Lowered Cap for Point Loss

[trapyoung]

Revise current score calculation:

• Current cap is 100 points, lower it so that no loss costs an individual more than 50 points

Specifics:

• Change maximum loss to 50

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Currently cap of 100 is rarely utilized
• Losses of 60-75 points is frequent and largely due to dice and randomness
• Point loss cap of 50 will encourage higher ranks to play more games and variety of games because of decrease fear of drastic point loss
• Currently a game of someone with 2100 points playing someone with 700 has ability to gain 6 points and lose 60. A 54 point spread, the cap would only make a 44 point spread and make the option of playing someone of lower rank not that much of a nuissance.
• Higher ranked individuals are more effected by swings in points, a 60 point swing can lower or raise a rank for these individuals while a 60 point gain for a cook will hardly impact them. The system allows cooks to still have ability to gain many points in these games, just soften the burden to higher ranks slightly
• Overall benefits will allow for more games, less animosity in games between cooks and high ranks, more fair point distribution following games - 100 points for a loss is very dramatic and no win or loss should be worth that much because dice, drops, cards, etc. all play large roles in these games and are random.

[max is gr8]

# Losses of 60-75 points is frequent and largely due to dice and randomness

How is that so. Sometimes people lose to people lower than them get over it...

[trapyoung]

i'm not sore about anything guy. i think it's ridiculous one one or one loss can equate to ever being worthy of more than 50 points per individual. and to answer your question every map has dice and a drop that you can't control and have you ever had a bad roll or two or three? regardless even if it is because of skill a single win shouldn't net you 100 points from a single person, that's ridiculous, if you're that good just win another game. fact is these games where these occur are freak occurrences of cooks against higher ranks and the reward 7 points opposed to the loss potential of 65+ makes it not worth playing these games. my recommendations allows for more fair point distribution, read the entire suggestion before you act like an ass.

[max is gr8]

I did. Who's being the presumptuous "ass" now? I have, but the reason the game is called risk is because you need to take them to win. If you have an unlucky game you can easily recuperate the points

[trapyoung]

no, all it does is keep higher ranks from engaging in games against lower ranks to point protect as well as not branching out types of games played. while you can say some still do play against lower ranks the risk/reward is too drastic to make most of these games even worth the time. you can't say that a 7 point gain v 65 point loss seems like a very appealing game draw.

[max is gr8]

I play anyone. I don't care who. whether they're no. 1 or at the bottom. I don't care

[trapyoung]

well your a rare case and a great humanitarian who should be the aspiration for all of us

[trapyoung]

and it's called conquer club not risk, i'm sure lack would want hasbro to see the distinction

[max is gr8]

Yes. But because it has distinct similarities to RISK - the hasbro game, The rules are exactly the same with practically no variation. And also, if it has dice you are bound to be unlucky sometimes but the idea is your skill should offset that. In extremely rare circumstances you are extremely unlucky but it's just as likely your opponent is experiencing the same. If you don't like luck don't play a game with any dice.

[KLOBBER]

I hate to say that I agree with Trap 'em young, but this is a great idea!

[gdeangel]

I want to go on record with my point about how the significance of point loss is really an issue for the narrower ranks IMHO (i.e., the middle ranks that have been squeezed since the breakpoints were reset a couple of months ago.)

Here's my post from the other thread:

I'd like to see something around 50 being in the 1800-2000 range of captain ATM. It's purely psychological, but getting busted rank aint cool 'cause its noticeable right away to everybody - in games, in forums, etc. - because of the icon. If I were a cadet, I'd want a lower cap, cause I only have 100 points max to play with before I'd be a feakin' cook. If I were a Colonel like certain people, where the range of 500, I could live with 60 as a cap and be quite content to take on some risk.

Yes, this would be tougher to explain and implement, but not all that much... but it should at least be considered I think as the discussion has now squarely aimed at setting the cap at the "right" number.

[jiminski]

I hate to say that I agree with Trap 'em young, but this is a great idea!

sorry Trap.. i think the idea encourages abuse.

[t-o-m]

even though you are in DRS, i will agree with you.
i would like to go pwning some noobs if there are no good speed games on, on a 1v1, but i dont want to be loosing loads of points if i get fvked by the dice.
(mind you, i dont think that i would even loose 100points in a 1v1 but anyway...)

[KLOBBER]

...sorry Trap.. i think the idea encourages abuse.

It's unfortunate that Jimmy's mind works in a certain way to always focus on finding ways to abuse, but most others, who are more honest than Jimmy, don't think that way -- me included.

This lower cap is still a great idea.

[jiminski]

Hmm i am sorry to be difficult Trap, I like the idea in one sense but there will be a problem with ranking players preying on New players.
This is enough of a problem as it stands but at least there is the protection of the greater point handicap. Without it, any idiot with patience and low boredom threshold can harvest large amounts of points without any skill.

[KLOBBER]

[modedit]... large amounts of points ...[/modedit]

I suppose you would know best on that subject.

[FabledIntegral]

Enough high ranks already thrive on bashing noobs - your point is virtually nonexistant. The other high ranks typically, if they are going to avoid low ranks, avoid nearly all of them, and won't play with anything lower than a Major. So either way, this doesn't really accomplish anything.

And when I was a Brig I lost 100 points to a cook in an 8-player escalating when I was suicided on by 3 different players by round 5.

[KoE_Sirius]

No bad idea..If you lose to a lower rank its your own fault ..Live with the loss or just play in snob games lol

[KoE_Sirius]

...any idiot....

I suppose you would know best on that subject.

kettle/pot /black.....Form a common saying from these 3 words.Then we have Klobber in an eggshell all high and mighty.

[KLOBBER]

***Cicero didn't specifically ask me to change this post, but because he has such a good approach as a mod (like a kind human being), I changed it anyway as a gesture of good will.***

[trapyoung]

jim i understand your point and know why someone like klobber would agree, it would help point protect him more but i still find it hard to believe any game - if the rank system is to indicate true ability - is worth more than 50 points ever. now there are always going to be individuals trying to side step the fairness intended by the system but i think the cap of 100 is way too high, and probably rarely utilized, the same arguments against the lowering of the cap would exist of lowering the cap from 200 to 100, sure a game or two would probably be effected but this is meant to effect the realm of 50-70 point losses that i feel are frequent. i know that i like to play team games on this site w/ my friends but for a while i tried to branch out and join random games with other high ranks to see if they had different strategies, could teach me new maps, just meet new ppl etc. but a couple of rough outings and much of my play is limited now. i play team games with mostly those i know in real life, and therefore can yell at in person if they act retarded, and private games in the 'x +' callouts section. good games but for someone like myself with a low attention span, id like to do some 1on1's where i'm playing for fun and not for my life. the spread between point distribution for myself and a cook makes it ridiculous, i'm trying to win 4 points and risking 70? i think that's absurd still.

and klobber there are countless threads about your foe list. let's not make this one of them.

[killmanic]

This will help the high rankers to much, as I could join alot of games vs new recruits who have no chance and lets say i lose 1 every once and a while due to bad luck and good new recruits, the only person this is hurting is the new recruits and helping me gain even more points, in addition if I play a gave vs a low ranker and lose say 60-100 points they deserve those since they played well and its not like points matter and also they arent hard to get.

[trapyoung]

Thank you everyone for your thoughts, keep posting what you think. I've also added a poll to get a feel of everyone's overall opinions, 3 options even though the first one hasn't been suggested or recommended in this thread yet nor do I think it will be.

[FabledIntegral]

I don't get it - the point cap will only apply really to high rankers playing cooks, new recruits, cadets, privates, and corporals.

Do we really WANT to encourage the high ranks playing them? I don't think so.

[cicero]

Thank you everyone for your thoughts, keep posting what you think. I've also added a poll to get a feel of everyone's overall opinions, 3 options even though the first one hasn't been suggested or recommended in this thread yet nor do I think it will be.

Great to see this back on topic, please don't forget only to post when you think

Trapyoung has presented a detailed suggestion and there has been a lot of interesting discussion and constructive argument .. heavily punctuated with a lot of irrelevant infighting ... Let's stay focussed on the issues.

If trapyoung's proposed reduced cap had been in place, how different would our scores be?
If the increased cap had been in place, how different would our scores be?

Interesting to see where the poll is going ...