Conquer Club

Hi everyone !

I just had to bring this up because it is starting to get at me and was wondering if other members would also agree with me.
Not everyone is high ranked on this site (we all agree) and I basically like to play speed games and not those which last weeks and months. Meaning i will have to play with almost all ranks of players in order to get a game going.

Getting 20 pts for a win and losing over 50pts per game is a joke IMHO. That all is because i am higher ranked shouldn't mean i get slaughtered winning or losing (unless I have 75% rate of wins)

I know that some of you will suggest creating private games, but common we all know all the hassle to fill in the seats in a private game especially if you are looking for a speed game. First I am not going to keep on sending PM to all high ranked players to join (spam) nor i will wait forever to get them join what is meant to be a speed game.

I think that is a glitch on CC and the scoring system needs to be a bit more fair and adapted somehow.

If you lose more points than you win on that game type then that simply means your score should be lower than it currently is.

Most people who play speed games against low ranks win far more than 75% of their games. Much closer to 99% of the their games in fact, and they have purposefully used that tactic to get to the top of the scoreboard. So in reality, the problem CC has been trying to fix is exactly the opposite of the problem that you are mentioning (you get too many points for beating low ranks, not that you get too few as you said). So once again, if you are having trouble maintaining rank you either have to play a game type that you are better at or you should realize that you don't deserve to be such a high rank for the type you want to play.

There's two issues to address with the current system.

1. High ranked players gain points in 1v1 speed games against lower ranks in which the lower rank has virtually zero chance of winning.

2. The current system gives way too many points to a lower ranked player when they do in fact win. This doesn't really stop those 1v1 high ranks since the losses are very rare, but in more evenly matched situations, this is painfully obvious.

Example: Player with 1500 points loses to player with 1000 points. Points lost = 30
Player with 1500 points beats player with 1000 points. Points gained = 13.33

In order for the player with 1500 to simply maintain his points, he would have to win 5 out of every 7 games. That's a 2.5 to 1 win/loss ratio. In our current system does having 500 more points than someone actually mean you are 2.5 times better than that person? I don't think so.

So what's the solution? Go to the chess rating system. I don't remember the exact formula, but it's much more fair in situations between somewhat close ranked players (addressing problem #2). Also, when the rating between two players is above an X amount of points, the higher ranked player can no longer win points off of the lower ranked player (addressing problem #1).

sully800 wrote:If you lose more points than you win on that game type then that simply means your score should be lower than it currently is.

Most people who play speed games against low ranks win far more than 75% of their games. Much closer to 99% of the their games in fact, and they have purposefully used that tactic to get to the top of the scoreboard. So in reality, the problem CC has been trying to fix is exactly the opposite of the problem that you are mentioning (you get too many points for beating low ranks, not that you get too few as you said). So once again, if you are having trouble maintaining rank you either have to play a game type that you are better at or you should realize that you don't deserve to be such a high rank for the type you want to play.

I might have to disagree with what you said above, for simple reasons and facts. Most of higher ranked players don't play with low ranked players for various reasons. First is the scoring system. Second is that the higher ranked player is always the target for all opponents which develops a vindictive and a growing fear from him.

As for what you mentioned regarding playing a different map, if you look at my games you'll find that i only play 2 maps (2nd one since only lately) and I am quite good to it. There is no such thing such as a higher ranked player MUST win against lower ranked ones. There are other factors to the game than just experience and strategy (unfortunately)

a suggest i had earlier, was to add a button on the create game page selecting the lowest rank of players which can join the game. that would be a sort of a cure to the symptoms at least.

I'm just saying that the point system is not broken for the reasons you mentioned, it is designed to balance out. If you get a higher rank than you "deserve" you won't be able to maintain it. You will lose to ranks lower than you and your score will decrease. If your score decreases to a point that is lower than what you deserve, then you will win against some higher ranks and your score will increase again.

One of the problem is each person has a different "true" score for each setting. So if you win a lot of 8 player escalating games but lose a lot of 2 player speed games then your score may continually fluctuate between each extreme.

MM - You are right that the scoring system good be improved by going to a more complicated formula, but there is resistance to that because its nice for all members to be able to understand how the scoring formula works. I personally would prefer a more complicated formula that would account for more factors as well as scoreboards that can be separated by game type but I don't think it will happen.

maniacmath17 wrote:There's two issues to address with the current system.

1. High ranked players gain points in 1v1 speed games against lower ranks in which the lower rank has virtually zero chance of winning.

2. The current system gives way too many points to a lower ranked player when they do in fact win. This doesn't really stop those 1v1 high ranks since the losses are very rare, but in more evenly matched situations, this is painfully obvious.

Example: Player with 1500 points loses to player with 1000 points. Points lost = 30
Player with 1500 points beats player with 1000 points. Points gained = 13.33

In order for the player with 1500 to simply maintain his points, he would have to win 5 out of every 7 games. That's a 2.5 to 1 win/loss ratio. In our current system does having 500 more points than someone actually mean you are 2.5 times better than that person? I don't think so.

So what's the solution? Go to the chess rating system. I don't remember the exact formula, but it's much more fair in situations between somewhat close ranked players (addressing problem #2). Also, when the rating between two players is above an X amount of points, the higher ranked player can no longer win points off of the lower ranked player (addressing problem #1).

The chess rating system is an OUTSTANDING suggestion. I would wholeheartedly support that idea and I agree with you that it would effectively fix most of the problems we're seeing with ratings.

The other problem is that people want the scoring system to solve problems that are not necessarily scoring problems.

The maps we have now are so varied, the options enough that you can be very,very good at one type of game and not at another. Any time you try to compare someone who wins primarily Team games on complicated maps like Waterloo to someone who plays 8 player Doodle someone will be unhappy. Similarly Freestyle and Sequential are simply different games.

As for your "low ranked cannot win 1 vs 1". You are just wrong. Most 1 vs 1 games are heavily luck. Its probably one reason I like them. But, other people want nothing but to minimize luck as much as possible.

I find that there is a group of people who really care a whole lot about the scores (and litte else) who tend to burn out and leave before too long. I think it has more to do with them and their attitude than CC. Some people can be competetive and still lose with grace. BUT, a good number plain cannot. Losing is a fact of CC. That is just how it is. So, people who hate to lose eventually wind up disliking CC. You cannot change CC to fit them because the problem is not CC, it is the attitude of some people.

When there's two experienced players it does usually come down to luck, but I don't think that's the case with a high ranked player vs a low ranked player. Take a look at King_Herpes last 100 or so 1v1 games, he very rarely loses and when he does I'm pretty sure they are almost always to relatively high ranked players.

It's because he can use both the strategy of the map and his quickness to overcome most of the bad luck that could occur in a game.

maniacmath17 wrote:When there's two experienced players it does usually come down to luck, but I don't think that's the case with a high ranked player vs a low ranked player. Take a look at King_Herpes last 100 or so 1v1 games, he very rarely loses and when he does I'm pretty sure they are almost always to relatively high ranked players.

It's because he can use both the strategy of the map and his quickness to overcome most of the bad luck that could occur in a game.

Lol..... Omg, lol....
It is 1856, wild wild west and two cowboys are in a duel, at one side it is someone who calls him as King Herpes.

Come on, this thing is strategy based gaming, we are not putting the good, the bad and the ugly here on.

why not have a system based on the delta of point between the two players?
so a 4500 loses the same to a 4000
as a 1500 does to a 1000
wouldnt that make sense?

a.sub wrote:why not have a system based on the delta of point between the two players?
so a 4500 loses the same to a 4000
as a 1500 does to a 1000
wouldnt that make sense?

One another digitalized mind again. How sad

Harley_Zizo wrote:Hi everyone !

I just had to bring this up because it is starting to get at me and was wondering if other members would also agree with me.
Not everyone is high ranked on this site (we all agree) and I basically like to play speed games and not those which last weeks and months. Meaning i will have to play with almost all ranks of players in order to get a game going.
Getting 20 pts for a win and losing over 50pts per game is a joke IMHO. That all is because i am higher ranked shouldn't mean i get slaughtered winning or losing (unless I have 75% rate of wins)
I know that some of you will suggest creating private games, but common we all know all the hassle to fill in the seats in a private game especially if you are looking for a speed game. First I am not going to keep on sending PM to all high ranked players to join (spam) nor i will wait forever to get them join what is meant to be a speed game.
I think that is a glitch on CC and the scoring system needs to be a bit more fair and adapted somehow.

My honest (and not sarcastic) suggestion is to stop worrying so much about points and just enjoy playing. Yeah, I know...why do I even bother?

Woodruff wrote:

maniacmath17 wrote:There's two issues to address with the current system.

1. High ranked players gain points in 1v1 speed games against lower ranks in which the lower rank has virtually zero chance of winning.

2. The current system gives way too many points to a lower ranked player when they do in fact win. This doesn't really stop those 1v1 high ranks since the losses are very rare, but in more evenly matched situations, this is painfully obvious.

Example: Player with 1500 points loses to player with 1000 points. Points lost = 30
Player with 1500 points beats player with 1000 points. Points gained = 13.33

In order for the player with 1500 to simply maintain his points, he would have to win 5 out of every 7 games. That's a 2.5 to 1 win/loss ratio. In our current system does having 500 more points than someone actually mean you are 2.5 times better than that person? I don't think so.

So what's the solution? Go to the chess rating system. I don't remember the exact formula, but it's much more fair in situations between somewhat close ranked players (addressing problem #2). Also, when the rating between two players is above an X amount of points, the higher ranked player can no longer win points off of the lower ranked player (addressing problem #1).

The chess rating system is an OUTSTANDING suggestion. I would wholeheartedly support that idea and I agree with you that it would effectively fix most of the problems we're seeing with ratings.

if you use the chess rating system King_herpes couldnt win any more points, if he win vs KP he get 0.06 points :p

thebest712 wrote:if you use the chess rating system King_herpes couldnt win any more points, if he win vs KP he get 0.06 points :p

take away all the point he farmed and he can win points again

Wow - Harley_zizo, you seem to be awfully concerned about the amount of points you receive on an online RISK club. You are a tremendous winner.