Tournament Option - Point Loss/Win

[White Moose]

I am not sure if this Suggestion has been made before or not. I had a look in the previous suggestions and didn't find any like the one i'm giving. I might have missed if there has been, and i'm sorry for adding a new suggestion which already have been suggested.

Concise description:

• Add an option to have the same point loss/win from a tournament game is the same no matter what score the opponents have.
• If adding an option to this is to big hard to make. Then perhaps remaking the whole thing so that all tournament games goes under this rule.

Specifics:

• The point loss/win from a tournament game is 20 points. 20 points per player that is. So in a 3-player+ game then you can win 20 points from each player. This number can be changed of course, but 20 seems like a good number to me.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• This will increase the number of players who play tournaments. Becuase many, many players don't want to join tournaments becuase they will lose to many points if they lose to someone with, for example, half their points.

Personally i think this would be a great idea. But unfortunatly it isn't up to me to decide.

Discuss!

[lancehoch]

This was never a formal suggestion, however it arose (actually I was the one who mentioned it) in another thread about tournament game points (Link). The comment is a little more than halfway down the page, and there was only one response to the comment. Naturally, I do agree with an option like this. There would have to be some tweaks to the system though. In leagues, which are under the tournament heading, a player can play tens to hundreds of games. If one of the better players wins more than one game in X for an X player game (better than 1/4 with 4 players, or better than 1/8 for 8 players) they can have a point explosion.
Take a player playing in 32 8 player games, and he wins 8. He would gain 8*7*20=1120, he would lose 24*20=480. This is a net of 640 points (20 points per game) with a 25% winning percentage. I am not sure as to how the correction should be made, but something needs to be adjusted, since even the best players on the site do not gain an average of 10 points per game.

[White Moose]

A thing you could do if there is problems with people winning to much points with this kind of rule. Then you could change it that you can win 10 points from each opponent player, and you lose 20. This will even out the calculation you had.

[Night Strike]

Tournaments shouldn't have a separate method of tracking points. They are just a series of organized private games with a final bragging rights prize. There are a lot of people who only play tournament games, and quite frankly, there are people like me who love going against a Major who's actually brave enough to play in a tournament and doesn't fear losing the points.

Besides, it serves to keep the pompous high-ranks out who think they should win every single game.

[killmanic]

Hey I am a colonel and I join almost every tournament, seriously do points really matter much?

[Night Strike]

Hey I am a colonel and I join almost every tournament, seriously do points really matter much?

QFT.

Perhaps more colonels should man up and put their points on the line in tournaments, which is home to some of the best players on the site.

[Natewolfman]

Hey I am a colonel and I join almost every tournament, seriously do points really matter much?

*thinks back to MSN conversations, bragining about his new hat* kidding man

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[killmanic]

It's a good idea, but can easily be abused. Imagine how many points a player like warsteiner or sjnap could have by now if they joined heaps of tournaments!!!

I agree I mean if i was winning 20 per tournament game and losing 20 per tournament game i would be well over 5,000, which is a major problem since points could easily be won. Take my first round of map blaster, I had a easy pool, I think I won 35 of 77 games, all of them 8 player. So from my 32 losses u would have lost 840 instead of about twice that (my real loss), and would have earned, 4900 which would have me being the conquerer by 2000 points and thats just that 1 round of that 1 tournament, if you included the others i may be breaking 10,000 even. I mean a net gain of over 4000 points in 1 round out of 3, peoples scores would be insane.

[aspalm]

It's a good idea, but can easily be abused. Imagine how many points a player like warsteiner or sjnap could have by now if they joined heaps of tournaments!!!

oh you mean those top of the heap cc players who never play public games unless they are freestyle? i wouldn't worry about them too much.

sjnap's last public victory: October 3, 2007. and this is the best cc has to offer?

okay, i'll get off my soapbox now.

[Scott-Land]

Hey I am a colonel and I join almost every tournament, seriously do points really matter much?

QFT.

Perhaps more colonels should man up and put their points on the line in tournaments, which is home to some of the best players on the site.

Ever think that some just don't enjoy it-- and it has nothing to do with points? Another innocent thread turned into high rank bashing.....

[aspalm]

it's not bashing. there are a number of high-ranking players i have a lot of respect for.

examples: kingofgods, mike doherty, big whiskey, blitzaholic, etc. All are willing to play any type of game, without regard to preserving their precious rankings.

so I am supposed to believe that it is just a coincidence that the highest ranking players all have the same game style preference? the reason the rest of you ONLY play private games and/or freestyle games is because these are the ONLY games you enjoy? then why did all of you used to play all types of games until you discovered the "secret" to getting and maintaining a high ranking? amazing how quickly one loses complete interest! here's an eyeroll to match the one you sent me- ha!

perhaps there should be different rankings for different kinds of games? why can't there be scoreboards for standard/assassin/doubles/freestyle/speed etc? wouldn't it be more fun to have different titles to shoot for? you could still have the overall title, but then we would know who the real cc champs are, not just the freestyle champs.

[Scott-Land]

it's not bashing. there are a number of high-ranking players i have a lot of respect for.

examples: kingofgods, mike doherty, big whiskey, blitzaholic, etc. All are willing to play any type of game, without regard to preserving their precious rankings.

so I am supposed to believe that it is just a coincidence that the highest ranking players all have the same game style preference? the reason the rest of you ONLY play private games and/or freestyle games is because these are the ONLY games you enjoy? then why did all of you used to play all types of games until you discovered the "secret" to getting and maintaining a high ranking? amazing how quickly one loses complete interest! here's an eyeroll to match the one you sent me- ha!

perhaps there should be different rankings for different kinds of games? why can't there be scoreboards for standard/assassin/doubles/freestyle/speed etc? wouldn't it be more fun to have different titles to shoot for? you could still have the overall title, but then we would know who the real cc champs are, not just the freestyle champs.

if you're personally referencing me because of my poist-- i was 3000+ when i started 30 to 40 public sequential games twice a month. I 'lost interest' because I got tired of getting hit for no reason every game. let's answer another question-- did i maintain my ranking ? absolutely. so could the reason be that i simply didn't enjoy them ? absolutely

go ahead and add up my 8 man speed freestyle points-- i am a losing player in that game type or perhaps a few 100 points ahead. either way i dont get my points from them. i play them because i enjoy them ( on occasion). i play them not because i have an edge-- but because i can sustain a random or targeted attack better than i can in sequential. I enjoy it for that mere reason. I join 99% of invite games no matter rank....

do some research before you randomly attack players-- just because you can't climb the boards doesn't mean you have to hide behind it either.

[FabledIntegral]

it's not bashing. there are a number of high-ranking players i have a lot of respect for.

examples: kingofgods, mike doherty, big whiskey, blitzaholic, etc. All are willing to play any type of game, without regard to preserving their precious rankings.

so I am supposed to believe that it is just a coincidence that the highest ranking players all have the same game style preference? the reason the rest of you ONLY play private games and/or freestyle games is because these are the ONLY games you enjoy? then why did all of you used to play all types of games until you discovered the "secret" to getting and maintaining a high ranking? amazing how quickly one loses complete interest! here's an eyeroll to match the one you sent me- ha!

perhaps there should be different rankings for different kinds of games? why can't there be scoreboards for standard/assassin/doubles/freestyle/speed etc? wouldn't it be more fun to have different titles to shoot for? you could still have the overall title, but then we would know who the real cc champs are, not just the freestyle champs.

1. I don't enjoy sequential game - it relies a lot on the drop on small maps + with few amounts of players.
2. Flat Rate games revolve around luck in 1v1's and such - whoever gets an early mixed set has a huge advantage.
3. Most high ranks will play casual + speed, so that's not an issue.
4. Most high ranks DO play standard/doubles/triples/quadruples. I think terminator is self-explanatory why it's not played, and assassin is more "mission-style" gameplay than the strategic game risk is - you can't argue they should be well rounded in a "fun party style" gametype.
5. Most high ranks I see do play a variety of games. I personally will start a shitton of World 2.1 games at times, I've played those more than classic.
6. I see half the players say high ranks only noob bash lower ranks, the other half say they horde all the points to themselves, personally I find it amusing.

[aspalm]

i'm not trying to start arguments here, my original post was in reference to not worrying about whether players with a ton of points would crash the tournament points party. it can not be argued that those that currently reside at the top of the standings only play freestyle games or private games. i would be surprised if they would change their preferences all of a sudden.

i also think it is a worth considering having different standings or rankings for different styles of games. it would be hard to argue that a freestyle game is not a completely different kind of competition than any other on this site. regardless of why the high-ranking players choose this genre, it is again indisputable that they do.

as far as your assertion, scott-land, that you stopped playing public sequential games because you felt unfairly targeted, I can certainly see how this could happen. and, yeah, I can understand how this would get annoying. still, dipping a toe in the pool once in a while in a partners game or a non 1v1 speed game is worth considering, no?

I just don't like that there seems to be three different c.c's at play: there is the general pool of players that plays public games, there is that group of alliances that have their whole other underground competition going, and then there is the group of "elite" players that have isolated themselves to private and freestyle games.

I guess I'm not sure why it bothers me to be honest. I'm really not the type of person that usually cares about such trivialities. Perhaps, after roaming around this site for a year or so, I am tired of playing the same people over and over again? And should I really have to make a private request to play those people at the top, who, presumably, would offer the best competition? I'm not saying I'm too good for everyone else, but who wouldn't want a shot at the top of the heap?

In regards to your reference that I can't climb the boards, well, I guess that is always an easy assumption to make. Implying that I am in some way jealous? Trust me, most of us on this site could get to the top through one means or another, if this were truly our goal. Most of us still want to have some fun, however. All one has to do is look at winning pct, to see who will truly play anyone and doesn't care about rank. The 13th ranked player has only won 24% of his games! So perhaps ranking has more to do with selecting what games to play, rather than skill?

Regardless, this argument was never meant to be a personal attack, so I'm sorry if anyone took it that way.

Here's to more open competition. Here's to a better ranking/points system. I'm guessing I'm not alone.

[aspalm]

1. I don't enjoy sequential game - it relies a lot on the drop on small maps + with few amounts of players.
2. Flat Rate games revolve around luck in 1v1's and such - whoever gets an early mixed set has a huge advantage.
3. Most high ranks will play casual + speed, so that's not an issue.
4. Most high ranks DO play standard/doubles/triples/quadruples. I think terminator is self-explanatory why it's not played, and assassin is more "mission-style" gameplay than the strategic game risk is - you can't argue they should be well rounded in a "fun party style" gametype.
5. Most high ranks I see do play a variety of games. I personally will start a shitton of World 2.1 games at times, I've played those more than classic.
6. I see half the players say high ranks only noob bash lower ranks, the other half say they horde all the points to themselves, personally I find it amusing.

Hey fabled- thought I would respond to you as well. I agree with most of what you have said:
1) i'm not saying people should be require to play sequential games. however, to say someone is the best player on this site when they never play the style of game that originated this site seems....wrong. why can't there be other scoreboards?
2) luck is supposed to be part of the individual game! but over the course of time, luck should cancel out right?
3-5) I agree, most high-rankers play all sorts of games. there are definitely some that do not though. and definitely those who will not play public games.
6) you're right, it's amusing. and again i am asking myself why i care. i guess it's just fun to have something to shoot for though, even if it is a silly little ranking on a computer game. give me a goal- but make it a goal i don't have to stop playing all styles of game to achieve!

i assume the current system for accruing points was put in place so that people couldn't just stack up wins beating up on noobs? the problem, though, is that it is also deterring high-rankers from playing open competition. perhaps putting a limit on how much you could lose (max -25 or so), would take this fear away?

(btw- my apologies that this thread has veered off topic. i realize it is entirely my fault)