Conquer Club

http://s.go.ro/ozm0wj41
Well guys I'm not so good using this tool ... but I think you get the idea ...
so let's talk about it and maybe we get something good from that!
If I do something wrong with this topic, please some admin to help me to make it right.

This is only really relevant for special gameplay maps. If I'm a major on Doodle Earth but for some reason don't really play Luxembourg, I can play against the 'Conqueror of Luxembourg' while I'm a 'new recruit' and win a shitton of points eventhough basic strategy applies.

Would take a long time to normalise for some of the less popular maps as well, so wouldn't mean a lot for months unless we could backdate it.

Are individual leaderboards or rankings for maps already a thing? If not maybe that is an idea we could all flesh out.

Extreme Ways wrote:This is only really relevant for special gameplay maps. If I'm a major on Doodle Earth but for some reason don't really play Luxembourg, I can play against the 'Conqueror of Luxembourg' while I'm a 'new recruit' and win a shitton of points eventhough basic strategy applies.

no, it wouldn't affect the points, it would just be a real time assessment of your skill/lack of skill on said map. i'm the boss on Bamboo Jack, but there are a few maps i have literally never won on, despite their being simple and/or straight forward. i think it's a cool idea. i'll come back in 4 years to check the progress of this thread... nothing gets implemented anymore...-Jésus noir

Extreme Ways wrote:This is only really relevant for special gameplay maps. If I'm a major on Doodle Earth but for some reason don't really play Luxembourg, I can play against the 'Conqueror of Luxembourg' while I'm a 'new recruit' and win a shitton of points eventhough basic strategy applies.

If the conqueror of luxemberg cannot beat the major of doodle then they do not deserve to be conqueror

Despite EW making a good point, I think it is a worthwhile suggestion. It would stimulate players towards obtaining Conqueror on their favorite map. For many players the rank of Conqueror seems a nigh impossible objective, especially if you're unwilling to be super selective in the games you pick. And while becoming conqueror on a specific map isn't an easy feat either, it is more feasible and could give players new shorter term goals to achieve. It may feel more rewarding a lot faster.

That being said, there are more pressing suggestions on the list.

WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:

Extreme Ways wrote:This is only really relevant for special gameplay maps. If I'm a major on Doodle Earth but for some reason don't really play Luxembourg, I can play against the 'Conqueror of Luxembourg' while I'm a 'new recruit' and win a shitton of points eventhough basic strategy applies.

If the conqueror of luxemberg cannot beat the major of doodle then they do not deserve to be conqueror

Both are luck-based maps.

But anyway, Owen informed me I was wrong about the scoring thing, so that makes the suggestion a bit better. I do agree with boberz though, there are only 50 maps with >500 games a month, unless you can extract past data it'll take far too long - though a lot of special gameplay maps, for which this is the most interesting imo, do have a lot of monthly games.

However, one could say you could split it again in teamgames/FFA's. I simply don't think this is worth implementing.

This would definitely take the 1 map wonders out of the running ... I've won some battle royal games on some maps that aren't special to me as well...

And MW is not saying to implement this on past games, but rather future games.... not sure how difficult this would be coding... seems interesting enough

FreeFalling123 wrote:This would definitely take the 1 map wonders out of the running ... I've won some battle royal games on some maps that aren't special to me as well...

And MW is not saying to implement this on past games, but rather future games.... not sure how difficult this would be coding... seems interesting enough

If implemented, a score reset should be done then.

Donelladan wrote:

FreeFalling123 wrote:This would definitely take the 1 map wonders out of the running ... I've won some battle royal games on some maps that aren't special to me as well...

And MW is not saying to implement this on past games, but rather future games.... not sure how difficult this would be coding... seems interesting enough

If implemented, a score reset should be done then.

Why? Give everyone their current score on every map and calibrate from there.

Because having 3500+ score on luxembourg or doodle earth ( and most easy maps) would make it impossible for all high ranked players to play those maps without losing huge amount of points affecting permanently our overall score.

Donelladan wrote:Because having 3500+ score on luxembourg or doodle earth ( and most easy maps) would make it impossible for all high ranked players to play those maps without losing huge amount of points affecting permanently our overall score.

Whereas now its different because?

Stop being so elitist Don.

I played on doodle yesterday so yes now it's different.

It's not about being elitist, it's about ruining the scoreboard for some people. My score on some map is currently very low, I know that, it would be unfair for me to give me a 3,5k+ score on them while I suck at them.
It's unfair for me, a general, but it's the same for every player, even you.
Giving you a capitain score on a complex map you never played would make you potentially lose tons of point against some low ranked that master the map.

If we adopt this new kind of scoring system, then a scoreboard reset is necessary.

Donelladan wrote:I played on doodle yesterday so yes now it's different.

It's not about being elitist, it's about ruining the scoreboard for some people. My score on some map is currently very low, I know that, it would be unfair for me to give me a 3,5k+ score on them while I suck at them.
It's unfair for me, a general, but it's the same for every player, even you.
Giving you a capitain score on a complex map you never played would make you potentially lose tons of point against some low ranked that master the map.

If we adopt this new kind of scoring system, then a scoreboard reset is necessary.

I currently have a captain score on every map.

This is an interesting idea but just having map-specific scores doesn't capture the fact that the rules you play with also dramatically affect gameplay on some maps. Trench rules completely change some maps -- unlimited forts can also have a huge impact. Spoils have more impact on some maps than others...

You could probably go further and have a score per-map and per-ruleset. However that starts to get crazy at some point.

WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:

Donelladan wrote:Because having 3500+ score on luxembourg or doodle earth ( and most easy maps) would make it impossible for all high ranked players to play those maps without losing huge amount of points affecting permanently our overall score.

Whereas now its different because?

Stop being so elitist Don.

I think you miss the point. There are many maps I will not play because of the luck/drop factor or the simplicity of the strategy. The only exception for me is if I am playing another higher ranked player. This is not elitist it just the only way higher ranked players can maintain their score. The current points system is unbalanced in my opinion. If I play 10 games of Doodle Earth against a striper and win 6 ( a good result on a map like that ) I will get point CRUSHED. I would win 40 - 50 points for my 6 wins and lose around 280 for my losses. Even winning 9 out of 10 likely results in a small point loss for me.

I think it is an incredible idea.

I would take it a step further and suggest there be a scoreboard for each map.

I would still keep normal scoring the same, and not include battle royals.

This is something that could stimulate the populace into playing more games, and becoming more active.

I think it's a great idea. Having a conqueror for each map would also be pretty cool.

loutil wrote:

WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:

Donelladan wrote:Because having 3500+ score on luxembourg or doodle earth ( and most easy maps) would make it impossible for all high ranked players to play those maps without losing huge amount of points affecting permanently our overall score.

Whereas now its different because?

Stop being so elitist Don.

I think you miss the point. There are many maps I will not play because of the luck/drop factor or the simplicity of the strategy. The only exception for me is if I am playing another higher ranked player. This is not elitist it just the only way higher ranked players can maintain their score. The current points system is unbalanced in my opinion. If I play 10 games of Doodle Earth against a striper and win 6 ( a good result on a map like that ) I will get point CRUSHED. I would win 40 - 50 points for my 6 wins and lose around 280 for my losses. Even winning 9 out of 10 likely results in a small point loss for me.

So why is a score reset necessary? You will get crushed now. You will get crushed after the change, except now your score will be calibrated.

But yes I agree with the comment about complexity. I want to know my score for Doodle Earth 8 play Dubs with Nuclear spoils and chained reinforcements.

I think this is a great idea.

Agree with WindCmdr, start with your current score on every map.

You still have an overall rank and a map rank. When you win a map you have a low score on you get a large number of points toward your map rank but for your overall rank, only the normal points you would get considering the overall points you have.

Well I guess it depends how the overall score would be calculated.

but for your overall rank, only the normal points you would get considering the overall points you have.

This for example would defeat the purpose of the idea, which wasn't to give us a score on each map, but to take into account your skill on each map to calculate point loss, therefore avoiding you to lose a lot of points on map you've no idea, and making it way more difficult to reach top of the scoreboard by playing only one map.

The OP didn't develop much the first post so I am speculating a bit but I believe I was right on his intention.
In this case, how would the overall score be calculated ?

If the overall score is simply the average of all your score on each map, then yes, a point reset isn't necessary for high ranked players, you are right WingCmdr Ginkapo .
But I think it would be much more difficult to reach such high overall score as the one we have now, and therefore would be unfair to low rank that would try to reach the top.

If the overall score is simply the average of all score on each map, people already having a high score just have to avoid playing easy map ( classic, doodle, luxembourg but also any map on which they can't maintain a high score), to keep their high score. I know they already do it but it doesn't matter because other people can do it as well and reach the top of the scoreboard.
But if the overal score become the average of your score on each map, someone starting tomorrow with 1000 points on each map, to be able to reach a 2500 pts score, he would have either to reach 4000 pts on half of the map, or reach 2500 points on each map. Both would be really difficult.

So in this case a scoreboard reset would be necessary to give a chance to other players to catch up with high ranked players.

I think having a conqueror for each map is a good idea. It can be a simple system (like if you have a certain minimum threshold (10 games on a map and a 55% win ratio on the scoreboard) Once on the scoreboard, you can challenge a player up to 2 higher than you to the ladder. If you win then you take their place.

I agree also that we need to rethink points. I also believe that high rated players get crushed for points for losses which must be expected on a game where a good drop and luck will make significant difference. I used to play chess competitively and our point system works for that. There is no element of luck in Chess. An expert will beat a newbie EVERY time. Therefore the loss for a higher rated versus a lower rated should be far less than chess as well.

Nobody is going to want a ladder system. That would oblige you to play someone if they challenge you and that is no good thing. Scores for individual maps could be worked out in the same way scores are for maps as a whole. That is the simplest and best way to implement this I think.

Nice idea MW! i like it!