Conquer Club

Bruceswar wrote: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.

drake_259 wrote:doodle assassin with x2 points nice way to burn your points

drunkmonkey wrote: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.

drake_259 wrote:doodle assassin with x2 points nice way to burn your points

Victor Sullivan wrote: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

vodean wrote:whats in it for the lower-ranked players??

DiM wrote: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 wrote:

DiM wrote: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

DiM wrote: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 wrote: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

DiM wrote:
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 wrote: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.