[Official] Request for Feedback on Potential Scoring Changes

[Jota]

Fieryo makes a good point, and one which seems to favor option B. (Presumably, beating someone with a score of 1 would cause no points to change hands at all, regardless of your own score.)

[Marvaddin]

Between those options, lack, I believe that the minimum score is the better. But I really would like that matrix, since my bigger loss would be 40 points... It could make possible to someone get General status. (Im still convinced that its impossible with this ranking system. And you guys?)

[resitnecdan]

Would it be worth tweaking the matrix to smaller groups or is that a moot point and everyone just wants a cap on the lost points?

Smaller groups in the matrix would only bring it to the actual scoring system. Becasue that's what we curentlly have. A matrix with every category of 1 point.

Coming to what qeee1 said, I also have to agree with him because i can't see nothing wrong with the actual scoring system. Well, maybe except that caps of 100 points he was talking about.

[resitnecdan]

I think that the second option, with a minimum of 500 points is not a good one at all because:
with the actual ranking system no points are lost as a whole. I meanin every game the number of points lost is the same as the number of points won.
The only way of bringing points into CC is by new members signing up. So when someone that has reached 500 points loses a game the winner gains points and the loser doesn't lose points. So where do those points come from? I don't think it would be a very good idea to bring points into CC this way.

So I am still sticking with the actual scoring system with a maximum cap for a win/game.

About what Marvaddin said that it's imposibille for someone to become a general. That is not true, someone will do it, CC just needs more members, and that will happen in time.

[lackattack]

with the actual ranking system no points are lost as a whole. I meanin every game the number of points lost is the same as the number of points won.
The only way of bringing points into CC is by new members signing up. So when someone that has reached 500 points loses a game the winner gains points and the loser doesn't lose points. So where do those points come from?

Interesting point (no pun intended)

[Fieryo]

Perhaps, if someone reaches this Mendoza line of Conquer Club Incompetence we can come up with a new scarlet letter type ranking.

Some suggestions: Min., Reserve, Guard Duty, K.P., Discharged

For fun, perhaps Lack can track the player's further ineptitude with a not so subtle negative beside the ranking. For example:

stdb04 -- Discharged -- 500 (-364)

this seems a good idea. i think (again i am NO points expert) that this would solve the issue resitnecdan brought up about the points system since it is "enlcosed" for lack of a better term. also i like the idea of ranks below private to humilate those who just really really suck

[Marvaddin]

So where do those points come from? I don't think it would be a very good idea to bring points into CC this way.

Again, we can use deadbeats points to create a bank. These, and lost points in team games... its always happening: one double has one deadbeat, so the guy that played lose 15 points, each of the winning team gets 7... and the lost point? So, if one guy lose more points then he have, the bank could pay the rest. In fact, this makes the total points slowly decrease

Anyway, as the problem is in the bottom of the Scoreboard, not in the top, maybe those guys could lose points as their real situation, and simply gain as if they have 500 points. And, as they are really only a few people, is really a problem?

Hmm, maybe general status can be reached (by someone with less than 80% of team games, I mean) in a far future, but in fact until now no one beated 2400 points, so, how many players would be necessary? 50K? I dont want wait that much... I think the score change could also do it easier.

[zorba_ca]

Fieryo is right.

My suggestion tried to address the question of "Where do the points come from?" by essentially creating "Discharged" points.

This means that a player, once reaching 500, would be Discharged, and then every time he lost he would keep accumulating Discharged points, meaning his score would stay at the MINIMUM (i.e. 500), and he would also have a additional negative score that would have to be positive before he could advance above the MINIMUM.

I thought this was clear, but I guess not. So, for clarification by way of an example:

Prior to game:
stdb04 -- Discharged -- 500 (-364)
rsitnecdan -- Captain -- 1514

If stdb04 loses to resitnecdan:
resitnecdan gains 6 points
stdb04 loses 6 points

New Rankings:
stdb04 -- Discharged -- 500 (-370)
rsitnecdan -- Captain -- 1520

All points are accounted for. Please keep in mind that for the most part this whole discussion is theoretical because no one has gone below 500 except for stdb04, who has done so intentionally. This is just the simplest way to resolve the matter with the least amount of tweaking to the current scoring system and addresses all reasonable concerns.

[Fieryo]

i think this solves the issue right here and now, well done Zorba

[resitnecdan]

Yeah, I think that could be ok. However, what would happen if a player reaches 0 or negative. With the current scorings this can't practically happen, but with the one you propose that can very easilly happen. I think there should be a measure for those that reach 0, maybe even the deletion of their account or something.
Anyway, with the new method noone would be interested in losing intentionally so I don't think anyone will reach 0 but just in case we should have a measure for that.

[zorba_ca]

Yeah, I think that could be ok. However, what would happen if a player reaches 0 or negative. With the current scorings this can't practically happen, but with the one you propose that can very easilly happen.

No it cannot. With the system I propose a player CANNOT reach 0 or negative. The minimum score is 500.

The negative amount in parentheses next to the player's name is just an indication of how many points they accumulate before being readmitted to the CC army. If a player at the MINIMUM loses a game their score stays the same and the points lost just puts them further away from being reinstated.

All points are accounted for and no player goes below 500. That means winning against any DISCHARGED player is worth the same to the victor, regardless of how far away the player is from being reinstated. This minor issue should not be of any real concern.

[Fieryo]

lol, i wonder how many times you will have to explain this

Edit: Does this mean we can make stdb04's score 500 and essentially erase all his "work" to get his score so low? cuz i would enjoy that very much

[vtmarik]

No it cannot. With the system I propose a player CANNOT reach 0 or negative. The minimum score is 500.

The negative amount in parentheses next to the player's name is just an indication of how many points they accumulate before being readmitted to the CC army. If a player at the MINIMUM loses a game their score stays the same and the points lost just puts them further away from being reinstated.

All points are accounted for and no player goes below 500. That means winning against any DISCHARGED player is worth the same to the victor, regardless of how far away the player is from being reinstated. This minor issue should not be of any real concern.

Sounds a lot like XP Debt to me.

I like it!

[gladiugulare]

I like B (of the two of Lack's points) becuase you know there will always be the person who will complain because they would want their entire game history to be redone so they would get more points

[qeee1]

For those wondering what the two "new" proposed solutions are:

So instead of the matrices, it seems the leading solutions are:

A) minimum score of 500

B) maximum point transfer of 100

I wonder which would be better?

Both solve the problem, but create additional difficulties.

A problem with A (and the proposed add on of negative marking) would be that we are discriminating against players that fall beneath 500, by reducing the number of points they can gain. Surely somebody on 500 (-100) deserves a few extra points if they beat someone on 500 say.

A problem with B is that we discriminate in favour of very high ranked players, when they lose to very low ranked players.

Both situations mentioned will occur very rarely so they're not major problems, but should be considered.

Option B I think is perhaps more fair. It's not a huge injustice to only gain 100pts from a player, but it's a bigger one to be losing out on points "deserved" every game you play.

Also I think B is simpler and more elegant and requires less explaining.

So yeah, I'm in favour of B.

[SMITH197]

all in all, we need to make stdb like activites not worth the effort. That being said, I'm all for choice B.

[AndyDufresne]

100 point max per player I think is by far the easiest and fairest choice.

--Andy

[Twill]

OK, two more suggestions relating to choices a and b

a) what if we set the minimum calculation to 500. So even if you have a score of 100, you are calculated at 500. This way, we dont need to worry about the complication of having 2 numbers (the actual and a theoretical "zero" point which the 500 becomes). We can still impliment a "potato peeler" rank below 500 points, but they wouldnt be able to steal as many points from opponents. However, I would suggest, if this route is taken, that if a "potato peeler" loses a game, their loss is caluclated on their actual score, not the 500 base level so that they dont lose MORE points than they should, thus propelling them further into the abyss of potatodom.

I.e. if you have 100 points and are playing against a person with 2000 points:

win: 2000/500*20=80
lose: 100/2000*20=10

Again, I would just like to point out that this is just essentially resetting the zero mark, to which people can still run.

b) a matrix or logarithmic scale which adjust the maximum transfer cap. As was noted, to someone with 4000 points, 100 points is much less than someone with 1000 (although someone with 1000 points isnt going to be losing 100 points now are they )

You could set up a system, where the loss cap for 1000 points if 75 points, 2000 is 100, 4000 is 150 etc.
This is different from the 5% cap in that the cap increase does not need to be proportional to the point increase (50/1000 = 7.5%, 100/2000 = 5%, 150/4000 = 3.75%). This would of course need to be balanced against practicle loss possibilities, but could be done relatively easily.

anyhoo, just some thoughts

Twill

[Fieryo]

i personally am not a fan of having to use a chart to figure out how many points i would get. I liked zorba's initial idea but since i seem to be in the minority i agree with Twills choice A, i dont think its too complicated and it wont confuse the new people because it will take them so long to get to 500 points that they would have had ample time to understand the system.

[Jota]

However, I would suggest, if this route is taken, that if a "potato peeler" loses a game, their loss is caluclated on their actual score, not the 500 base level so that they dont lose MORE points than they should, thus propelling them further into the abyss of potatodom.

Then if they get down below 0, won't they suddenly be able to "lose" negative points? I'd hate to be the guy who wins against them.

[zorba_ca]

i personally am not a fan of having to use a chart to figure out how many points i would get. I liked zorba's initial idea but since i seem to be in the minority ...

I don't think you're in the minority. The only recent post which seems to favour the "max point" scheme is AndyDufresne. Other than that, the majority seem to favour our preferred solution.

Twill's idea:

However, I would suggest, if this route is taken, that if a "potato peeler" loses a game, their loss is caluclated on their actual score, not the 500 base level so that they dont lose MORE points than they should, thus propelling them further into the abyss of potatodom.

is completely contradictory to his concern of "the complication of having 2 numbers". At least my way is innovative (because it institutes a new ranking of "Discharged") and simple (the "Discharged" points are clear for everyone to see) and fun (because you get to see how close a player is to being "reinstated").

Once again, keep in mind that this applies mostly in theory since only stdb04 is the ONLY person below 500 points. By choosing the alter the formula the way I laid it out absolutely nothing will change for any other CC user.

Implementing a "Matrix solution" will be as popular as New Coke.

[lackattack]

Keeping things simple is key. I think percentage caps are too complicated, and so is a second set of discharged points.

If we go with (A) we'd see a bunch of people with 500. We won't know if they really should have 499 or 223 or 6 points but so what? They all suck monkey balls!

[zorba_ca]

So just keep it as a straight 500 minimum. Forget everything else.

If this were implemented since CC started the grand total of players this would affect is ONE.

And even then, only because that player is losing on purpose.

Make it happen, end of discussion and no one (with one obvious exception) will care.

[AndyDufresne]

Lack's simple suggestion sounds about right.


--Andy

[Darklord001]

No one else wants to see SBwhatever get 20,000 points before we fix it?

give the guy credit for creativity at least?