minimum score

[Fieryo]

check out the last guy on the scoreboard, he has a good 35ish grievences due to his joining games and then deadbeating on purpose, just so he can lower his score, as of now he is at 302

[bretzsky]

Yea if he beat a 1500 point person they would lose 100 points.

No one could be that bad unless they were up to something.

[wacicha]

in order to win you got to practice. his practice is not on the winning but on the losing. what does std stand for anyways. i do believe if he every got in a game and started to play no body would let him win nobody would annouce a truce and yet we know he would not live. The really thing funny about it is somebody said he paid premium to do this.

[zorba_ca]

Perhaps the most equitable practice would be to base points on players ranks and not on a points-based formula.

Each rank is worth X points, and at the end of a game you simply add up the number of points for the ranks of all the losers.

For example: You beat a private, a sergeant and two captains and a major, you get (1 x 10) + (1 x 20) + (2 x 40) + (1 x 50).

You can also factor in points directly by simply replacing the straight division component of the current formula with a step formula. (e.g. The winner gets a bonus = (winner's score-loser's score)/50

[SonicStriker]

I think that the score cap would be a good idea to help prevent cheating, and it would make it so that newer players don't have to suffer a constanly lowered score.

[qeee1]

std is down to 280 now... we need to do something.

I don't think a 50 points score cap per game isn't high enough though.

Either way I'd like to change the current ranking system as little as possible. It works quite well as it currently is, and probably still would work if it wasn't for stb...

Both methods wll have implications that will have to be looked into for loopholes of exploitation.

[Scitzophrenic]

The thing is, that it would take so long to get down to 1 point, with the length of time that it takes for a game to go.
However, just in case someone is such an idiot as to do that, rather than earning their points, I think that the 50 point limit is a good idea.

[chris_in_seattle]

very simply just have a point "floor," say 200 points. Once you get there you can't lose anymore points. Of course, the winner wouldn't get any points for beating someone with 200 points, so the system would still be "gameable," that is, if your down to 200 points just play to lose if your starting position sucks.

So once at 200 points you have to win a game within the next 5 or maybe 10 games or your done.

A player with 200 points versus 5 opponents with an average score of 1000 would receive 500 points, so this limits the player's "denominator effect," to 500 points on average.