Conquer Club

Posted: **Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:03 pm**

Raise the minimum score allowed:

Increase the minimum score (or point floor) from 1 to 150 points

Body:

Why it is needed: Currently if a player has 1 point, they can lose against an opponent with 41 points or higher and not lose any points. 1/41*20 = .488 which rounds down to zero
Conversely, if the higher ranked player loses, they will always lose the maximum of 100 points, or reach the minimum score themselves
It doesn't make sense to allow games where a player can't win anything, but can lose the maximum amount allowed. It happened to GoVegan in 1460017 and 1460020, and it could happen to you!
Specifics: If the minimum score were changed to perhaps 150 points, everyone (until we reach a score of 6001) will be able to gain 1 point. 150/6001*20 = .49992 which rounds down to zero
150 points would then function like 1 point currently does: You cannot lose any more than that, but your opponent would still gain the normal points he/she deserves if they win. A few points are "created" to balance out the scores

Posted: **Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:06 pm**

good idea. It might also stop some people from trying to reach 1 point

Posted: **Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:08 pm**

great idee sully

Posted: **Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:34 pm**

Completely agree.

1, it reduces the losses that new recruits can lose to people who purposely lose games and make their score artificially low. Higher ranks are used to losing huge, but a brand new player shouldnt have to.

2. It reduces the rationale for purposely losing games, especially if the floor is set at 200 or 250, which is where i think it should be set at. There will be no more pseudo-psychological motivation to drop in points, because there will be so many on the floor, there will be nothing to be gained.

3. the floor wont hurt anyone. It will help all. If people are really trying, and they are losing that bad, Not letting them drop below 250 saves them.

4. The only possible disadvantage, is that it means they have a steady supply of points, but most would only be gaining 2 or 3 or 7 at most anyways, so I dont see how this is enough of a disadvantage at all.

5. It also means every person loses at least a point, so at least there is a token involved, as I think there should be.

6. Overall, I think this will eliminate the point terrorists that have plagued the game. I personally would love to see the floor at 500, but that isnt fair to the player that genuinely needs a massive win to get back up in the ranks.

This is win-win for everyone involved, with the exception of players that want to lose points on purpose. They want to lose tons of points, and then help partners, or take huge sums all at once. They will litterally be annoyed when their score goes up, which is the way it should be.

Its a brilliant idea in its simplicity, and I think it should be done as quickly as possible. (Im assuming its simple.)

Posted: **Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:39 pm**

I have around 1400 points.... just played a guy that had only 220. thankfully, i won the game, but i would have been down 100 points if he had instead.

can't you at least decrease the most possible to lose? 100 is way too much.

Posted: **Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:43 pm**

Thanks for the support Fitz.

The exact level is what really needs to be determined, because I don't think theres any flaw in the idea with raising the score. As AA pointed out, the only people who are currently getting below 100 or so have done it for a few reasons:

To get a low score and then attack someone they have a vendetta against and win 100 points
To keep their score low enough to allow a partner to win more points
To test if they can get to zero or negative points, which was fixed months ago

etc

In every case, I think the only players with scores below 150 or 100 are doing it on purpose. And that doesn't help the community at all because each case is either malicious or at the very least selfish and unproductive.

Now AA makes a valid point; 150 is close to the level you would want to ensure that everyone will be able to win points against any opponent for years to come. But a point floor of 200 or 250 wouldn't really hurt anyone, except causing a bit of inflation since more players will reach that level and lose a game which adds points into the system and takes away none.

I'm not sure how the people at the bottom of the scoreboard feel, but for those that actually are trying to win games I think they would embrace a higher point floor. So what level is best? Help decide!

Posted: **Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:47 pm**

Russianfire8371 wrote:good idea. It might also stop some people from trying to reach 1 point

Posted: **Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:51 pm**

I think this is a good idea, but I didn't really read all of Fitz's post.

Him and Sully seem to be in a typing mood tonight, I cannot keep up with them.

Posted: **Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:16 pm**

summary: blah, blah, blah...........do it

Posted: **Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:19 pm**

AAFitz wrote:summary: blah, blah, blah...........do it

Thank you, thats all I needed. If it makes sense to Fitz and Sully, thats good enough for me. I trust them.

funny that "blah blah blah" just happened to be going through my mind while reading your novel btw.

Posted: **Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:44 pm**

wcaclimbing wrote:I have around 1400 points.... just played a guy that had only 220. thankfully, i won the game, but i would have been down 100 points if he had instead.

can't you at least decrease the most possible to lose? 100 is way too much.

well thats the beauty of changing the floor, we need the 100 point handicap to insure that the top score doesnt skyrocket out of control. Having too many players at 5000 might actually discourage players... so the handicap keeps this from happening...well in theory, but high ranked players, should lose big points, its the low and medium ranked players that should not. On your fifth game in CC you could lose 100 points to someone just messing around and making a mockery of the game.

For me, a 100 points is nothing, but for someone who can only play 4 games at a time, its huge.

The floor will hurt no one. Any inflation in points is irrelevant, because the amounts would be so low as to not change anything, and everytime a player comes in loses a few games, and leaves, extra points are in the system anyways... not to mention the thousands of multi points floating around, so inflation isnt a concern that I can see. Theres a sea of points out there, a few players at 250 that should be at 0 wont make much of a difference.

I apparently like this idea a lot, huh???

The reason for the scoring system is to make the game fair for newcomers, but by allowing the score to go so far negative, it actually makes it unfair. the top ranks are affected by someone at 0 the same way they are by someone at 300 or 400 relatively speaking, so these players, are only hurting the players the system was set up to protect.

My suggestion would be to make the floor as high as reasonably possible.
I think 250 is the break even point for giving out few points, and saving lower ranks some hard earned points.

Posted: **Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:48 pm**

I think it's a pretty good idea...just to ensure that at least there is an actual "win," point wise.

As for decreasing the 100 point limit...I think 100 points is just about right.

--Andy

Posted: **Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:49 pm**

interesting idea ...I kinda like it ! :mrgreen:

Posted: **Fri Dec 28, 2007 11:23 pm**

How about 200? If a new recruit (1000) loses to someone with 200 the recruit will lose the maximum allowed (i.e. 100 pts).

Posted: **Fri Dec 28, 2007 11:56 pm**

it would certainly be a good start, there really is no downside to it. Maybe once its done, one will present itself, but I cant imagine what it would be.

Posted: **Sat Dec 29, 2007 12:51 am**

I'm happy with 150, 200 or 250 as the base.

Right now the bottom of the scoreboard trickles down below 250....it looks like people are getting to below that level without trying to lose, so that would be their "natural" score. I like the sound of 200 as the base point better than 250 I think, though 250 would protect new recruits a little more.

I also think the 100 point cap is perfect. Its easy to remember, its been that way for a long time, its a nice round number etc. Sure its a lot of points to lose, but hey, points come and go. If you are scared of losing that many you just have to make sure to play people close to your own level whenever possible.

Posted: **Sat Dec 29, 2007 12:52 am**

AAFitz wrote:it would certainly be a good start, there really is no downside to it. Maybe once its done, one will present itself, but I cant imagine what it would be.

This sounds like a drug without side affects. Bunches of nice outcomes, no downside? Too good to be true! :lol:

Posted: **Sat Dec 29, 2007 1:00 am**

lackattack wrote:How about 200? If a new recruit (1000) loses to someone with 200 the recruit will lose the maximum allowed (i.e. 100 pts).

Only setting it to 200 seems to defeat the biggest upside to this suggestion: That a new recruit won't lose the max number of points in one of their first games. That means someone who is trying to lose can still ruin the experience for someone new.

I like Fitz's 500 point idea.

Posted: **Sat Dec 29, 2007 9:49 am**

A 500 point minumum would affect 78 out of 20955 active members. My guess is only 2 of them are losing intentionally but I really don't know.

Is the goal to protect new recuits or to prevent "score terrorists"?

Posted: **Sat Dec 29, 2007 10:29 am**

lackattack wrote:Is the goal to protect new recuits or to prevent "score terrorists"?

both

Posted: **Sat Dec 29, 2007 6:53 pm**

DiM wrote:
lackattack wrote:Is the goal to protect new recuits or to prevent "score terrorists"?

both

definitely both, and possibly even players that actually might drop below 500 points while trying...

the only downside for a player that should have 250 points, and is stuck at 500 points, is so few points won in any given game, that the 250 they save by not dropping below 500, is worth the sacrifice I think.

It will end the race for the bottom, save brand new players, and technically help the most....shall we say challenged players on the site.... the scoring system is a handicap as it is, I have no problem letting players that are just out to have some fun keep their score at 500...

at the very least, you know youll only get 78 or so complaints

and anyone that complains about having a few hundred points added onto their score...............

Posted: **Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:08 am**

great idea sully

Posted: **Mon Dec 31, 2007 10:54 pm**

I'll state right now that I like the idea, but here's the potential, yet unlikely problem.

"Allow me to paint you a picture with my imagination brush" -- Scrubs

Two people are at the minimum whatever it may be. They continually play each other thereby creating points for one another. While it would be slow, they would both increase their rank over time simply by playing each other, until they got above a certain score.

I know it seems unlikely and pointless but it may be a potential problem that CC wants to avoid.

Posted: **Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:41 pm**

For real those 2 games I was playing made me super nervous.

I am working hard at getting to the 'officers club' and when I started those games, and saw a player with a score or 23 join them both I almost shit myself.

I back this 100%