ljex would get a TON of points from his 8 man speeders on Classic. I'm sure his score would be at 8000 or so right now. This would only make it a lot easier for players to farm people on complicated settings/maps and shoot up the scoreboard easily.

Why is everyone worried about Trolling, you act like this is some boogeyman hiding in the closet.
I dont "Troll", as it is now i play a lot of 2 player freestyle games, which i start, so "ANYONE" can join! If a cook or a question marked player joins my open games, am i "Trolling" for points? NO! is the current points system penalizing me for creating games open to all? YES!!

GTE wrote:

TheForgivenOne wrote:

GTE wrote:The current system looks as if it was developed by a bunch of braindead socialists!
Fixed points per player per game, now that's fair!

And this would only skew the Scoreboard more so. Think about it. Anyone could join a bunch of 1v1's vs. cooks, and jump up the scoreboard if they knew what they were doing.

ljex would get a TON of points from his 8 man speeders on Classic. I'm sure his score would be at 8000 or so right now. This would only make it a lot easier for players to farm people on complicated settings/maps and shoot up the scoreboard easily.

Why is everyone worried about Trolling, you act like this is some boogeyman hiding in the closet.
I dont "Troll", as it is now i play a lot of 2 player freestyle games, which i start, so "ANYONE" can join! If a cook or a question marked player joins my open games, am i "Trolling" for points? NO! is the current points system penalizing me for creating games open to all? YES!!

CC could adjust the points won/lost. That would be nice. Say Minimum 10 points and max 40 points per player.

perchorin wrote:I bet Ayn Rand could fix our points system

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

—Ayn Rand

in addition to flat rate points, we should all get a medal for trying our best after every game.

Are you posting as the entertainment contributor or as the socialist idiot?

Here's how you fix it, ...... Base the points awarded, not on the points a player has but on their winning percentage! ( as this is a better determiner of a players abilities )
That way players are not punished for playing good players who happen to be new to the site.
No system will be perfect but this fix will go a long way to making it fairer!

GTE wrote:Here's how you fix it, ...... Base the points awarded, not on the points a player has but on their winning percentage! ( as this is a better determiner of a players abilities )
That way players are not punished for playing good players who happen to be new to the site.
No system will be perfect but this fix will go a long way to making it fairer!

6 Kiron 4320 356 168 (47%) General
you have a higher win % and more games, but Kiron has a much higher score because he wins a greater percentage more than the average.

Tell, me, what's more impressive to you:
winning 50% of 8 player games
or winning 60% of 2 player games

based on your system, 60% of 2 player games is more impressive, and that's absolutely ridiculous. The current points system attempts to factor in the differences between the huge array of game types on the site, no it's not perfect, but every other alternative system I've seen suggested has had way larger flaws.

"The current points system attempts to factor in the differences between the huge array of game types on the site"
This is an assumption on your part, not a fact!

If your assumption was a fact, then points awarded in a six player (per player) game would be different than those awarded in a 2 player and that is not true.

GTE wrote:If your assumption was a fact, then points awarded in a six player (per player) game would be different than those awarded in a 2 player and that is not true.

no, the points per player would be the same, the overall points would be different

map it out:
if you play 6 2 player games against someone with the same amount of points as you and win 50%, the expected amount, you do not gain or lose any points overall, you lose 20 each of your 3 losses, gain 20 each of your 3 wins.
if you play 6 6 player games, everyone has the same number of points ,and you win 16.67%, the expected amount, you also don't gain or lose any points overall, you lose 20 each of your 5 losses (100 total), gain 20 from each of the 5 other players in your win (100 total).

This allows a perfectly average player at everything to play what they want and never gain or lose any points. Obviously this is a eutopian view of the situation, but the basic principles hold true. With your method, an average 1v1 player (50% wins) would lose a ton of points if he went and played a bunch of 6 player games and won the expected, average amount of them (17%)

edit- what do you think the point system tries to do if I'm just "assuming"? That's exactly what it does, if you'll accept it if a mod agrees with me, I know a good portion of them, I'm happy to get one in here. If you need an admin, well, I can ask.

The point system is perfect as it is. It keeps the scoring and scoreboard competitive to a ridiculous degree. Any flat system would make it pointless within a month or so.

You could always go to another site that uses another system....except they all use the same one. Its not the system thats broken, its just your perception of it.

Nice to see you back, though...

Would like to hear from the regular folks.

GTE wrote:Would like to hear from the regular folks.

These are the regular folks. I am telling you, both you suggested, A flat rate "I win 20 you lose 20" - It will skew the scoreboard horribly -, won't work. A scoreboard based on win percentage, won't work. Why? Just because a 1v1 wins 50% of his games DOES NOT MEAN he is a better player than a player who plays 8 player games and wins 12.5% of his games. Heck, if I saw a player that only plays 8 player games, with a 50% win percentage, I would say he is FAR greater than that 1v1 player, because 8 player games are a lot harder to win.

BOTH of your suggestions have been put forth before. And have been shot down, quickly.

GTE wrote:Would like to hear from the regular folks.

You are hearing from the regular folks.

redundant, redundant

GTE wrote:"The current points system attempts to factor in the differences between the huge array of game types on the site"
This is an assumption on your part, not a fact!

If your assumption was a fact, then points awarded in a six player (per player) game would be different than those awarded in a 2 player and that is not true.

points awarded for winning a 6 player game ARE different for the winner compared to winning a 1vs1. you could artivicially ignore the pointgain for the winner, but hey, that wont make it go away.

Other then that, I think the current ranking system does penalize high rankers who are generalists more then lowrankers. But unless you want to be conqueror that is not really a big deal for most...
other changes to the pointsystem will have a much harser impact, but hye. you can always try right?!

GTE wrote:redundant, redundant

Your replies are redundant. We give reasons why they won't work, and you just ignore them.

phantomzero wrote:

perchorin wrote:I bet Ayn Rand could fix our points system

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

—Ayn Rand

So why are you pissing away your time playing games on the Internet instead of doing something productive?