[Rules] Better point system

[porkenbeans]

You are basically trying to create an entirely differant track from the point system, but I really don't think what you have described will be any more fair that the current system. One of the biggest issues (in addition to the fact that the high rankers don't benefit much from playing lower ranks). becuase the inherent problems have more to do with how you rate specific game types, playing styles and not so much just whom you play.

Is team play really the same as singles? Is freestyl the same as sequential? ETC. Your idea would just add another complication, more room for dispute.

Aside from that, point will still exist ... whether conquerer is tied to them or not. And, points will accrue as I described.


As for the high rank/ not high rank....

A new person starts out above a cook, so majors, colonels, some bridadiers can gain points by playing them. It is when they get a lot of cooks that problems can come. But, many cooks are truly terrible strategists (not all, but many). Also, I hesitate to say this, but some of those "newbies" are likely multis intentionally throwing games. I am not accusing any particular person. There can be a lot of reasons for someone to "throw" games initially as a multis newbie even when not playing themselves. (that is, the winner/the farmer is not necessarily a multis by any means) I am just saying that is definitely part of this "mix".

Anyway, there are other threads that get into the mathematics of this better. I am just using generalities right now. I have seen the math, know it is true, but don't have the energy to duplicate it right now.

No, I am not trying to create a diff. track from the point system. You said it yourself, That it would be nearly impossible for someone coming on board today to ever catch up in points to the current leaders. You are right on, with this assessment. It is not fair. You, I and many others at CC are aware of this. Maybe you can join with me to do something about it, insted of trying to shoot down every solution that has been put forth. Power does not give up without a fight, but you may want to rethink your possition as their mouthpiece. I have no doubt that they are good RISK players, but, I believe that their monopoly can and should be busted. If CC wants to grow, It should make room for newer players to advance, and give them the opportunity to reach for the top. My idea achieves this by making ''points'' important, only in achieving the next rank. When a player has proved his or her skill and climbed to the top 100, they should be able to compete on an equal playing field with the others there. Years of point collecting by the few should not be the determining factor of who occupies the top slots. If they are indeed the best RISK players, then they should not be afraid to prove it. And keep on proving it. They can still display their massive stack of points, but are they the best RISK players ? I believe that the best Risk players should be on top, not the best point collectors. If you think that im wrong, well, maybe we should just go ahead and declare them the winners. Then CC can start over and reset everyone back to noob status. HAHAHA, I will guarantee you this, the leaderboard will certainly see a new set of faces.

[PLAYER57832]

No, I am not trying to create a diff. track from the point system.

You said it yourself, That it would be nearly impossible for someone coming on board today to ever catch up in points to the current leaders.

You misunderstood. The current systems definitely makes it possible for people to climb all the way to the top ... as long as they are able to play high ranked players (some argue they cannot, others say that is baloney... I personally don't know). It is becoming harder, but it is definitely possible. One key is to look at the number of folks who score higher, but have lower rank.. meaning they have the score, but not the time. They are spread throughout.

BUT, under your system, there would be no "equalizer". So those already at the top WOULD go up ad-infinitum.

You are right on, with this assessment. It is not fair. You, I and many others at CC are aware of this. Maybe you can join with me to do something about it, insted of trying to shoot down every solution that has been put forth.

No, I did not say the current system is unfair ...except perhaps (and only perhaps) for the very highest ranked players.

As for finding a solution.. have you checked the threads? Both Cicero, I, Jiminski and several others HAVE posted ideas that get at this very thing. But, we just approach it differantly. I, for example, posted a thread on "slot limits" (the thread is listed above) a long time ago. And, there has been mention of various "behind the scenes" attempts to look at this. They just recently posted a full analysis of the dice, for example. Other issues have been alluded to, but they are not public. I imagine that at some point things will be public ... but not now.

[skip ahead to save space]

I believe that the best Risk players should be on top, not the best point collectors.

I just think you are looking at this from the wrong angle. But, we may just have to "agree to disagree" on this.

However, I do think saying I was a "mouthpiece" for CC and such ... well, I think Lack, etc. would find that a bit humerous. I do not exactly share their opinion on many things ..
In fact, I have skated close to getting bans for my postings on such issues.

If you are really concerned about this (and it looks as though you are), then I would suggest doing a bit further research. Maybe you need to widen your perspective (.. look at more than just those posts that mention scoring directly in their titles, for example), maybe you just need to "go deeper" .. look at older posts. But, the fact that you don't think I already posted on this issue .. shows you missed a lot. Look at the discussion that has taken place .. and then come back.

[porkenbeans]

No, I am not trying to create a diff. track from the point system.

You said it yourself, That it would be nearly impossible for someone coming on board today to ever catch up in points to the current leaders.

You misunderstood. The current systems definitely makes it possible for people to climb all the way to the top ... as long as they are able to play high ranked players (some argue they cannot, others say that is baloney... I personally don't know). It is becoming harder, but it is definitely possible. One key is to look at the number of folks who score higher, but have lower rank.. meaning they have the score, but not the time. They are spread throughout.

BUT, under your system, there would be no "equalizer". So those already at the top WOULD go up ad-infinitum.

You are right on, with this assessment. It is not fair. You, I and many others at CC are aware of this. Maybe you can join with me to do something about it, insted of trying to shoot down every solution that has been put forth.

No, I did not say the current system is unfair ...except perhaps (and only perhaps) for the very highest ranked players.

As for finding a solution.. have you checked the threads? Both Cicero, I, Jiminski and several others HAVE posted ideas that get at this very thing. But, we just approach it differantly. I, for example, posted a thread on "slot limits" (the thread is listed above) a long time ago. And, there has been mention of various "behind the scenes" attempts to look at this. They just recently posted a full analysis of the dice, for example. Other issues have been alluded to, but they are not public. I imagine that at some point things will be public ... but not now.

[skip ahead to save space]

I believe that the best Risk players should be on top, not the best point collectors.

I just think you are looking at this from the wrong angle. But, we may just have to "agree to disagree" on this.

However, I do think saying I was a "mouthpiece" for CC and such ... well, I think Lack, etc. would find that a bit humerous. I do not exactly share their opinion on many things ..
In fact, I have skated close to getting bans for my postings on such issues.

If you are really concerned about this (and it looks as though you are), then I would suggest doing a bit further research. Maybe you need to widen your perspective (.. look at more than just those posts that mention scoring directly in their titles, for example), maybe you just need to "go deeper" .. look at older posts. But, the fact that you don't think I already posted on this issue .. shows you missed a lot. Look at the discussion that has taken place .. and then come back.

I did NOT say that you were a mouthpiece for CC. But for the collectors at the top. Who, by the way are indeed, impossible to catch. If you played for 2 years, you would never catch them because they will also have 2 more years to widden there score. You and I just have 2 diff. ideas on who should be on the top. You side with the ''collectors'', I side with those of us that want to see the best ''RISK'' players there.

[porkenbeans]

I dont think that you quite understand. Farming is eliminated by not being able to join against players lower than 3 ranks below yourself. and you are also protected from loosing 60 points when a cook joins your game. also your possition within a certain rank is determined by your average rank opponent, so those that play on average the highest ranks will be listed above those that do not. The point system as it stands now is nothing more than an attempt at affermitive action. lol.

I believe this will just change the nature of farming.

You would have a few players at the top who would consistantly win and, before long, be well above everyone else. (at the top)


I can see optional "slot limits", but then why the point change?

You and I are just talking in circles. The O.A.R. concept solves both the farming issue and your concerns with players at the top consistantly winning. Once a player has proven himself and has accrued enough points to make it to the top 100, he will then have to prove himself by keeping his O.A.R. the highest he can. It will prove who is indeed the best of the best at ''RISK', not collectig the most points. The worst of those players will move down the leaderboard, making way for others to move up into the top 100. And allowing them the oportunity to compete on an equal playing field with the best this game has to offer.

[porkenbeans]

Farming is eliminated by not being able to join against players lower than 3 ranks below yourself.

But, you can join against all ranks above yourself.

So noobs will still join games with high players.

Yes, but you wont have to risk 60 points to win 5. Just scrap the ''handicapping'' system all together. Make it an even playing field. the better players will win most of the time of coarse, as it should be. but, the O.A.R concept will prevent players from farming noobs. You must gain points to advance your rank, but once there the players with the higher O.A.R. will be at the top of that rank.

[spiesr]

So farmers will get more points per game but points won't matter anymore. How is that a good idea?

[porkenbeans]

So farmers will get more points per game but points won't matter anymore. How is that a good idea?

It is quite simple really. Farming for easy points from low rankers will be made counter-productive, as you will only lower your O.A.R. thus lowering your position within your rank. Points will matter, but they wont be the end all. your O.A.R. will determin your possition within your rank. They could even have 3 color levels in each rank to easly spot the best and worst O.A.R ratings.

[The Neon Peon]

So farmers will get more points per game but points won't matter anymore. How is that a good idea?

It is quite simple really. Farming for easy points from low rankers will be made counter-productive, as you will only lower your O.A.R. thus lowering your position within your rank. Points will matter, but they wont be the end all. your O.A.R. will determin your possition within your rank. They could even have 3 color levels in each rank to easly spot the best and worst O.A.R ratings.

Okay, so the choice is this:

1. Not farm and be the highest major
2. Farm and be the lowest field marshal

Honestly, I would choose option 2 over 1 anytime.

[porkenbeans]

So farmers will get more points per game but points won't matter anymore. How is that a good idea?

It is quite simple really. Farming for easy points from low rankers will be made counter-productive, as you will only lower your O.A.R. thus lowering your position within your rank. Points will matter, but they wont be the end all. your O.A.R. will determin your possition within your rank. They could even have 3 color levels in each rank to easly spot the best and worst O.A.R ratings.

Okay, so the choice is this:

1. Not farm and be the highest major
2. Farm and be the lowest field marshal

Honestly, I would choose option 2 over 1 anytime.

Excellent, my friend. I am so glad that this thread is receiving the thoughtful and intellectual response that I had hoped for. Hey, do you ever watch those home make-over shows on the tube ? ...I am reminded of an episode I saw once. The worst of all time, un-satisfied, home-owner. Maybe you've seen it ? There's this crazy lady that has a cuniption fit. She said that she wanted and needed change from her old, worn out, out dated and no longer functioning home. By all accounts,They turned her home into something that anyone would be proud to call their own. But she cried and cried because everything was different. I think that many of us are just like that lady. We see perfectly, the need for change, and even say that we want it. In reality tho, we are creatures of habbit and deep down inside we really do NOT like change very much. I have pondered upon what you said, about, what your choice would be. And I suspect that many would make that same choice. I also suspect, that, the truely good players would make the choice, ...to be listed among the best of the best. I think that before long, you would see that it is no fun being listed among the Wann-bee king of cooks. hehehe.
The 3 color levels could be reflected in the players name. GOLD, SILVER, ...or pink.

[The Neon Peon]

Okay... so with that long post of yours, could you care to at least address my point?

If you make every game worth 20 points, then the people who do farm will have such high ranks that it does not matter whether they are, as you say. gold, silver, or pink

Also, I am rather fond of change, you would know this if you knew me in real life, but as you do not, I can't say anything against you. The point being, this change is for the worse.

If you had implemented this earlier, people like KLOBBER, Max, MOBAJOBG, and JR24 would each have over 7000 points. They are all good players, but the only way to be conqueror or even have a high rank, would be to farm. I do not think that is a good thing. Right now, farmers have the high ranks, but there are a good deal of other people up there. With this, only the farmers would have a high rank.

[porkenbeans]

Okay... so with that long post of yours, could you care to at least address my point?

If you make every game worth 20 points, then the people who do farm will have such high ranks that it does not matter whether they are, as you say. gold, silver, or pink

Also, I am rather fond of change, you would know this if you knew me in real life, but as you do not, I can't say anything against you. The point being, this change is for the worse.

If you had implemented this earlier, people like KLOBBER, Max, MOBAJOBG, and JR24 would each have over 7000 points. They are all good players, but the only way to be conqueror or even have a high rank, would be to farm. I do not think that is a good thing. Right now, farmers have the high ranks, but there are a good deal of other people up there. With this, only the farmers would have a high rank.

Yes I did address your point. Listen please, POINTS do not matter when it comes to C.R. (color rank). You can try to farm all the noobs that you want. And aquire 10,000 points. You will still only be a pinky. Also, if at that time you ever wanted to try for the Hall (read about the Great Hall, homepage thread on ''declare winners'') well, it would be very very hard to bring your O.A.R. up, after so many games against noobs too calculate.

[spiesr]

You still have not addressed the fact the lowest Brigadier would be higher on the score board than the highest Major. (It would be easier to farm and get brig than fight strong people and get major.) Unless of course your system has the scoreboard bassed on oar first and points second. Which would be a bad idea.

[FabledIntegral]

Terribleeeee idea.

This wouldn't eliminate farming.
And would f*ck with the game options many could play.

8-player speed games would DIE.
Conqueror couldn't even play a colonel?

And apparently I'd gain 20 points for each time I beat a captain? Oh snap. I'll be hitting general in a sec.

There's a reason you "risk" 60 points when playing a cook. It's because cooks are so strategically retarded you have to absolutely butcher a game in order to lose to one. Sure dice can f*ck you, but even then, it's hard to lose to a cook, because they will have been busy screwing themselves up with their absolute inherent stupidity concerning this game.

[Thezzaruz]

Listen please, POINTS do not matter when it comes to C.R. (color rank). You can try to farm all the noobs that you want. And aquire 10,000 points. You will still only be a pinky.

But you are still missing the point. You might feel all warm and fuzzy about being a golden cook but most people would rather be conquer (be it a golden, silver, pink or even poop brown one). Hell most people wouldn't notice much of a difference other than a bunch of farmers shooting up the rankings at lightspeed.

And the "it stops farming" is BS, most farmers isn't searching out cooks to play but rather they start games (with specific settings) and wait for the cooks to come to them. And that will still be allowed in your suggestion.

I'm sorry if I sound negative but I just can't see anything good coming from this, the only real change it would mean is that you would gain more, and risk less, from playing weaker opposition than today and that is IMHO a very bad idea.