Conquer Club

I think anything that eliminates the cheaters of the game is a good thing. i not long ago played a game with 2 others and both I realized at the end of the game were in all of each others games as well eliminating all others but them selfs leaving them to battle for the points. I think if I would have known that I wouldnt have been in a 1vs 2 game I lost 35 points because of the loss. Yes this sounds like it could help, but is the loss and gain of rank only for final tourn of the week? That I guess could do well.

Lordhower wrote:I think anything that eliminates the cheaters of the game is a good thing. i not long ago played a game with 2 others and both I realized at the end of the game were in all of each others games as well eliminating all others but them selfs leaving them to battle for the points. I think if I would have known that I wouldnt have been in a 1vs 2 game I lost 35 points because of the loss. Yes this sounds like it could help, but is the loss and gain of rank only for final tourn of the week? That I guess could do well.

No, it just means that you will either receive a promotion, stay the same or get demoted at the end of every week. Only top 20% from the Generals bracket will compete in the weekly turny to play for a seat in the annal Final. Also, these weekly semi finals can run for as long as it takes to finish.

walnutwatson wrote:A) So what? What's so bad about that?
B) Why should you? This is not an argument it is a description of an option of playing and one which could exist alongside friendlies.

Note: This is a generalized argument that fits a majority, not an individualized cause and effect. If you read through it, it answers both simultaniously.

The only way the scoring system shows anything now is if that player plays all types of games and does not specialize. If a player specializes, it is taking his best scoring, and leaving out any of the areas he is bad in, therefore, inflating his/her overall score.

The person who chooses to do this gives up many of the positive aspects of the site: numerous maps, numerous settings, and the many different people that person does not play because he/she chooses to play on a map that they do not. In the end, that person is only taking advantage of a very small portion of the site just to raise his score.

If there were unrated games; however, the scoring system would lose whatever is left of the credibility already in it. The reason we do not have very many farmers and specialists right now is because to do something like that, you have to give up a lot of the site, and many of them have quit and will quit because they become bored or frustrated, both caused by specializing to increase his/her score.

The effects of this suggestion are rather clear in this aspect. Almost everyone would start specializing for rated games, because they are aware they could still play unrated games and have to give up nothing in order to inflate his/her score. Those people who are planning on using this suggestion to play with friends and not get their score lowered will have the fundamental part of their want for this suggestion taken away: their relative score to others.

People want this suggestion so that they can play both for fun, and competitively. But, if it is passed, there will be far more people that play competitively by specializing and farming. The increase of specializing and farming will dramatically increase the amount of points held by those who do so, and those who do not. Therefore, those players who were planning on keeping their rank, while adding a few more games for fun will then have to make a choice:
1. Play the way I always have competitively, while playing games for fun, and stay at my absolute high rank, while a lot of people rise above me.
2. Play only specialized games competitively, and play the rest for fun, thus keeping my relative high rank.

In the end, those people will either themselves degrade the system, or lose points.

walnutwatson wrote:C) I don't care about points and I want to play unranked games for that reason and also to avoid the types that take this game seriously. I don't want a rank, I just want to play a game for fun and no other reason. Why then is my opinion and enjoyment apparently worth less than those who want to play for ranks/points?

My simple answer to this is that you are a unique individual, and I doubt that many people see much of a difference when people are playing to win points, or just to play, but I have a more complex answer if you care to read.

When there is a scoring system, people try to win, even subconsciously. They are playing to win, even if they are playing for fun, because they want the points, even if they do not care about them. It is nature, and that is the way it has created every species: to compete.

In a hypothetical unranked game, there will be two types of people: the ones with integrity, and the quiters. The ones with integrity will play as usual, and will fight to win, but take no offense when they lose, since there is nothing to lose anyways. Although I think that if a person was going to do this an an unranked game, they would do this in the ones we have now.

Then there is the majority of people: the quiters. When you place them in an unranked game, that game will become very bad. At any moment if someone attacks them, they could easily choose to suicide. If they get tired of a game, they will quit and go to the next. If they don't like you, they will do anything to kill you with no thoughts for themselves.

Even if these people are the minority, their numbers will increase when they have nothing to lose in a game, and nothing to gain from it either. I think that even 1 person in 100 will make unranked games unpleasant.

porkenbeans wrote:

The Neon Peon wrote:

The Neon Peon wrote:

[resolved] There are no points to collect. Only a running tally of the players positive or negative games won for the week. [resolved] The top 20% from each rank level will receive a promotion in rank. And the bottom 20% from each rank level will receive a demotion in rank at the end of every week.

[resolved] Thirdly, if there is no points to collect, only # of games won. There go 8 man games... I assume you mean # of players beaten? [/resolved] Also... 1 week? I can not finish any games within several weeks depending on my preferred game type... and... wait a minute... this is tilted too much for who plays more games

Okay, we got the first part of that problem down, what about the second?

You do not have to finish every game in 1 week. Only games that are completed each week are calculated. And to the last point, It is not tilted at all. Just the opposite. It is a true representation of your %. It does not matter how many games you play. If you win 60% of your games, It does not matter if you play 10 or 100 games. the % is the same.

That is not what your suggestion states.

porkenbeans wrote:There are no points to collect. Only a running tally of the players positive or negative games won for the week. The top 20% from each rank level will receive a promotion in rank. And the bottom 20% from each rank level will receive a demotion in rank at the end of every week.

A running tally means every time you win a game: +1, every time you lose: -1. There is no percentage mentioned there at all. According to your suggestion, it is leaning toward the premium (those who play more games, either way).

Not only that way, but if you make it the percentage, you are leaning in the complete opposite direction. I am a freemium, and finish one game. I win that game. I have 100% win ratio for that week. Very unfair to those who finished 100 games and won 90 of them.

The Neon Peon wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:

The Neon Peon wrote:

The Neon Peon wrote:

[resolved] There are no points to collect. Only a running tally of the players positive or negative games won for the week. [resolved] The top 20% from each rank level will receive a promotion in rank. And the bottom 20% from each rank level will receive a demotion in rank at the end of every week.

[resolved] Thirdly, if there is no points to collect, only # of games won. There go 8 man games... I assume you mean # of players beaten? [/resolved] Also... 1 week? I can not finish any games within several weeks depending on my preferred game type... and... wait a minute... this is tilted too much for who plays more games

Okay, we got the first part of that problem down, what about the second?

You do not have to finish every game in 1 week. Only games that are completed each week are calculated. And to the last point, It is not tilted at all. Just the opposite. It is a true representation of your %. It does not matter how many games you play. If you win 60% of your games, It does not matter if you play 10 or 100 games. the % is the same.

That is not what your suggestion states.

porkenbeans wrote:There are no points to collect. Only a running tally of the players positive or negative games won for the week. The top 20% from each rank level will receive a promotion in rank. And the bottom 20% from each rank level will receive a demotion in rank at the end of every week.

A running tally means every time you win a game: +1, every time you lose: -1. There is no percentage mentioned there at all. According to your suggestion, it is leaning toward the premium (those who play more games, either way).

Not only that way, but if you make it the percentage, you are leaning in the complete opposite direction. I am a freemium, and finish one game. I win that game. I have 100% win ratio for that week. Very unfair to those who finished 100 games and won 90 of them.

You are right. I should not use the term %. Would the term "running tally" be better understood ? Basiclly what I am trying to say is, If say you completed 20 games for the week, and you won 14 of them. Your score for the week would be +4. What I was trying to say about % is that it does not matter if you play 10 or 100 games. your win ratio will still be represented. Playing more games will not raise your advantage over the rest of the field.

I don't understand your position. You say that the scoring system is unfit for purpose but then say that it has integrity and needs to be maintained.

The reason we do not have very many farmers and specialists right now

This is a joke right? This site is teeming with farmers, when searching for games sometimes I see people with upwards of 10 games all with the same settings, all waiting for some poor noob to stumble into the trap.

As for the rest of the points you make, some of them make sense (if you are looking from a certain point of view) and others don't. But, and I'm sorry to be rude, I've argued these points through before and the fact is that we are looking at this issue from two different standpoints and will never agree.

I do think you misunderstand people though if you really think I am unique in only playing games for fun and not points. In discussing this topic on various threads I have met or seen loads of people who feel the same. I don't see what is so surprising about that - it is after all a board game - and to take it seriously would just make me feel a bit ridiculous.

Of course I am playing to win but if I lose, like you point out, I can just start another game and I have in reality lost nothing. I think it is a bit silly to try and bring evolutionary biology into it -

It is nature, and that is the way it has created every species: to compete.

- there is a huge difference in competing in a board game and competing for survival and I as a human being am able to distinguish between the two.

Also, why do you assume that the 'quitters' do not suicide in ranked games? I've seen it happen as I'm sure you have. Whether a game is ranked or unranked people can see when the game is up and if they are predisposed to quitting (which in my opinion is entirely up to them) then they will regardless of points.

Playing 20 games and winning 14 = +4? What type of system are you using?

Let me see if I understand...

# of players defeated - ( # of players played / 2 )

So basically, how many more players you have killed then what you should have killed?

If a player wins 90 out of 100 games, then his score would be +80. This is a ratio of 9-1. and is exactly the same, as the guy that wins 9 out of 10 games. In either case he will be well deserving of a promotion that week. He will find himself playing better players the following week, so, he will naturally settle in somewhere on the leaderboard that reflects his true skill level.

porkenbeans wrote:If a player wins 90 out of 100 games, then his score would be +80. This is a ratio of 9-1. and is exactly the same, as the guy that wins 9 out of 10 games. In either case he will be well deserving of a promotion that week. He will find himself playing better players the following week, so, he will naturally settle in somewhere on the leaderboard that reflects his true skill level.

Don't you mean +90? Where are you getting the 80 from? Also, what equation is it specifically?

The Neon Peon wrote:Playing 20 games and winning 14 = +4? What type of system are you using?

Let me see if I understand...

# of players defeated - ( # of players played / 2 )

So basically, how many more players you have killed then what you should have killed?

Im sorry, thats +8.

The Neon Peon wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:If a player wins 90 out of 100 games, then his score would be +80. This is a ratio of 9-1. and is exactly the same, as the guy that wins 9 out of 10 games. In either case he will be well deserving of a promotion that week. He will find himself playing better players the following week, so, he will naturally settle in somewhere on the leaderboard that reflects his true skill level.

Don't you mean +90? Where are you getting the 80 from? Also, what equation is it specifically?

No, because you lost 10 games, so you subtract the losses from the wins to calculate the score. If a player played 20 games and won 9, then his score for the week would be -1

porkenbeans wrote:

The Neon Peon wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:If a player wins 90 out of 100 games, then his score would be +80. This is a ratio of 9-1. and is exactly the same, as the guy that wins 9 out of 10 games. In either case he will be well deserving of a promotion that week. He will find himself playing better players the following week, so, he will naturally settle in somewhere on the leaderboard that reflects his true skill level.

Don't you mean +90? Where are you getting the 80 from? Also, what equation is it specifically?

No, because you lost 10 games, so you subtract the losses from the wins to calculate the score.

If you subtract losses from wins, then 9 out of 10 = 8, not 80, so my original point holds.

The Neon Peon wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:

The Neon Peon wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:If a player wins 90 out of 100 games, then his score would be +80. This is a ratio of 9-1. and is exactly the same, as the guy that wins 9 out of 10 games. In either case he will be well deserving of a promotion that week. He will find himself playing better players the following week, so, he will naturally settle in somewhere on the leaderboard that reflects his true skill level.

Don't you mean +90? Where are you getting the 80 from? Also, what equation is it specifically?

No, because you lost 10 games, so you subtract the losses from the wins to calculate the score.

If you subtract losses from wins, then 9 out of 10 = 8, not 80, so my original point holds.

I guess what Im trying to say is The best possible score that can be achieved is a 10. This means that 10 out of 10 is the same ratio as 100 out of 100. It is a ratio of 10-0. you can not get any higher than that. So a 90-100 ratio is exactly the same as a 9-10. Both of these examples would be classified as a"9". If you won 91 out of 100, your # would be 9.1. In either case, you would most assuredly be getting a promotion. As you move up in rank and face stiffer competition, your ratio will drop. You will eventually find yourself in a place on the leaderboard that truly reflects your skill level.

Then the equation is: # of players defeated / # of players played x 10, this yields that 10 maximum, and makes it a percentage.

If this is true, then you kill yourself in the aspect of favoring the people who do not play CC too often. If I win 1 game, under this equation, my score would be 10.0, which is unfair to someone who has played 100 games and won 90 of them. If I really wanted to get up there, all I would have to do, is play one game, win, not finish any more games.

I don't think any of this matters. You're asking players to stop playing games they want to play, and opt for randomly created games, out of any possible settings they might enjoy. I like City Mogul if there are more than 4 people, and I like 2 player games, but 2 player City Mogul makes a terrible game. People like playing here because there are a variety of options and they get to choose what they play. They don't like being forced to play games.

Nevermind the fact that this is just a combination of two rejected ideas, it still doesn't make any sense on its own.

The Neon Peon wrote:Then the equation is: # of players defeated / # of players played x 10, this yields that 10 maximum, and makes it a percentage.

If this is true, then you kill yourself in the aspect of favoring the people who do not play CC too often. If I win 1 game, under this equation, my score would be 10.0, which is unfair to someone who has played 100 games and won 90 of them. If I really wanted to get up there, all I would have to do, is play one game, win, not finish any more games.

Yes you are right on this point. I have pondered this as well. I think that a minimum number of games be met to become eligable for promotion or demotion. That number can be debated. It must be made fair to the freemiums. and as for the casual gamers, They can stay the same rank if they do not play the min. And still, if they wish at any time to raise their rank, they will have that option.

porkenbeans wrote:

The Neon Peon wrote:Then the equation is: # of players defeated / # of players played x 10, this yields that 10 maximum, and makes it a percentage.

If this is true, then you kill yourself in the aspect of favoring the people who do not play CC too often. If I win 1 game, under this equation, my score would be 10.0, which is unfair to someone who has played 100 games and won 90 of them. If I really wanted to get up there, all I would have to do, is play one game, win, not finish any more games.

Yes you are right on this point. I have pondered this as well. I think that a minimum number of games be met to become eligable for promotion or demotion. That number can be debated. It must be made fair to the freemiums. and as for the casual gamers, They can stay the same rank if they do not play the min. And still, if they wish at any time to raise their rank, they will have that option.

Sorry, but this is something that will not happen since no number is fair. If a freemium likes 8 player sequential games, and plays 4 of them, then they will finish a game once every long while. Freemiums would either have to play 2-4 player games, to fit under the limit, or it would be so low that you can have a 10.0 with a couple of wins.

Lets go on to a different point until you can think of a number that will be able to encompass freemiums in 8 player games, yet be high enough for people to not be able to have a 10.0

The Neon Peon wrote:

The top 20% of the top bracket are entered into the weekly showdown turny. The winner of the showdown receives a seat in the annual Turny of Champions, which will crown the next years Conqueror.

A whole lot of problems right there.
1. What if I don't want to enter a tourney?
2. I don't know where you have been, but a week is nowhere near enough to play a tourney... more like several months, or many months, with the amount of people you want to participate.
3. What if they are freemium?
4. Winner is 1 out of a rank? You have to be kidding me... only that 1 person deserves a chance for conqueror, huh?
5. Okay, I slaughter everyone in the game, get to top 20%. I am so good that I win the tourney for that 20%. I get bad dice in the final tournament and someone who has barely been pulling along wins... stages do not work.
6. Conqueror for a year? That is 33% of CCs history...
7. What is a "Turney"?

BaldAdonis wrote:I don't think any of this matters. You're asking players to stop playing games they want to play, and opt for randomly created games, out of any possible settings they might enjoy. I like City Mogul if there are more than 4 people, and I like 2 player games, but 2 player City Mogul makes a terrible game. People like playing here because there are a variety of options and they get to choose what they play. They don't like being forced to play games.

Nevermind the fact that this is just a combination of two rejected ideas, it still doesn't make any sense on its own.

NO ONE is being forced to play anything. non-sanctioned games can be played, so you can play whatever and whoever you want. But if you are interested in raising your rank, you must do it by competing in sanctioned games. Where all this farming and cheating is eliminated. Us non-farmers and non- cheaters want this. We might not visit these forums as much, But there are a lot more of us than you at CC. We just dont have as loud of a voice as you. If CC were to get serious about this and send a poll to all the members, You would get trounced.

porkenbeans wrote:If CC were to get serious about this and send a poll to all the members, You would get trounced.

I doubt it. People want to play against their friends (on settings they like), and they want the games to count for something. Your suggestion will ruin the site for almost everyone. And then there will be no farmers, because no one will care to play anymore.

Anyways, I'm not interested in continuing this ridiculous conversation. Go and read any of the dozens of suggestions exactly the same as yours to see why they were rejected. You don't have a new idea.

The Neon Peon wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:

The Neon Peon wrote:Then the equation is: # of players defeated / # of players played x 10, this yields that 10 maximum, and makes it a percentage.

If this is true, then you kill yourself in the aspect of favoring the people who do not play CC too often. If I win 1 game, under this equation, my score would be 10.0, which is unfair to someone who has played 100 games and won 90 of them. If I really wanted to get up there, all I would have to do, is play one game, win, not finish any more games.

Yes you are right on this point. I have pondered this as well. I think that a minimum number of games be met to become eligable for promotion or demotion. That number can be debated. It must be made fair to the freemiums. and as for the casual gamers, They can stay the same rank if they do not play the min. And still, if they wish at any time to raise their rank, they will have that option.

Sorry, but this is something that will not happen since no number is fair. If a freemium likes 8 player sequential games, and plays 4 of them, then they will finish a game once every long while. Freemiums would either have to play 2-4 player games, to fit under the limit, or it would be so low that you can have a 10.0 with a couple of wins.

Lets go on to a different point until you can think of a number that will be able to encompass freemiums in 8 player games, yet be high enough for people to not be able to have a 10.0

The Neon Peon wrote:

The top 20% of the top bracket are entered into the weekly showdown turny. The winner of the showdown receives a seat in the annual Turny of Champions, which will crown the next years Conqueror.

A whole lot of problems right there.
1. What if I don't want to enter a tourney?
2. I don't know where you have been, but a week is nowhere near enough to play a tourney... more like several months, or many months, with the amount of people you want to participate.
3. What if they are freemium?
4. Winner is 1 out of a rank? You have to be kidding me... only that 1 person deserves a chance for conqueror, huh?
5. Okay, I slaughter everyone in the game, get to top 20%. I am so good that I win the tourney for that 20%. I get bad dice in the final tournament and someone who has barely been pulling along wins... stages do not work.
6. Conqueror for a year? That is 33% of CCs history...
7. What is a "Turney"?

The weekly could be changed to monthly. And a good min. would be prob. 8 or 10 games.

porkenbeans wrote:The weekly could be changed to monthly. And a good min. would be prob. 8 or 10 games.

Alright, lets say to games a month. I will agree that that is a fair number.

Bringing something back up...

The Neon Peon wrote:Then the equation is: # of players defeated / # of players played x 10, this yields that 10 maximum, and makes it a percentage.

We have decided that this is the equation we will use, but if so, then this is tilted towards farming, seeing as you can get very high win rates doing that.

BaldAdonis wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:If CC were to get serious about this and send a poll to all the members, You would get trounced.

I doubt it. People want to play against their friends (on settings they like), and they want the games to count for something. Your suggestion will ruin the site for almost everyone. And then there will be no farmers, because no one will care to play anymore.

Anyways, I'm not interested in continuing this ridiculous conversation. Go and read any of the dozens of suggestions exactly the same as yours to see why they were rejected. You don't have a new idea.

You can still play whatever game you want. So stop crying farmer. And as for it meaning something, well knucklehead, That is exactly what we are trying to accomplish. And as for rehashing old ideas, Maybe that should tell you something. Like maybe this problem has been around far to long. and others have come to the same, or similar conclusions and solutions. You sound like a spoiled brat whining because he may not be able to cheat anymore.

The Neon Peon wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:The weekly could be changed to monthly. And a good min. would be prob. 8 or 10 games.

Alright, lets say to games a month. I will agree that that is a fair number.

Bringing something back up...

The Neon Peon wrote:Then the equation is: # of players defeated / # of players played x 10, this yields that 10 maximum, and makes it a percentage.

We have decided that this is the equation we will use, but if so, then this is tilted towards farming, seeing as you can get very high win rates doing that.

Sorry, Im not following you.

BaldAdonis wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:If CC were to get serious about this and send a poll to all the members, You would get trounced.

I doubt it. People want to play against their friends (on settings they like), and they want the games to count for something. Your suggestion will ruin the site for almost everyone. And then there will be no farmers, because no one will care to play anymore.

Anyways, I'm not interested in continuing this ridiculous conversation. Go and read any of the dozens of suggestions exactly the same as yours to see why they were rejected. You don't have a new idea.

I see that you like to play a whole lot of turnys. This system will allow for sanctioned turnys. As autorized directors will be doing the matching, and keeping an eye on things. Or do the turnys you enter allow you to pick your opponents. Of course not. That would not be fair. would it. So why is it alright to do so now when it comes to the farming trade ? IT IS NOT FAIR.

If you get the same amount of gain from beating a colonel as you do a cook, how does this add integrity to the system if it increases farming?