[Official] Request for Feedback on Potential Scoring Changes

[AK_iceman]

No one else wants to see SBwhatever get 20,000 points before we fix it?

give the guy credit for creativity at least?

NO

[Twill]

LOL Zorba, I assume that one person is me I'm just throwing out ideas.

Personally, the idea of a 500 point base to me doesnt seem to change too much, just how soon before we are forced to up it to 1000. Eventually we will inevitably have people reach 10,000 points, complaining about the same thing we are complaining about more. Granted this will be several years down the line, but just as inflation happens in the economy, so will inflation happen at CC. The idea of a minimum point line is already fulfilled by the number 0, which, seeing as people already are at the 2000 point line, is too low a number. As we get more people reaching the 2000 point line, more will be able to take the next run at 3000, then 4000, and so on. Eventually, we will, inevitably, come back to this same discussion by going down this route.

but, as a temporary fix to the race to the bottom problem, I see few problems with it.

Twill

[zorba_ca]

LOL Zorba, I assume that one person is me I'm just throwing out ideas.
Twill

Actually, the one exception is stdb04. I didn't think any other player would have any problem with a 500 minimum since they are all above the minimum.

As for the whole concept of "inflation", I don't know if there is a theoretical ceiling. If it makes it more palatable, instill an annual "Minimum Score Readjustment". This will ensure an objective element to the process.

Let it be written: For this inaugural year the Minimum Score is 500.

[lackattack]

Actually, Twill inflation arguement may have tipped the scale back towards (B) maximum point transfer of 100.

It would be simple to implement, just add max (100) to the point formula...

[Fieryo]

im afraid i am inclined to agree with lack and twil here, 0 was the minimum, so if 500 were to replace that it would only be a matter of time before it needs to be 750, or 1000. The idea of a max point transfer sounds more appealing.

[Banana Stomper]

i guess both the 100 point max and the 500 point minimum do pretty much the same thing. For someone with 500 points to recieve 100 points in a game, they need to be a player ranked 2500, of which we are currently just short of with our leader. Lets say we get a general, that person with 500 will get 160 points. I guess to put this all into perspective, if they win a 6 person game against a bunch of generals, they will get 800 points, putting their rank at 1300. And quite frankly, if someone with 500 points beats all those generals, i think they deserve the 800 points. If there is no minimum but a 100 point cap put in place, the same person, by beating 5 generals would be put up to a rank of 1000. I guess my points is they are so similar, that one does not really stand out over the other. but i think the minimum score would be better because we aren't limiting success, only failure. and i'd be pissed if i didn't get all the points i deserve because some guy figured out how many points he can potentially get.

[qeee1]

K, so the models we seem to have are:

A) minimum score

Version 1) Simple Minimum score 500.

Version 2) Minimum score 500, players get a negative mark in brackets beside their score to indicate how much they have lost below 500, but scores are still calculated at the 500 pt level.

Version 3) Twill's version, same as version two, except when player below 500 loses their loss is claculated at their actual score level. *requires loss calculation score limit of 1 too, to avoid players "losing negative points".

B) maximum point transfer-with score minimum of 1

Version 1) Simple 100 pts maximum pts loss cap for all players

Version 2) Maximum points loss cap as a percentage of score

Version 3) Maximum points loss done as a matrix scale per points-different to 5% cap, in that cap increase does not have to be proportional to pts increase.

Ok, looking at them all now.

The problem brought forward against versions 2 and 3 in both cases is that they're too complicated, so given that, unless the other simpler systems prove to be unworkable, I think we can discount them.

I think the argument that the 500 pts cap is ok because there's no one below it aside from stdb is not a good one, as there will be players in the future and I think we need a more long term solution. Also the 100pts cap affects no one except stdb right now either.

Also the problem then with A version 1 is that either we are creating points for players to gain, or there is no point to playing a player at 500, as they will not give you any points. That was brought forward at the start and so the more complicated systems were proposed, but then people said go back to the simple one and forgot about the problem with it.

Therefore I'm in favour of implementing B version 1.

The point Bananna Stomper brings forth about a player only gaining 500pts instead of 800pts is not a significant one. If they're a bad enough player to fall to 500 pts, they're hardly good enough to be ranked lieutenant on what was probably a fluke win.

[mrdexter]

I'm agree with qeee1

[fraggle]

I think Zorba's suggestion is simple, and effective. Best of all, it really doesn't upset the current rankings (I'd be fine with changes to my score in either direction, but you just KNOW a major change to existing scores would cause a huge outcry).

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned yet in this thread (and, again, I like the simple 500 minimum), is a suggestion that if we DO wind up making a major overhaul of scoring, maybe we could give some sort of credit for also-rans. That is, do something like give a fixed number of points for eliminating someone (nothing big, maybe 3 or so), or do something for second place (eg. no points lost if a game of 4 or more players). Something like that... It would be nice to see strong, but not winning play rewarded, plus the scoring could use a way to get more points into the system. Assigning a very small number from the "banker" instead of other players would allow the top players to inch toward higher rankings without there being an exactly correlated decline to another player.

[sully800]

I'm new here but I think both the minimum score of 500 and a max point transfer of 100 are good simple solutions. I prefer the max point transfer because then you are not creating new points if a person is stuck at 500.

One of the main arguments against the base score of 500 seems faulty to me though. People said that with inflation of points, the base would eventually need to be increased. However even if people got up to 10,000 and lost to a 500 point person they would still only lose 400 points. That wouldn't be a big enough deal to make people purposefully try to stay at 500, because it wouldn't have a huge effect. Theres an enormous difference between having a score of 1, 2, or 3 and winning a game. There is relatively little difference between having a score of 500, 750 or 1000 and losing a game. A base of 500 would be sufficient and would work fine as a long term plan in my opinion. I still prefer the 100 point cap but either solution would work very well.

Also, I would like to vehemently disagree with the suggestion to reward 2nd place for good play. I understand that 2nd place may have played better than 6th, but Risk (well, CC) is a game of conquest and domination. It is not a matter of when you were defeated or how close you were to escape being dominated. In the end if you lose, you lose and I don't think anyone but the winner deserves a reward. If that system were to change, people would begin to play for second place when they realize they can't win. And if your goal is to get second place I think you undermine the entire purpose and strategy of the game, not to mention dragging out the result because this strategy would probably consist of stock piling armies and staying out of harms way with no ambition to win the game. I know some 2nd place finishers may have gotten unlucky or feel they played really well, but if the goal is to win and your strategy relies on that goal then people should not be rewarded if they don't win.

Sorry for the rant