Calculate Points At Time Of Elimination *Pending*

[Fieryo]

As it stands if i am in a game and get eliminated i lose the amount of points dicated by the infamous equation we have all come to know and love. However i do not lose the points right away, i lose them when the game is FINISHED. sometimes this can take a couple of days in which time my score might increase or decrease according to how my other games go. i suggest that the score that goes into the equation be locked at the score i had at the time i was eliminated.

[reverend_kyle]

isnt this a suggestion.

[HighBorn]

lock em down.. im elimenated in 4 games but i just won 3 in a row and got my diamond back... however my score was much lower when elimenated from theses first 4 games.. no i shall suffer from going on a winning streak

[kevinc]

Sometimes it'll work to your disadvantage, and sometimes it'll work to your advantage, so it all evens out really.

I wouldn't worry about it.

[cicero]

Sometimes it'll work to your disadvantage, and sometimes it'll work to your advantage, so it all evens out really.

I wouldn't worry about it.

ditto

Cicero

[AK_iceman]

Just over a year bump.... not bad. But was it necessary just to say "ditto"... thats the question you should be asking yourself.

[FiveCardArmy]

I like the idea of locking in the rank and score when the game starts and knowing exactly how much I stand to win or lose from the beginning.

Many of the games I join I do so because of potential pts involved. If the game goes on for awhile the points in play can change if ranks change. I dont like this too much.

Also i would like to look back at past games and see what rank I was when I was playing not what I am right now.

I hope this makes sense.

[jkppkj]

Fantastic Idea 3 thumbs up!

[KidWhisky]

This is a great idea. I would like to see this happen

[Woodruff]

This is a great idea. I would like to see this happen

As with all good suggestions, this one still has several years to go before it comes off of pending status. <sigh>

[carlpgoodrich]

I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no way this would work. One of the fundamental aspects of CC scoring is that it is zero-sum, meaning the winner of a game gets exactly as many points as all the losers lose. This idea would violate that and open the possibility for abuse. Now, one possible alternative is let score changes depend on the scores at the beginning of the game.

-carlpgoodrich

[max is gr8]

How would it change the 0 sum aspect?

Code: Select all

Highborn was eliminated by AK_Iceman at a score of 1000
AK_Iceman was eliminated by Woodruff at a score of 1000

Woodruff wins (say his score is also 1000 for simplicities sake)

In the above situation Highborn and AK would lose 20 points a piece and Woodruff would gain 40

If instead the two had their score double since they were eliminated from the game they would each lose 40 and Woodruff would gain 80. It would still be zero sum as the score gained is equal to the score lost

Remember this works in two directions, my score could plummet and I'd lose a disproportionate number of points

[drunkmonkey]

The winning player's score determines the number of points lost. Without knowing who wins, how is it impossible to determine points at the time of elimination?

[Chuuuuck]

I would like to see the points locked at the time you start the game instead of the time of elimination. Here is the reason why. Some of us who actually pay close attention to game selection and point totals try to find what I refer to as "point positive" games. Meaning the number of points I would win or lose compared the the % of time I would win that game gives me positive points over time. When figuring this out, I can only guess and hope my opponents keep the points they have or gain points and I can't control if they go join 20 doodle assassin games and lose 800 points.

I think this would be rather simple to do. At the beginning of each game just post in the game log "Chuuuuck started the game with 3003 points." Do this for each player and at the end of the game calculate points won/loss from this number.

The only con I can see which I will point out to play devil's advocate is a player who is trying to go up really high might point dump down to less than 1,000 points and then join 200-300 games so he can win 20-40 points per game when they finish. Giving him the chance to play for 4000-10,000 points.

[Beckytheblondie]

The only con I can see which I will point out to play devil's advocate is a player who is trying to go up really high might point dump down to less than 1,000 points and then join 200-300 games so he can win 20-40 points per game when they finish. Giving him the chance to play for 4000-10,000 points.

This is enough to prevent this idea from ever coming to fruition. A good idea, but one that is easily abused.

[72o]

I would like to see the points locked at the time you start the game instead of the time of elimination. Here is the reason why. Some of us who actually pay close attention to game selection and point totals try to find what I refer to as "point positive" games. Meaning the number of points I would win or lose compared the the % of time I would win that game gives me positive points over time. When figuring this out, I can only guess and hope my opponents keep the points they have or gain points and I can't control if they go join 20 doodle assassin games and lose 800 points.

I think this would be rather simple to do. At the beginning of each game just post in the game log "Chuuuuck started the game with 3003 points." Do this for each player and at the end of the game calculate points won/loss from this number.

The only con I can see which I will point out to play devil's advocate is a player who is trying to go up really high might point dump down to less than 1,000 points and then join 200-300 games so he can win 20-40 points per game when they finish. Giving him the chance to play for 4000-10,000 points.

Also, one could easily go below zero by joining 200-300 games and deadbeating.

The only way to stop this would be to change the point calculations to some sort of "wager" system, where you can't "bet" more than you have that's not already staked on some other "bet".

[Chuuuuck]

Your right, it would be nice for those of us who don't absure the system. But there is no reasonable way to make this work.