Moderator: Community Team
Twill wrote:Would it be worth tweaking the matrix to smaller groups or is that a moot point and everyone just wants a cap on the lost points?
resitnecdan wrote:with the actual ranking system no points are lost as a whole. I meanin every game the number of points lost is the same as the number of points won.
The only way of bringing points into CC is by new members signing up. So when someone that has reached 500 points loses a game the winner gains points and the loser doesn't lose points. So where do those points come from?
zorba_ca wrote:Perhaps, if someone reaches this Mendoza line of Conquer Club Incompetence we can come up with a new scarlet letter type ranking.
Some suggestions: Min., Reserve, Guard Duty, K.P., Discharged
For fun, perhaps Lack can track the player's further ineptitude with a not so subtle negative beside the ranking. For example:
stdb04 -- Discharged -- 500 (-364)
resitnecdan wrote:So where do those points come from? I don't think it would be a very good idea to bring points into CC this way.
resitnecdan wrote:Yeah, I think that could be ok. However, what would happen if a player reaches 0 or negative. With the current scorings this can't practically happen, but with the one you propose that can very easilly happen.
zorba_ca wrote:No it cannot. With the system I propose a player CANNOT reach 0 or negative. The minimum score is 500.
The negative amount in parentheses next to the player's name is just an indication of how many points they accumulate before being readmitted to the CC army. If a player at the MINIMUM loses a game their score stays the same and the points lost just puts them further away from being reinstated.
All points are accounted for and no player goes below 500. That means winning against any DISCHARGED player is worth the same to the victor, regardless of how far away the player is from being reinstated. This minor issue should not be of any real concern.
lackattack wrote:So instead of the matrices, it seems the leading solutions are:
A) minimum score of 500
B) maximum point transfer of 100
I wonder which would be better?
Frigidus wrote:but now that it's become relatively popular it's suffered the usual downturn in coolness.
Twill wrote:However, I would suggest, if this route is taken, that if a "potato peeler" loses a game, their loss is caluclated on their actual score, not the 500 base level so that they dont lose MORE points than they should, thus propelling them further into the abyss of potatodom.
Fieryo wrote:i personally am not a fan of having to use a chart to figure out how many points i would get. I liked zorba's initial idea but since i seem to be in the minority ...
However, I would suggest, if this route is taken, that if a "potato peeler" loses a game, their loss is caluclated on their actual score, not the 500 base level so that they dont lose MORE points than they should, thus propelling them further into the abyss of potatodom.
Return to Archived Suggestions
Users browsing this forum: No registered users