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

[blakebowling]

What about amending it like this...

Regular points... Half points... Double Points.. Cap at 100. That way there is still risk when learning a map, but not as much risk.

Feasible. I like it.

[Army of GOD]

If we're looking for a way to practice maps with little/no risk, then I still don't see why practice games haven't been implemented yet.

[Bruceswar]

doodle assassin with x2 points nice way to burn your points

Or win points ...

[jammyjames]

you would end up getting the lucky kids that win 3 or so in a row sitting at colonel area!

[Augustus Maximus]

This certainly isn't a feature that I would ever chose to use were it available.

[drunkmonkey]

Doesn't this defeat the entire purpose of the point system & score calculations? We'd be throwing the history of points out the window for a new "poker chips" system.

[greenoaks]

Doesn't this defeat the entire purpose of the point system & score calculations? We'd be throwing the history of points out the window for a new "poker chips" system.

exactly

[40kguy]

also really easy to point dump. so i think it would be nice but... reject it.

[Gillipig]

This is actually one of the worst suggestions I've ever seen! Legalized farming would be taken to a new stratosphere if this was to be implemented (which it never will) ! You suggest an option were it would be possible for a cook and a general to risk the same amount of points in a 1v1? Your suggestion is basically to scratch CC as we know it!

[zimmah]

doodle assassin with x2 points nice way to burn your points

and also a nice way to get up in points when you are 'lower then average'.

doodleassasin is just pure gambling.

Ontopic, this idea is pretty stupid, and i disapprove with it. score should be an indication of skill (and even tho it isn't currently, your idea is not going to improve it)

[Victor Sullivan]

If nothing else, I get the feeling lack wouldn't be too into implementing this... Betting points doesn't seem to support the "casual gaming" this site is attempting to reflect.

-Sully

[blakebowling]

If nothing else, I get the feeling lack wouldn't be too into implementing this... Betting points doesn't seem to support the "casual gaming" this site is attempting to reflect.

-Sully

QFT

[Lindax]

Don't know if this has been suggested before. I know I mentioned it, but I'll make it an official suggestion.

Concise description:
I would like to have the option to start a game and set the amount of points players stake on the game.

Specifics/Details:
Instead of having the standard CC way of calculating points, you start a game where everybody puts 20 points in the "pot". No matter if you're a cook or a general, you stand to lose 20 points or win 20 point times the amount of players. In an 8 player game the winner would get 160 points, in a 1v1 game the winner would get 40 points, no matter if the winner is a cook or a general.

The 20 points is just an example, you should be able to play for any amount within certain boundaries, say anywhere between 10 and 50 points, which I think is pretty much the average range. So, if you set up a 4 player game with a 40 point stake, the winner would get 160 points. And obviously it's all voluntary, you only join if you want to play for the specific amount of points.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
Of course it would be an additional option. One I think that will make players more active, especially higher ranked players. It would be the perfect solution for people like myself, people that love to play, but right now lose a disproportionate amount of points when they lose and get few points when they win. Yesterday for example, I won 68 points in a 6 player speed game and lost 47 in a 1v1 tournament game.

I really think that it would especially attract a lot more players to speed games. I personally don't care enough about points to not play 6, 7, 8 player escalating games with all lower ranked players, but I know a lot of people do.

Following the same line of though, I also think it would be a possible incentive for a lot more players to join tournaments. And we all know tournaments are one of the most important activities that keep people playing on CC.

Those type of games would also eliminate the ever-present "need" for lower ranked players to go after the highest ranked player first.

I'm pretty sure it's a win-win option for us players as well as for CC.

Only thing I can think of people saying is that it would give almost-farmers a chance to get even more points easily. Maybe question marks and freemiums shouldn't be able to join games with this option, I don't know. But hey, there will always be a small amount of people taking advantage of any system. In the meantime it would give many players an additional option that I think would get many players to play more and enjoy Conquer Club a lot more....

Lx

[vodean]

whats in it for the lower-ranked players??

[Lindax]

whats in it for the lower-ranked players??

More people to play with, especially for speed games.

Lx

[agentcom]

Vodean, I believe the answer is the opportunity to play against and learn from higher ranked players who would otherwise be unwilling to play them. Or the chance to play a friend on equal footing without having the higher ranked player be as concerned with points.

I have mixed feelings about this, as I see the many avenues of abuse (both to give and take points) it could create. But I also like that people would be able to do what they want with their points.

A hypothetical question: What if a person at the top of the leaderboard PMs players: "I will take all comers on City Mogul that are willing to wager 20 points, in exchange I will teach you how to play this map. Please respect that I am interested only in non-officers (but also non-?s) only with limited experience on CM and a desire to learn."

This is a version of the rationale that some have used to justify their quasi-farming activity. This justification has been somewhat accepted (or at least not rejected). But under the proposed system, you have now eliminated the single remaining barrier to this activity (since it has been stated that this is not against the rules). That last remaining barrier is/was the potential point loss differential.

The only safeguard to this would be C&A and the C&A mods would have to come up with an entirely new paradigm for these types of cases similar to the mess that they have dealing with quasi-farming cases. What percentage of such games is too many, and hence, abuse? Does it matter if the person wagers 1 point at a time, but wins 90% of their games or 20 points at a time and wins 60% of their games? Does it matter if this occurs on certain types of maps? Does it matter if it's affecting certain types of players?

I would love to have the option of hitting up some majors in speed games and saying: "Hey, I know we're probably about as good as each other..." or "Hey, I'll play this map that you're an expert on..." or "Hey I like playing with you normally..." "but I don't want to risk a ton of points doing it."

Right now, I'm a little proud of my hat and want to keep it for a while. Unfortunately, that's meant fewer speed games lately and more games that I don't like quite as much.

[DiM]

our current scoring system is screwed up, but the higher powers are keen on keeping our current scoring formula and our current scoreboard format and your suggestion would screw everything up.

if this suggestion were to be implemented i'm imagining within a month somebody will hit the 10k points mark.
farming would become so much easier, point dumping would be a daily problem and abuse would reach new heights.

i consider myself a pretty decent 1v1 player, especially at some maps. i can easily get a winning percentage of over 70% especially if i play agains low rankers than are new to those maps and settings.
right now a 70% win rate versus low rankers will barely get me a profit.
if what you're suggesting gets implemented all i have to do is start a bunch of games on my favourite map and settings, set the highest point bid possible and then invite people that never played that map and i'll make thousands of points.

[Lindax]

our current scoring system is screwed up, but the higher powers are keen on keeping our current scoring formula and our current scoreboard format and your suggestion would screw everything up.

if this suggestion were to be implemented i'm imagining within a month somebody will hit the 10k points mark.
farming would become so much easier, point dumping would be a daily problem and abuse would reach new heights.

i consider myself a pretty decent 1v1 player, especially at some maps. i can easily get a winning percentage of over 70% especially if i play agains low rankers than are new to those maps and settings.
right now a 70% win rate versus low rankers will barely get me a profit.
if what you're suggesting gets implemented all i have to do is start a bunch of games on my favourite map and settings, set the highest point bid possible and then invite people that never played that map and i'll make thousands of points.

It would not replace the current system DIM, it would be an additional option.

As for farming and quasi-farming: Should the vast majority on this site suffer because a small percentage of players does this and will always do this? By suffer, I mean, is it a reason to not implement ideas and options that would make this site better?

It's high time something is done about farming and quasi-farming as it is, with or without implementing this suggestion.

Lx

[Master Kai]

I particularly like the benefits people have discussed by this idea.

But I am not too fond of the cons people have discussed either.

Interesting idea, but I can not say i have a solution for the cons that would make this implementable.

[DiM]

our current scoring system is screwed up, but the higher powers are keen on keeping our current scoring formula and our current scoreboard format and your suggestion would screw everything up.

if this suggestion were to be implemented i'm imagining within a month somebody will hit the 10k points mark.
farming would become so much easier, point dumping would be a daily problem and abuse would reach new heights.

i consider myself a pretty decent 1v1 player, especially at some maps. i can easily get a winning percentage of over 70% especially if i play agains low rankers than are new to those maps and settings.
right now a 70% win rate versus low rankers will barely get me a profit.
if what you're suggesting gets implemented all i have to do is start a bunch of games on my favourite map and settings, set the highest point bid possible and then invite people that never played that map and i'll make thousands of points.

It would not replace the current system DIM, it would be an additional option.

As for farming and quasi-farming: Should the vast majority on this site suffer because a small percentage of players does this and will always do this? By suffer, I mean, is it a reason to not implement ideas and options that would make this site better?

It's high time something is done about farming and quasi-farming as it is, with or without implementing this suggestion.

Lx

i know it would not replace the current system but let's be honest. given the chance to wage points like this most high ranked players would use it. and even if they won't farm there will still be a massive transition of points from bottom to top.
it's safe to assume that in most cases a colonel is better than a cook. with this suggestion a colonel could play cooks everyday and get a lot of points not by farming on a particular map but by simply being better. we'd then get the top 10% of the board having mad scores because they're are better than average and the top 1% having insane scores because they're not only better, they're also farmers.

i agree something has to be done about farming. i suggested a new formula that takes into account a lot of things like map/settings experience/proficiency. using that formula would completely eradicate farming and reward overall skill on all maps and all settings not specialization on one map/setting. the official response: "the formula would indeed work and terminate farming as well as reward skilled players, but it is too complicated and we prefer a simple yet skewed formula over a complicated but better one."

[Lindax]

i know it would not replace the current system but let's be honest. given the chance to wage points like this most high ranked players would use it. and even if they won't farm there will still be a massive transition of points from bottom to top.
it's safe to assume that in most cases a colonel is better than a cook. with this suggestion a colonel could play cooks everyday and get a lot of points not by farming on a particular map but by simply being better. we'd then get the top 10% of the board having mad scores because they're are better than average and the top 1% having insane scores because they're not only better, they're also farmers.

i agree something has to be done about farming. i suggested a new formula that takes into account a lot of things like map/settings experience/proficiency. using that formula would completely eradicate farming and reward overall skill on all maps and all settings not specialization on one map/setting. the official response: "the formula would indeed work and terminate farming as well as reward skilled players, but it is too complicated and we prefer a simple yet skewed formula over a complicated but better one."

Mmmm.... I agree that a colonel is probably better than a cook. On the other hand, I play sergeants who are better than colonels.

Maybe it could be implemented for the "middle-groups" with the most players, say sergeants to colonels. Or maybe it could just be for speed and tournament games. Or limit it to 5 ongoing games or something.

I understand the point you guys are making, but I still think it would be a great option for the vast majority of CC players....

Lx

[agentcom]

Mmmm.... I agree that a colonel is probably better than a cook. On the other hand, I play sergeants who are better than colonels.

Maybe it could be implemented for the "middle-groups" with the most players, say sergeants to colonels. Or maybe it could just be for speed and tournament games. Or limit it to 5 ongoing games or something.

I understand the point you guys are making, but I still think it would be a great option for the vast majority of CC players....

Lx

What?! A person that can objectively look at his own argument's strengths and weaknesses?! On CC?! OK, sorry for the cynicism, but there's a couple of other threads that have pissed me off in the last couple days.

Anyway, I kind of like the idea of using it for middle groups. "You can use this to get points, but you'll never be able to get to the top with it (nor will you be pushed to the bottom, a limited limitation on point dumping)." It's kind of a good middle ground. Unfortunately, defining the middle ground will be tough and it will, by definition, alienate many people who think they should be able to use it but can't.

You'd also have the problem that you would have to limit players' ability to join games by their points. Thus, this would be a compound with a (good) suggestion that has not been implemented.

Limiting it to 5 ongoing games (without any other restriction) might just make the farming process slower and more methodical but doesn't really stop it.

I like the suggestion and I would definitely use it. But even I can't say I wouldn't abuse it depending on your definition of the term. I would certainly take into account my chances of winning points on a certain map/settings against a certain opponent, just as I do now to some extent.

Now, this "solution" suffers from many of the same problems to varying degrees, but you could also limit the implementation by the rank of BOTH players. So, perhaps you could only wager points with a person that is within 300 points of you. But this obviously decreases the benefits you've cited along with potentially decreasing some of the problems that others and I have cited.

I hate to say, but I just don't think this is workable.

[agentcom]

i agree something has to be done about farming. i suggested a new formula that takes into account a lot of things like map/settings experience/proficiency. using that formula would completely eradicate farming and reward overall skill on all maps and all settings not specialization on one map/setting. the official response: "the formula would indeed work and terminate farming as well as reward skilled players, but it is too complicated and we prefer a simple yet skewed formula over a complicated but better one."

DiM, is this one of the formula adjustments that I've commented on? Could you link to it or PM me it? I've seen a couple of these come up and I've pointed out problems with them, too. I think that there is a workable solution, but it is pretty darn complicated. Even so, I've expressed my support IF certain issues can be worked out.

[DiM]

apparently my suggestion thread is gone. i can't find it anywhere.
luckily i have the formula saved and it looks like this:

[spoiler=dynamic scoring formula]

here's the formula we have now.

(LS/WS)*20 = X <= 100

where:
LS = loser's score
WS = winner's score
X = points gained/lost by the winner/loser

now here's my formula:

[LS*(LEM-LPM)*(LES-LPS)]/[WS*(WEM-WPM)*(WES-WPS)]*20 = X <= 100

where:
LS = loser's score
WS = winner's score
LEM = loser's experience with map (has value from 2 to 3)
LPM = loser's performance with map (has value from 1 to 0)
LES = loser's experience with settings (has value from 2 to 3)
LPS = loser's performance with settings (has value from 1 to 0)
WEM = winner's experience with map (has value from 2 to 3)
WPM = winner's performance with map (has value from 1 to 0)
WES = winner's experience with settings (has value from 2 to 3)
WPS = winner's performance with settings (has value from 1 to 0)
X = points gained/lost by the winner/loser

let's test this formula for 2 new recruits facing eachother in a 1v1 game. their first game. so all the variables are at the base value.

[1000*(2-1)*(2-1)]/[1000*(2-1)*(2-1)]*20 = 20

so just like the current formula the winner will get 20 points.

now let's test this for a 1v1 game a new recruit's first game vs a colonel.
the colonel has played this map and these settings exactly 1000 times and has won 75% of the games. so his variables will change as follows:

score: 3000
WEM = instead of 2 (the base value) it has increased to 2.4
WPM = instead of 1 (the base value) it has dropped to 0.8
WES = instead of 2 (the base value) it has increased to 2.4
WPS = instead of 0 (the base value) it has dropped to 0.8

let's say the colonel wins this game and we have the formula like this:

[1000*(2-1)*(2-1)]/[3000*(2.4-0.8 )*(2.4-0.8 )]*20 =

= [1000 / (3000*1.6*1.6)] *20 =
= (1000/7680)*20 = 2.6 points rounded to 3 points.

with the normal formula we have now it is 1000/3000 * 20 = 6.6 = 7 points.

now let's assume the same game but the new recruit wins
and we get 7680/1000 * 20 = 153.6 rounded down to 100 the max limit.

and with the current formula we have 3000/1000 * 20 = 60 points

so you see, the colonel that abuses that type of game to bash new recruits will gain just 3 points instead of 7 and lose 100 instead of 60 thus making him to stop abusing because he would have to win 34 games for every loss just to break even instead of winning 7.5 games for every loss with the old formula. this will force the abuser to try new types of games. 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.

i hope this helps understanding the formula and that it helps demonstrating it's not as hard as you guys think.

[/spoiler]

[Master Kai]

Interesting idea, and that would certainly discourage some people from actively joining players with less experience.

I think this has been mentioned before, if not in this thread but another; What happens to the Colonel who starts a game and a cook joins it? Unfortunately, this further discourages higher ranked players from creating games and we could see a lot more private games created, ultimately impacting the entire community with less available games to play.

Again, i apologize for not having a solution as I do not know anything about coding for the game.

.mk