Are You Satisfied With Your Score?

by **RobinJ** on Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:03 pm

My score's on an upward curve again. A few months ago, I was ecstatic, a few weeks ago I was almost in tears :lol:

and now I'm happy that it's at least where I believe it should be. Whether I can hold it this time remains to be seen

by **detlef** on Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:33 pm

The scoring system is neither screwed up nor uncommon for any game that uses ranks. Every on-line game I've ever played skews points earned based on who you beat. It's the only logical manner to do so.

You should absolutely get more points for beating highly ranked players. Believe me, the margin of error is much smaller. Not unlike chess, as you start playing better players, you are less able (if at all) to recover from poor moves. Additionally, you are far more likely to have somebody seize a small advantage and take the game over.

I play both ranked games and games against all comers. There is a huge difference. In fact, I will take specific tacts against lower ranked players under the assumption that there's a pretty decent chance that they'll let me get away with it. Moves that I'd be foolish to assume I could get away with in a ranked game.

I know the popular opinion is that higher ranked players avoid all-comers games because they're concerned about points risked. Let the record state that this higher ranked player seeks out ranked games because the play is more consistently good and that one is less likely to have the game won (even by me) because somebody did something stupid.

by **oggiss** on Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:37 pm

nah, I wanna reach 3k

by **DAZMCFC** on Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:30 pm

detlef wrote:The scoring system is neither screwed up nor uncommon for any game that uses ranks. Every on-line game I've ever played skews points earned based on who you beat. It's the only logical manner to do so.

You should absolutely get more points for beating highly ranked players. Believe me, the margin of error is much smaller. Not unlike chess, as you start playing better players, you are less able (if at all) to recover from poor moves. Additionally, you are far more likely to have somebody seize a small advantage and take the game over.

I play both ranked games and games against all comers. There is a huge difference. In fact, I will take specific tacts against lower ranked players under the assumption that there's a pretty decent chance that they'll let me get away with it. Moves that I'd be foolish to assume I could get away with in a ranked game.

I know the popular opinion is that higher ranked players avoid all-comers games because they're concerned about points risked. Let the record state that this higher ranked player seeks out ranked games because the play is more consistently good and that one is less likely to have the game won (even by me) because somebody did something stupid.

very well put, i like your style.

by **Plutoman** on Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:41 pm

detlef wrote:The scoring system is neither screwed up nor uncommon for any game that uses ranks. Every on-line game I've ever played skews points earned based on who you beat. It's the only logical manner to do so.

You should absolutely get more points for beating highly ranked players. Believe me, the margin of error is much smaller. Not unlike chess, as you start playing better players, you are less able (if at all) to recover from poor moves. Additionally, you are far more likely to have somebody seize a small advantage and take the game over.

I play both ranked games and games against all comers. There is a huge difference. In fact, I will take specific tacts against lower ranked players under the assumption that there's a pretty decent chance that they'll let me get away with it. Moves that I'd be foolish to assume I could get away with in a ranked game.

I know the popular opinion is that higher ranked players avoid all-comers games because they're concerned about points risked. Let the record state that this higher ranked player seeks out ranked games because the play is more consistently good and that one is less likely to have the game won (even by me) because somebody did something stupid.

Have to agree with all of that. Only thing I don't like is the automatic assumption new players will do something silly... That's what I want my rank higher

I typically do the same, though, against others around my rank - especially one's that have either played quite a few games and stayed a cook, or ones that have only played a few games.

Many times they fail to notice things you do, and you can take advantage of that - most never check the log, especially in FOW games (vitally important to do) and you can take advantage of that well.

by **herndawg** on Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:27 am

nice thread, I think the scoring and rank and rank icons is what makes this addicting. Somehow I think I wouldn't be as into it as I am if there were no points or ranks. I really enjoy the aspect of playing real people in other parts of the world though, really neat, and the chat.

I want captain, then I will want major just like last week I wanted 1st class, then Lt. will it ever end.

6-8 player escalating games are the ones that can be "ruined" by lower ranks. I got upset once, now I actually enjoy when a cadet trys to take over a continent in round 5 or 6 and leaves others maimed for me to take out and get cards. I have won quite a few like that. And lost a few from it too. It is somewhat realistic, higher the ranks that are there the less mistakes there are and longer it goes. But there is nothing like a cook who is out to take over the world to keep you on your toes. I like games with the wildcard players. Especially Terminator Escalating, Awesome!

by **Risktaker17** on Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:28 am

I hate my rank. I used to be major, but I have been stuch as sergeant for a long time

by **greenoaks** on Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:54 am

i am happy with where i am. i gyrate between 1550 and 1900 points every 3 days or so.

win percentage means shit. i have played a lot of 6 & 8 player games, whereas others i have seen play a lot of 1v1 or doubles. so my 28% wins kicks arse over their 50% win ratio.

by **wicked** on Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:53 am

I just hit 2000 for the first time!

by **whitestazn88** on Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:04 am

im about average right now, i fluctuate between 1400-1500s...

high was 1600 something

by **Hitman079** on Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:17 am

my highest score is 1000..
i don't know if i'm a bad player or i'm just extremely unlucky, most probably the former. i am a cook at the moment; and i've lately just been hovering between cadet and cook. i don't really play many games at a time, maybe 2 at the most, but i don't think this matters.
maybe i'm cut out for battleship :cry:

by **whitestazn88** on Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:18 am

as long as you have fun dude....

by **Hitman079** on Sun Mar 09, 2008 9:16 pm

it's quite fun, but sadly in one of my games it's 3 cooks vs one lieutenant and 2 corporals (1st class). and my teammates are on and off players :cry: