The way scoring is now it's virtually impossible to rise above
a certain level. I agree with the change but perhaps the rankings
should be adjusted. Another thing is "survival" points should be
awarded, for example if you are second in a 6 player game your
point deduction should be reduced.
erikiscool wrote:The way scoring is now it's virtually impossible to rise above a certain level. I agree with the change but perhaps the rankings should be adjusted. Another thing is "survival" points should be awarded, for example if you are second in a 6 player game your point deduction should be reduced.
Translation: I haven't been able to win enough games to rise above a certain level.
I disagree with the idea of "survival points". It would completely change the point of individual games. The objective would no longer be to win, but to avoid elimination early on. Once you get down to three players left, the two weakest players would have an incentive to kill each other off to avoid being the 3rd place player even if they knew it would result in them losing the game. This is a significant change to the way the game has been played for years and should be rejected.
It's similar to those players who know they are going to lose and throw their armies at the lower ranking player in the hopes that they won't lose as many points if he doesn't win. You should play to win at all times!
no.
the scoring is set for a reason.
show me HOW and WHY you cant get above a certain score, because up until now, i thought that all scores were possible.
And in real wars, lets say you survived for a while, only to get assasinated at the very end and the other guy takes over the world. You dont get bonus points, because that guy just killed you and you are DEAD! nothing matters except for last one standing.
Risktaker17 wrote:I would like a scoring change to (loser's score/Winners score)*10 +10.
sounds nice. but if you think about it; then would SkyT be fieldmarshal at this moment; and everyone would be playing trips or dubs against very weak players.
Risktaker17 wrote:I would like a scoring change to (loser's score/Winners score)*10 +10.
sounds nice. but if you think about it; then would SkyT be fieldmarshal at this moment; and everyone would be playing trips or dubs against very weak players.
or do i miss something??
yeah but I believe people who win games should win more than 5 points
Highest place: 40 1/17/08
Highest point total: 2773 1/17/08
Top Poster Position: 97th
Risktaker17 wrote:I would like a scoring change to (loser's score/Winners score)*10 +10.
sounds nice. but if you think about it; then would SkyT be fieldmarshal at this moment; and everyone would be playing trips or dubs against very weak players.
or do i miss something??
yeah but I believe people who win games should win more than 5 points
yup, i agree with that too. that is also a reason that higher ranked players almost never enter the single public games... with the risk of loosing 60
erikiscool wrote:translation = you are a jerk. Look, there are no generals, no field marshals and only 1 brigadier. Any dunce can see the ranking needs to be fixed.
have you noticed that the ones at the very top are still rising in points?
erikiscool wrote:translation = you are a jerk. Look, there are no generals, no field marshals and only 1 brigadier. Any dunce can see the ranking needs to be fixed.
have you noticed that the ones at the very top are still rising in points?
Two days ago JR was only a major now he is a colonol again.
erikiscool wrote:The way scoring is now it's virtually impossible to rise above a certain level. I agree with the change but perhaps the rankings should be adjusted. Another thing is "survival" points should be awarded, for example if you are second in a 6 player game your point deduction should be reduced.
a... NO
i can translate this for u
translation:
i suck at games and tired of going down from (insert highest score here) to (insert lowest score here (aka cook)) and i would like it if i lost less when i did good, even if im a (insert really high rank here) and i lose to a private
i used to play on a site where you got points for second place, and all it did was ruin games, because someone would always suicide so that they could get a guarunteed second place. it messes up the games.
erikiscool wrote:translation = you are a jerk. Look, there are no generals, no field marshals and only 1 brigadier. Any dunce can see the ranking needs to be fixed.
have you noticed that the ones at the very top are still rising in points?
Two days ago JR was only a major now he is a colonol again.
erikiscool wrote:The way scoring is now it's virtually impossible to rise above a certain level. I agree with the change but perhaps the rankings should be adjusted. Another thing is "survival" points should be awarded, for example if you are second in a 6 player game your point deduction should be reduced.
The highest rank was previously 3000, and for a long time no one had that rank. But the score at the top keeps increasing. The new ranks mean that it will be a good while before anyone gets the highest rank. There is no problem.
hwhrhett wrote:i used to play on a site where you got points for second place, and all it did was ruin games, because someone would always suicide so that they could get a guarunteed second place. it messes up the games.
