Conquer Club

I'm sure this has been discussed before but after just winning 1 out of 3 games in an assassin tournament and still ending up down 30 points from the experience you have to wonder about the scoring system.

Maybe the rank conscious higher ranked would play in a few more games with the lower ranked instead of avoiding them. I'm playing in the assassin tournament because it's fun but being 100 points away from reaching Brigg for the first time, not a lot of people are going to want to play in 3 random games with low ranked players.

trevor33 wrote:I'm sure this has been discussed before but after just winning 1 out of 3 games in an assassin tournament and still ending up down 30 points from the experience you have to wonder about the scoring system.

Maybe the rank conscious higher ranked would play in a few more games with the lower ranked instead of avoiding them. I'm playing in the assassin tournament because it's fun but being 100 points away from reaching Brigg for the first time, not a lot of people are going to want to play in 3 random games with low ranked players.

there is a cap - it is 100

The points to be awarded is calculated as (loser's score / winner's score) * 20, up to a maximum of 100 points from each opponent.

100? I was thinking about 30. Who is going to join a game where they can lose 100 points to a lucky hat? Points are hard enough to get the higher your rating gets without possibly getting stung for 100 in one game.

trevor33 wrote:100? I was thinking about 30. Who is going to join a game where they can lose 100 points to a lucky hat? Points are hard enough to get the higher your rating gets without possibly getting stung for 100 in one game.

Hundreds if not thousands of players.

Further, many of the highest ranking players of all time, have played those games at those odds.

Without the current system, the point inflation, would make scoring, especially on the high end, absolutely pointless.

Further, if someone is so low that you might lose 100 points to them, maybe its time to find someone closer to your own ranking, and if you cant beat them....

AAFitz wrote:Further, if someone is so low that you might lose 100 points to them, maybe its time to find someone closer to your own ranking, and if you cant beat them....

Cheeky bastard. Average ranking of opponent would be a nice stat though.

trevor33 wrote:

AAFitz wrote:Further, if someone is so low that you might lose 100 points to them, maybe its time to find someone closer to your own ranking, and if you cant beat them....

Cheeky bastard. Average ranking of opponent would be a nice stat though.

It was less civilized than it could have been, but the conversation has played out so many times, at this point, its difficult to take it seriously.

I think maprank gives you something close to that average..ill check...which I cant until they fix maprank to work with ff17, or i download ff16...or the pocolips happens

Yeah i know... still though, frustrating to win an 8 players game and lose two with the same players and end up down 30 points. Especially an assassin game, 33% win percentage is excellent, regardless who the players are.

My last 11 games have seen me lose 39 points even though I've won 8-3. I've lost 51 to a cadet, 47 to a private and 39 to a corporal. Its all part of the struggle though.

stoicbird wrote:My last 11 games have seen me lose 39 points even though I've won 8-3. I've lost 51 to a cadet, 47 to a private and 39 to a corporal. Its all part of the struggle though.

Its the only thing that gives the score meaning. If not for the differential, the score would just be a tally of the number of games you played.

Alas, it seems like this situation is just one more price to be paid for retaining rank. It seems like the rank/fun ratio is in a lot of ways inversely proportionate?

A few months ago I lost 100 points to a cook in a large standard game. The sequence of events that led to this abomination were convoluted to say the least. I have to say that I am still annoyed by it.

However, I have always agreed with the 100 point maximum loss. Every once in a while my team will come up against a team of cooks/cadets and while we have yet to lose such a game (and it is very difficult to do) the drama comes from the possible massive point loss if they do find a way to win.

So we need the danger of fighting cooks.

Personally I don't seek them out and have always preferred playing teams with a higher rank...of course I don't play farming settings.

while the scoring might not be perfect right now, if you would add such a limit, scores would inflate incredibly.

the best ranked players now have to win 9 out of 10 games or more to get that score, apparently that is possible currently. if they suddenly only have to win 7 out of 10 games to get that score, they'll be able to get some 5000 points more until they get to the same level again.

its quite a problem, you'll always want to get better, and thus its quite frustrating if you've hit your max and start losing points often, but thats just the way it is.

the major problem, though, is that different settings and maps have different "score caps". the best 1v1 random map player will be a master at his game if he maxes out at 1800 points, while a quad team on a highly specialized map, or an 8p freestyle conquest map player, could easily max out on 3500 points or so. which means that these players will start losing points once they play other game types.

unfortunate, but i can't think of a better system.

Mr Changsha wrote:
However, I have always agreed with the 100 point maximum loss. Every once in a while my team will come up against a team of cooks/cadets and while we have yet to lose such a game (and it is very difficult to do) the drama comes from the possible massive point loss if they do find a way to win.

Lol this is such a good point. In games I have with some regular teammates we will be fit against some of these situations and while we have our share of "oh shit" moments, usually openings where the other team could gain the upper hand (generally bad dice at the wrong moment), we almost always end up pulling through since they generally miss this window anyway.

Funkyterrance wrote:

Mr Changsha wrote:
However, I have always agreed with the 100 point maximum loss. Every once in a while my team will come up against a team of cooks/cadets and while we have yet to lose such a game (and it is very difficult to do) the drama comes from the possible massive point loss if they do find a way to win.

Lol this is such a good point. In games I have with some regular teammates we will be fit against some of these situations and while we have our share of "oh shit" moments, usually openings where the other team could gain the upper hand (generally bad dice at the wrong moment), we almost always end up pulling through since they generally miss this window anyway.

5 of my 88 trips games have involved these kinds of players. If we assume I made 30 points from the wins, I would have to win roughly 16 times in a row before ONE loss would not have made the whole thing an enormous waste of time - at least in terms of points.

I don't search out these players - I think for perfectly obvious reasons - and the first round or two in these games is genuinely stressful on the settings I play. One of the reasons for this is that it is so difficult to judge what the opposition is going to do. Mentally, I try to put myself into the shoes of the cook, to view the board as only he really can. Does he look at the whole map? Does he actually notice where his allies are? Has he understood the bonus structure? Is it possible that he could lay on an ally? In a situation where the original spread is disadvantageous and the early dice have been more than unkind, these musings of mine are not just a fun mental exercise but a really rather important attempt to avoid losing my team 300 points collectively. That is no joke. It has only happened to me once where a team of cooks has properly got an advantage, and I sorted the situation out within a few moves, but I probably put as much mental effort into those moves as I do usually when facing a top team.

its just a game play for fun!

i played 19 BRs today, and won 2... not bad really (one was standard) and made multiple other eliminations in other games, and ended up down like 300 pnts.

BUT it was fun

Mr Changsha wrote: Mentally, I try to put myself into the shoes of the cook, to view the board as only he really can. Does he look at the whole map? Does he actually notice where his allies are? Has he understood the bonus structure?

Ahh yes, what I wouldn't give to see the world from a cook's eyes if only for a moment. I was actually chuckling through most of the above post. Not in mockery but in relief that I am not the only one so perplexed by these sprightly creatures.
I had a game recently where my teammate and I had such putrid dice, turn after turn, that I had honesty given up all hope. I would have sworn, after several turns in which they proceeded to attack neuts and leave borders open, that they were actually and truly giving up opportunities for our benefit. Perhaps cooks really are the merciful angels of CC?

Paddy The Cat wrote:its just a game play for fun!

i played 19 BRs today, and won 2... not bad really (one was standard) and made multiple other eliminations in other games, and ended up down like 300 pnts.

BUT it was fun

I played the same amount of games as you did, won zero and went up 100 points

Yes, well there are some effects to this that dont seem like something CC would want to aim for.

Firstly, higher ranked players that care just a little bit about points will not play low-rank players. Except of course when they feel they cant lose such as in team games with a fair amount of players on the teams on fairly complicated maps.

Secondly, high ranked players who care a little bit about their points will stay away from tourneys.


Neither seems effects that would be good aiming for.

And of course high rank doesnt have to be 3000+ and low rank doesnt have to be <500. Above 2000 points its already expensive to get tangled with players of 1200-1300 points. So if you want points, dont interact with players although they could be both entertaining and capable.

And dont join tourneys.... Especially tourneys that involve 1v1. - When 70% win ratio is likely to lose you substantial points, its not feasible to keep your points unless you play extremely selectively which isnt possible in a tourney.

Seems a shame, but forget The Great War. - Is that really the aim. - No high ranks in the big CC events...


I admit I wouldnt know what to do to "fix" it. - Lower cap and lower factor would both lead to some points inflation. Perhaps it would be possible to limit the loss of the high-ranks while still giving the low ranks good points to bash high ranks. - Also inflation, of course as that would lead to an increased amount of points in the game per player, but Im not really sure what exactly would happen with that.


There is of course also the probably unintended effect of point jumpers. - It takes a little bit of logistics skill and very minor strategic skills to lose your account into an abysmal rank, then join massive amounts of games where you quickly decide against games when it looks like a loss and bow out of them while keeping games with good win chances or even games that are actually decided going as long as possible.

After all, you only need say 5 big games with a lot of players in them to suddenly jump 2000+ points, so setting up 10 of those is fairly feasible if you dont mind chalking up 500 losses.- Especially as the score ratios are locked at the beginning of games.

People could feasibly jump straight from 500 points to 4500 points with a stunt like that. - Yes it would take some work, but not really much strategic skill. - Cause if you dont get it right the first time, you can simply try again.

Thats probably not intended either. - It is however reality when its so fairly easy to get a situation where a player will win 5-10 times what he could lose (per player) and not really hard to get a situation where its instead 20-50 times.


There are only 2 ways it would point for a player such as me. - Either I accept that points are useless, or I take the points seriously and shun all tourneys and cc events like the plague, also shunning lower rank players unless I can setup something where I count winning a certainty.

Is this the intent?

Im not really focussed on points myself, but I like to keep an eye on them.

trevor33 wrote:100? I was thinking about 30. Who is going to join a game where they can lose 100 points to a lucky hat? Points are hard enough to get the higher your rating gets without possibly getting stung for 100 in one game.

If all you care about is points take a snap shot of someones high score print it out nail it to the wall and bam you get your points and you dont even have to waste time playing the game because thats clearly not what you care about. Or you can just stop playing cooks and you wont have a point lose problem unless thats how you got your points in the first place.

I really don't see why so many people care THAT much about their points. Yes, it is fun to rise in rank. But, personally, I would never want to give up the ordinary standard games filled with corporals and sergeants. Even though you can lose a lot of points in those, they're fun to play(and immensely good for those who still need to earn a lot of medals ).

Furthermore you should think about what effect such games can have on cooks and corporals when they win such high games. A lot of those players lose tons of games and it is those few games, especially those they win against higher ranks, that provide them just enough fun to keep playing CC and improve. For them winning a lot of points in 1 game can be a giant boost of moral. As for the high-rankers, suck it up. Without games where you lose so much, top ranks would rise endlessly, making them seem ever more distant and impossible to reach for people ranked below. I don't think this is the kind of psychological consequence you want to create.

ps: like points so much? Start up teamgames with a low-ranked teammates willing to listen to advice. He gets to learn from your knowledge and experience, and you get to have more upward point potential and less downward point potential.

Relevant suggestions:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=199877

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=193115

Metsfanmax wrote:Relevant suggestions:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=199877

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=193115

Those are both good suggestions but clearly went nowhere.
I would love to play more tournaments but hate the point beating I usually take even when winning. Suspending points for tournament play would be a good idea in my opinion. Rank would not matter as we would just be playing for medals.

loutil wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:Relevant suggestions:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=199877

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=193115

Those are both good suggestions but clearly went nowhere.
I would love to play more tournaments but hate the point beating I usually take even when winning. Suspending points for tournament play would be a good idea in my opinion. Rank would not matter as we would just be playing for medals.

That would kill off tournaments more than they already have been, and see a great increase in the amount of farming tournaments which are already too abundant as it is.

Paddy The Cat wrote:its just a game play for fun!

i played 19 BRs today, and won 2... not bad really (one was standard) and made multiple other eliminations in other games, and ended up down like 300 pnts.

BUT it was fun

Hmm, I played 25 at that event, won 10, and went up almost 2000 points

if you don't want to lose 100 points then don't join a god damn game where you can lose 100 points