Conquer Club

One-on-one games have a HUGE luck factor. But when I play versus a Cook I risk losing 100 rating points for a potential gain of 5 rating points? REALLY?? That makes sense? That suggests that a skilled Conquer Club player beats a poor conquer club player 20 times for every one time the poor player wins. That is absurd. The rating system should account for skill level to a degree but the current system is horrendous. You might as well not have ratings at all if you are going to accept this absurd system.

Concise description:

• xxxxxxx

Specifics/Details:

• xxxxxxx

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• xxxxxxx

Great suggestion!

the ratings system is indeed terrible, but you're talking about the scoring system, which, incidentally, is also terrible.

I currently have the same rank as yours, and I lose 35 points from a Cook and gain 5 points...........I think thats fair, because Cook's normally are horrible (and demotivated) at winning games.

I mean, if the win:loss ratio was 15:30 instead of 5:35. I would had been only playing cooks and would had a much much higher rank............how much ratio do you suggest though?

King Engineer wrote:I currently have the same rank as yours, and I lose 35 points from a Cook and gain 5 points...........I think thats fair, because Cook's normally are horrible (and demotivated) at winning games.

I mean, if the win:loss ratio was 15:30 instead of 5:35. I would had been only playing cooks and would had a much much higher rank............how much ratio do you suggest though?

You're math is wrong. If you were to lose 35 points to someone, you wouldn't gain 5, you would gain more like 11.42, but since it rounds, we'll say 11. If you were to only gain 5 from beating someone, then you would lose 80.

h-bomb wrote:One-on-one games have a HUGE luck factor. But when I play versus a Cook I risk losing 100 rating points for a potential gain of 5 rating points? REALLY?? That makes sense? That suggests that a skilled Conquer Club player beats a poor conquer club player 20 times for every one time the poor player wins. That is absurd. The rating system should account for skill level to a degree but the current system is horrendous. You might as well not have ratings at all if you are going to accept this absurd system.

Concise description:

• xxxxxxx

Specifics/Details:

• xxxxxxx

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• xxxxxxx

First, as noted above, you refer to the scoring system, not the rating system.

Second, do a quick search of all the rejected or pending suggestions in this regard. It will save you a lot of heartache, give you some insight and might possibly spur on some ideas that could be accepted and work.

the problem is that this rating is not for just one gametype, but for all the different gametypes we have.

lets say, for example, we could only play 1v1 no spoil games on classic map. i supose we could say that you'll get aproximately 70% win chance against someone playing for the first time (1000 points).

this would mean that getting about 1600 points would be about the highest you could get. any higher and you'll start losing more points then you gain, even holding that 70% advantage over amateurs. and fighting someone with a higher score means more points gained, but also a higher win chance for that person. thus, 1600~ would be a great score, and i don't think the best of us would go above 1800 points.

however, if we now look at another specific game type. lets say, 8 player freestyle escalating on Oasis(or pick any other of those "farming" maps&settings). an expert going against 7 amateurs would still win about 70% of the time. the max score he could get would now be a massive 5000 points. thus, if the only game we played would be freestyle escalating oasis, then the range would go till aproximately 5000 (rather close to what the max score is on CC)

we can quickly see the problem though. by playing freestyle oasis, we can inflate our points to 5000, but if we have 5000 points and we start playing 1v1 no spoils, keeping our same 70% win percentage, we'll eventually fall to 1600 points, because above that we lose more points then we gain.

thus, the main problem is allowing different games to have the same point system.
ONE possible solution would be to let every map, and hell, even every setting, have a different point system. but thats no solution, because who wants to have a thousand different highscores?

i'm not sure if there are any other solutions which don't make the system increadibly complicated, but still make sure that there is a *max* score one can get.

h-bomb wrote:One-on-one games have a HUGE luck factor. But when I play versus a Cook I risk losing 100 rating points for a potential gain of 5 rating points? REALLY?? That makes sense? That suggests that a skilled Conquer Club player beats a poor conquer club player 20 times for every one time the poor player wins. That is absurd. The rating system should account for skill level to a degree but the current system is horrendous. You might as well not have ratings at all if you are going to accept this absurd system.

herp derp

stop picking maps that depend on drop or depend on dice. I know all games technically depend on dice, but don't pick doodle where 4-5 troops can be a HUGE difference.

Join games without Cooks in them.

Goto the Callouts forum and play private games appropriate to your rank.

Games for Sarge's only
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=33055