"Map Mastery" Adjust Points awarded based on Map play ratio

[Fazeem]

Adjust the points awarded to a player based on the amount of times they have played a map. The more someone masters a map the less points they are awarded for winning on said map. THis will promote players diversifying there game selections and discourage farming on maps.
[list]

This will benfit the site by further discouraging farming, It reward players for challenging themselves and playing new maps. It will encourage people to try new maps without fear of being walloped by someone farming based off of there focus on that single map and knowing every point of of vantage that a noob would not know. It will not stop people from playing there favorite maps rather not give them as high a points against a opponent that has little experience playing a map they have a lot of experience on.

A system should be put in place where as a player gains experience on certain maps they attain a level of Mastery and as there Mastery rises points awarded for wins on siad map drop. THis would also have to factor in relation to both the opponent rank and level of Mastery on the map. That said people with Equal mastery's on a map would have no change in points awarded other then the factors already inplace based on rank. This also provides the opportunity for a whole new series of medals to be awarded based on mastery.

[koontz1973]

Three things:

• Would not make me diversify at all. I like the maps I play and play them for fun and not for points, so it would not make a difference to me and I suspect to most people.
• Would not stop farming. Instead of farming on one map only, they would farm on five maps or ten maps. Thus making it harder to accuse people and prove they are farming.
• How the hell would this be calculated? It really seems complicated and far too much work.

[Fazeem]

Three things:

• Would not make me diversify at all. I like the maps I play and play them for fun and not for points, so it would not make a difference to me and I suspect to most people.
• Would not stop farming. Instead of farming on one map only, they would farm on five maps or ten maps. Thus making it harder to accuse people and prove they are farming.
• How the hell would this be calculated? It really seems complicated and far too much work.

rebuttle 1- You would be the exception to the rule if that is the truth as there are many people who only play a single map in the hopes of scoring points. I give a kudos good for you on playing for fun and not just points but there are far more people who play certain maps en masse for the points.

rebuttle 2- Nothing will stop farming but this would definitely discourage it making it less attractive due to the lack of points available from doings so on maps they frequent. In essence it would make more people like you in the fact they would be playing the maps they like for fun and not the potential points as those would be at a minimum unless going against someone of equal map mastery on said map.

rebuttle 3- the calculation portion is one I am not sure on other then it should be scaled based on the current point system and be just a additional factor rather then a replacement thus based on mastery of a map it could be some number factor that is used to divide the points based on said mastery of both players.

I hope that helps

[DoomYoshi]

Another point: why should we artificially diversify the map choices?

People don't play crossword 8-P Freestyle, trench, terminator, flat rate for a reason.

The goal of developers shouldn't be to force the players who come here to try new things, it should be on presenting a product that everyone wants to try.

EDIT: 2 games have actually been played with those settings, and I don't mean to offend anyone who chooses that.

[Metsfanmax]

I think this idea has merit, but not for the reason that it artificially diversifies the map choices. koontz is right: I love Arms Race and I would continue to play Arms Race whether or not I earned a bunch of points from it. What the suggestion does do is stop rewarding you for dominating on a particular map in the form of increased score. If you love a map that much that you would play it very often, you would do so regardless of whether you earned points from it. Continuing to give you those points implies that the only way to get to the top of the leaderboard is to be very good at specific maps, probably with specific settings. But if we wanted the people who ascended to the Conqueror rank to be good at many styles, and not just one style, this would be a way to achieve it.

[Dukasaur]

2- Nothing will stop farming but this would definitely discourage it making it less attractive due to the lack of points available from doings so on maps they frequent. In essence it would make more people like you in the fact they would be playing the maps they like for fun and not the potential points as those would be at a minimum unless going against someone of equal map mastery on said map.

I tend to agree with this. At least with the quoted paragraph. As for the suggestion as a whole, I'm not sure if it wouldn't add too much server overhead.

Also, as a point of historical record, I think this is very similar to suggs that DiM made (for calculating points) and greenoaks made (for seperate scoreboards for every setting.)

[chapcrap]

I don't think this is something that should be pursued.

Think about the other side of the coin. If you're changing the point ratio that someone receives for a particular map, then the points that the opponent receives also change. So, if someone played me on Feudal War right now and won their first game against me, after I've played 1200, then how many points do I lose? 100? That's the current max. I don't think that's fair. And then that deflates my points and when I play on other maps and beat someone, they lose more points because of my deflated score from losing the Feudal War game... I think that this would just create a new way to manipulate the score system.

I understand the desire to reduce farming and ranching, but is this really that big of an issue right now? Are their players that are farming? Turn them in to C&A. I don't think a change to scoring is the way to go.

[waauw]

I am against this. The longer the player has been on CC, the higher the chances are that they have played the map tons of times. In other words, the more games someone has played in total, the more they get screwed over by the system.

And also, I agree with koontz. This would not change my playing pattern. I play maps that I like to play and the maps I don't play are mostly maps I don't like.
The fact that people specialize in certain maps also makes clanwars more interesting in my opinion. It forces clans to organize themselves well to have every map covered.

[Fazeem]

I think this idea has merit, but not for the reason that it artificially diversifies the map choices. koontz is right: I love Arms Race and I would continue to play Arms Race whether or not I earned a bunch of points from it. What the suggestion does do is stop rewarding you for dominating on a particular map in the form of increased score. If you love a map that much that you would play it very often, you would do so regardless of whether you earned points from it. Continuing to give you those points implies that the only way to get to the top of the leaderboard is to be very good at specific maps, probably with specific settings. But if we wanted the people who ascended to the Conqueror rank to be good at many styles, and not just one style, this would be a way to achieve it.

this needs more discussion as it would add a leveling dynamic to the site

[TheForgivenOne]

So what of a player like Mageplunka69? He has about 40 000 completed games. He essentially can't earn any points of quite a few maps, or most of them, based on the fact he has played so many games.

[GoranZ]

So what of a player like Mageplunka69? He has about 40 000 completed games. He essentially can't earn any points of quite a few maps, or most of them, based on the fact he has played so many games.

Or something totally opposite... player with 100-150 games can legally become a farmer

Sorry but I will never support this suggestion or something similar like this.

There are far more superior methods to force players to not farm others.
For example... "You can read the Rules, play according to them. Everything else is illegal and can result in permanent ban. Exploiting of bugs in the system can also result with permanent ban... etc, etc"

[Fazeem]

So what of a player like Mageplunka69? He has about 40 000 completed games. He essentially can't earn any points of quite a few maps, or most of them, based on the fact he has played so many games.

He would not be able to earn the same amount of points on the maps he has mastery on it is not much of a different concept from the current system where a new recruit earns more points against a experienced player for a win then another experienced player earns, the only changing point is that instead of simply being based on games played it is further calculated by games played on that map.

Most of the more experienced players already face this point differential when they play against a new recruit on any map they choose. In your example say Mastery is set at 1000 plays on any given map and there are varying degrees beneath that. Say every starts out a amateur then the graduate to an apprentice after 100 games on that map and at that point the calculating factor for points begins to change for them to where they earn less on that map then a amateur wins.

The top out would be less points earned not no points earned again much like say a conquerer playing against a cook would earn. ANother factor people should consider is that there current points would still be there and only change subsequently there after if this were put in affect they still would be able to earn more points just the rate at which they earned would change based on mastery level. The only people that have anything to fear from this idea is Farmers playing strictly for points and those who only have strategy based on a few maps strictly playing for points. For those that are playing for fun this will not affect them as the points is not the reason they play.

The end result would be that the higher ranks would be harder to earn for those who rely on tricks of a board to get there and newer players would be immersed and actually feel like they have a shot at reaching significant rank levels thus adding the benefit of more retention value to the site for them as they become more involved.

[Metsfanmax]

So what of a player like Mageplunka69? He has about 40 000 completed games. He essentially can't earn any points of quite a few maps, or most of them, based on the fact he has played so many games.

My understanding of OP's use of the term "ratio" is that the adjustment is made based on the percentage of your games played that are on the map, not based on the absolute number of times you have played it.

[TheForgivenOne]

So what of a player like Mageplunka69? He has about 40 000 completed games. He essentially can't earn any points of quite a few maps, or most of them, based on the fact he has played so many games.

My understanding of OP's use of the term "ratio" is that the adjustment is made based on the percentage of your games played that are on the map, not based on the absolute number of times you have played it.

Still, I believe 1/4 of his games are on Doodle Earth. Basically the games he plays on that map can't be mastered. 1v1 Seq on a doodle is essentially luck. 8 player assassins on that map are even more of a crapshoot.

So what of a player like Mageplunka69? He has about 40 000 completed games. He essentially can't earn any points of quite a few maps, or most of them, based on the fact he has played so many games.

Or something totally opposite... player with 100-150 games can legally become a farmer

Sorry but I will never support this suggestion or something similar like this.

And this is another good point. People can just go straight up the scoreboard, because they just play games on maps they haven't played. Someone could probably easily reach 6000 points again if they played a handful of games on each map on speed freestyle.

[MoB Deadly]

I think this will indirectly punish some long-term users that this site needs to hold on to.

I absolutely love feudal war and the AoRs, I try to sign up for tournmaents on those maps whenever you can.

Giving me less points on those maps when really mastery isn't really THAT much of an advantage unless you are playing a noob. I would just get mad and that would give me an incentive to leave the site.

What happens when 1 feudal player plays another feudal player? they end up trading like 2 points? Kind of a pointless game there.

[DJPatrick]

Likewise, I play at least 95% Feudal coz that's the map I like and that's what I pay my due$ for....as they're mainly speeders open to all I don't see a need for penalties to stop me from farming...in fact, most are Terminator which makes me the most "attractive" target and I often see others avoiding a lower-ranked Kill in pursuit of higher points from me...that's the way it's set up and that's the game...when someone can target me for 50-60points don't discount mine to 2-10 just coz I've played a couple of thousand on the map...kill me and I still bleed (points)...cheerz

[Fazeem]

sometimes I wonder if the slips are Freudian people can even admit farming and it is nothing as long as they pay to do so? A mastery system does not penalize anyone except for farmers plain and simple while on duel side it increases competition and truly shows who is playing for fun, medals or points. IF playing for points and rank those that are truly the overall best show through versus those who found an exploitative niche on map that they have mastered to maximize en masse by creating 49 of the same game hoping most challengers will be not as experienced with said map and its intricacies. This would level the points field and ranks would mean more and be truly reflective of Skill and luck.

[Fazeem]

sometimes I wonder if the slips are Freudian people can even admit farming and it is nothing as long as they pay to do so? A mastery system does not penalize anyone except for farmers plain and simple while on duel side it increases competition and truly shows who is playing for fun, medals or points. IF playing for points and rank those that are truly the overall best show through versus those who found an exploitative niche on map that they have mastered to maximize en masse by creating 49 of the same game hoping most challengers will be not as experienced with said map and its intricacies. This would level the points field and ranks would mean more and be truly reflective of Skill and luck.

noticed a couple of C&A reports that this could be applied to so bringing back the idea and discussion.

[TheForgivenOne]

Well, let me ask you this. What happens to the users who only stick to the classic map? Trust me, they are out here.

[Armandolas]

This will only penalize people that plays a ton of games.
Imagine that guy who likes to play all sort of stuff, but he has 30000 games played. Does he have to be penalized because he played almost every map more than everyone else?

[agentcom]

Late to the game here and I'm gonna do a little tl;dr (sorry )here and give my first thoughts: Pretty sure this has been suggested before. Or at least something related to it. It was under "Separate Scoreboards for Different Maps" or maybe it was "... Game Types." Implementing that suggestion properly would require us to do pretty much what you're requesting, IIRC.

[Fazeem]

Well, let me ask you this. What happens to the users who only stick to the classic map? Trust me, they are out here.

Well they would after mastery only make minimal points off of it. This is suggestion does not stop someone from getting points rather it rewards more points for those that challenge themselves by going to maps they do not play as often. IT Discourages farmers further because once they have worked out there mastery of a map unless they are playing it simply because they love it they do not get the same point boost just the minimal points for a win. From how important I am seeing the scoreboard is to a lot of people this would be huge you would find that people who never had a chance at making it to the top of the board before now actually can. Only people who lose out in this idea are Farmers/Fishers of noobs and veterans who exploit map intricacies to secure a win on maps they have mastered and the other player has not. Mastery would make it to where the Top slots are earned by the overall best well rounded players not just those good at finding tricks in the settings, system or maps. We have so many stats to draw from and this would open up other potential point system tweaks based on settings in the future. Map Mastery given the plethora of maps is an ideal way to make the site more enjoyable and fair to new recruits or even vets like myself, it encourages immersion in the site and exploring of game play via the hard work are foundry members share with us. Again I feel this would resolve a couple of problems here that right now are only only caught when someone is paying attention and are then decided on a arbitrary basis.