Count highest teammate's score twice when computing points

[FarangDemon]

Concise description:

• Many of the highest ranked players are inflating their scores into the stratosphere by teaming with low ranked players known as "muppets". (I'm not saying this to blame or belittle anyone, just stating the facts)
• By counting the score of each team's highest ranked player twice in computing team point totals, it reduces the extent to which high ranked players are able to inflate their scores or maintain inflated scores by playing with lower ranked players.

Specifics:

• Say the conqueror teams with 3 cadets and takes on a team averaging 1000 points a player. Doubling the highest ranked team member's scores you would get:
  
  Conqueror team = 2*6000+800+800+800 = 14400
  Beginner's team = 2*1000+1000+1000+1000 = 5000
  
  Now the conqueror would win 6 / lose 57 points. This would require winning 90% of games for the conqueror to consistently increase his score instead of only 82% of games in the current system.
• Against the average majors:
  
  Conqueror team = 2*6000+800+800+800 = 14400
  Major team = 2*2250+2250+2250+2250 = 11250
  
  Conqueror would win 15 / lose 25 points. This would require winning 63% of games for the conqueror to consistently increase his score instead of only 46% of games in the current system.
• Against the average colonels:
  
  Conqueror team = 2*6000+800+800+800 = 14400
  Colonel team = 2*2750+2750+2750+2750= 13750
  
  Conqueror would win 19 / lose 20 points. This would require winning 51% of games for the conqueror to consistently increase his score instead of only 37% in the current system.

I think a more equitable awarding of points in teams games is acheived by:

• Taking into account the effect of the superior leadership of the highest ranked member of each team
• Reducing the effectiveness of being able to gain or maintain 6000 points purely by playing with very low ranked team members
  
  By lowering the effectiveness of this point harvesting technique:
  • Decreases gap between Conqueror and highest ranked players that engage in harvesting to a lesser extent
  • The effect of the formula is very slight in most games, only becoming noticeable in games that advance/maintain scores of the extremely high ranked
  • As the gap decreases, so does the effect of the formula (because it doubles the highest ranked player) so that after deflation of the highest ranked, the effect will be almost unnoticeable.
  • Yes, you lose an avenue of making it to the top quickly, but the apex of the pyramid gets shrunken so you actually end up closer
  • Conqueror rank will be more attainable by people that don't want to engage in harvesting techniques

[slowreactor]

Make it more possible to become conqueror without having to resort to harvesting techniques.

Are you calling Herpes a farmer?

[Woodruff]

Concise description:

• Many of the highest ranked players are inflating their scores into the stratosphere by teaming with low ranked players known as "muppets".
• By counting the score of each team's highest ranked player twice in computing team point totals, it reduces the extent to which high ranked players are able to inflate their scores by playing with lower ranked players.

A good idea. I know that at times, that highest-ranked player may essentially "run" the entire team's movements, based on my own personal experience.

[redhawk92]

i like this idea would stop farming in the way some do it

[Mr Changsha]

If I want to play fruitcake in a trips game (as we sometimes do) then my team is usually around 2400, 1400, 1400. (BTW there is no point inflation going on here...my friends just happen to be at that level). Fruitcake would naturally take two minus 800 players to even up the points a bit...as it is highly unlikely he would win 5 out of 5 against me, but would rather be aiming for 3 out of 5 (I would think).

Or take this game as an example...

Game 5093370

Team 1 and team 4 are pretty standard officer teams but teams 2 and 3 have some of the highest ranked players on the site. I suggested to both Herpes and Fc that they would be welcome to take as 'cookish' a player as they could find..to even up the points.

How would your change affect this games' scoring and would it be of benefit in this case?

[FarangDemon]

If I want to play fruitcake in a trips game (as we sometimes do) then my team is usually around 2400, 1400, 1400. (BTW there is no point inflation going on here...my friends just happen to be at that level). Fruitcake would naturally take two minus 800 players to even up the points a bit...as it is highly unlikely he would win 5 out of 5 against me, but would rather be aiming for 3 out of 5 (I would think).

Or take this game as an example...

Game 5093370

Team 1 and team 4 are pretty standard officer teams but teams 2 and 3 have some of the highest ranked players on the site. I suggested to both Herpes and Fc that they would be welcome to take as 'cookish' a player as they could find..to even up the points.

How would your change affect this games' scoring and would it be of benefit in this case?

Changsha's team was 3898 becomes 6343
Fruitcake's was 5161 becomes 8906
Herpes' was 6876 becomes 13084
Captains was 3924 become 5992

Below, the numbers in front of parens represent using the new method, in parens is the current method:

So if Captains win, they get 43(35) from Herpes, 30(26) from Fruitcake, 21(19) from Changsha.
If Fruitcake wins, he gets 14(15) from Changsha, 29(26) from Herpes, 13(15) from Captains.
If Herpes wins, he gets 10(11) from Changsha, 13(15) from Fruitcake, 9(11) from Captains.
If Changsha wins, he gets 28(26) from Fruitcake, 41(35) from Herpes, 18(20)from Captains.

If the remaining players have equal chance of winning given a Herpes loss, then Herpes loses (35+26+35)/3 = 32 if he loses. And he gains 37 when he wins. So he would have needed to win 32/(32+37)=46% of the time to break even.

Under new method, he loses (43+29+41)/3 = 37.7 when he loses and gains 32 when he wins. Now he needs to win 37.7/(32+37.7) = 54% of the time to break even.

[owenshooter]

can we possibly get a poll so we can get a true measure of how the majority of CC feel about this idea?-0

[Fruitcake]

At what point does a low ranked player qualify as a muppet?

I think you malign those of us who spend hours sweating over training sessions, exhorting our trainees to conduct the correct procedures when rolling the 'assualt cubes', sharing all but our squirrelest of secrets and generally being all round damned fine chaps and good eggs.

I can no longer count on two hands some quite senior players within cc that have come to me as lowly ranked players to be moulded and recreated as lean fighting machines that they are today. What you are suggesting edges towards reward for not being very good.

I say nay, nay and thrice nay to this, it just won't do you see. I may tell you I shall be informing the other Generals in the mess of your henious strategy and all being well we shall ensure the bar staff take heed and the serving chappies no longer deliver your freshly cooked exact temperature poached egg in the morning.

Meanwhile I'm off to give one of the punkawallahs a damned good thrashing for keeling over whilst fanning me at this afternoons tea.

[john9blue]

At what point does a low ranked player qualify as a muppet?

I think you malign those of us who spend hours sweating over training sessions, exhorting our trainees to conduct the correct procedures when rolling the 'assualt cubes', sharing all but our squirrelest of secrets and generally being all round damned fine chaps and good eggs.

I can no longer count on two hands some quite senior players within cc that have come to me as lowly ranked players to be moulded and recreated as lean fighting machines that they are today. What you are suggesting edges towards reward for not being very good.

I say nay, nay and thrice nay to this, it just won't do you see. I may tell you I shall be informing the other Generals in the mess of your henious strategy and all being well we shall ensure the bar staff take heed and the serving chappies no longer deliver your freshly cooked exact temperature poached egg in the morning.

Meanwhile I'm off to give one of the punkawallahs a damned good thrashing for keeling over whilst fanning me at this afternoons tea.

TL;DR: Fruitcake would no longer be a general if this was implemented.

[Timminz]

As someone who is generally the lower score of my dubs team, I detest this suggestion. It's already bad enough that I lose extra points when my team mate has been having a good week. I can't think of any reason that would make me want to increase that disadvantage.

This suggestion would penalize the lower-ranked teammates more than it would the higher-ranked.

Also, having a cook on your team is a huge risk to take anyway. There's no need to make it even more so.

I could go on, but I have faith that this suggestion will not ever be implemented.

[King_Herpes]

Also, having a cook on your team is a huge risk to take anyway. There's no need to make it even more so.

Nail on the head. They miss turns and often make crucial mistakes costing the game. They just simply aren't the super soldiers that you believe we have the ability to turn them into. One of my favorite go to cooks(simply because he rarely missis turns) for example has a deterring case of dyslexia, no joke, making him a willing teammate at best. There's nothing wrong with going head to head with the even team. Unfortunately this is the only way I can currently raise my relative rank on any given map so this is what I've been resorting too lately. It's a tough game against stiff compition, and they're not easy wins. I aim to win around 50%.

[btown80]

How about CC just puts a ban on Generals+, they can't play anyone who has less than 100 games played. That would also fix the farming issue we have... (yes this means you herpes)

[btown80]

Also, having a cook on your team is a huge risk to take anyway. There's no need to make it even more so.

Nail on the head. They miss turns and often make crucial mistakes costing the game. They just simply aren't the super soldiers that you believe we have the ability to turn them into. One of my favorite go to cooks(simply because he rarely missis turns) for example has a deterring case of dyslexia, no joke, making him a willing teammate at best. There's nothing wrong with going head to head with the even team. Unfortunately this is the only way I can currently raise my relative rank on any given map so this is what I've been resorting too lately. It's a tough game against stiff compition, and they're not easy wins. I aim to win around 50%.

This is kinda funny to read, because you know as well as I do, herpes, that you are telling the muppet what to do every single step of the way. he is only there to assist in getting you more points in case of a victory, and so you lose less in case your farming technique fails.

[King_Herpes]

Balderdash. Every player I call upon shares their input and is respected as my teammate. Many of you players just can't concieve that someone who doens't keep their own rank above the given 1000 is a complete tosspot. This is not the case. If you look deeper into the men/women under the chef's hat you'll find compitent players who often would make the exact move I would or something similiar. Not every round no, not every game of course not. They just need guidance is all and someone to have faith in them. They also are fun people who don't care so much about losing but are willing to take advice on how to win. I enjoy my games with these players for this reason alone and just because some of you can't wrap your head around the concept doesn't make it wrong. It's perfectly legit so kiss my pasty white ass.

[hwhrhett]

Balderdash. Every player I call upon shares their input and is respected as my teammate. Many of you players just can't concieve that someone who doens't keep their own rank above the given 1000 is a complete tosspot. This is not the case. If you look deeper into the men/women under the chef's hat you'll find compitent players who often would make the exact move I would or something similiar. Not every round no, not every game of course not. They just need guidance is all and someone to have faith in them. They also are fun people who don't care so much about losing but are willing to take advice on how to win. I enjoy my games with these players for this reason alone and just because some of you can't wrap your head around the concept doesn't make it wrong. It's perfectly legit so kiss my pasty white ass.

ugh, i hate to have to agree with the king here..... ugh, i feel so dirty.... but.... hes right, he is taking part in the teaching process, it may be for selfish reasons, but..... the lower ranked folks that he may align with on teams are taking away some great training from a great specialized player... this is only good for cc.. not bad...

[King_Herpes]

Furthermore, there is a pipedream of mine. A clan consisting of 12 cooks and I maybe one other person. It's to be called the baker's dozen and will focus on teaching them the basic rules, principles and strategy for team play. Once this clan is formulated I can constantly bring in a new line of fresh faces once the old members have fully benefited from their experiences of going against tough teams who only make minor mistakes. Keep an eye out for it because when this clan is off the drawing table and in gear you'll all be hearing a lot more about it. Most likely, how it is immediately another abuse of the scoring system mainly because some guy with herpes in his name is associated with it. Honestly, you people just aren't happy unless you have something to bellyache about.

[hwhrhett]

Furthermore, there is a pipedream of mine. A clan consisting of 12 cooks and I maybe one other person. It's to be called the baker's dozen and will focus on teaching them the basic rules, principles and strategy for team play. Once this clan is formulated I can constantly bring in a new line of fresh faces once the old members have fully benefited from their experiences of going against tough teams who only make minor mistakes. Keep an eye out for it because when this clan is off the drawing table and in gear you'll all be hearing a lot more about it. Most likely, how it is immediately another abuse of the scoring system mainly because some guy with herpes in his name is associated with it. Honestly, you people just aren't happy unless you have something to bellyache about.

why dont you just offer your services to the soc?

[King_Herpes]

Because I want my own clan and have every right to do so. That's why. Besides the Society of Cooks is just an open forum and mentoring program. This will be highly specialized training against the finest of team players. A colosal difference from your monthly read of random suggestions by a barage of opposing view points.

[hwhrhett]

Because I want my own clan and have every right to do so. That's why. Besides the Society of Cooks is just an open forum and mentoring program. This will be highly specialized training against the finest of team players. A colosal difference from your monthly read of random suggestions by a barage of opposing view points.

you should really check out the society of cooks, they are suprisingly well organized and get more done than you think, that would actually offer you an endless amount of cooks to feed off of/train. because if you start a clan, your cooks will quickly become captains, no?

[Bruceswar]

The difference between the SoC and his clan is he can handpick his partners. In the SoC he will have to take whoever comes. Personally I do not like this idea.

[pmchugh]

Balderdash. Every player I call upon shares their input and is respected as my teammate. Many of you players just can't concieve that someone who doens't keep their own rank above the given 1000 is a complete tosspot. This is not the case. If you look deeper into the men/women under the chef's hat you'll find compitent players who often would make the exact move I would or something similiar. Not every round no, not every game of course not. They just need guidance is all and someone to have faith in them. They also are fun people who don't care so much about losing but are willing to take advice on how to win. I enjoy my games with these players for this reason alone and just because some of you can't wrap your head around the concept doesn't make it wrong. It's perfectly legit so kiss my pasty white ass.

Theoritically yes, practically no.

I teamed with you once in the Whack a Mod! games in a quads game and I was basically a muppet and I am not a cook. The biggest desicion I made was between which two reinforcements you gave me the choice between. Don't get me wrong I chose to listen to you as I knew you knew better than me and I am not having a go at you or saying you did anything wrong, in fact I enjoyed teaming with you as I did learn a lot from you. However you simply cannot say that in an ideal world for you, that you make every move and decision and this is what happened in our game with a few decent players on our team.

[Mr Changsha]

Fruitcake's 'call me sahib' project or Herpes' 'Bakers Dozen' clan would seem like great ideas to any player who is only concerned with his own rank, rather than judging his worth on other people's rank. So what if a 5,000+ player needs to find a +600 player when taking on, say, a couple of captains in a sequential game. I would assume they'd need to do that to have any hope of not just throwing away points in a five game series. As Herpes said, he hopes for a 50% win rate against quality opposition on a 2 on 2 format. Quite right, I'd hope for the same. King_H is not superman, but rather a very good player who happens to have raised his score to the stratosphere through freestlye. Good on him for that. But if you want to see top 50 players playing truly competitive games (and not enough do) then making it HARDER for them to take on quality opposition in the 2,000 to 3,000 range is just illogical.

I know a lot of players would enjoy playing with them (and in my experience both players would certainly listen to any suggestion given from any rank), and most importantly it allows Fruitcake or Herpes to take part in more competitive games, where they can't just dominate the field through speed or unusually specialised knowledge. Would the CC community prefer our top players to specialise, or rather see them taking part in ultra-competitive games? The same people who complain about farming, seemingly would also complain about Herpes playing with a cook. That simply makes no sense. I would rather see our Conqueror taking on high ranked opposition than farming...wouldn't you?

Fruitcake once wrote that he is a major pretending to be a general while our conqueror is a colonel pretending to be a conqueror. This shows a rare sense of objectivity. Incredible specialising, point protection and all the rest of the tricks that CAN be used to raise rank takes time, effort and commitment to achieve. All high rankers should be applauded for their efforts and all good players could do the same if they so choose. I sometimes consider just clearing the decks and playing 100 classic trips in a row. My score would certainly go up. However, in the end I don't have that will to do it, which is why I will never get so high. A high ranker who plays with a cook (or two) is openly admitting this point: that the difference between page 1 and page 2 has a lot more to do with game choice than raw ability. So I applaud the player who has risen so high and I certainly applaud the player who, once he has risen so high, also chooses to leave his comfort zone and take on the likes of me.

Of course, my attitude about these things is probably the main reason King_H does play me sequentially. He knows I rate him regardless of the result, and he knows I would find prospect of me winning +50 from a sequential game against him to be frankly embarrassing.

[King_Herpes]

you should really check out the society of cooks, they are suprisingly well organized and get more done than you think, that would actually offer you an endless amount of cooks to feed off of/train. because if you start a clan, your cooks will quickly become captains, no?

Well I will say that I am interested in the Society of Cooks and sharing my knowledge. It's come to that point where I don't have any reason not to help others. I will look into it and see what I can offer that hasn't already been mulled over. However, they are not a competitive clan and I wish to be. I also want to enter into team tournaments with low ranks to sharpen my decisions. Yes the cooks would quickly rank up so long as we maintained a 50%+ win percentage together and they gained knowledge to apply to their individual games. Which is why it would be a revolving door of members. Some would come and go until they got things down pact and others would linger around for periods of time.

Theoritically yes, practically no.

I teamed with you once in the Whack a Mod! games in a quads game and I was basically a muppet and I am not a cook. The biggest desicion I made was between which two reinforcements you gave me the choice between. Don't get me wrong I chose to listen to you as I knew you knew better than me and I am not having a go at you or saying you did anything wrong, in fact I enjoyed teaming with you as I did learn a lot from you. However you simply cannot say that in an ideal world for you, that you make every move and decision and this is what happened in our game with a few decent players on our team.

That was on a very large and difficult map with tough settings. Fog of war if I recall, flat rate on Conquer Man. The largest map to be exact. Leaves little room for mistakes against what were great players. Any input would have surely been taken into account and talked over. You simply kept asking me to make the calls, and so I obliged. I never shouted anyone down or made them do anything against their will. And I certainly wouldn't do that under any circumstance.

Of course, my attitude about these things is probably the main reason King_H does play me sequentially. He knows I rate him regardless of the result, and he knows I would find prospect of me winning +50 from a sequential game against him to be frankly embarrassing.

Correctamundo! I enjoy playing against people who have a greater respect for the of adversity of the game that certain players choose to endure, the flack they receive, and then who add humor into this understanding. I play games with you because of these reasons. Not many other players share like minds and humble themselves next to another's chosen craft. This is why it's not a common practice of mine but I am not opposed to playing games with people in the minor leagues per say. I consider you a sound strategist and articulate person. I enjoy our games win or lose.

[Bruceswar]

The SoC is non Competive group, and the people you get for team games are of all skill levels. For what you are looking for you would be better off picking your own teammates.

[pmchugh]

Fair enoguh herpes.