The Scoring System

[DiM]

LazarusLong - mostly singles with a large spread of ranks.
maniacmath17 - considered by many the best singles player
gibbom - he got over 2200 points from BR so he does not count.
comic boy and Genghis Khan CA - 50% team games does not make you guys a single only player.
JOHNNYROCKET24 - all his 1vs1 are against cooks cadets or new recruits. that does not make him a singles player. and those games are under 10% of his total game count. he plays 80-90% team games.
blitzaholic. well look at his first 100 games. he has 3 1vs1 against cooks. and the rest of the standard games he plays (5 games) are private games against majors or higher.
yosevuk the only standard games he has are major or higher games. he also has several 1vs1 games vs senor_columbia but in those games when a player seems to be losing deadbeats so they don't lose their points.

so except lazaruslong and maniacmath most of the other players rely on team games to keep their scores.
and the few singles games they have are against people of similar rank but they are so few it really does not count.

so sorry but you haven't convinced me. to be on top you have to play mostly team games.

i guess i could join in a whole bunch of 1vs1 games against cooks and probably my score will increase rather fast, or i could join 1vs1 terminator games and deadbeat if things go wrong. but that's just taking advantage of a skewed point system and in my opinion it does not prove i'm a good player.

neither playing the same map with the same settings over and over proves you're a good player but that's another discussion.

Yes, IMO LazarusLong and maniacmath17 are the best singles players out there. I hardly think you prove that to be on top you have to play mostly team games since:

(a) You concede there are two colonels who play almost exclusively singles, which immediately disproves your point. MM made it to brigadier and number 1 for a period.
(b) Several other players have made it past 3000 from singles - NUKE, Robinette, RL_Orange
(c) I'm sure a similar statistic is true for comic boy, but I know the majority of my points are from singles - i have about 650 points from team games and 1400 from singles - I probably wouldn't have made it to 3000 from singles alone, but I would not even be a captain from team games alone
(d) How is playing 50% singles games mostly team games? You are playing the same number of team and singles - for me I have finished 114 singles and 115 teams, with 12 out of 23 current games being singles.

If you think you will get to the top playing 1v1 against cooks you are wrong. You lose 100 points and gain maybe 3 or 4 doing that, you have to win an incredible percentage to break even - I think JR was losing points in his 2 players when he was winning about 80% of them. I can't think of a less effective method of climbing the scoreboard.

At the end of the day you believe what you want to believe - the current highest ranked players disprove your thesis though. Sure there are players who play mostly team games, but there are also players who play mostly singles or a mix of both as well - not just over 3000 but in the high major ranks too, ZawBanjito, Robinette, Selin just to name a few.

i'm not saying it is impossible to get to the top on singles games. i'm just saying it's damn hard. while if you chose the path of team games it's a lot easier.
if you think the current score system does not "force" high ranked players to play mostly team games, then i invite you to start 100 6 player standard public games with all the settings on random. will you keep your current score? or will you drop a few hundred points? my guess is you'll drop? of course you'll win more games then i would because you're probably a better player but still you'll lose points because the system is wrong.

and yes playing against cooks can get you to top place.
if you want i'm willing to make an experiment. (not now cause i don't have the time)

i'll talk to some cooks and start 100 1vs1 terminator games. i'll just deadbeat where i don't have a chance to win and keep the rest. let's say i'm better than a cook so i'll probably win 60% of the games if all games where the same. add to this percentage the games where i have such a good deployment skill does not count and i get to perhaps 70% wins. discard the remaining 30% by deadbeating and i have 70 won games at let's say 6-10 points /game. this would surely get me close to 2000 points from my current 1400. not to mention my wining percantage would skyrocket. would that make me better than i am now?

[AAFitz]

The scoring system is pretty meaningless outside of the top 20 players, and a few hardcore people. It's an aristocracy, not a true meritocracy.
Becoming a paying member allows you to gain a high rank through sheer attrition of team games, and games with low ranking players.
If they changed that, then the site would close down.

My only suggestion would be leaving the top ranking few open to challenges. Challenges that couldn't be refused, or that selected random players from a list of challengers. Make it a little difficult to hold the top spots, or having the position carry an obligation.

you just have no idea what youre talking about....i play players in the top 500 and 250 and 50 that value the point system in almost every game....it has nothing to do with aristocracy...ive touched the top 25 spot once, and dropped 800 spots after that....If i played better that wouldnt have happened...but alas i didnt so i lost...if i play better, ill get more points....simple as that...the closer i get to the top, the more refined my game choices will be...but if you think its easy holding the top spots, check out the people who have been there and dropped 1000 points....ask them whats easier...getting there or holding it....

and as far as carrying an obligation...thats just ridiculous...unless you like the idea of me telling you who you can play and who you cant....absolutely childish and born of jealousy...go play 50 games with the lowest players on this site...tell me how you do.....it is simply impossible to win points that way....so...what you have to do is work your way up...when there you get to play players at your level....its how every sport and system that man has created works....go ask the red sox if theyll play your little league team....or better yet...tell them they have to....thats what youre suggesting here....its pretty damn silly....

just play the games...if you want points play them well...they can be won in singles, triples, doubles, cards, no cards, escalating, 50 or so maps...against high ranked players, low ranked players....whoever, whatever you want....no one cares what you play....but stop complaining about what others play...no one wants to here it, or cares...

[DiM]

So now you have people complaining that top ranks are only joining games where their score is 1.9999 times the score of their opponents... your suggestion would make the scoring system much much less fair.

yes, as i expected, no real suggestion was there at all...just a need to complain...ive offered some suggestions on the scoring too, but now that I have played so many, i really do understand why it has to be this way

the only suggestion i made that i really would like to see, is a no point arena, so people could play regardless of score and rank...it would benji or me, for that matter, play blitz for fun, without blitz risking 100 points to do it....

blitz could still focus on his points, but hed get to play a larger variety of players if he wanted to... also it would be a great place for tourneys of different types so they could be played only for the tourney themselves, and not CC points, which taints many of the tourneys they way they are currently...sometimes winning a tourney costs more points than it is worth...

in any case Dim...you havent thought through your idea...spend more time coming up with a good one, thinking of all the contingencies, and then youll have a valid post..just complaining about the current score is pointless till a valid alternative is possible

that suggestion was made on the spot, i never really carefully planned a new scoring system. as i said earlier in this thread i don't really care about the score. perhaps if i ever get to #1 i'll start caring but then again if i don't care about the score i'll never get to #1. i like debating and that's the only reason i'm posting here to debate weather the scoring system we have is good or bad. i tend to think it is good to a certain point.

we currently have this formula:

P=(LS/WS)*20 <=100

perhaps a way to improve it is to make the WS variable as max 2000. even if the winner has 3000 points in the formula he will be regarded as 2000. this means higher ranked players will get more points from playing lower ranks thus making them less reluctant to public standard games.

at this moment a guy with 3000 points that wins against one with 800 gains only 5 points with the risk of losing 75. that means he has to win 15 games for every loss just to keep his score.

with the formula i'm suggesting the guy with 3000 points gets 8 points for every win while risking the same 75 points. he still must have a high win average but it is a more realistic one, since if he wins 10 games he already has a profit of 5 points.

basically with this formula i'm suggesting, a high ranked player has to win 33% less games than he would with the old one in order for him to break even.

[Genghis Khan CA]

i'm not saying it is impossible to get to the top on singles games. i'm just saying it's damn hard. while if you chose the path of team games it's a lot easier.
if you think the current score system does not "force" high ranked players to play mostly team games, then i invite you to start 100 6 player standard public games with all the settings on random. will you keep your current score? or will you drop a few hundred points? my guess is you'll drop? of course you'll win more games then i would because you're probably a better player but still you'll lose points because the system is wrong.

and yes playing against cooks can get you to top place.
if you want i'm willing to make an experiment. (not now cause i don't have the time)

i'll talk to some cooks and start 100 1vs1 terminator games. i'll just deadbeat where i don't have a chance to win and keep the rest. let's say i'm better than a cook so i'll probably win 60% of the games if all games where the same. add to this percentage the games where i have such a good deployment skill does not count and i get to perhaps 70% wins. discard the remaining 30% by deadbeating and i have 70 won games at let's say 6-10 points /game. this would surely get me close to 2000 points from my current 1400. not to mention my wining percantage would skyrocket. would that make me better than i am now?

Trust me, it is damn hard to get there no matter what you play... But I would agree that it is probably more difficult to rise up the scoreboard and stay there with singles because you are winning a much lower percentage of games and therefore there is much more scope for losing streaks.

I don't like playing open singles games because there are quite a few players out there who play irrationally - attack you for no reason handing the game to another player, there are lots of players who make drama over nothing too. This is why I enjoy playing with the most skillful players, it is challenging to get a win, and you know someone isn't going to pull a harebrained move on you.

Would my score drop if I took up your challenge? I don't doubt that it would, but I fail to see how this proves your point. My score would probably also drop if I started playing freestyle triples

And I welcome you to try your cook challenge... good luck with it, I don't think you have thought it through properly myself. If you are in a hopeless position your opponent will likely be able to eliminate you before you deadbeat anyway. Feel free to try to prove me wrong though

[AAFitz]

So now you have people complaining that top ranks are only joining games where their score is 1.9999 times the score of their opponents... your suggestion would make the scoring system much much less fair.

yes, as i expected, no real suggestion was there at all...just a need to complain...ive offered some suggestions on the scoring too, but now that I have played so many, i really do understand why it has to be this way

the only suggestion i made that i really would like to see, is a no point arena, so people could play regardless of score and rank...it would benji or me, for that matter, play blitz for fun, without blitz risking 100 points to do it....

blitz could still focus on his points, but hed get to play a larger variety of players if he wanted to... also it would be a great place for tourneys of different types so they could be played only for the tourney themselves, and not CC points, which taints many of the tourneys they way they are currently...sometimes winning a tourney costs more points than it is worth...

in any case Dim...you havent thought through your idea...spend more time coming up with a good one, thinking of all the contingencies, and then youll have a valid post..just complaining about the current score is pointless till a valid alternative is possible

that suggestion was made on the spot, i never really carefully planned a new scoring system. as i said earlier in this thread i don't really care about the score. perhaps if i ever get to #1 i'll start caring but then again if i don't care about the score i'll never get to #1. i like debating and that's the only reason i'm posting here to debate weather the scoring system we have is good or bad. i tend to think it is good to a certain point.

we currently have this formula:

P=(LS/WS)*20 <=100

perhaps a way to improve it is to make the WS variable as max 2000. even if the winner has 3000 points in the formula he will be regarded as 2000. this means higher ranked players will get more points from playing lower ranks thus making them less reluctant to public standard games.

at this moment a guy with 3000 points that wins against one with 800 gains only 5 points with the risk of losing 75. that means he has to win 15 games for every loss just to keep his score.

with the formula i'm suggesting the guy with 3000 points gets 8 points for every win while risking the same 75 points. he still must have a high win average but it is a more realistic one, since if he wins 10 games he already has a profit of 5 points.

basically with this formula i'm suggesting, a high ranked player has to win 33% less games than he would with the old one in order for him to break even.

well thats very close to the first idea i came up with, but all that does is mean the top players will sprint forward in their points, and there will be more of a gap...your talking about changing the entire score system and affecting the top 200 players out of 100000....

[Genghis Khan CA]

The scoring system is pretty meaningless outside of the top 20 players, and a few hardcore people. It's an aristocracy, not a true meritocracy.
Becoming a paying member allows you to gain a high rank through sheer attrition of team games, and games with low ranking players.
If they changed that, then the site would close down.

My only suggestion would be leaving the top ranking few open to challenges. Challenges that couldn't be refused, or that selected random players from a list of challengers. Make it a little difficult to hold the top spots, or having the position carry an obligation.

you just have no idea what youre talking about....i play players in the top 500 and 250 and 50 that value the point system in almost every game....it has nothing to do with aristocracy...ive touched the top 25 spot once, and dropped 800 spots after that....If i played better that wouldnt have happened...but alas i didnt so i lost...if i play better, ill get more points....simple as that...the closer i get to the top, the more refined my game choices will be...but if you think its easy holding the top spots, check out the people who have been there and dropped 1000 points....ask them whats easier...getting there or holding it....

and as far as carrying an obligation...thats just ridiculous...unless you like the idea of me telling you who you can play and who you cant....absolutely childish and born of jealousy...go play 50 games with the lowest players on this site...tell me how you do.....it is simply impossible to win points that way....so...what you have to do is work your way up...when there you get to play players at your level....its how every sport and system that man has created works....go ask the red sox if theyll play your little league team....or better yet...tell them they have to....thats what youre suggesting here....its pretty damn silly....

just play the games...if you want points play them well...they can be won in singles, triples, doubles, cards, no cards, escalating, 50 or so maps...against high ranked players, low ranked players....whoever, whatever you want....no one cares what you play....but stop complaining about what others play...no one wants to here it, or cares...

As usual AA puts it better than I ever could...

[Molacole]

personally I think the fairest and easiest fix would be to have points decided by the rank of the person creating the game.


We could use the current ranks and have it set up so colonels can create games with a 30 point buy-in so to speak. That way each player is risking the same exact thing while playing the same exact game as their apponents. Amount of points each rank can start a game for could be decided by lack and his team...

I would also hope they keep the scoring system the same as it is now for private games so people can't abuse it and control the point distribution.

It would be nice to start seeing all these high ranked players more willing to play any and everyone. The way it is now with too many people hung up on points is just taking away from a whole community and creating little clicks amongst the majority.... yadda yadda where's Mr. Ed's body?

[AAFitz]

As usual AA puts it better than I ever could...

well, honestly, that ones clearly over the top, but the post i replied to just demanded it.
I really mean nothing personal by it symmetry, but you really were just making stuff up...

[Symmetry]

Thanks for the reply, although you might want to give the "..." a bit of a break. It does not mean what you think it means.

A quick look says that there are about 20 000 people signed up here. You're right that aristocracy is probably the wrong word, although many people here are basically arguing that (attaining a high rank through association with high ranking players, or through money and exploiting many low ranking players). I didn't say it was wrong, and I think that it's a fine way to run a site.

As for calling me childish, and jealous (of you?), well, I'll leave that as I don't think that you meant it. It seems to me that you're an experienced player, and you felt upset by the posts here.

[AAFitz]

personally I think the fairest and easiest fix would be to have points decided by the rank of the person creating the game.


We could use the current ranks and have it set up so colonels can create games with a 30 point buy-in so to speak. That way each player is risking the same exact thing while playing the same exact game as their apponents. Amount of points each rank can start a game for could be decided by lack and his team...

I would also hope they keep the scoring system the same as it is now for private games so people can't abuse it and control the point distribution.

It would be nice to start seeing all these high ranked players more willing to play any and everyone. The way it is now with too many people hung up on points is just taking away from a whole community and creating little clicks amongst the majority.... yadda yadda where's Mr. Ed's body?

Thats essentially how poker sites are run, and what you get is players with their start up cash of 1000, and players with a million or so in the bank....the system we have now, is the only one that insures a brand new player can get to the top of the scoreboard in 500 games or so...if the penalty for having a high rank is dropped in any way....the have and have not gap will increase dramatically, and every player that is begging for a change will be complaining they never have a chance to get to the top....

I love the current system now...absolutely love it...the top players are stuck at 3500 or so...I know that if I really put my effort into it and change how im playing, i have at least a chance of getting there....but if they are able to cross the 4000 point barrier, 5000 point barrier.....10000 point barrier....I wont even consider it an option, and will lose any real hope of trying to achieve it

[DiM]

So now you have people complaining that top ranks are only joining games where their score is 1.9999 times the score of their opponents... your suggestion would make the scoring system much much less fair.

yes, as i expected, no real suggestion was there at all...just a need to complain...ive offered some suggestions on the scoring too, but now that I have played so many, i really do understand why it has to be this way

the only suggestion i made that i really would like to see, is a no point arena, so people could play regardless of score and rank...it would benji or me, for that matter, play blitz for fun, without blitz risking 100 points to do it....

blitz could still focus on his points, but hed get to play a larger variety of players if he wanted to... also it would be a great place for tourneys of different types so they could be played only for the tourney themselves, and not CC points, which taints many of the tourneys they way they are currently...sometimes winning a tourney costs more points than it is worth...

in any case Dim...you havent thought through your idea...spend more time coming up with a good one, thinking of all the contingencies, and then youll have a valid post..just complaining about the current score is pointless till a valid alternative is possible

that suggestion was made on the spot, i never really carefully planned a new scoring system. as i said earlier in this thread i don't really care about the score. perhaps if i ever get to #1 i'll start caring but then again if i don't care about the score i'll never get to #1. i like debating and that's the only reason i'm posting here to debate weather the scoring system we have is good or bad. i tend to think it is good to a certain point.

we currently have this formula:

P=(LS/WS)*20 <=100

perhaps a way to improve it is to make the WS variable as max 2000. even if the winner has 3000 points in the formula he will be regarded as 2000. this means higher ranked players will get more points from playing lower ranks thus making them less reluctant to public standard games.

at this moment a guy with 3000 points that wins against one with 800 gains only 5 points with the risk of losing 75. that means he has to win 15 games for every loss just to keep his score.

with the formula i'm suggesting the guy with 3000 points gets 8 points for every win while risking the same 75 points. he still must have a high win average but it is a more realistic one, since if he wins 10 games he already has a profit of 5 points.

basically with this formula i'm suggesting, a high ranked player has to win 33% less games than he would with the old one in order for him to break even.

well thats very close to the first idea i came up with, but all that does is mean the top players will sprint forward in their points, and there will be more of a gap...your talking about changing the entire score system and affecting the top 200 players out of 100000....

who says they'll sprint forward? maybe they'll tumble down.
with the suggested change more high ranked players will play lower ranked ones. remember they lose the same number of points as before. they just win slightly more. they still have to win a really large percentage of games to keep their score. at this point you'll never see blitz play a standard game vs 5 players like me. it's simply not worth it. but with the change suggested above he might just do it.

[comic boy]

Some of what has been said here is pure speculation and in fact untrue !

It is possible to get a high rank by playing singles as Genghis has already pointed out - of my 59 current games 37 are standard and this is about my norm.

I set up 9 standard games a few hours ago and they are almost full already - a mix of Captains Colonels and Majors,there is a very large pool of quality singles players who play private games regularly.

It is simply not true that it is easy for high rankers to amass loads of points from team games,especially since deadbeating newbies were excluded, the exception to this is perhaps freestyle games which I think are an abomination but each to his own.

It is perfectly feasible to play only singles and maintain a respectable rank providing you are sensible,I will play somebody with 75% of my score but not somebody with 50%.

You can tamper with the scoring system all day long and it will still lead to segregated games because many of us do not enjoy playing with deadbeats,suicide merchants,trash talkers and downright hopeless cases

[Molacole]

and as far as carrying an obligation...thats just ridiculous...unless you like the idea of me telling you who you can play and who you cant....absolutely childish and born of jealousy...go play 50 games with the lowest players on this site...tell me how you do.....it is simply impossible to win points that way....so...what you have to do is work your way up...when there you get to play players at your level....its how every sport and system that man has created works....go ask the red sox if theyll play your little league team....or better yet...tell them they have to....thats what youre suggesting here....its pretty damn silly....

I failed to see your point. Using your baseball example I could also agrue that every single team in the majors gets a clean slate and the same exact scoring system applies to them each and every start of a new season. That is how it is in every single proffessional game I know of. I understand where you're going with it, but then again it would be like an expansion team coming into the league and not being allowed to compete for the world series no matter how good they did.

Every game is more difficult and worth more at higher levels. That doesn't mean that the lesser leagues aren't as important. Your veiws on rank are not fair for new players with the same skill level because they're not getting the same chances as a lot of us simply because they just haven't been here long enough. It's like telling them just deal with it and grind it out until you can get your score up against the lower ranked players. There is no option like in professional sports where you can get drafted into the majors or the minors without even playing college ball.

We just don't have any way for outstanding players to get recognized without the long grueling grind to the top. The easist way to do that is to abuse the current scoring system and play team games with people you know. Now if I was trying to grind it out to the top of the scoring board I would only play triples with people I know are well above average and get there in no time at all. This would also take a lot of fun away from players who don't prefer team games.

I'm starting to ramble on now and completely forgot my point so yeah that's why I like my suggestion and feel that it is fair!

[comic boy]

If you know how to get the most points from the start of the account, it is not hard to get in the top.
The score systems is meaningless

You try getting to the top and see how easy it is

[AAFitz]

Thanks for the reply, although you might want to give the "..." a bit of a break. It does not mean what you think it means.

A quick look says that there are about 20 000 people signed up here. You're right that aristocracy is probably the wrong word, although many people here are basically arguing that (attaining a high rank through association with high ranking players, or through money and exploiting many low ranking players). I didn't say it was wrong, and I think that it's a fine way to run a site.

As for calling me childish, and jealous (of you?), well, I'll leave that as I don't think that you meant it. It seems to me that you're an experienced player, and you felt upset by the posts here.

im glad you saw it was a little tongue in cheek, and when I said jealous, i was in no means referring to me....im in the same boat you are...im not a high ranked player at all...ive been there, but am not one currently and have been stuck in under 2000 point land for a long time

im not at all upset by the posts here...i just have some experience on both sides of the fence, so understand the situation fairly well...

but like I say, it wasnt meant personally, any more than yours was...I just dont think youve put yourself in the shoes of an actual top player to realize how it really works....because its hard to get there, it seems as though the people there want to keep people down, when in fact, its just the opposite...they want more players in those groups...I can surely say that of colonels games....absolutely the more the merrier....we(i use that loosely since im not one) want a huge group of great players to play, with minimal score differential, that have proved they understand the game, and present a challenge without the silliness that sometimes accompanies less talented, or experienced players....

the top ranks isnt about keeping people down...its about pure competition...which is what the game is all about....I understand thats hard to see as a new player, or one who cant play more than 4 games at a time...so I try to point it out to reasonable players so they can see it from the other side of the fence....and quite frankly....all the ones that really understand the game....kind of know it already...


and the 100000, is the number that have passed though...technically im sure 20000 of those were multis, especially counting MOH and matthew yung...but over 100000 accounts have been created....each start with 1000 points....30 or so have breached 3000 points....one has breached 4000

i think its a great system, and that it will only be apparent if it is changed

[Genghis Khan CA]

who says they'll sprint forward? maybe they'll tumble down.
with the suggested change more high ranked players will play lower ranked ones. remember they lose the same number of points as before. they just win slightly more. they still have to win a really large percentage of games to keep their score. at this point you'll never see blitz play a standard game vs 5 players like me. it's simply not worth it. but with the change suggested above he might just do it.

Again you have not thought through your ideas properly... It will result in team players increasing their scores further. If you are losing the same amount in singles top players who are conscious of their scores will not want to play public games - what are 2 or 3 extra points when you are risking 75? Most singles players will stick to high ranking games, not only for the points but also because they are more enjoyable and challenging - like Fitz's analogy of the Red sox and little league (sorry did I do that right - I'm an aussie and have no idea about baseball!)

All that will happen is team players will benefit from no longer having to win as high a percentage and reach a higher equilibrium level...

[Molacole]

personally I think the fairest and easiest fix would be to have points decided by the rank of the person creating the game.


We could use the current ranks and have it set up so colonels can create games with a 30 point buy-in so to speak. That way each player is risking the same exact thing while playing the same exact game as their apponents. Amount of points each rank can start a game for could be decided by lack and his team...

I would also hope they keep the scoring system the same as it is now for private games so people can't abuse it and control the point distribution.

It would be nice to start seeing all these high ranked players more willing to play any and everyone. The way it is now with too many people hung up on points is just taking away from a whole community and creating little clicks amongst the majority.... yadda yadda where's Mr. Ed's body?

Thats essentially how poker sites are run, and what you get is players with their start up cash of 1000, and players with a million or so in the bank....the system we have now, is the only one that insures a brand new player can get to the top of the scoreboard in 500 games or so...if the penalty for having a high rank is dropped in any way....the have and have not gap will increase dramatically, and every player that is begging for a change will be complaining they never have a chance to get to the top....

I love the current system now...absolutely love it...the top players are stuck at 3500 or so...I know that if I really put my effort into it and change how im playing, i have at least a chance of getting there....but if they are able to cross the 4000 point barrier, 5000 point barrier.....10000 point barrier....I wont even consider it an option, and will lose any real hope of trying to achieve it

yes exactly and that's the problem...

ok the way we are headed right now is a few little secret society groups are breaking off from the population and using private games to control their point distribution, while playing low rankers or unorganized teams in team games. Basically what is going to happen is the players who focus mostly on points and cater their games to points will remain on top and keep increasing the gap from the average player at a slow rate, but inevitable outcome of a huge gap between the top 20 and the average player.

What I suggested is a little like how poker works, but if the games can only be created in public then anyone can join them and prevent the select few from abusing it to circulate points back down to lower ranked players.

[Molacole]

It is simply not true that it is easy for high rankers to amass loads of points from team games,especially since deadbeating newbies were excluded, the exception to this is perhaps freestyle games which I think are an abomination but each to his own.

actually yeah it is extremely easy! You've got to understand that many people play team games with the same exact partners and it's what you could call an organized team vrs. an unorganized team. The odds of winning are huge simply because all it takes is for one person on your team to make a poor move, not communicate, not fortify you, not follow up on attacks to eliminate somebody and never having a solid game plan!

The only hard thing about it is losing points to lower ranked players when you get 3 low ranked people who actually work together as a team. That just doesn't happen and not even close to a third of a time in triples matches where you have your friends on your team...

[Symmetry]

ok the way we are headed right now is a few little secret society groups are breaking off from the population and using private games to control their point distribution

I blame the masons.

[Genghis Khan CA]

I failed to see your point. Using your baseball example I could also agrue that every single team in the majors gets a clean slate and the same exact scoring system applies to them each and every start of a new season. That is how it is in every single proffessional game I know of. I understand where you're going with it, but then again it would be like an expansion team coming into the league and not being allowed to compete for the world series no matter how good they did.

Every game is more difficult and worth more at higher levels. That doesn't mean that the lesser leagues aren't as important. Your veiws on rank are not fair for new players with the same skill level because they're not getting the same chances as a lot of us simply because they just haven't been here long enough. It's like telling them just deal with it and grind it out until you can get your score up against the lower ranked players. There is no option like in professional sports where you can get drafted into the majors or the minors without even playing college ball.

We just don't have any way for outstanding players to get recognized without the long grueling grind to the top. The easist way to do that is to abuse the current scoring system and play team games with people you know. Now if I was trying to grind it out to the top of the scoring board I would only play triples with people I know are well above average and get there in no time at all. This would also take a lot of fun away from players who don't prefer team games.

I'm starting to ramble on now and completely forgot my point so yeah that's why I like my suggestion and feel that it is fair!

Well - all the players at the top of the scoreboard had to 'grind' their way to the top as you put it. Although I would describe it as an enjoyable journey myself

Seriously, the cream will rise to the top - if you are an outstanding player you will rise through the ranks, probably quickly, and will soon be able to join the captains and higher ranked games. I don't see the problem - lots of players have managed to get to the high ranks without team games or with them. If you are truly an outstanding player it will probably take you less than 100 games to get to 2000 points playing singles - I know plenty of players who have achieved this.

In professional sports I doubt that any player gets drafted to the majors without having played and proved themselves in a heck of a lot of games previously... why should it be any different here?

[Genghis Khan CA]

Some of what has been said here is pure speculation and in fact untrue !

It is possible to get a high rank by playing singles as Genghis has already pointed out - of my 59 current games 37 are standard and this is about my norm.

I set up 9 standard games a few hours ago and they are almost full already - a mix of Captains Colonels and Majors,there is a very large pool of quality singles players who play private games regularly.

It is simply not true that it is easy for high rankers to amass loads of points from team games,especially since deadbeating newbies were excluded, the exception to this is perhaps freestyle games which I think are an abomination but each to his own.

It is perfectly feasible to play only singles and maintain a respectable rank providing you are sensible,I will play somebody with 75% of my score but not somebody with 50%.

You can tamper with the scoring system all day long and it will still lead to segregated games because many of us do not enjoy playing with deadbeats,suicide merchants,trash talkers and downright hopeless cases

Haha - this is the best post in the thread

[DiM]

who says they'll sprint forward? maybe they'll tumble down.
with the suggested change more high ranked players will play lower ranked ones. remember they lose the same number of points as before. they just win slightly more. they still have to win a really large percentage of games to keep their score. at this point you'll never see blitz play a standard game vs 5 players like me. it's simply not worth it. but with the change suggested above he might just do it.

Again you have not thought through your ideas properly... It will result in team players increasing their scores further. If you are losing the same amount in singles top players who are conscious of their scores will not want to play public games - what are 2 or 3 extra points when you are risking 75? Most singles players will stick to high ranking games, not only for the points but also because they are more enjoyable and challenging - like Fitz's analogy of the Red sox and little league (sorry did I do that right - I'm an aussie and have no idea about baseball!)

All that will happen is team players will benefit from no longer having to win as high a percentage and reach a higher equilibrium level...

not really mate. let me develop. at this point most people in the top 10 will play a 6 player standard game vs people like me (1400 points). the only 6 player standard games they'll play are against people within a few hundred points of them. why is that? simple in the games they play they lose normal points (20-25) and they must win 20% of the time to break even.
in the current system playing against 1400 pointers means they have to win 40% of the time to break even. that's really hard to do. if the change i suggested they'll probably be more willing to play because they'll just have to win 30% of the time instead of 40% and that's doable.

if they are really good they'll get that 30% and keep their rank. if they aren't that good they'll lose some points and get back to what they are doing now (elite games). so i don't really see the downside of my plan.

[Molacole]

Well I sat in the top 15 for months and I can tell you from experience that it is extremely easy to maintane that position, while playing team games...

The point I'm trying to make is that people who don't really deserve to be there are sitting pretty. I've played a lot of colonels before the new rank changes and I can tell you that over half of them had no business in that category... New and better players will only get to the top IF they focus their games around points or just prefer team games more than any other style.

That's my reason for not liking the current point system. It just doesn't give new players a fair shot at the top 20 unless they stick to team games and focus on getting points. You have to realize all those points earned by many of those top players aren't going back down to the low ranked players it's just the oposite! The low ranked players keep giving points away by joining public team games...

[AAFitz]

who says they'll sprint forward? maybe they'll tumble down.
with the suggested change more high ranked players will play lower ranked ones. remember they lose the same number of points as before. they just win slightly more. they still have to win a really large percentage of games to keep their score. at this point you'll never see blitz play a standard game vs 5 players like me. it's simply not worth it. but with the change suggested above he might just do it.

Again you have not thought through your ideas properly... It will result in team players increasing their scores further. If you are losing the same amount in singles top players who are conscious of their scores will not want to play public games - what are 2 or 3 extra points when you are risking 75? Most singles players will stick to high ranking games, not only for the points but also because they are more enjoyable and challenging - like Fitz's analogy of the Red sox and little league (sorry did I do that right - I'm an aussie and have no idea about baseball!)

All that will happen is team players will benefit from no longer having to win as high a percentage and reach a higher equilibrium level...

not really mate. let me develop. at this point most people in the top 10 will play a 6 player standard game vs people like me (1400 points). the only 6 player standard games they'll play are against people within a few hundred points of them. why is that? simple in the games they play they lose normal points (20-25) and they must win 20% of the time to break even.
in the current system playing against 1400 pointers means they have to win 40% of the time to break even. that's really hard to do. if the change i suggested they'll probably be more willing to play because they'll just have to win 30% of the time instead of 40% and that's doable.

if they are really good they'll get that 30% and keep their rank. if they aren't that good they'll lose some points and get back to what they are doing now (elite games). so i don't really see the downside of my plan.

ill reiterate a little of comics post, and say that they still wont play you...not you specifically, but someone with 1400, because playing 6 player escalating is an exacting science, and with one bad player the game is a timebomb...one overattack, one missed block, and the game is over prematurely...and believe me...ive done all of that myself....but that is the real reason they dont play...the scoring only adds to it

[DiM]

Seriously, the cream will rise to the top - if you are an outstanding player you will rise through the ranks, probably quickly, and will soon be able to join the captains and higher ranked games. I don't see the problem - lots of players have managed to get to the high ranks without team games or with them. If you are truly an outstanding player it will probably take you less than 100 games to get to 2000 points playing singles - I know plenty of players who have achieved this.

actually not only the cream rises to the top. mold also rises there and here's an example i gave earlier and got ignored:

a new recruit that has no idea how to play joins trips with blitz and johnny. he just follows every command blitz or johnny give him and after 50 games he rises ranks and perhaps gets to 1500 points. that's more than i have. would that make him better than me? no he would still be the same recruit that has no idea how to play.

let's take that example even further. with 2 noobs this time. johnny gets them to join in his triples as his partners. they are good puppy dogs and obey every command. he plays open trips against various random opponents having the 2 new recruits also ensures he loses less points as the team average is lower and gains more points for the same reason. i do belive that johnny is a good trips player and given the fact that the 2 noobs are very obedient, it's like playing with 3 of your accounts so he should win lots of games. soon those 2 noobs will have 2000+ points. thus ranking better than the vast majority of users on this site. are they considered cream? i beg to differ.