Conquer Club

Based on a conversation Scoring for Math Dorks I just wanted to know what the CC community felt about adjusting the scoring system so that the points gained/lost are based on players score when the game starts, based on your score at the time you were eliminated, or based on your score when the game ends (as it is now).

Is there a shortcoming I'm not seeing to changing it to when the game starts? The game would just have to remember everyone's scores at the start, so a player would know quantitatively how many points could be won when the game starts (of course the number lost would still depend on the score of the winner, but at least that would be fixed).

If you haven't read the other thread, the main problem this modification proports to address is that let's say Player A got into a game as a rookie with a score of 1000. Our rookie screws up, rolls bad or is otherwise eliminated from the game early on.

At that time, he'd only been eliminated one other time, so his score since the game started has fallen to 980. The other players will go on to battle this game for the next 90 days. During this time, Player A has upped his ranking from 1000 to 1500.

When the game finally ends, Player A loses points based on his current score of 1500, rather than his score at the start of the game (1000) or his score when he was eliminated (980).

It seems unfair at its face, but maybe there's a counterexample as to why scoring works the way it does.

hmmm... Before I thought this was kind of a pointless idea but you make a good point about the rookies gaining/losing points.

Sounds like a lot of extra information to be storing, and extra coding too. Really who cares, it's rarely gonna make a big difference (and by big I mean about 10 points) and it can also work in your favour.

I think it should be when the player gets eliminated. Our current scoring system is in place because it compares your score with whoever you beat or lost to at that time, so whatever your skill is when you are taken out should most accurately represent the level at which you played. if you are taken out of a game and then you go on to win a whole bunch of games before the game you lost in ends, you take a much greater point hit, not based on your skill in that game. Same thing for the beginning of the game...but reversed...sortaish

What Banana says makes sense, but I suspect it might be rather difficult to implement with the way things currently work. Given that, it probably shouldn't be too high on the priority list. (Unless I'm wrong, and it's actually quite easy: then it can be high if it wants.)

Alright, I'll admit my dabbling in computer programing is pretty low tech, but I can't imagine from an implementation point of view this can be that hard to change to either of the three options (again, presuming that it matters, which is running neck & neck with the idea that it doesn't).

But all that would need to happen is at the beginning of the game (or when each player is eliminated for option 3), a temporary variable would need to be created with that players score. So I die, and it creates a variable associated indexed both to my name and that game number and sets it equal to my score at that point in time. Then when the game ends, the game looks up the variable, divides it by the winner's stored score (or in option 3 by his current score), and then adjusts our two scores accordingly.

So we're talking about creating one variable per person, per game, that only has to contain your score, name, and the game number. Considering that Lack already stores entire game logs, I think these small bits of data wouldn't be that hard to add. And in the realm of programing difficulties, this one seems pretty slight, but Lack or people more educated in such things are welcome to contradict my ignorance.

The other problem with changing things, is that with no compelling reason (and I admit the reasoning is pretty slight) there would be the argument as to *when* this scoring change would take place. If it were to take place retroactively I think the programing would be much more difficult and of course if you readjust everyone's scores, then approximately 50% of the people will be pissed off... and like it's been pointed out, it's not that pressing of a matter.

I agree that scoring should be based on your score at the start of the game. It's not a big deal programatically, and I'm saying that from the PoV of a person who does database programming for a living. There's at least one row somewhere for each player in any given game, tracking things like timestamps for their turns, and adding a column to note their score when the game is initialized should be trivial.

This wouldn't lead to a huge variance in scores... if a very highly rated player (say with a score of 2000) starts ten games against much lower ranked players (say all around 1000), then proceeds to go on a tilt and lose every single game, they will give out 400 points, whereas in the current rating system they would only give out 360ish. Conversely a low level player starting several games could gain slightly more points than they would in the current system if they win them all.

So the difference in scores won't be very substantial, I mainly see it as a benefit to fix a problem of a particular type of deadbeat: people who stall to end games that will affect their point totals.

I've had this happen to me at least once and it's really irritating. If I had an unpaid account and it was preventing me from playing more games, it would have been even more irritating. Personally, I don't care all that much about points, and 20 or 40 points here or there is no big deal. What is a big deal is games taking days longer than they should because someone wants to gain an extra four or five points from their win.

i suggested locking the score to when someone is eliminated in http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1788