Points for Doubles/Triples vs. Standard

[fraggle]

I'm a little loathe to bring this up, since I have a feeling it will either be taken as an attack on top players like alstergren or cmeb4udie, or it will be the catalyst for attacks on them. So, let me be perfectly clear. I do not know either of them, and judging by their feedback, they seem to be good people who attained their rank through skillfull playing.

The point I want to make/question to throw out is this: it appears that playing Doubles/Triples with other skilled partners is a relatively easy way to gain points. Looking at a random sampling of the top 20-30 players, it appears that most of them play almost exclusively team games.

I'd like to know if people feel something should be done (and if so, what) to differentiate games won of each type. Personally, I don't see what COULD be done. I definitely feel playing almost all team games is taking an easy way to the top. But, maybe its an insignificant enough difference to be written off as each player setting their own level of challenge (by picking what type of game, waht opponents to play, maps, etc.)?

Love to hear what the rest of you think...

[qeee1]

I agree, it's clear that playing team games is makes it easier to get to the top, but again I don't see what can be done.

You could reduce the amount won in team games to x10 instead of x20, but that would only slow the rise, instead of addressing the problem.

You could create two seperate scoreboards, but that's a lot of work and very difficult to implement retrospectively.

Team games are the biggest challenge to the integrity of the scoreboard since sdtb...

[Scarus]

I'm no math whizz but it seems like an average team player could expect to win 50% of his games whereas I don't think there's any singles players who have anywhere near that %. The system is definitely skewed in favor of the team games. That's not even talking about the fact that in a team game usually one player per team is calling the shots. Conceivably, someone could be ranked in the top ten and know nothing except how to do what he/she is told.

This issue has come up in the past in regards to the RiskII ladders. The only practical solution that I've seen has been a separate ranking system for team games.

[philbert]

I enjoy playing team games, and I've gained a fair number of points through these games, but I totally agree that team games are an easy way to climb the scoreboard. Those who play almost exclusively team games are very skilled in their strategies but it is a cheap way to earn points, especially with a majority of opponents being noobs and quite often players who don't even know that they're playing on a team. Easy pickings I say. In my opinion, the rank of those who gain their points through mostly team games is hollow. They don't dare venture out on to what most of us would call the real battlefield. Of course, that just means that they're wise enough to play in their little sandbox waiting for the next unsuspecting kid to jump in so they can pick on him too. Perhaps it would be possible to award the top ranks only to players who have played a certain percentage of standard games compared to their team games. Maybe this should be a poll question.

[drshare]

doubles, and especially triples games, are easier to win than standard games. I think everyone knows that by now because you face less opponents. But unlike standard games you can only receive a low # of points for winning. Therefore it takes a lot of winnings in doubles or triples to make it to the top. And also it is just as hard for you to win as the other team, duh, so you will be playing 100's of more games than standard.

If I ever see somebody in the top 25 on scoreboard, who only plays standard 6 people games, that person would be in my opinon the most respected and clearly the best player in conquerclub.

[AngryAnderson]

Who cares?

If your only here to try to get to the top of the leaderboard then you are missing the whole point and are probably a bit of a saddo (and I've had a few of those in games I've played).

Surely the idea is to play challenging and entertaining games, winning some and losing others?

By playing anyone and in any game, you'll find players you wish to challenge again, and most certainly eejits you will wish to add to your ignore list.

[Ronaldinho]

i play mostly team games, the reason for this is im far better with some1 using the tatics ect than on my own. We shouldent have to chabge the score boards or anything just leave it be and if you find its easier to get to the top in team games DO it, common sense really.

Ronaldinho.

[sully800]

doubles, and especially triples games, are easier to win than standard games. I think everyone knows that by now because you face less opponents. But unlike standard games you can only receive a low # of points for winning. Therefore it takes a lot of winnings in doubles or triples to make it to the top. And also it is just as hard for you to win as the other team, duh, so you will be playing 100's of more games than standard.

If I ever see somebody in the top 25 on scoreboard, who only plays standard 6 people games, that person would be in my opinon the most respected and clearly the best player in conquerclub.

Check out dminus. He has been in the top 10 numerous times though he is currently #14. He plays all standard, freestyle, 6 player classic escalating games. And has done so since about his 15th game on the site.

[qeee1]

Who cares?

I care, I like to see what sort of level my opponents are at. I like to see who are the best players and if I can beat them.

i play mostly team games, the reason for this is im far better with some1 using the tatics ect than on my own. We shouldent have to chabge the score boards or anything just leave it be and if you find its easier to get to the top in team games DO it, common sense really.

Ronaldinho.

See now that's caring too much about the scoreboard. I'm going to play the games I find the most fun. I play about 85% singles, and that'd probably be closer to 95% if not for the World Cup.

The scoreboard does matter, people do care about it, and the majority seem to think that something is wrong. Plus it's not only beneficial to those of us who don't play team games, but also to those who do, because there will be less challanges upon their integrity as players...

[AK_iceman]

I think you guys are missing a huge side of this. I play almost exclusively team games, doubles or triples. Not because I want the points, but because I have met some great people on this site and love the communication aspect to team games.
I think the scoreboard is actually pretty fair for team games and standard games. In my experience when you win a standard game you win more points than you would lose if you lost. Example, you are playing to win 60 some points, but if you lose you only lose 20 or so.
In team games tho, i have to win about 7 games to equal the points i lose in 1 game. It is hard to continually gain points in either game type. I have respect for people who make it to the top of the board regardless of their game preferences.

[Joe McCarthy]

Im fine with the gheysters that only want to play team games, i just dont understand why they are awarded points like real Risk players. Oh well.

[Marvaddin]

In my experience when you win a standard game you win more points than you would lose if you lost. Example, you are playing to win 60 some points, but if you lose you only lose 20 or so.

Are you sure?
I defeat 2 captains, one lieutenant and one sergeant: I gain 49 points
http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=38963

I lose to a lieutenant (not a private...): I lose 43 points
http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=42097

And you need win 7 games to get the points for one defeat? Can you prove this?

So, you dont believe in the power of the team games? Calculate your score without them. Make a curriculum, with the games in the sequence they finished. Calculate your score after each one. Take all your finished standard games, and substitute the score you had for the score without teams.

Example: you had first gained 3 team games before end your first standard. So, if you lost, you would lose less points, so divide 1000 (your score without teams) for 1060 (for example, the score you had), so you will get 0.94. Multiply this for the points you lost, you will have the new lost and your score without the team games.

If you won the standard, you would win more points, so divide 1060 for 1000, you will get 1.06. You can multiply this for the points you won, so you will have the score without teams.

Some time ago, as I have a good register of my games, I did this. I had 2100 points or sort of. I calculated my score without team games, and it was a bit more than 1700. Conclusion: TEAM GAMES = EASY POINTS. If you disagree, prove.

For the topic discussion, I also like the idea of have a different socreboard to each type of game. Im sure there are some guys using team games to be among the best in the scoreboard.

[drshare]

this dude wrote

Check out dminus. He has been in the top 10 numerous times though he is currently #14. He plays all standard, freestyle, 6 player classic escalating games. And has done so since about his 15th game on the site.

so in conclusion, dont care what any of you say....
if this dude aint lying than Dminus is the best player in conquerclub.



or at least until i get up there, j/k im horrible

[Marvaddin]

Only to give a best example, I calculated my actual score without team games, it would be 2001. Almost 400 points of difference, and I play 45% of standard games. If 55% of team games can increase my score in almost 400, can you imagine with 90% of team games?

[fraggle]

Who cares?

If your only here to try to get to the top of the leaderboard then you are missing the whole point and are probably a bit of a saddo (and I've had a few of those in games I've played).

Surely the idea is to play challenging and entertaining games, winning some and losing others?

By playing anyone and in any game, you'll find players you wish to challenge again, and most certainly eejits you will wish to add to your ignore list.

I know I'm the one that started this whole hooha, but I've got to say, I really like your approach to the whole thing. The point really is to have fun, not necessarily to have the most points. You are quite right!

[AK_iceman]

In my experience when you win a standard game you win more points than you would lose if you lost. Example, you are playing to win 60 some points, but if you lose you only lose 20 or so.

Are you sure?
I defeat 2 captains, one lieutenant and one sergeant: I gain 49 points
http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=38963

I lose to a lieutenant (not a private...): I lose 43 points
http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=42097

And you need win 7 games to get the points for one defeat? Can you prove this?

So, you dont believe in the power of the team games? Calculate your score without them. Make a curriculum, with the games in the sequence they finished. Calculate your score after each one. Take all your finished standard games, and substitute the score you had for the score without teams.

Example: you had first gained 3 team games before end your first standard. So, if you lost, you would lose less points, so divide 1000 (your score without teams) for 1060 (for example, the score you had), so you will get 0.94. Multiply this for the points you lost, you will have the new lost and your score without the team games.

If you won the standard, you would win more points, so divide 1060 for 1000, you will get 1.06. You can multiply this for the points you won, so you will have the score without teams.

Some time ago, as I have a good register of my games, I did this. I had 2100 points or sort of. I calculated my score without team games, and it was a bit more than 1700. Conclusion: TEAM GAMES = EASY POINTS. If you disagree, prove.

For the topic discussion, I also like the idea of have a different socreboard to each type of game. Im sure there are some guys using team games to be among the best in the scoreboard.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

[zip_disk]

In my experience when you win a standard game you win more points than you would lose if you lost. Example, you are playing to win 60 some points, but if you lose you only lose 20 or so.

I think he's referring to something which I also talked about in an old post. Problem is he's not taking into account the likeliness of winning into his equation.

The more opponents you have, the greater your winnings when you win because your chances of winning go down.

Example: Assume all players are of equal rank [and have an equal chance of winning]. When there's only 3 factions there's a 33% chance to win but a 200% return for winning. For 6 faction games = 16.7% chance to win but 500% return. However, the amount lost is the same in all games no matter how many enemies you have [all losing players lose 20 points since they were equal]. If your example wins were both triples than you had a 50% chance of winning and got a return of 100%

Are you sure?
I defeat 2 captains, one lieutenant and one sergeant: I gain 49 points
http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=38963

I lose to a lieutenant (not a private...): I lose 43 points
http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=42097

Oops, ignore the quoted text below. You're talking about something else. Move on to the text below it.

These two examples are not appropriately matched for comparisons. A high ranking player beating a lower ranked player would not give similar results to a low ranking player beating a high one.

If you wanted to be accurate you should show the results of a player ranked higher than you winning. Then it would show more accurately in percentage return. In that case you would lose about ~12 points if the higher ranked player's score was equivalently higher as you were to the low ranked ones.

Ok, I just saw that I misunderstood what you meant. I think what AK_iceman is actually referring to is his percentage return on his team games. If he's talking about triple team games he's only getting 1/3 of winning pot which would equal to 100% return (3 people giving points to 3 people). Your examples are standard games which have returns of 400% (4 people giving points to 1 person). So to be correct he would only get 1/4 of the winning pot of 49 points (12 points) in your first example. Perhaps he was exagerating in his example but he really does need to win more often to stay even in score (4:1 in your example).

[zip_disk]

That being said, I too believe it is easier on average to earn points from team games than standard ones if you have a good team.

A strong cohesive team that plays together often has a much higher chance of winning than the disorganized, never played together before, assorted ranked group of players that usually ends up playing against them even if the combined team ranks were equivalent. That means the other team is frequently inferior to the organized team in team play if not individual play. Frequently, but not always of course.

The return is not as great as in standard games with 6 players but the chance of winning team games with good partners againt random opponents is higher than the standard equivalent (2 or 3 player games) since teamplay is an important factor.

[helix]

There should be 2 separate rankings. One for solo and another for teams. Makes no sense to mix. Example: Warcraft 3.

[Pilate]

In fairness, I don't play with regular teammates. I just make games and whoever joins, joins

[RoddyVR]

i agree that a good team (a lot of that "good" can be coordination of play time rather then actual skill... though ofcourse skill matters too) can earn easy points in team games...

but as far as i'm concerned that's a good thing.

1. they have to play a LOT of games.
2. most often they have prefered settings (ie unlimited fort, no cards, clasic map or some combination)
3. they dont want to have their team broken up by a random joining.

so MOST of the time, these teams create the games they play.

and most of the time, they create a bunch of games at once, and wait for opponents to join... when their game stock runs low, they make another batch.

all this makes it very easy to spot them in the "join game" list.
and so i try to only join against these organized point mongers when i know who my partner will be... so that i know i have an even chance against them (joining against them with a random partner is dangerous if you and your partner's playing times dont match).

but i have joined a few team games without knowing who my partner(s) will be... its fun to meet new players this way. and as long as the team that started the game isnt a captain and a leutenant who have 10 other similar games started, i believe i have just as good a chance of having the "more organized" team as they do.

[TuckerCase]

Only to give a best example, I calculated my actual score without team games, it would be 2001. Almost 400 points of difference, and I play 45% of standard games. If 55% of team games can increase my score in almost 400, can you imagine with 90% of team games?

Isn't your logic flawed there, because didn't you gain 1000 points by single player games? So you played about as many team games as single player games, and won more in single player games, right? I do agree with you that team games are a surer way to the top, though.

[Marvaddin]

There is no problem with my logic. My score without standard games would be even higher, more than my actual score. When you put both scores together, they balance each other. But in my case is clear that team games are pulling my score up, while standard games are pulling down.

[TuckerCase]

I know your score would be 400 points lower without those team games, but are you also factoring in how many more points you would have won if you had played single player games in the place of all those team games instead of just completely factoring them out? You earned 2000 points with just your single player games, so if you had played more single player games and won the same percentage would your score have risen to cover those 400 points?

[Marvaddin]

I understand what are you suggesting... I wouldnt bet in this, guy. Can you imagine how much are 400 points when you already have 2000? And to gain all these in standard? I believe its almost impossible (to me, at least, as Im not that skilled). In fact, it would be possible if I could achieve something better than my actual winning rate (42% in standard, almost all with 5 or 6 players), but, well, I believe it could be a bit better, but not sufficient.