Conquer Club

Ok, I made this suggestion as an add-on to another thread, and got almost all favorable responses to it... so I'm now making it a poll and officially recommending it be implemented.

Basically, my suggestion is this: Instead of the score being calculated only with the winner's & loser's score being taken into account, it should be the loser's score compared to the average of all opponents. The result will be that you will lose the same amount of points no matter who wins, so people won't throwing a game they have almost lost to the better ranked players, so that they lose less points. But to gain points as a high-ranked player, you still have to play better ranked opponents. I believe this wouldn't be hard to implement, and wouldn't change the scoring system by too much, but would significantly cut down on the throwing of games. (I admit that the past day or so, as much as I don't want to, when I've basically lost the game already I've been inclined to give the game to the higher-ranker too.... cause right now, it makes a big difference)

If you vote no, please give the reason, so I can understand if I've assumed something wrong.... I am still pretty new here

i vote no because that means if i get in a game with higher ranked players say a tournament then i will lose more points then what i should

nascarfan38124 wrote:i vote no because that means if i get in a game with higher ranked players say a tournament then i will lose more points then what i should

You may lose more points than if the highest rank person won it... but you would lose less points than if the lowest rank person won it... it would give you points based upon the average strength of your opponent rather than ignoring everyone other than the winner

great idea sir

pay attention to this post dam u

should be implemented! so this means if you win, you still get the same amount of points, but if you lose, its simply the average, right?



so what this means that if you are a high ranked player, and points mean a great deal to you, then you should join games with all very low ranked players, so when somebody wins, the point blow gets distributed onto others.

You don't get the same amount of points if you win or lose (unless for example, the winner's score is equal to the average score).

It would generally give you more average wins and more average losses by mtigating both very large wins/losses

I got this ideia from a chess rating system called ELO.

Giving up for a game trying helping the higher ranked to win, so that everyone lose less points is totally unfair.
Everyone knows this happens all the time. I have done it, others players I had play with done it too. It is not cool. We have to move to something more sophisticated, and I will try to give us a solution for this big problem.

Concepts:

1) All games must have a the same amount of points, and 20 points per player seems reasonable. 6 players game worth’s 120 points.

2) By calculating the average difference you get the winners points and lost points.

Works simple:


Works simple:

Median = Total Points from all players / number of players
It is the average points of all players

avg dif. (pts) = Median - Player Points
It is the difference in points of each player from the Median.

avg dif = avg dif. (pts) / Median
It is the difference in percentage of each player from the Median.

Winning Probability = (1 / number of players) * (1 + avg dif)
It is the winning probabily percentage for all players.

Points in Game = 20 * (1 + avg dif)
It is the number of points each player put in the game.

Points on Win = (number of players * 20) - Points in Game
It is the real gain points for the winner of the game. It is total points in game - points the player put in the game


Example 1:



Example 2:



Example 3:



Example 4:



Example 5:

What a great exemple*.





EDIT - Not taking the piss outa the Brazilian, just did not want to confuse him with example.

defranca, your idea was the other possibility that I thought of, that might work better than a plain average... but either way at least then it will stop the throwing of games without majorly changing the scoring.

It seems as if the majority so far support this... but the only person who counts hasn't given an opinion yet... what are your thoughts, Lack?

up

This is a bad idea, and will lead to more abuse of the system with possibly high ranked people putting low ranked people multis in their games so they lose less. Also, if a game has alot of high ranked people, people may not want to jion for fear of losing alot of pionts.

bad idea, this is then how much games you played not how much you win lose

I think it'd lead to a major score inflation... haven't looked at the specifics, but at first glance, that's what it looks like.

Sounds like we'll get even more posts in generak discussion like:

Duhr... How is score calculated?

but that's not a big concern I guess.

spiesr wrote:This is a bad idea, and will lead to more abuse of the system with possibly high ranked people putting low ranked people multis in their games so they lose less. Also, if a game has alot of high ranked people, people may not want to jion for fear of losing alot of pionts.

I don't think you quite understood "the beauty" of this system:

Example:


Where you see Points in Game, tell you how much points each player will put in the game. i.e. Player 1 has only 1000 points, the Median the of the game is 2200 so he has 54,55% less them the median. So he will not put in 20 points in the game he will put 20 - 54,55% ~= 9 points.
So if player 1 wins he will gain 120(GROSS) - 9(points he put in) = 111(NET) points.
Player 2 have 2000 points so he will put in game 2 times more points then player 1.

Wisse wrote:bad idea, this is then how much games you played not how much you win lose

Did I miss something? I don't understand what you saying.
It works simple, you have more points, you loose more points... It is the same as before. But instead of we calculate the points each players we take the Median.
I think in this game fun when you work only to win. When you start worrying, if I that player win, I will lose x points, if the other player win I will lose y points. This must to STOP. IT SHOULD DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU LOSE TO PLAYER 1 OR PLAYER 2. THE THINK IS THAT YOU LOST, AND DOESN'T MATTER WHO WIN, YOU LOST. SO YOU LOSE THE SAME AMOUT OF POINTS FOR ANY OTHER PLAYER.

qeee1 wrote:I think it'd lead to a major score inflation... haven't looked at the specifics, but at first glance, that's what it looks like.

There will not lead necessary to inflation, but this system is planed to winning probability. For my understanding if a player have a wining probability twice of the other player, he should have the double of the points of the other player.

qeee1 wrote:Sounds like we'll get even more posts in generak discussion like:

Duhr... How is score calculated?

but that's not a big concern I guess.

How can someone post on the forum or even play a game before reading the instructions?

qeee1 wrote:I think it'd lead to a major score inflation... haven't looked at the specifics, but at first glance, that's what it looks like.

There will not lead necessary to inflation, but this system is planed to winning probability. For my understanding if a player have a wining probability twice of the other player, he should have the double of the points of the other player.

Well if say a player wins 1 out of every 2 games, all 6 player standard games, and all opponents are always 1000 points.

Right now that player will level out at 2236 points.
Under your system that player will level out at 2500, at least as far as I can figure out.

If a player wins 2 out of every 3 games (same restrictions as before):
Old system: 3162
New system: 5000?


If a player wins 3 out of every 4 games (same restrictions as before):
Old system: 3872
New system: 7500?


===

Also it seems like the incentive under the new system is to play against lower ranked players:

Imagine you're exactly colonel, 2000 points.

Which is better:

34 points at risk for 86 points gain against five 1000 points players
or
20 points at risk for 100 points gain against five 2000 points players.

These are just the things that appear to me as I run figures through my head, I may be wrong, but it seems to me from looking at these two things there'd be some inflation and the ranks (colonel, captain etc would need to be adjusted appropriatly)

if the spread was separated farther, so that the higher ranked players put in more points, and the lower ranked put in less than defranca's current calculation, would you like the idea better qeee? I think the principle is the important thing, the exact calculation can be tweaked to work better. But right now, I hate throwing games to a higher ranked player... but I also hate losing a ton of points to a lower ranked player, so I have to do what I have to do... and I agree with everyone this isn't very fair.

i dont know about all this.....but any change is a good change i feel...regaurding our current system

dugcarr1 wrote:i dont know about all this.....but any change is a good change i feel...regaurding our current system

Hmm... I'm not sure if having dugcarr for the suggestion helps it or hurts it...

might as well put my say into it...I think the point system is fine, but i would like to see the maximum amount of points lowered to 40 (as if the person who beat you is half your score), and an added minimum of 10 (as if the the person who beat you is double your score).

Bad Speler wrote:might as well put my say into it...I think the point system is fine, but i would like to see the maximum amount of points lowered to 40 (as if the person who beat you is half your score), and an added minimum of 10 (as if the the person who beat you is double your score).

The second part of your statement doesn't make sense to me. If the person you beat is double your score you would get 40 points, not 10.

If the person you beat is 1/2 your score you would get 10 points. I think that is what you meant to say. So if you beat someone who is less than half your score you normally receive less than 10 points, and you are suggesting to raise it to 10? That's interesting, but I don't know if it will fly.

I do think the 100 point cap is too high, but 40 is probably too low. Perhaps it should be brought down to 60 but that won't reduce extremely high ranking players from avoiding low rankers (and rightfully so).

Anyway, I like our current point system in how it works, but I do agree a change needs to be made to prevent people from throwing the game to the player with the higher score. However I don't know if this is the appropriate way, because as qeee showed it would inflate the scores a lot.

sully800 wrote: However I don't know if this is the appropriate way, because as qeee showed it would inflate the scores a lot.

If the formula was changed slightly though, so the higher ranks put in more points to the pot and the lower ranks put in less, so that inflation of scores doesn't happen... then would you like it?

HotShot53 wrote:

sully800 wrote: However I don't know if this is the appropriate way, because as qeee showed it would inflate the scores a lot.

If the formula was changed slightly though, so the higher ranks put in more points to the pot and the lower ranks put in less, so that inflation of scores doesn't happen... then would you like it?

If you do that it's not based around winning probability though is it?

It seems like by grounding it in 120 points per game, the scoreboard will have some sort of a slope inherant in it, as regards skill level compared to points. I dunno, it's a start, but I'd want to see an estimate of the effect on the scoreboard beforehand.

Maybe it would change the scoreboard slightly... but things like doubles and triples games already use a similar principle, and many of the higher rank players already use them a lot... so maybe they'd be more likely to play singles games again

In any case, I think it's better than what we have now... I'm stuck in one game that didn't finish before my vacation, and now I have to throw it to the higher ranked player, even though the lower ranked player had been winning... but I have no choice, with the current system I'd much much rather lose to someone with 1,400 points than one with 600....