Scoring tweak

[dafranca]

Ok... Since you didn't like the winning probability, because it will cause bigger variation of points, but not overall inflation.

If you want to keep the same variation of points. You take the total points of the player and devide by 50.

Example:
player 1 has 1000 pts ==> 1000/50 = 20 pts in game
Player 2 has 1500 pts ==> 1500/50 = 30 pts in game
Player 3 has 2000 pts ==> 2000/50 = 40 pts in game
Player 4 has 2500 pts ==> 2500/50 = 50 pts in game

This way we will not have points variation as in the probability system. I prefer the Probability, but this new system is as simple as the one we have, but people will not throw away games for higher ranked.

[dafranca]

up

[HotShot53]

I think basing it on an average would work better.... otherwise games with only low ranked players they wouldn't get many points, while games with only high ranked players would be worth a ton.... so basing the divisor off of some sort of average would be better, I think....

[sully800]

Ok... Since you didn't like the winning probability, because it will cause bigger variation of points, but not overall inflation.

If you want to keep the same variation of points. You take the total points of the player and devide by 50.

Example:
player 1 has 1000 pts ==> 1000/50 = 20 pts in game
Player 2 has 1500 pts ==> 1500/50 = 30 pts in game
Player 3 has 2000 pts ==> 2000/50 = 40 pts in game
Player 4 has 2500 pts ==> 2500/50 = 50 pts in game

This way we will not have points variation as in the probability system. I prefer the Probability, but this new system is as simple as the one we have, but people will not throw away games for higher ranked.

I think I understand this, and I don't like this method at all. That would mean in a game with 6 players at 1000 points each the winner would gain 100 points. In a game with 6 players at 2000 points each the winner would gain double that- 200 points.

In both cases the winner beat their peers, so the higher ranked player should not get a massive bonus like that. This would lead to further segregation of the games because higher ranked players would want to play each other even more than currently to gain points.

[qeee1]

Ok... Since you didn't like the winning probability, because it will cause bigger variation of points, but not overall inflation.

I liked where you were going with that system, I'm just saying it needs to be looked at more in depth. If there's no overall inflation that's good, that's a main worry gone, and I can see now there won't be, but the variation does cause some problems in relation to the existing scores:

Could it be implemented simply by adjusting the current scores so that people on say X points (assuming X points corresponds to skill level Y) get adjusted to the score they would be on in the new system (ie. the number of points a player of skill level Y would have), or is it impossible to correlate scores in any fair way without a complete reevaulation from the first game played (ie. to calculate all scores retrospectively)

Secondly would you reccommend changing the ranks, and if so what levels should they be set at?

Oh and I agree with Sully, the newer system you recommended seems bad.

[elmago79]

Also it seems like the incentive under the new system is to play against lower ranked players:

Imagine you're exactly colonel, 2000 points.

Which is better:

34 points at risk for 86 points gain against five 1000 points players
or
20 points at risk for 100 points gain against five 2000 points players.

I actually like this a lot. It would help to remove some of the elitism out of the CC. Higher ranking players have some incentive for playing lower ranking opponents, and lower ranking players have a chance to take out the big wolves.

Still, high ranking players are also encouraged to play amongst themselves because that's where the big point gains are.

However, in theory, those 86 points in the first game are more easily obtained than the 100 points in the second game. I feel higher ranking games should net a lot more points to the winner, because it will be a more difficult game to win. A problem this new system does not properly address YET.

These are just the things that appear to me as I run figures through my head, I may be wrong, but it seems to me from looking at these two things there'd be some inflation and the ranks (colonel, captain etc would need to be adjusted appropriatly)

Under the proposed system, point gains would vary greatly, so there would a huge change in the number of points. Porting to the proposing system however, should be very easily done.

Another good point to this new system, score in double games could be assigned proportionally to the winning probability, so tactics like the ones used by Blitzaholic could disappear form CC.

[HotShot53]

I made this suggestion a few years ago, and although the poling was more yes than no (viewtopic.php?f=471&t=9434), it was rejected. But with new management, I will suggest it again

Basically, my suggestion is this: Instead of the score being calculated only with the winner's & loser's score being taken into account, it should be the player's score compared to the average of all opponents. So basically it becomes a pool of points, with the higher ranked players putting in more points, and the lower ranked players putting in less points. The result will be that you will lose the same amount of points no matter who wins, so people won't throw a game they have almost lost to the better ranked players, so that they lose less points. But to gain points as a high-ranked player, you still have to play better ranked opponents. I believe this wouldn't be hard to implement, and wouldn't change the scoring system by too much, but would significantly cut down on the throwing of games. I admit that if I'm not winning a game, but I can still influence who wins it, I will help the higher ranked player win so I don't lose as many points. And I'm sure I'm far from the only one who does this.

Any comments on this?

[greenoaks]

i wasn't aware throwing games was a problem.

could you provide examples.

[Armandolas]

i wasn't aware throwing games was a problem.

could you provide examples.

You know this game called CC? Its similar to Risk, go to conquerclub.com and try it..its really fun

[greenoaks]

i wasn't aware throwing games was a problem.

could you provide examples.

You know this game called CC? Its similar to Risk, go to conquerclub.com and try it..its really fun

i'm here.

where are all those thrown games causing problems for decent folk?

[HotShot53]

Well, I guess it's not talked about as much now as it was a few years ago when I originally made the suggestion... I don't know if people do it less often, or just less obviously now. But most people, if they are virtually out of the game, and have the choice of weakening a cook and losing to a general and a few points, or weakening the general and losing to the cook and a lot of points... it should be obvious who most people would choose to win with the current point system.

[OliverFA]

With my suggestion for Survivor mode that problem gets solved

[betiko]

With my suggestion for Survivor mode that problem gets solved

Err what?? Your suggestion brings a whole bunch of much worse problems, it s completely unreasonable. This one is well thought through.


Back to the OP subject; i think it s pretty interesting. I know people don t want to change anything points related, but this is a very good idea.
Also, this could apply for terminator games where all kills would bring the same amount of points. There wouldn t be a target on your head when you re the highest ranked, just as there wouldn t be any target on your head because you are low ranked and about to win.

This is my concern though; since you can t chose your enemies in terms of rank, if you have let s say 60% of similar ranks and 40% of really low ranked players, you lose big no matter who else wins. You have 10% chances of winning (giving a 10 player game example) invested around 17% of the prize pool and there are 6 players with theorically equal chances. That s not very good odds... Not to mention that the 4 lower ranked also have their chances.

It gives a more fair approach to those games where people with no chance raid a lower ranked to lose fewer points, but on the other side it makes it even more of a burden to have lower ranked in one of your games.

[OliverFA]

With my suggestion for Survivor mode that problem gets solved

Err what?? Your suggestion brings a whole bunch of much worse problems, it s completely unreasonable. This one is well thought through.

Fortunatelly we have you as the highest representation of reason, and if that wasn't enough, you are sooo nice

[chapcrap]

MERGED Scoring Tweak

Literally, the exact same suggestion. Remember that if you have a duplicate, we can just bring an old thread out of archives.