Feel free to let this thread die as most players dont get it

[HighlanderAttack]

I'm not trolling. I gave you my suggestions. You refuse to acknowledge them. You are the one who is trolling. You seem incapable of reading comprehension, which is possible, but I have already explained everything and diagnosed your behaviour as well. Is it really rude to decide to exit a conversation with a boor? I can only imagine your social life if you interact this way in discussions with friends or coworkers. I would guess you have none. I'm trying to be polite as possible to someone who is frustrating to interact with. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. I think you do it on purpose. I think the only ideas that matter to you are the ones coming out of your mouth and that is so typical for the posters here. That includes most moderators here. It is an intellectual vacuum in the CC forums. I feel like I stepped in shit the moment I posted. I'm going to try and avoid it.

AMEN--sorry black jesus-had to get an AMEN in there--back to my hole with the mole.

[obliterationX]

Yes, put a cap on points lost in 1 game, 40 or 50. Reduce the point loss discrepancies. I'm thinking that you simply refuse to acknowledge my opinion and are simply shilling for the establishment. This is not a discussion about my opinion, this is simply you refusing to think or consider other opinions. I have come to hate you now and shall foe you. If you think you are a good debater, you are not. You bring nothing to a discussion other than being contrary to whatever is offered. You are what is wrong with our society, it's all about trying to prove you're right rather than trying to understand or build a consensus. That's what I've observed about the majority of participants in the CC forum as well. Most of you are all a bunch of idiot losers and I hate you all. If I didn't like playing the game I would help Hasbro shut down the site. You can't post an opinion here without encountering morons. It makes me sick. I shall throw up now.

Please, don't base your posts on what you see in the mirror.

U GUD FLAEM

[Metsfanmax]

I'm not trolling. I gave you my suggestions. You refuse to acknowledge them. You are the one who is trolling. You seem incapable of reading comprehension, which is possible, but I have already explained everything and diagnosed your behaviour as well. Is it really rude to decide to exit a conversation with a boor? I can only imagine your social life if you interact this way in discussions with friends or coworkers. I would guess you have none. I'm trying to be polite as possible to someone who is frustrating to interact with. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. I think you do it on purpose. I think the only ideas that matter to you are the ones coming out of your mouth and that is so typical for the posters here. That includes most moderators here. It is an intellectual vacuum in the CC forums. I feel like I stepped in shit the moment I posted. I'm going to try and avoid it.

I would really appreciate it if you would point out specifically what it is I said that makes me a "boor." I was only trying to defend what I think is a reasonable system; but more so than that, I was trying to help you guys have a legitimate point of view by actually making an argument - because if we really should change the point system, then I (and probably others) would want to know what the benefits are. If you could convince us of that, then the change would occur - but unfortunately you're not trying to convince us of that, and you're only resorting to ad hominem arguments. I do not want to engage in a flame war with you but I simply do not understand why you are being so hostile about this. If you actually believe in your point of view, why is it so hard for you to defend it (instead of attacking me)?

[PLAYER57832]

Haven't read through the whole thread, but I have been a party to many a discussion over the ranking system, points, etc. Particularly when it comes to 1 vs 1 (my favorite).

I myself like 1 vs 1 partially because I could care less about rank. I just play, do my best. I consider the "dice/luck/CC" to be my "third opponent" OR "part of the puzzle I am trying to solve".

There is some definite argument that right now, higher ranked people lose a bit too much to lower ranks, particularly in 1 vs 1. The problem is no one has yet come up with a decent workable alternative. I made a few suggestions in that regard myself, but not for several months.

The longer I have been here, the more I come to feel that the REAL differentiation needs to be not by rank, but by .. well, "manners". I think more new people are thrown off by playing rude players than by playing good players.

I also think that when it comes to rank, you have to decide if it is more important to you to stay at a high rank or to just play. Truth is, you have to ask what a "high rank" really means, particularly when it comes to 1 vs 1 games. They ARE, not matter how you slice it, largely luck. However, that same luck that, here, brought you down will also bring you back up, in time.

I know you to be a good player, so do many others. Why bother worrying about a few points? Just play and have fun!

[Bruceswar]

I also think that when it comes to rank, you have to decide if it is more important to you to stay at a high rank or to just play. Truth is, you have to ask what a "high rank" really means, particularly when it comes to 1 vs 1 games. They ARE, not matter how you slice it, largely luck. However, that same luck that, here, brought you down will also bring you back up, in time.

I know you to be a good player, so do many others. Why bother worrying about a few points? Just play and have fun!

This last part is so true about making choices, though on the other hand there is no way to play and have fun when you lose 196 points over 3 games. To lose 100 points they have to be 1) Lucky, since they have to be terrible to get that low 2) For you to have god awful dice 3) Lucky again. There is no way you lose to a person like this on any regular day, but luck happens. As for a system, maybe if the point loss was capped at 50 and not 100 more people would be willing to play 1 vs 1's.

[Metsfanmax]

I think one suggestion which could be feasible, or at least worth some consideration, is an analogue of the "rule of 400" in the Elo rating system in chess. Basically, it says that if the rating difference between two players is greater than 400 points, for the purposes of rating a game between those two players it is treated as if they were exactly 400 points apart. This artificially limits the number of points lost per game without the brutality of a hard cap on the number of points lost. I'm not sure what the exact maximum rating difference would be on CC, but I think that it would be around 700 or 800 if we did it.

[Darwins_Bane]

I think one suggestion which could be feasible, or at least worth some consideration, is an analogue of the "rule of 400" in the Elo rating system in chess. Basically, it says that if the rating difference between two players is greater than 400 points, for the purposes of rating a game between those two players it is treated as if they were exactly 400 points apart. This artificially limits the number of points lost per game without the brutality of a hard cap on the number of points lost. I'm not sure what the exact maximum rating difference would be on CC, but I think that it would be around 700 or 800 if we did it.

this would achieve the same end result as a hard cap on max points lost, and would be more complicated to code. why would they do it?

[Metsfanmax]

I think one suggestion which could be feasible, or at least worth some consideration, is an analogue of the "rule of 400" in the Elo rating system in chess. Basically, it says that if the rating difference between two players is greater than 400 points, for the purposes of rating a game between those two players it is treated as if they were exactly 400 points apart. This artificially limits the number of points lost per game without the brutality of a hard cap on the number of points lost. I'm not sure what the exact maximum rating difference would be on CC, but I think that it would be around 700 or 800 if we did it.

this would achieve the same end result as a hard cap on max points lost, and would be more complicated to code. why would they do it?

Well, again I'm not doing anything more than playing the devil's advocate. At any rate, you're right, with the current cap of 100 points this would really be not much different. But it theoretically could be, in the extreme cases (which are the ones we care about in this thread anyway). And it would add about three more lines of code.

[AndyDufresne]

Be wary of suggesting that things could be 'quick fixes' and 'just a few lines of code' More often than not, it involves more than previously thought!


--Andy

[Metsfanmax]

Be wary of suggesting that things could be 'quick fixes' and 'just a few lines of code' More often than not, it involves more than previously thought!


--Andy

Not in this case. All you need is a simple if statement to do this.

[AndyDufresne]

If only you knew those famous words 'not in this case'.


--Andy

[PLAYER57832]

I think one suggestion which could be feasible, or at least worth some consideration, is an analogue of the "rule of 400" in the Elo rating system in chess. Basically, it says that if the rating difference between two players is greater than 400 points, for the purposes of rating a game between those two players it is treated as if they were exactly 400 points apart. This artificially limits the number of points lost per game without the brutality of a hard cap on the number of points lost. I'm not sure what the exact maximum rating difference would be on CC, but I think that it would be around 700 or 800 if we did it.

This was debated, ad nauseum for a while. I cannot remember the whole debate, but .. it was considered.

[Metsfanmax]

If only you knew those famous words 'not in this case'.


--Andy

I don't understand why you're saying that; it really is that simple, it's not like I've never programmed before... I understand that in some cases, seemingly simple tasks can be difficult, but this really is just like three other lines of code. Say it is currently:

winnerPoints = winningPlayer.getPoints()
loserPoints = losingPlayer.getPoints()

pointChange = (loserPoints / winnerPoints ) * 20

if ( pointChange > 100 ) pointChange = 100

winningPlayer.setPoints( winningPlayer.getPoints() + pointChange )
losingPlayer.setPoints( losingPlayer.getPoints() - pointChange )



The new code could then be something like:

winnerPoints = winningPlayer.getPoints
loserPoints = losingPlayer.getPoints

if ( winnerPoints - loserPoints > 400 ) loserPoints = winnerPoints - 400

else if ( winnerPoints - loserPoints < -400 ) winnerPoints = loserPoints + 400

pointChange = (loserPoints / winnerPoints) * 20

winningPlayer.setPoints( winningPlayer.getPoints() + pointChange )
losingPlayer.setPoints( losingPlayer.getPoints() - pointChange )


I only had to add two lines of code, and I subtracted one.

[PLAYER57832]

I also think that when it comes to rank, you have to decide if it is more important to you to stay at a high rank or to just play. Truth is, you have to ask what a "high rank" really means, particularly when it comes to 1 vs 1 games. They ARE, not matter how you slice it, largely luck. However, that same luck that, here, brought you down will also bring you back up, in time.

I know you to be a good player, so do many others. Why bother worrying about a few points? Just play and have fun!

This last part is so true about making choices, though on the other hand there is no way to play and have fun when you lose 196 points over 3 games. To lose 100 points they have to be 1) Lucky, since they have to be terrible to get that low 2) For you to have god awful dice 3) Lucky again. There is no way you lose to a person like this on any regular day, but luck happens. As for a system, maybe if the point loss was capped at 50 and not 100 more people would be willing to play 1 vs 1's.

Like I said, it's debateable if rank means much of anything. Truth is that people who care about rank generally pick 1-2 game types (maps, # players, style, etc.) and go with them. They get good at those games, then advance. However, does that mean they are really good overall?

One of the best Ideas I have seen is regarding multiple awards. That is partly why medals were instituted. The problem is that everyone wants their "favorite" to get a medal or a special ranking. Doing that is just way too complex. Just pretend we only have 100 maps, fewer game types:

100 maps
seq + free = 2
4 team types + assassin + term + stand = 7
manual -automatic deploy =2
fog- no fog = 2

100 * 2 * 7 * 2 * 2 = 4,200 different game types.

[AndyDufresne]

Keep your bananas in your bakset, Metsfanmax.

PLAYER makes some interesting points.


--Andy

[PLAYER57832]

If only you knew those famous words 'not in this case'.


--Andy

I don't understand why you're saying that; it really is that simple, it's not like I've never programmed before... .

This has less to do with programming and more to do with "where do we stop".
See, if you make these changes for 1 vs 1, then the argument will be "what about .... [insert various game types].

Right now, everyone is on the same, not quite perfect footing.
Bottom line -- no ranking system is going to truly assess anybody when there is this much variation in play. It really is just a game.

[PLAYER57832]

PLAYER makes some interesting points.


--Andy

Didn't I see someone with AD in his name mentioning this earlier (lol) ?

[Metsfanmax]

If only you knew those famous words 'not in this case'.


--Andy

I don't understand why you're saying that; it really is that simple, it's not like I've never programmed before... .

This has less to do with programming and more to do with "where do we stop".
See, if you make these changes for 1 vs 1, then the argument will be "what about .... [insert various game types].

Right now, everyone is on the same, not quite perfect footing.
Bottom line -- no ranking system is going to truly assess anybody when there is this much variation in play. It really is just a game.

I didn't say this was only for 1v1; if it were implemented, it should be for every game because that's the only fair and consistent way to do it.

Again, I'm not necessarily advocating this - I was just showing that there are reasonable alternatives, and UD and HA weren't really giving reasoning for any alternatives.

[PLAYER57832]

If only you knew those famous words 'not in this case'.


--Andy

I don't understand why you're saying that; it really is that simple, it's not like I've never programmed before... .

This has less to do with programming and more to do with "where do we stop".
See, if you make these changes for 1 vs 1, then the argument will be "what about .... [insert various game types].

Right now, everyone is on the same, not quite perfect footing.
Bottom line -- no ranking system is going to truly assess anybody when there is this much variation in play. It really is just a game.

I didn't say this was only for 1v1; if it were implemented, it should be for every game because that's the only fair and consistent way to do it.

Again, I'm not necessarily advocating this - I was just showing that there are reasonable alternatives, and UD and HA weren't really giving reasoning for any alternatives.

I know it can be frustrating. In this case, I don't know if there was a thread about those ideas here. I do know that many different types of scoring systems were discussed and analysed by groups of people who both played and were good at statistics, able to go out and search different systems. Its not that new suggestions aren't welcome. Its just that you have to be sure it really is a new suggestion.

When it comes to scoring, if you have a system that truly assesses skill, then you wind up with a few very good players at the top who outstrip everyone else. Even when later people join who are reasonably good, they can never truly catch up (it would take too long to go through the explanation right now. Think about it a bit and it will likely make sense to you).

The other option is that scores mean truly nothing, skill is not involved at all, it is all pure luck.

You can find examples of each. Chess is pretty uniformly considered a "skill only" game. Yatzee, on the other hand is almost all luck. Conquer Club is somewhere in the middle. Most of us like the fact that we can get a bit of "recognition" from winning, going up in rank. It is partially skill. Some players here truly are better than others and you can more or less see that by ranks. However, its definitely far from absolute. There are plenty of ways to "game" the system.. farming, illegal multis, etc. However, the biggest legitimate way is to concentrate on a few game types. However, is being good on a few game types really what matters in CC?

There is no clear answer to that. Some people don't care about playing all the maps, but they want to know they are the "best" at a particular map (or group of maps). Others prefer to be good at all the maps. Most, though really just want to play some games with friends or strangers and see rank as just a minor "extra".

[denominator]

There is no clear answer to that. Some people don't care about playing all the maps, but they want to know they are the "best" at a particular map (or group of maps). Others prefer to be good at all the maps. Most, though really just want to play some games with friends or strangers and see rank as just a minor "extra".

To me, it's all about playing what you like. The risks and rewards of the ranking and scoring system are all a part of that.

If, like Blitz, you want to be Conquerer and enjoy playing Pelo War over and over again to reach the top of the leaderboard, go for it.

If, like me, you like playing all the different maps and don't care if your rank rises and plummets as a result, go for it.

If, like HA, you like playing tons of tournaments regardless of maps, settings, and opponents, go for it.

However, because you choose what to play on CC, you have absolutely no grounds to complain about it. Blitz cannot complain that high rankers join his games to stop him from reaching Conquerer because he chooses to create public Pelo War games. I cannot complain that my rank falls because I play maps that I'm not good at with setting I suck at. HA cannot complain that his rank drops because he happens to be matched against a low ranked opponent that beat him.

My point is that no matter what, you and only you choose what you play on CC. Nobody forces you to play games you don't like or not to play the games you do like. So you can't complain when something that you chose has a negative effect that you don't like.

[PLAYER57832]

There is no clear answer to that. Some people don't care about playing all the maps, but they want to know they are the "best" at a particular map (or group of maps). Others prefer to be good at all the maps. Most, though really just want to play some games with friends or strangers and see rank as just a minor "extra".

To me, it's all about playing what you like. The risks and rewards of the ranking and scoring system are all a part of that.

If, like Blitz, you want to be Conquerer and enjoy playing Pelo War over and over again to reach the top of the leaderboard, go for it.

If, like me, you like playing all the different maps and don't care if your rank rises and plummets as a result, go for it.

If, like HA, you like playing tons of tournaments regardless of maps, settings, and opponents, go for it.

However, because you choose what to play on CC, you have absolutely no grounds to complain about it. Blitz cannot complain that high rankers join his games to stop him from reaching Conquerer because he chooses to create public Pelo War games. I cannot complain that my rank falls because I play maps that I'm not good at with setting I suck at. HA cannot complain that his rank drops because he happens to be matched against a low ranked opponent that beat him.

My point is that no matter what, you and only you choose what you play on CC. Nobody forces you to play games you don't like or not to play the games you do like. So you can't complain when something that you chose has a negative effect that you don't like.

I am not complaining.. I was saying why it could not change the way suggested.

As for Blitz, I find it ironic that you single him out, since he is someone well known for having played multiple maps. I myself really don't care. However, some people do and they periodically come in here with complaints, which essentially mean that they feel the "system" is not letting them get the rank they "should" have (they don't always express it in those terms or see it that way, but .. it pretty much amounts to that).

I like the scoring system, to the point that I care about it. However, I recognize that no scoring system is going to be perfect. Also, you have the fundamental conflict. Any system that truly rewards those who do better will, inherently, put people at the top who are "untouchable" by the rest. The other extreme is that its "all" luck.

In any case, some people will always complain.

[Timminz]

HA cannot complain that his rank drops because he happens to be matched against a low ranked opponent that beat him.

Sure he can, and has, and continues to. Something or other about no one else understanding why he's complaining.

[Army of GOD]

HA complains well.

He'd make a good analyst on Fox.