Conquer Club

What do most CCers want in a scoring system?

do you people ever bothing actually giving this any thought. Why should low ranks be excluding from playing high ranks? they get it enough already with the point snobs, without you people fueling the fire with your poorly thought-out ideas.

Point matter.

get over it.

If it isn't possible to become #1 by only playing low ranked players - then scoring system is flawed

Refuse to vote until "low ranked" is defined. Concerning the point status required for a conqueror - your status as colonel would constitute a "low rank," as it's less than half the points of Herpes. Half of your rank isn't even sergeant... so how relative is it all? Of is there a "cutoff," where you are no longer a low rank, despite how many people are ranked higher due to point inflation...

You may not agree with the scoring system, but as it stands, for a player to reach #1 solely by playing low ranks would require a prodigious effort with the ever decreasing returns gained from the current points transfer formula. In addition one of the low ranks need only beat the high rank once to wipe out many games worth of points gain. So the system does currently stack up against those high ranks that play mostly against low ranks.

So I say let them continue to play the low ranks because IMHO there are sufficient checks and balances to discourage/penalise the practice of exclusively playing low ranks.

Artimis wrote:So I say let them continue to play the low ranks because IMHO there are sufficient checks and balances to discourage/penalise the practice of exclusively playing low ranks.

before the new farming guidelines, i would have disagreed with this. with the new farming guidelines, i agree with this statement... the black jesus has spoken...-0

This is not a poll for a specific scoring system, but about what players want in principle out of their scoring system.

Use common sense to interpret "low ranked" as you like because I don't want this to be a debate about the details of a given threshold or system. There are tons of those in sugs and bugs.

I just want to know what type of a scoring system players want.

That being said I definitely would not consider a player in the top 99.5 percentile to be low ranked compared to the number one guy. This is not about RR. Please don't think this is limited in terms of ratios of the current scores, which are inflated as we all know.

There are tons of different ways to score players, not limited to any existing sugs & bugs. Your minds are the limit. I just want to know what direction the general CC community favors before wasting any more time in sugs & bugs.

The point is that scoring system should be balanced. It HAS to be irrelevant whether you play against someone who has 1000 points more than you, against someone who has 1000 points less than you, or against someone who has the same score as you. If it isn't - system sucks!
It's that simple...

if i beat a player with 1200 points (about average rank) 9 out of 10 times i lose points in total

dice can easily allow the corporal first class to win at least 1 game

where is the problem? the scoring system already hurts those that play lower ranks!why stop us being allowed to play lower ranks entirely?

i think the op is jealous because he will never make it anywhere near the #1 spot

To all those that said "you should be able to play low ranks," I agree with you, but keep this thread on topic. The OP was not suggesting not being able to play low ranks. He was simply asking whether the scoring system should make it possible to play mostly or only low ranks and still be at the top.

I don't think you should. The score equation is the only thing that needs to be modified for this to take place. Not a low rank / High rank ban. If you want to play low ranks, you still could, but the OP is suggesting that if you choose to do so, then you won't be #1 because the system will not allow you.

That is how I chose to read the post, I do not see anything in it that says that high ranks should not be able to play low ranks.

Artimis wrote:You may not agree with the scoring system, but as it stands, for a player to reach #1 solely by playing low ranks would require a prodigious effort with the ever decreasing returns gained from the current points transfer formula. In addition one of the low ranks need only beat the high rank once to wipe out many games worth of points gain. So the system does currently stack up against those high ranks that play mostly against low ranks.

So I say let them continue to play the low ranks because IMHO there are sufficient checks and balances to discourage/penalise the practice of exclusively playing low ranks.

Evidence suggests otherwise. You may believe that the system is set up so that it can't happen, but it does happen, so something is wrong somewhere along the line.

The Neon Peon wrote:To all those that said "you should be able to play low ranks," I agree with you, but keep this thread on topic. The OP was not suggesting not being able to play low ranks. He was simply asking whether the scoring system should make it possible to play mostly or only low ranks and still be at the top.

No Neon, you have it all wrong. What the OP is trying to do is step all over the god given rights of others, can't you see. It's all about him, he doesn't care about fairness. Now everyone, after me...

EQUAL RIGHTS FOR GAY FARMERS!

You posted this in the wrong place mate. If you're trying to change a feature the poll belongs in sugs and bugs. I've moved it for you.

On another note, you're poll is completely biased in its wording and will tend towards an inaccurate result.

The same question could have been worded:

be rewarded for playing anyone
be forced to play certain people if you want to get to the top.


Wording like that would change the outcome of the voting, but would essentially be asking the same question.

And the problem is not with the scoring system, which Artemis points out makes it increasingly difficult to reach number one playing only low-rankers, the problem is with people abusing the system around the scoreboard - picking on people who are likely to deadbeat, choosing only maps which other people are likely not to know well etc.

The problem is not with the scoring but with how people choose to play the game.

Twill

Twill wrote:The problem is not with the scoring but with how people choose to play the game.

In that, some people choose to play the games (and hence enjoy opponents who can play) and some people choose to play the scoreboard (and hence enjoy opponents who can't play). I think OP is disappointed that CC rewards the few people who play the scoreboard instead of everyone else.

Twill wrote:You posted this in the wrong place mate. If you're trying to change a feature the poll belongs in sugs and bugs. I've moved it for you.

This isn't a suggestion. It's information gathering.

how is this information gathering? its just a really wierd question with 2 near identical responses, both depend on interpretation instead of clear logic.
e.g. you can actually become the conqueror is you play low poeple, you just cannot loose and remain the top player, sure essencially its therefor impossible, but then, whats the point of the question?

I'm not sure it has merit as information gathering or site improvement. It's just a pointless thread initiated by someone who is far too concerned with moving up in rank.

My reassurance comes in knowing that relatively few CCers actually care about the points system at all. It's nice to be able to judge an opponent's or teammate's caliber, but there are far too many uncontrolled variables for the points to accurately reflect skill level. Therefore, most people just shut up and play.

(And yes, I'm suggesting that you do just that.)

L

twill wrote:On another note, you're poll is completely biased in its wording and will tend towards an inaccurate result.

The same question could have been worded:

be rewarded for playing anyone
be forced to play certain people if you want to get to the top.

But I want to know if players prefer a system where you can get to the top by playing only lower ranks vs one where you cannot, so how is it a biased question when this is precisely the information I am looking for?

Your poll is different. You mention "forced to play certain people". Again, the poll in this thread is not about any particular suggestion, just an opinion poll to gauge what type of scoring system players want, one that enables someone to get to #1 by playing low ranked players vs one that does not. There are manifold ways of doing this, but this poll is not about any particular method.

I think people should stop making assumptions and have this thread moved to the GD. The thread does not suggest anything, so why think that it does?

I think you should have a changeable vote, and explain more clearly that this has nothing to do with banning ranks from playing each other in any way so that people stop making that illogical assumption.

FarangDemon wrote:

twill wrote:On another note, you're poll is completely biased in its wording and will tend towards an inaccurate result.

The same question could have been worded:

be rewarded for playing anyone
be forced to play certain people if you want to get to the top.

But I want to know if players prefer a system where you can get to the top by playing only lower ranks vs one where you cannot, so how is it a biased question when this is precisely the information I am looking for?

Your poll is different. You mention "forced to play certain people". Again, the poll in this thread is not about any particular suggestion, just an opinion poll to gauge what type of scoring system players want, one that enables someone to get to #1 by playing low ranked players vs one that does not. There are manifold ways of doing this, but this poll is not about any particular method.

you are not after information at all

all you are trying to do is make KHs achivement seem less impressive (because you are jealous)

Jeff Hardy wrote:you are not after information at all

all you are trying to do is make KHs achivement seem less impressive (because you are jealous)

Does it matter? Just because that is the purpose of it, does not mean that it is a bad poll.

The Neon Peon wrote:I think people should stop making assumptions and have this thread moved to the GD. The thread does not suggest anything, so why think that it does?

I think you should have a changeable vote, and explain more clearly that this has nothing to do with banning ranks from playing each other in any way so that people stop making that illogical assumption.

I thought about adding language like that, but in the end chose the simplest wording possible that uses the least words.

If people are determined to derail it and attack me personally, just like every other thread, no wording I could possibly imagine can prevent that.

I'd like it in GD so more players can see it and because it is not a suggestion. I feel like it has been moved to a lower profile area in an attempt by the mods to obfuscate the site's shortcomings, which is totally understandable if there is no desire to listen to the CC community.

bullshit

ALL the changes recently, implemented against farming, and clamping down on the forum, is because whiney twats repeatedly complain to the admin.