Conquer Club

minimum score

Suggestions that have been archived.

Moderator: Community Team

Postby Fieryo on Fri May 26, 2006 4:21 pm

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
...where I'm from, we believe all sorts of things that aren't true. We call it -- "history"
User avatar
Major Fieryo
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:30 pm
Location: Maine

Postby bretzsky on Fri May 26, 2006 4:24 pm

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.
Colonel bretzsky
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 9:28 pm

Postby wacicha on Fri May 26, 2006 4:25 pm

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.
Image
User avatar
Major wacicha
 
Posts: 3988
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:51 pm

Postby zorba_ca on Fri May 26, 2006 5:52 pm

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
Major zorba_ca
 
Posts: 141
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby SonicStriker on Sat May 27, 2006 5:33 pm

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.
User avatar
New Recruit SonicStriker
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 7:25 pm

Postby qeee1 on Sat May 27, 2006 6:28 pm

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.
Frigidus wrote:but now that it's become relatively popular it's suffered the usual downturn in coolness.
User avatar
Colonel qeee1
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 12:43 pm
Location: Ireland

Postby Scitzophrenic on Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:11 pm

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.
User avatar
Private 1st Class Scitzophrenic
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:16 pm

Postby chris_in_seattle on Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:20 pm

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.
Sergeant 1st Class chris_in_seattle
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 5:09 pm
Location: I'll give you three guesses....

Previous

Return to Archived Suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron