Changing the way we score

[Woodruff]

If someone won't play someone else for fear of losing their precious points, then they are a coward who actually has no faith in their own skill.

not really, half the games that can be played here are all about luck
if a high rank has a 50% chance of beating you but can only gain 5 and lose 80, why should they do it?
thats like going up to someone on the street and saying "lets flip a coin. if its heads ill give you 1 euro and if its tails you have to give me 10" then calling them a coward when they say no

50-50? Really?
First of all, if those games really ARE 50-50, then you're an idiot for PLAYING THOSE GAMES EVER because they're 50-50 against anyone!
Secondly, if the games really ARE 50-50, then there's absolutely no reason to keep a rating and rank. In fact, there's absolutely no reason to fear playing anyone.
Thanks for defusing your own argument.
EDIT: I'm not calling YOU an idiot. My "you" there is referring to anyone who plays those 50-50 games, if they believe they are 50-50.

maybe you should learn to read.

Maybe you should try explaining what I've failed to read. Too difficult for you, or just trying to deflect the fact that you defused your own argument?

[Thomas.Paine]

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=4213783

This game was up for long enough for me to read this thread, c and a, some clan stuff, etc.

Finally somebody joined- yay, I get to play.

Please don't limit the number of people I can play with, I have to wait long enough these days.

by the way, I have been #1 on the Equalitarian Leaderboard.

Thanks for the game Krimos.

I like to play

[Fruitcake]

The simple truth is that if you make yourself available to play anyone at one of the popular maps, then the chances are your RR will slide, if very slowly. However, this means the onus is on the high points player to also take on others within their peer group and so halt or reduce that slide. The natural evolvement of this will be a swollen mid range points board.

The normal course of events (if you are a good player) is upon joining your pick up in points exceeds your losses. This also increases your RR and vice versa (I have picked up over 40 points when I was rising through the scoreboard, and lost 80+ points when I decided to learn the Hong Kong map (it served me well as I have won on it since). When you have reached your natural limit, you will tend to float around that point on the scoreboard. The RR adjusted score just clarifies this point. There are some Sergeants who have an RR that would make them Captains. There are some from the top of the scoreboard that would see a drop in rank.

I have always felt this would be a fair way of:
1) Reducing the number of points in existence.
2) Increase, slightly, the differential between winning and losing to high ranks.
3) Level the playing field a great deal, including speed gamers taking on very low ranks.

I am sure there are many camps with ideas, I would be concerned if there wasn't with a community of this size, I am only putting forward another suggestion to the way the scoreboard is valued.

[Jeff Hardy]

The simple truth is that if you make yourself available to play anyone at one of the popular maps, then the chances are your RR will slide, if very slowly. However, this means the onus is on the high points player to also take on others within their peer group and so halt or reduce that slide.

you mean they have to play private games rather than public

[Fruitcake]

The simple truth is that if you make yourself available to play anyone at one of the popular maps, then the chances are your RR will slide, if very slowly. However, this means the onus is on the high points player to also take on others within their peer group and so halt or reduce that slide.

you mean they have to play private games rather than public

No, I didn't say that did I. What I said was that the onus is on the high points player to also take on others within their peer group and so halt or reduce that slide. If I had wanted to say they have to play private games rather than public then I would have said they have to play private games rather than public.