The Scoring System

[Rahm Es Hestos]

Ya i know this topic probably has been disscussed a billion times, but just for the hell of it im going to throw in my two cents about the scoring system. What i want to know is why cant we change the system so that the number of points won/lost in a game is decided by the player who creates the game. This could be done by putting a point option on the create a game page that makes a game worth anywhere from 20 to 100 points. In my opinion, this would make things more fair for all players and stop segregation amongst the ranks. I know that i'm personally hating the scoring system because i play mostly rt games (Which are 90% of the time filled up by low ranked new guys) and it just seems stupid to me that if i lose a 5-man standard game (one of my favorite types) i end up giving up half as many points as i get if i won the game. Since it isnt easy to win 5-man standard games 2/3's of the time, my score is suffering. I'm also sure there are hundreds of cases similar to mine that could be fixed if the score system was changed as i suggested. What do you all think?

[Genghis Khan CA]

This suggestion has recently been rejected...

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22496&highlight=

I think this would be too open to abuse, particularly for multis. Also, it makes the points system meaningless. Why should you get the same points for beating a cook as a colonel? Presumably the cook is a cook because they are less skilled, so beating them should not result in as great a reward.

If you want to improve your score whilst playing 5 player games do it with players of a similar rank to yourself, as your score increases play with higher ranked players. If you are good enough you should rise through the ranks without problem.

Also in the situation you describe you only need to win a 5 player game 1/3 of the time. Given your rank you must be playing players with a 1000 point average score - it should not be too hard to win 33% of 5 player games against these players when the expected win ratio is already 20% without taking skill into account.

[BobHacket]

This suggestion has recently been rejected...

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22496&highlight=

I think this would be too open to abuse, particularly for multis. Also, it makes the points system meaningless. Why should you get the same points for beating a cook as a colonel? Presumably the cook is a cook because they are less skilled, so beating them should not result in as great a reward.

If you want to improve your score whilst playing 5 player games do it with players of a similar rank to yourself, as your score increases play with higher ranked players. If you are good enough you should rise through the ranks without problem.

Also in the situation you describe you only need to win a 5 player game 1/3 of the time. Given your rank you must be playing players with a 1000 point average score - it should not be too hard to win 33% of 5 player games against these players when the expected win ratio is already 20% without taking skill into account.

what he said

[vic]

Ya i know this topic probably has been disscussed a billion times, but just for the hell of it im going to throw in my two cents about the scoring system. What i want to know is why cant we change the system so that the number of points won/lost in a game is decided by the player who creates the game. This could be done by putting a point option on the create a game page that makes a game worth anywhere from 20 to 100 points. In my opinion, this would make things more fair for all players and stop segregation amongst the ranks. I know that i'm personally hating the scoring system because i play mostly rt games (Which are 90% of the time filled up by low ranked new guys) and it just seems stupid to me that if i lose a 5-man standard game (one of my favorite types) i end up giving up half as many points as i get if i won the game. Since it isnt easy to win 5-man standard games 2/3's of the time, my score is suffering. I'm also sure there are hundreds of cases similar to mine that could be fixed if the score system was changed as i suggested. What do you all think?

This suggestion has recently been rejected...

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22496&highlight=

I think this would be too open to abuse, particularly for multis. Also, it makes the points system meaningless. Why should you get the same points for beating a cook as a colonel? Presumably the cook is a cook because they are less skilled, so beating them should not result in as great a reward.

You presume incorrectly - having a high score does not have a lot to do with skill level due to the multitude of game types, maps and extraneous combinations that are available. The only time it is truly effective is if a player was to play a single type of game 90% of the time, which is rarely the case.

If you want to improve your score whilst playing 5 player games do it with players of a similar rank to yourself, as your score increases play with higher ranked players. If you are good enough you should rise through the ranks without problem.

Please read the original post before you reply - your solution is easy to implement playing regular games, but not so practical when trying to play a realtime game.

Also in the situation you describe you only need to win a 5 player game 1/3 of the time. Given your rank you must be playing players with a 1000 point average score - it should not be too hard to win 33% of 5 player games against these players when the expected win ratio is already 20% without taking skill into account.

Apply both the arguments presented above and he will need to win 2/3rds of the time, which he mentioned as against to your 1/3 calculation.

ps: where's the "stop whining" option?

[Genghis Khan CA]

You presume incorrectly - having a high score does not have a lot to do with skill level due to the multitude of game types, maps and extraneous combinations that are available. The only time it is truly effective is if a player was to play a single type of game 90% of the time, which is rarely the case.

...

Please read the original post before you reply - your solution is easy to implement playing regular games, but not so practical when trying to play a realtime game.

...

Apply both the arguments presented above and he will need to win 2/3rds of the time, which he mentioned as against to your 1/3 calculation.

ps: where's the "stop whining" option?

vic, I appreciate your comments, I assure you I am not whining and am not sure how you draw that conclusion.

True it is harder to find rt against players of similar rank - but my point still stands that if you are a better player then you should win a higher percentage of these games regardless. There are a lot of players who acheive good ranks playing open games, I believe including yourself vic.

I disagree that points do not have a lot to do with skill. True there is an important element of game selection - there are many fine players who could acheive a higher rank if they played more with players with similar scores, or team games. But you need to have a high degree of skill to acheive high ranks regardless of the types of games you play. I think it would be fair to say on average a major has more skill than a cook - obviously there can be exceptions though.

You are incorrect in your calculation also - Rahm said he loses half the number of points he wins, therefore 2 losses equals a win, so 1/3 is required to maintain points. At his current score he would need to play players with an average score of 478 to need a 2/3 win ratio.

Anyway, the real issue is that we can make our own choices about rank anyway - if you care about your rank, choose games that will help you increase it. If you don't, then play whatever games you like. No one is forcing you to improve your score. Personally I play the types of games I enjoy anyway and I hope the majority of other players on the site feel the same way.

Nothing personal, I just see this option is a problem because of the potential for abuse. Maybe a solution would be point-free games, although I believe this has also been rejected.

[vic]

Haha, i was actually telling the original poster to stop whining

I agree with you that the solution is infeasible and open to a lot of abuse. We can both agree to disagree on the points = skill question.

Maybe they can have unrated rt games, which will be easier to play!

[Genghis Khan CA]

Haha, i was actually telling the original poster to stop whining

I agree with you that the solution is infeasible and open to a lot of abuse. We can both agree to disagree on the points = skill question.

Maybe they can have unrated rt games, which will be easier to play!

lol - ok that makes sense then

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

the current scoring system is fine

[Risktaker17]

I have the same problem as the other guy. I am a sergeant first class, I'm right between that and lieutenant, I think that's pretty good. But the problem is, I like 1v1's. Most people who play 1v1's are noobs. So if I win I get 10 points. If they win they get 30. It pretty much balances out but it just gets annoying. I'm non-premium as well, and so if I lose a game, I really feel it because I can't just take 100 games to make up for it. I think rank should be a factor in scoring but less of a factor. So instead of losing 30 points I lose 25.

[DiM]

the current scoring system is fine

it is fine but it still has some problems like 1vs1 terminator games. or the split points with deadbeat in team games.

also i think the formula should be tweaked a bit to allow higher ranks to gain points eaier in standard games. at the moment being on top means you must play almost trips and dubs only.

but since i don't care that much about score i guess the system can remain the same.

[kishih]

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

[Genghis Khan CA]

at the moment being on top means you must play almost trips and dubs only.

This is not quite true... of the current colonels and above there are a number of singles or semi-singles players

LazarusLong plays almost exclusively open singles games
maniacmath17 plays about 95% 6 player escalating games
gibbom* plays mostly singles, some doubles
comic boy and myself play about 50% singles 50% teams
JOHNNYROCKET24 plays a lot of 2 player singles, plus some other singles
blitzaholic plays a number of singles games too
yosevuk is playing quite a few singles at the moment as well

Edited for BeakerWMA

[BeakerWMA]

gibbom needs an * by his name!!!

[AAFitz]

being on top means you really know how to play the game, you play each one to win, and for fun....it means you play the games you are most comfortable with and prefer to play, and there isnt anyone at the top that isnt a much better player than anyone saying the points are easy to get...anyone who says the points are easy to get doesnt have many, and is protecting their own ego

im not sure if the scoring system could be better, but ive played enough to know that if it were a flat system, there would be ten times as many complaints....there would be scores of 10000-20000 in no time, and it would then become meaningless....this system has handicapped the best players, and forced them to refine their game to exacting precision in order to maintain and grow....I laugh at anyone who has less than 2500 points who thinks they'd be better off with anything else....you just have no idea what youre talking about....if it ever flattens out...even for a minute...its off to the races for the good players...and the newbies and noobs will be left in the dust forever...

[DiM]

at the moment being on top means you must play almost trips and dubs only.

This is not quite true... of the current colonels and above there are a number of singles or semi-singles players

LazarusLong plays almost exclusively open singles games
maniacmath17 plays about 95% 6 player escalating games
gibbom plays mostly singles, some doubles
comic boy and myself play about 50% singles 50% teams
JOHNNYROCKET24 plays a lot of 2 player singles, plus some other singles
blitzaholic plays a number of singles games too
yosevuk is playing quite a few singles at the moment as well

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.

[DiM]

being on top means you really know how to play the game, you play each one to win, and for fun....it means you play the games you are most comfortable with and prefer to play, and there isnt anyone at the top that isnt a much better player than anyone saying the points are easy to get...anyone who says the points are easy to get doesnt have many, and is protecting their own ego

nobody is saying the guys on top aren't good. it's just that the point system forces you to resort to team games once your score gets that high.

i'm proposing an experiment. all the top 10 players each start playing 100 standard 6 player games on random maps with random people with random settings. do you think they'll accept this challenge? i'm willing to bet they won't for the simple fact this will mean a huge point loss for each of them. yes surely they will have more wins than a private would in those 100 games. but they will still total a big loss. that's because the scoring system demands you to win a lot of games especially if you play vs lower ranks. and frankly that's impossible. i don't blame the guys on top, they just protect their scores, but i do blame the scoring system.

[AAFitz]

at the moment being on top means you must play almost trips and dubs only.

This is not quite true... of the current colonels and above there are a number of singles or semi-singles players

LazarusLong plays almost exclusively open singles games
maniacmath17 plays about 95% 6 player escalating games
gibbom plays mostly singles, some doubles
comic boy and myself play about 50% singles 50% teams
JOHNNYROCKET24 plays a lot of 2 player singles, plus some other singles
blitzaholic plays a number of singles games too
yosevuk is playing quite a few singles at the moment as well

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.

well he only mentioned the current 3000 point holders...dont forget about Nuke, Robinette, RL Orange and there maybe one or two more who primarily used singles to get there

I also see many that are close to the top like Selin that plays mostly no cards....

the fact is, if one person can get there using singles, it means anyone can...the fact that more havent simply means they arent as good at it...

[AAFitz]

being on top means you really know how to play the game, you play each one to win, and for fun....it means you play the games you are most comfortable with and prefer to play, and there isnt anyone at the top that isnt a much better player than anyone saying the points are easy to get...anyone who says the points are easy to get doesnt have many, and is protecting their own ego

nobody is saying the guys on top aren't good. it's just that the point system forces you to resort to team games once your score gets that high.

i'm proposing an experiment. all the top 10 players each start playing 100 standard 6 player games on random maps with random people with random settings. do you think they'll accept this challenge? i'm willing to bet they won't for the simple fact this will mean a huge point loss for each of them. yes surely they will have more wins than a private would in those 100 games. but they will still total a big loss. that's because the scoring system demands you to win a lot of games especially if you play vs lower ranks. and frankly that's impossible. i don't blame the guys on top, they just protect their scores, but i do blame the scoring system.

Well in this scoring system that would indeed be foolish of them...however, if you changed it to a flat system, where everyone got the same amount of points, do you honestly think that would make it easier for lower ranked players to get points....it wouldnt at all...the inflation on the points would be instant and never ending...it would be a virtual open season on new players and well, less talented players....you would then complain that the top players are playing lower ranked players too much and discouraging from playing the game...

or do you have a scoring system in mind that will actually be an improvement?

[DiM]

at the moment being on top means you must play almost trips and dubs only.

This is not quite true... of the current colonels and above there are a number of singles or semi-singles players

LazarusLong plays almost exclusively open singles games
maniacmath17 plays about 95% 6 player escalating games
gibbom plays mostly singles, some doubles
comic boy and myself play about 50% singles 50% teams
JOHNNYROCKET24 plays a lot of 2 player singles, plus some other singles
blitzaholic plays a number of singles games too
yosevuk is playing quite a few singles at the moment as well

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.

well he only mentioned the current 3000 point holders...dont forget about Nuke, Robinette, RL Orange and there maybe one or two more who primarily used singles to get there

I also see many that are close to the top like Selin that plays mostly no cards....

the fact is, if one person can get there using singles, it means anyone can...the fact that more havent simply means they arent as good at it...

yes i know there are people in the top page that play a majority of singles games but still the easiest way to get there is by playing doubles.

let's say i hook up with blitzaholic and johnnyrocket24 and start playing only triples against cooks. i'll probably go from my current 1400 points to 2000+. would that make me a good player? would that make me better than a guy that plays standard games and has 1900 points?
i don't think so. it would just make me a point addict that know how to take advantage of the system.


let's take another example.


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.

[Genghis Khan CA]

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.

[Genghis Khan CA]

well he only mentioned the current 3000 point holders...dont forget about Nuke, Robinette, RL Orange and there maybe one or two more who primarily used singles to get there

I also see many that are close to the top like Selin that plays mostly no cards....

the fact is, if one person can get there using singles, it means anyone can...the fact that more havent simply means they arent as good at it...

Damn... fastposted by Fitz!

[DiM]

being on top means you really know how to play the game, you play each one to win, and for fun....it means you play the games you are most comfortable with and prefer to play, and there isnt anyone at the top that isnt a much better player than anyone saying the points are easy to get...anyone who says the points are easy to get doesnt have many, and is protecting their own ego

nobody is saying the guys on top aren't good. it's just that the point system forces you to resort to team games once your score gets that high.

i'm proposing an experiment. all the top 10 players each start playing 100 standard 6 player games on random maps with random people with random settings. do you think they'll accept this challenge? i'm willing to bet they won't for the simple fact this will mean a huge point loss for each of them. yes surely they will have more wins than a private would in those 100 games. but they will still total a big loss. that's because the scoring system demands you to win a lot of games especially if you play vs lower ranks. and frankly that's impossible. i don't blame the guys on top, they just protect their scores, but i do blame the scoring system.

Well in this scoring system that would indeed be foolish of them...however, if you changed it to a flat system, where everyone got the same amount of points, do you honestly think that would make it easier for lower ranked players to get points....it wouldnt at all...the inflation on the points would be instant and never ending...it would be a virtual open season on new players and well, less talented players....you would then complain that the top players are playing lower ranked players too much and discouraging from playing the game...

or do you have a scoring system in mind that will actually be an improvement?

exactly, the current score system encourages team games to the extent where you have to play exclusively team games to keep your score. that's wrong. i don't want a flat score system but i want a system that's more lenient on higher ranks.

perhaps a formula where each type of games is worth a fixed amount of points and then those points are altered depending on your score and the score of the opponents.

let's say a standard game is worth 30 points for each adversary you have.
this means a 6 player game is worth 150 points.
if the person that wins has double the points than the points of the opponents he gets half (75 points) if he has half the points then he gets double (300)

[Genghis Khan CA]

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.

[Symmetry]

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.

[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