[Rules] [GO] Option for Players to Set, Stake or Bet Points

[Renee_W]

and if he tries a new map with new settings vs a new recruit he will gain 7 points like the current formula because his variables for the new map and new setting will be at the base value.

So basically your formula just punishes playing familiar settings. There is no counterbalancing concept to cushion the difference when playing unfamiliar maps/settings? Your formula claims that a player is always atleast as good as her score and if she's playing her favorite settings she's better than her score. I don't think that reflects reality very well. It may be brutally effective in breaking farming at the very very top ranks, but it's totally non-reflective of reality at the rest of the ranks.

ps. What this site really needs isn't wagering points, as pointed out that is madly open to abuse. What it needs is non-rated games.

[Lindax]

ps. What this site really needs isn't wagering points, as pointed out that is madly open to abuse. What it needs is non-rated games.

The abuse is already there. What are non-rated games?

Lx

[Renee_W]

ps. What this site really needs isn't wagering points, as pointed out that is madly open to abuse. What it needs is non-rated games.

The abuse is already there. What are non-rated games?

Lx

Just because abuse exists doesn't mean it should be amplified. Non-rated in your terms would be waging 0 points.

[Lindax]

ps. What this site really needs isn't wagering points, as pointed out that is madly open to abuse. What it needs is non-rated games.

The abuse is already there. What are non-rated games?

Lx

Just because abuse exists doesn't mean it should be amplified. Non-rated in your terms would be waging 0 points.

Never thought of that. Having games without playing for points: brilliant!

Lx

[Pikeman_Poon]

I really like this idea and believe it is a workable concept. Limit the point betting structure to say cooks can only join games where the bet is 10 or below and so forth up the ladder. Those that farm wouldn't get anymore points off of this option then the regular one. Also, a person wouldn't be allowed to have tied up in bets more than say 40 to 70% of their available pts. I think this is doable and very excellant suggestion and would love to able to use it.

[agentcom]

Hmm, Renee that's an interesting idea. Lx, I believe s/he means games that are for 0 points. Games that are "just for fun." Although, I would add that if they're not for points, they also shouldn't be for medals. Then the site wouldn't have to monitor them at all for gaming abuse.

DiM, that is an interesting idea. I'd have to think about it more. Obviously, this isn't the place for in depth discussion of it, but I think it could have merit and solve the issues that I was concerned about.

[chapcrap]

No points and set points have both been suggested before and been rejected. I don't see that this will be any different.

[MichelSableheart]

The problem with this suggestion is that it doesn't respect the philosophy behind the current score system. Currently, scores are still somewhat indicative of ability, in the sense that if two players only play a certain type of game against each other, their points will reach a natural balance which reflects their ability. The same is true on a larger scale. The fact that most players vary the type of games they play makes the scoreboard less reliable, and abuse does take place, but the principle is still there. The fact that a players score won't grow higher at a certain point is part of that.

By giving players the option to play for a set amount of points, this natural balancing factor will disappear. You give up whatever indication of strength is there to change the system into a flat out race. Definately not a fan.

[agentcom]

Several topics MERGED. Introduction written in OP. I have STICKIED this for now, but it's getting a little crowded at the top of this thread, and this suggestion isn't as common as some of the others, so I may take it down later.

[hushovd]

normally the points are divided by the system loser/ winner x 20, but can it be made possible that members decide how many points are won...or lost at a single game.

for example a private game which you can join where each player can lose 150 points. except the winner ofcourse.

greetz Hus

[spiesr]

A variety of options to "gamble" point or similar have been suggested in the past. They can be found here. When making suggestions please try to look and see if that suggestion has been had by someone else already. (It often has.) Further discussion of this idea should take place in that thread.
This particular suggestion is currently filed under rejected. That said, the new regime may reconsider the idea someday.

[agentcom]

Thank you spiesr!

MERGIE-MERGIE-MERGED

[spiesr]

MERGED:

• Bet your points.
• I want to gamble with my points, make a CC Casino.

[agentcom]

MERGED:

• Bet your points.
• I want to gamble with my points, make a CC Casino.

The second one here really has nothing to do with this ... it's about creating a CC points casino. It should still be in rejected, but it's not about staking points on the outcome of a game. Careful with the merging ...

[spiesr]

MERGED:

• Suggestion: Point Setting
• Point wager games
• Wager games