Conquer Club

danes wrote:I think a rating system sort of like the Chess ELO system would work best.

I also think that there should be a smaller cap and average rating change from winning or losing. As it is now, losing to an equally ranked player costs you 20 and to a lower ranked player can cost up to 100 or so. I think 10/20 cap would be better.

I don't like ANY cap, to be honest...the idiot farmers are bad enough now without that (and I include the low-rank "farmers who aren't farming". However, I also do favor strongly the Chess ELO system, if we were to change the current format.

Woodruff wrote:

danes wrote:I think a rating system sort of like the Chess ELO system would work best.

I also think that there should be a smaller cap and average rating change from winning or losing. As it is now, losing to an equally ranked player costs you 20 and to a lower ranked player can cost up to 100 or so. I think 10/20 cap would be better.

I don't like ANY cap, to be honest...the idiot farmers are bad enough now without that (and I include the low-rank "farmers who aren't farming". However, I also do favor strongly the Chess ELO system, if we were to change the current format.

The current format needs to be changed. I don't really mind which of the suggestions goes through. They all have merit.

Essentially, think about the current point system here at Conquer Club and what would happen if Pro Tennis or Pro Golf or Pro Volleyball would adopt the current CC Point System. You would see a #1 player like Nadal in Tennis lose a round 1 match against a young Tennis player and suddenly Nadal's points have been shaved to knock him down to 10th in the world, disaffecting the seeding in the next tournament. Same would happen in Golf (if they actually played head-to-head) in a tournament where 389th seed wins. That 389th seed would suddenly garner 100,000 points from one event. In Pro Volleyball, like Tennis, the team winning a match-up against a lower seed (fewer points) would only gain a few points after a hard fought victory, but a team with a really low seed (crazy low points) beating a #1 team (crazy high points) suddenly vaults that team higher in the seeding and points ranks simply because of one victory.

Current CC point ranking system needs to change.

Games like this are frustrating.

Game 6978306

I had a sizable lead, then green and teal decide to work together, green full out attacks me while the private kicks back then comes in for the easy win. I lose 58 points. He gains 274 points.

Yes he played a good game, but should one game have that big of an effect on a player's rank?

I personally think that in a multi player game, less points should be at risk, due to an individual having less chance of winning, this would significantly reduce the point fluctuations that people who play in multi player games experience. You might have to tamper with the formula, but something like
(current point transfer)/(# players in game-1). You could add another factor, since this is probably too much of a correction, but if you look objectively at things, something like winning a single battle royal game does not make you the BEST player on conquer club. Winning a single 8 player game should not make you rise 2 or 3 ranks, regardless of how you played. Losing a game that you had a 1/8 chance of winning should not change your score as much as losing a game you had a 1/2 chance of winning.

There is defiantly something wrong with the current system. If I am hopelessly losing, the best current strategy from a rating pov is to bend over to the highest ranked player left in the game, and try to mess up the lower ranked players to minimize point loss. In a a terminator game, its sometimes not even worth killing the cook who has been attacking out. Something is very broken.

I don't care enough about my score to stick exclusively to my "best" map/settings (1v1 Hive lol), but i do not believe that the fluctuations i experience are a result of luck or changes in skill as much as a flawed rating system that disproportionately rewards outlier performances.