Catch-All Area for "Non-Suggestions" (Complaints)

[Master Bush]

What is Gabbly?

[reverend_kyle]

the live chat.

[ZawBanjito]

Grease is fixed... and the auto-attack feature is good. Those dice = the pain, though.

[Master Bush]

Grease is fixed

It doesn't look fixed on my screen.

[wicked]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... highlight=

[Master Bush]

Thanks wicked.

[Master Bush]

I just found the live chat area.

[dugcarr1]

im sick of winning a game and getting 16 points, and then losing a game and then loseing 39! fucking points.


1)15 points to winner per player and then do the BS %% on only 25%.


2) have ratting systems were i chose wich level of players join my game,(ie, minum score to play me 1300 points)

3) u think of something better, im paying for this service

what do the rest of u real player think?

[tals]

I think...I agree with the consensus in this thread (same page - bottom of list)

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6988

Tals

[jay_a2j]

2) have ratting systems were i chose wich level of players join my game,(ie, minum score to play me 1300 points)

I agree with this one. I play cards at a certain site and the same thing happens if you are high ranked and lose to a low ranked player you lose more points than if you lost to someone near your rank. Which is why they have an option at game set up to set a rank range for the table. You can also set a table with no rating restrictions.

[Pedronicus]

Play against decent players who have got passworded games on the go and reduce your possible point loss.

If i lose against a shit player - I lose about 40-50 points and only gain 9-11 points for a win - Its what makes keeping a colonel hat very hard on this site - and I for one have no problem with the scoring as it is.

[Ishiro]

If you lose to a less experienced or less skilled player, you should lose more points. And you should also gain less points for beating up on less experienced or less skilled players.

When you defeat someone who is higher ranked than you and you get a decent number of points, do you complain that THEY just lost that number of points?

Remember, smaller losses means smaller gains. Adjusting the point system will only result in a less dynamic ranking making it even harder to climb up the ladder.

If you want to control your possible loss, then look for private games... or make some yourself.

[jay_a2j]

If you lose to a less experienced or less skilled player, you should lose more points. And you should also gain less points for beating up on less experienced or less skilled players.

True, but you should have the option of setting a rating range.

[General Mayhem]

I believe the point system needs tweeking.

Lower score/rank doesnt always mean they're inexperienced players and easier to beat AT ALL!

A huge amount of very experienced and good players have lower ranks/points so its not exactly fair at the mo.

Granted we can pick and choose who we play and Scorbas Vet. League and Elite games really help, but id like to play some of the guys with lower scores and not worry about losing big points.

I darent setting up a friggin public game anymore. Thats what its come to!!!

Lets do something here guys. Even if its just tweeking the point system etc etc

[AndyDufresne]

Perhaps, similar to the point cap thread a while ago, if everyone gets behind it, and actually develops a solution (rather than just talking about developing one), you can get some change! So get to work!


--Andy

[Pedronicus]

General Mayhem -

There are the elite games - which we made these for high ranking players with a good record (not just wins - otherwise dugcarr would be involved as well)

and these games are now in place for players who we deem worthy of the password.

We have created a 2 tier system for players who don't want to lose big points.. Elite Games

The public games should be left to those who are rude or new and when you make major - move up a division.

Nothing needs to be changed.... Scorba created a system that works.

[Utafar]

.
2) have ratting systems were i chose wich level of players join my game,(ie, minum score to play me 1300 points)

they have that on Grand Strategy

[Ishiro]

I personally won't get behind any change in the system that makes it harder to climb ranks by reducing points given/lost unless it also includes a score reset. There are plenty of people with high scores who go those scores by earning big wins against players above them.

A huge amount of very experienced and good players have lower ranks/points so its not exactly fair at the mo.

Frankly, given the current system, I don't see how that is true... if you have a low score (under 1200) you probably lose more than you win, or are running 50/50. I wouldn't call you a very experienced and good player. Average, I'd say.

[P Gizzle]

A huge amount of very experienced and good players have lower ranks/points so its not exactly fair at the mo.

like me?

[tals]

General Mayhem -

There are the elite games - which we made these for high ranking players with a good record (not just wins - otherwise dugcarr would be involved as well)

and these games are now in place for players who we deem worthy of the password.

We have created a 2 tier system for players who don't want to lose big points.. Elite Games

The public games should be left to those who are rude or new and when you make major - move up a division.

Nothing needs to be changed.... Scorba created a system that works.

hmm that suggests to me that you've found a way round it - in which case the suggestion of putting a level of points to join a game is sound...but i'm so against that.

If it has come to that I would prefer a cap of points that can be lost in a game, I don't want a situation where I can't whup a general (which I just did)

Tals

[sully800]

I personally won't get behind any change in the system that makes it harder to climb ranks by reducing points given/lost unless it also includes a score reset. There are plenty of people with high scores who go those scores by earning big wins against players above them.

A huge amount of very experienced and good players have lower ranks/points so its not exactly fair at the mo.

Frankly, given the current system, I don't see how that is true... if you have a low score (under 1200) you probably lose more than you win, or are running 50/50. I wouldn't call you a very experienced and good player. Average, I'd say.

You seem to be saying everything backwards. The current 'problem' is once you have a high score you lose more points. Eliminating that would make it easier to gain a higher score, not harder.

I am completely against changing the scoring system. If you make it some kind of flat win rate (ie 15 points for any win) the people with the most games will be the ones with the highest scores. It would say nothing about skill, just how many wins you can muster. I think the current system is near perfect because the higher you climb the harder it is to progress...and the lower you fall the easier it is to climb back up. In the end everyone settles into a score range where they belong based on their skill level and I like that feature.

[Ishiro]

You seem to be saying everything backwards. The current 'problem' is once you have a high score you lose more points. Eliminating that would make it easier to gain a higher score, not harder.

I am completely against changing the scoring system. If you make it some kind of flat win rate (ie 15 points for any win) the people with the most games will be the ones with the highest scores. It would say nothing about skill, just how many wins you can muster. I think the current system is near perfect because the higher you climb the harder it is to progress...and the lower you fall the easier it is to climb back up. In the end everyone settles into a score range where they belong based on their skill level and I like that feature.

It's not backwards... you just supported what I said. Its easier to climb back up because of large wins... well, a large win for you is a large loss for someone else. People seem to only be complaining about large losses, but no one is saying "Man, it sucks that I just beat this General and I gained 50 points! That's unfair! I shouldn't gain that much!!" Eliminating large losses would make gaining high scores harder because it would also eliminate large wins.

[dugcarr1]

do u guys not here what im saying,,,, 15 points LOSE AND WIN plus the gay percentage on top of that.

or at least let us have the option off who plays with us.

i for 1 dont want to talk to 100 players or write 30 emails just to set up a game and give out "specail" passwords to only the cool people.
i dont really havn't the time or am a snob enough to do it that way.

im only asshole enough to block anyone with a shitty score that i play against

[Herakilla]

first ^^ has a a little problem (im prolly blocked by him now but i dont care since i blocked him first)

second all you have to do is password protected games, works well if you are in a usergroup or have a select group of friends which is something that some people are too much of assholes to even attempt to do.

third it would be nice to set a minimum rank/score but think of it like how are those with lesser points going to get up high enough or have enough fun if they cant play/beat/or lose to those with more points. this could chase away people

[tals]

do u guys not here what im saying,,,, 15 points LOSE AND WIN plus the gay percentage on top of that.

or at least let us have the option off who plays with us.

i for 1 dont want to talk to 100 players or write 30 emails just to set up a game and give out "specail" passwords to only the cool people.
i dont really havn't the time or am a snob enough to do it that way.

im only asshole enough to block anyone with a shitty score that i play against

You should be more confident against your abilities

I'm at the moment working my way up - went to a very lowly 777 and now back to 984 and climbing, the points works well - trust me at this level 15 point loss hurts a whole heap more than 35 points to you. I think maybe the points breakdown needs to be looked at and maybe a limit set to ensure crazy losses arn't encountered. It definitely shouldn't be flat rate though.

Tals