Suggestion: Reformation of the point/score system

[alster]

Ok, people I wish to pitch an idea to reform the point system here.

The background is this:
1. There is a point inflation going on. Basically, the people who sign up, loose a few games and then leave the site leaves points floating around. As time goes by, this causes a score inflation among the existing, regular players. (Just look at how the number of colonels and generals are gradually increasing).

2. This inflation not only serves to raise the active players scores, it also breaths an unhealthy notion and feeling of entitlement among the active players. People grow soft as they are getting used to hovering on a score well above 1.000.


Therefore I suggest the following approach:
- After each game, the losers will lose points as the system works today. However, the winner/winners may not necessarily get these points. Randomly, the system awards all or parts of the points possibly won. Perhaps a ration of 1 to 10 is appropriate (in ten wins, you only get the winning points once).
- Also, at the end of each month, the system randomly deducts points from all players (perhaps between 10 and 100 points each months).

This will not only help to stem the tide against the point inflation, it will also be good for the general moral. As it is now, people don’t appreciate the points they get when winning a game because they expect them. People are soft. With my proposed system, each time a player is awarded points, the psychic benefits will be great since the points will feel so much sweeter. They will be pleasantly surprised and get into the jubilant spirit as is appropriate and they will be grateful each time it happens.

But that’s just my two cents.

[max is gr8]

No my point donating is already high enough
You must instead find a way to keep the com[etition fair the for the people lower dow I would have hit minuses ages ago if this was in ran


Max

[McLouf]

I think there should be a certain amount of General, colonel, major and so on.. spots available. Like, only 10 Generals, 15 Colonels..etc. (of course the numbers would be made accordingly. Also if you become inactive over a period of time you slowly lose points. (this could prevent players from sitting on their points to retain General for longer periods of time, not sure why they would but whatever). Of course this idea would be modified to make more sense and is a just a general thought I think it would be beneficial...

[Genghis Khan CA]

I don't think this suggestion will appeal to many people - why should you only get points once in every 10 wins? This is ridiculous and would provide almost no incentive to win a game. In fact it would provide almost no incentive to play a game (aside from the enjoyment of it) since you would need to win almost every single game just to break even.

The point system has flaws for sure, but your suggestion makes it rely entirely upon chance - it is much much worse than the system we already have. I suspect it would drive players away from the site - winning a game and getting nothing from it or having hard-earned points randomly deducted would not be popular at all IMHO.

Under your proposal I would be surprised if the top rank was any higher than Sargeant.

[Nikolai]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Good one, alstergren!

[Blitzaholic]

Ok, people I wish to pitch an idea to reform the point system here.


Therefore I suggest the following approach:

After each game, the losers will lose points as the system works today. However, the winner/winners may not necessarily get these points. Randomly, the system awards all or parts of the points possibly won. Perhaps a ration of 1 to 10 is appropriate (in ten wins, you only get the winning points once).
Also, at the end of each month, the system randomly deducts points from all players (perhaps between 10 and 100 points each months).


But that’s just my two cents.

and my 2 cents is NO.

the reason being is simple, there may be some inflation in points, evidenced by 8 Generals now, however, there had been 22 Generals, and we currently only have 8. It is one thing to get to General status, but it is 20x more difficult to maintain, same as this, it is easy to own a continent in risk or a bonus, 20x harder to maintain it over a long period of time.

other proof is this:

I lost over 800 points in last few weeks
alstergren, you were over 3000, and have lost over 700 points
belzbub has lost over 900 points
nuke over 850 point loss
eye84 has lost around 1,000 points, was at 3400 down to 2400
and rlorange lost over 1100 points
etc., etc. etc.

it doesnt matter if others in the past got an average score or 1500 and now it is 1800, staying there is just as difficult as always, and if it was this over inflated, wouldn't we be all gaining 700 to 1,000 point increases, instead of losing them??? The inflation you speak of helps the ranks of 1200 to 2200 ranks, but when you get over 2500, it really bites, and when you get over 3K, well it Extremely Challenging to the hilts to maintain.

All over 3K know how hard this is to do.

I think we all see the point.

[SirSebstar]

Altergen, I dont get it. After reading your post i get the feeling you want to install some premanent drain on points?!
You talk about point inflation, but i have seen some multies being caught, they steal points and those points never get back into the system. I think thats deflation enough.

I really don´t know why you are talking about people getting soft. You find easy marks high up the pointscale? feel free to take em down. As blitz said, the top has lost quite a few points lately... Maybe you should just try a couple of 100 times 6 player no team escalating. Lets see what that does to your points...

[alster]

The heart of the matter is really this – getting points for every win makes people feel entitled to the points. They take if for granted and don’t appreciate them as much as they should. For example, if you always have toilet paper in the bathroom at your workplace, you start taking it for granted. You don’t appreciate the fact that your employer provides you with it. Instead, if your employer instead randomly dispersed toilet paper now and then, you would appreciate so much more when you saw it entering the bathroom. Same thing here with the points. If the game engine wouldn’t automatically hand out points whenever you win a game, you would be so much more happier and grateful every time it happens.

I stand by my suggestion.

[RobinJ]

I think there should be a certain amount of General, colonel, major and so on.. spots available. Like, only 10 Generals, 15 Colonels..etc. (of course the numbers would be made accordingly. Also if you become inactive over a period of time you slowly lose points. (this could prevent players from sitting on their points to retain General for longer periods of time, not sure why they would but whatever). Of course this idea would be modified to make more sense and is a just a general thought I think it would be beneficial...

I have been considering this myself although it might be nicer to have to acheive a particular points mark. I disagree with your numbers though - 10 generals possibly but we need more than 15 colonels.

As to the idea in the first post - definitely no!

[DavSav]

If anything should be done it should be that you can not play newbies if you have 3k points. If you have 3k points you should at least play some more experienced players. Lets say 1600 is a cutoff for 3k players. Only really free points is taken from newbies.

But I as said earlier on, if anyone only play for points and not for challenge let them get their free points. Lot of high ranking players fall short when playing good players. Teamgames are hard to win when playing decent players

[Gnome de Guerre]

How about you get +1 bonus point to your score for posting to a forum on the site, but are limited to getting +1 bonus point per forum per day?

[poo-maker]

the points system is fine, i think there should be more rankings though.

[panicker]

If anything should be done it should be that you can not play newbies if you have 3k points. If you have 3k points you should at least play some more experienced players. Lets say 1600 is a cutoff for 3k players. Only really free points is taken from newbies.

But I as said earlier on, if anyone only play for points and not for challenge let them get their free points. Lot of high ranking players fall short when playing good players. Teamgames are hard to win when playing decent players

I've played other games before where there is a 1000 point cutoff. so for example if your 3100 you only gain points for players you beat over 2100. ie no points won from newbies and no huge losses if you lose. not perfect i agree but surely a little fairer , at least this way its stops quite a bit of deadbeat points leaking into the scoreboard .

[joeyjordison]

good point about inflation but i don't think that the randomness is the correct way to solve it. perhaps you only gain 95% of the score or something? maybe there is a 1 off lose 50 points for everyone or maybe more fairly lose 3% of your score? this would reduce the effects of the inflation a bit. i think basically a new rank system needs to be introduced as well although this has already been discussed

[joeyjordison]

I've played other games before where there is a 1000 point cutoff. so for example if your 3100 you only gain points for players you beat over 2100. ie no points won from newbies and no huge losses if you lose. not perfect i agree but surely a little fairer , at least this way its stops quite a bit of deadbeat points leaking into the scoreboard .

interesting although it couldn't be a set amount or it would have a strange effect. i think it should maybe be done as a percentage of score or something? and only apply for higher ranks eg the person at the bottom (on something like 60 points) would not end up getting stuck. if this new system were introduced it would be possible for the bottom ranks to get stuck playing each other in a never ending circle of dispare

[spiesr]

Is this a joke?

[boberz]

my imediae thought is that people would have nothing to play for if they thought that they were not going to get points untill a few games away this is officiall the worst idea i have seen on this sight

[bleu_falcon]

that's even more ridiculous than the current system.

[GreecePwns]

I think there should be a certain amount of General, colonel, major and so on.. spots available. Like, only 10 Generals, 15 Colonels..etc. (of course the numbers would be made accordingly. Also if you become inactive over a period of time you slowly lose points. (this could prevent players from sitting on their points to retain General for longer periods of time, not sure why they would but whatever). Of course this idea would be modified to make more sense and is a just a general thought I think it would be beneficial...

I have been considering this myself although it might be nicer to have to acheive a particular points mark. I disagree with your numbers though - 10 generals possibly but we need more than 15 colonels.

As to the idea in the first post - definitely no!

I also like the idea about 10 generals (maybe 25), but with 50 (or 100) colonels. More rankings before those would also be good.

I also agree with the inflation. I think that Generals should not be able to play against New Recruits or Privates (unless in a tournament) to prevent giving away points. Or lets them play against the New Recruits and Privates, but only give the lower ranked players half the points (again, unless in a tournament).

I hate the idea in the first post, though.