Point System Suggestion

[Hoff]

I like the zero-sum scoring but it can be modified. Say in a game of 3 the first person gets 40 points for winning. The 2nd and 3rd place players both lose 20 points. I think it would be more fair for teh 2nd place person to lose 10, and the 3rd to lose 30.

This kind of point system somehow mixed in with the ranking point system i think will result in a more fair system. I might also cut down on dead beats. If someone knows they are going to lose a game they have no innentive to play anymore and thus go dead beat. but if they know that they can maybe only lose 10 instead of 20 or 30 that will give them more incentive to stick around and not go deadbeat.

[Fieryo]

thats an interesting idea, but being eliminated first does not always imply that you were the worst player. It often times comes down to random luck or who has the most cards, so i dont think it would be a very fair way of doing it.

[qeee1]

I'm with Fieryo, it's all or nothing.

Plus then you might have people throwing the game to come second, which is not in the spirit of the game. I think this has been discussed before somewhere, but can't find the thread.

[Hoff]

true, but i feel that more often the person who made the worst moves does get eliminated first. It would inspire people to not give up on a game when they might normally.

[Hoff]

yes. Often times tho you may play a brilliant game and knock 4 people out who seem so brain dead judging by their movies that they shouldnt be using a computer any. But you lose the game in the head. You played an excellent game but still lose the same amount of points as the monkeys you lasted longer. doesnt make sense to me.

[qeee1]

And sometimes you'll get some bad rolls at the start, an unlucky positioning and bad luck with cards and get wiped out first, while some other monkey despite being incompetent comes second, simply because he wasn't in the immediate line of fire of the strongest players.

All you did was illustrate one particular case, I'm illustrating another. The spirit of the game is to play to win, and any divergence from that in the points system represents a contamination of the game.

EDIT:
I do see where you're coming from and I admit that there probably is a relation between lasting longer and being a better player... but my concern is that all risk strategy is based around the concept of playing to win. And if you're a good player you'll win other games anyway, it's no big deal.

[Hoff]

yeah. just a suggestion. I think it might be good because the goal will still be playing to win. If you come in 2nd you still lose points. It just rewards people who did a better job at playing to win. Sometimes youcan be eliminated first at no fault to your own. But in my opinion i think that the majority of the time, the players that play better last longer. Although i have no facts or stats to prove this lol. Just a suggestion i thought i'd throw out there for debate.

[Belzbub]

I think something has to be done with the system.

In the game 11734 i gained 44 points in a 6 player game.

Game 17082 i lost 37 points losing a 5 player game.
Game 16471 i lost 45 points losing a 5 player game.

I think the system should be more fair, and not consider the amount of points a player have.

[Jota]

Why would that be more fair?

[kingwaffles]

Dude by counting the points it makes it fair. If you are high ranked(like you) you shouldn't get tons of points just for owning all the crap players. It gives you an incentive to play much fairer games with people at your own level.

[Banana Stomper]

One problem with the current system is that it assumes this is an entirely skill based game. So much of this game is decided by the luck of a dice roll, or quality of troop placement in the beginning. In a 6 person game, you might not last just because you look like an easy target, having nothing to do with skill. I think the point system should have a base value, and a value based on rank, with less weight placed on rank.

[Hoff]

and add that idea to my point system idea, and were golden! haha

[Marvaddin]

I think something has to be done with the system.

In the game 11734 i gained 44 points in a 6 player game.

Game 17082 i lost 37 points losing a 5 player game.
Game 16471 i lost 45 points losing a 5 player game.

I think the system should be more fair, and not consider the amount of points a player have.

And its because of it I think we will never have a general. I believe (beyond the fact general status need a revision) we could have a maximum and minimum limits of points a player can lose in a game. Those worst ranked players, if you win, you gain 5 or 6 points, if you lose, you lose 60+ points...

Maybe we could have a points bank, so if you lose 60 points, the winner gets 30, and the rest goes to the bank. If the minimum value is 10, and you got 8 from a player, 2 points from the bank to your account. If the bank is growing to much, a point to each active player (as someone suggested already). 10 points for deadbeats / game to the bank, too. I saw the suggestion in some place and I like it.

[max is gr8]

The think is that you should really be allowed to set a limit of scores like lowest score allowed to join this 900 maximum 1100 but it will only show games you can join

[Jota]

I think the point system should have a base value, and a value based on rank, with less weight placed on rank.

Something like 10 + 10 * (winner.rank / loser.rank), rather than the current 20 * (winner.rank / loser.rank), for instance?

(Not that I'm necessarily advocating it. Just speculating.)

[qeee1]

I like the current system.

[Fieryo]

One problem with the current system is that it assumes this is an entirely skill based game. So much of this game is decided by the luck of a dice roll, or quality of troop placement in the beginning. In a 6 person game, you might not last just because you look like an easy target, having nothing to do with skill. I think the point system should have a base value, and a value based on rank, with less weight placed on rank.

well the thing about the luck aspect is that statistically the luck will even itself out so that all thats left is the skill, and so if you suck or rock your points will show this

[Hoff]

Quick question about ranks. It says to be a private you must have a minimum score of 1 point. what if you have 1 point and lose your next game? Will you go to 0 points and have your rank go back to "?". Or will you not lose any more points? anyone know?

[Fieryo]

i think that if your that bad your account should be deleted

[UTGreen]

Quick question about ranks. It says to be a private you must have a minimum score of 1 point. what if you have 1 point and lose your next game? Will you go to 0 points and have your rank go back to "?". Or will you not lose any more points? anyone know?

I wonder if this is even possible to achieve. It would depend on how the game rounds I suppose. But let's say you're in a game with 10 points, and your opponent beats you with a score of 500 points (a very low score by any standards) So you would lose (10*20)/500 = 0.4 points... doesn't even round to a full point. So I would think that in theory, that unless there's some kind of conspiracy by a bunch of players to drive down their own scores, it will be impossible to ever see anyone score below 200.

Which is good, because I'm sure someone by now has realized that the only way to become a General (other than a ton of persistence and good luck) is to throw games until your score gets really really horrid... let's say a score of 20. Then get into a 6 person game with 5 other people with scores around 1500 and win. (1500/20)*20=1500, so you would take 1500 points from each, bringing your score up to a nice cool 7500 where you could retire to a lifetime of hatred and criticism. Of course now they'd each have scores near zero and be able to really mess up the system with their next win. And then the system would dissolve to anarchy, scores would become meaningless, and there'd be people jumping out of their 30th story window after finding their CC score just dropped 688 points.

Fortunately it's really hard to lower your ranking when it's already low (or raise it when it's high) And presumably the people in charge know this though, and just delete accounts if they get below some threshold.

Hypothetically though, if the currently lowest ranked player (at 471) beat the top 5 players in a game (2324, 2119, 2118, 2048 & 2048) he would receive 99+90+90+87+87 = 451 points. But even in doubling his score he wouldn't top 1000, so it looks like we can avoid chaos for now.

[areyouincahoots]

That sure was interesting read...lol...it kinda makes me want to try it...

[lackattack]

don't you dare!

[areyouincahoots]

I was kidding...

[lackattack]

so was I !

[wicked]

with the way the dice are screwing me over lately, I'm thinking of of signing up again just to be at 1000 again.