Conquer Club

If you can't beat someone with half your score 3 out of 4 times, your score will go down, AS IT SHOULD.

Episode IV: The Irony Strikes Back[/quote]the shit you boys are dealing out when your not understanding my initial points[/quote]
Episode V: Return of the Irony[/quote]

Episode VI: Yawn

Timminz wrote:If you can't beat someone with half your score 3 out of 4 times, your score will go down, AS IT SHOULD.

But your suggesting soomeone with a lower score is less skilled and its just not the case throughout.
Thats like saying a General should beat a Colonel or Major 3 out of 4 times.
Yet the skill set is most likely similar.
Ive been away for a year but if i'd been here id prob be 2 ranks higher at least.
So the skill thing is a falacy in my opinion hence flattening the ratio a little would seem fair and encourage more mixed rank games.

Ok to clear up my scoring change thought: Currently- Score = loser points divided by winner points x 20

A 2000 player beats a 1000 player = Score 10 (x15 ratio = 7.5 points won. x10 ratio = 5 points won)
1000 player beats 2000 player = Score 40 (x15 ratio = 30 points won. x 10 ratio = 20 points won)

Its disproportionate to the scores held by the players. I would make the ratio x15 or x10.

I'll take your example of x10 cause it's easy to work with, but x15 would follow the same principle. all that does is cut the winnings in half. Upon closer inspection, I was wrong about the greater divide thing. In actuality, all this would do is cut winnings in half. A player with 2000 points would still have to beat someone with 1000, 3 out of 4 times, to keep their score the same.

and, yes, I do think a General should be able to beat a major 3 out of 4 times, if they've got half the score. If they can't, their score will drop, AS IT SHOULD.

General Mayhem wrote:Episode IV: The Irony Strikes Back[/ quote]the shit you boys are dealing out when your not understanding my initial points[/ quote]
Episode V: Return of the Irony[/ quote]

Episode VI: Yawn

Episode VI: The Phantom Mis-quote.

DiM wrote:i agree with the original poster that unknown low ranks present a higher risk of ruining the game. and i'm not talking about points. i don't care about those. i play all sorts of ranks and just recently i lost 400+ points, most of them to low ranks. do i care? no because they deserved them for beating me fair. but when a stupid guy comes and crashes all his troops into mine just because he wants to go and hold australia in an escalating game then i really want to strangle him. it's not about the points his manoeuvre cost me it's about ruining a game where i invest my time to develop strategies and think every move. that's what bothers me. i want to have fun and if i face good opponents i'm having fun regardless if i win or lose. but when i'm facing stupid pricks that destroy the game i have no fun.and trust me i've also had wins because of these idiots and despite wining i was still pissed because it wasn't a well fought deserved win it was a gift

The highlighted areas are just what the author and most are speaking of. If a lower rank player wins a game based on good strategy / play then at least for me, the point loss is fine. The games in which I've lost recently (600 points) entailed a low-rank suicide attack that just ruins the game and as a result, I lose 70-80 points per game. The 70-80 point loss occurred 4 times in one day. Low ranks tend to always suicide the highest rank and possibly they see us as the biggest threat even if we are losing. I play mostly 3 player freestyle games with a win rate of about 80%. When you get a 2 on 1 attack in a 3 person game, it is basically impossible to recover. I could leave countless messages in game chat where I am a target of a planned / team attack. Funny part is, a lot of lower ranks attack not having any idea why or what they are attacking. It pisses me off so much, it turn out to be funny.

22 - codeblue1018 - 3146 - (55%) Brigadier 05/01/08
2008-05-03 18:44:36 - codeblue1018 loses 80 points

Ah well, at least I made it to the top portion of the scoreboard once. Doubt I will get back,

I hate the prejudice against lower ranked players...

I was a Lietenant not long ago, just last night, in fact, but I had fun playing a bunch of doodle terminators, and doodle assassins, speed games. Lost an ass load of points, about 300-400 or so, but I had a great time.

If I'm to be kept out of games because I decided to enjoy myself for a short time, then that isn't right. I can bring up my score back up, but I think people should withhold judgment on any lower ranked player until they play them at least once.

I've encountered cooks that were very skilled, and captains and majors that made stupid decisions. (Some of them could've gotten lucky on those doodle assassins, too, high ranked players aren't always supposed to be there). I've encountered the opposite, too. If they really are bad, don't listen in team games to advice, never communicate, then I don't play them again, typically, regardless of rank.

If they are active, communicative, they don't even have to be good, just fun to talk and play with, then they can have a few more games with me

I wouldn't go as far as pauschalizing all low- ranked players to be possible suicide threats; higher ranks more often than not do just as stupid suicide moves, since they seem to think a high rank makes them a good player.
I don't know how many times a Captain or Major made a suicide under the disguise of a killshot on me or another player, simply because they didn't bother calculating the odds properly, and thus fail. Considering this, I don't care who I am playing, as long as I have a good time doing so. Some may disagree, but I don't see rank as a reflection of ability-- thus, I have to disagree with point a) and b) of General Mayhem's first post.
Point c), however, is a good idea. I like it, personally, since I'd lose less points if the scoring system was changed, but I think one should consider any new player's position on this-- having that loser/winner*20 calculation may suck for high ranks at times, but for beginners, gaining big points "easily" is a very elemental motivation to keep playing.
Anyhow-- if you care so much about points, stay out of public games-- that's an easier solution than changing the scoring system, even if the first page on the score board probably welcomed it happily.

Rashid.

Point a and b arent getting at lower ranks. Its simply a stat fact more of them are less experienced and likely to be in points a and b.

This is about silly players who dont see a game through or play to their best no matter what the rank.

But we all start low scored and thats why i made the point of it being about unknowns.

I do stay out of public games but i like to get rt games in now and then and I dont like having to say I wont play recruits or less expereinecd players i dont know.
By altering the scoring system both low and high ranks would be less likely to be ganged on in games.

Lower scored players still get the most of the points for winning and they'll just have to play more if they want to up their ranks.

this game shouldnt be about making it easier for new players to gain fast points to up-rank quicker

i play anyone who wants to play dont care bout rank

JACKAZZTJM wrote:i play anyone who wants to play dont care bout rank

go on over to suggestion forum.
would you be the kind of chap who wouldnt mind having a 'no-score' status and just playing in any game for fun.

Ive lost games I coulda shoulda won but didnt because the ranked players didnt want to lose points to me so they ganged up on me.

Question marks are also a crap shoot. You have no clue whats behind the player...some even use em as multis to win.

I consider my self a good player who is always willing to learn. Rank does not determine skill exsclusively unless of course I see that most of the wins are solo wins. THAT to me is skill. To consistently win at esc or singles alone without a team gives me a good indication of play skill. To many folks hide behind their team play wins as evidence of how skillful they really are while in fact thay use their team mates as a crutch.

Klobber has no problem playing with unknowns and look how good he is!

Iron Butterfly wrote:Ive lost games I coulda shoulda won but didnt because the ranked players didnt want to lose points to me so they ganged up on me.

Question marks are also a crap shoot. You have no clue whats behind the player...some even use em as multis to win.

I consider my self a good player who is always willing to learn. Rank does not determine skill exsclusively unless of course I see that most of the wins are solo wins. THAT to me is skill. To consistently win at esc or singles alone without a team gives me a good indication of play skill. To many folks hide behind their team play wins as evidence of how skillful they really are while in fact thay use their team mates as a crutch.

Klobber has no problem playing with unknowns and look how good he is!

good point. well said.

Play me-------------

At the end of the day------------

Points be damned--- No matter who won or lost............

You will play me again --- and look forward to it................

General Mayhem wrote:

wacicha wrote:I will always play low ranked players Even cooks....

but the question is wac, would you generally agree on the above?

No i do not agree I have worked with the new and the cooks. They are great players if you work with them. when you see them in your game say hi. make it enjoyable...

Hey Russ

Get some premium and spend less time in the forums or I'll make as many private games as you want, give you the pw to pm to people you want to play.

Problem solved

wacicha wrote:

General Mayhem wrote:

wacicha wrote:I will always play low ranked players Even cooks....

but the question is wac, would you generally agree on the above?

No i do not agree I have worked with the new and the cooks. They are great players if you work with them. when you see them in your game say hi. make it enjoyable...

erm what didnt you agree on. did you read it?
I have never said newbies and cooks arent great players. why is everyone thinking otherwise.
and i do make a point of chattin in games with anyone??

Pedronicus wrote:Hey Russ

Get some premium and spend less time in the forums or I'll make as many private games as you want, give you the pw to pm to people you want to play.

Problem solved

I know pedro. I just got drawn into this when some fckin noobs decided to f*ck up some games i was in coz they couldnt be arsed to play properly.
And now ive got my angry head i just keep winding myself up with people not reading what i said.

errr im great - i play anyone. wahhhh i dont care about points. im fun and great. i play recruits im a big fckin bummer.

General Mayhem wrote:im a big fckin bummer.

I think we have identified the problem here...

these are the 3 items you listed


a) stupid play. recruits getting bored and suiciding. Not playing serious and studying the game.
I do not get Stupid players in my open games

b) god damn allying before one single player is double the size or a very reasonable threat to all others.
I do not get Alliances from any players in my open game


c) the archaic scoring system still needs balancing so higher points can play lower point players and viceversa without worrying about groups of lower score players (subconscious or on purpose) ganging the high point. And the same for high point ganging the low point to safeguard point loss.
I have Swords but I do not consider Swords A higher ranked player. But We did revamp the Scoring System. I do lose points and I do win points. And cooks and recruits do play in a lot of my games. So no I do not think thed score systemm needs re vamped

wacicha wrote:I have Swords but I do not consider Swords A higher ranked player.

You're in the top 1.1% of players on the scoreboard. By that same logic, someone with a score of 565 isn't "low-ranked". Sorry, to go off topic. I've been seeing people saying that since I joined, and it's a bit of a pet-peeve for me. Please continue this discussion without delay.

Timminz wrote:

wacicha wrote:I have Swords but I do not consider Swords A higher ranked player.

You're in the top 1.1% of players on the scoreboard. By that same logic, someone with a score of 565 isn't "low-ranked". Sorry, to go off topic. I've been seeing people saying that since I joined, and it's a bit of a pet-peeve for me. Please continue this discussion without delay.

yeah i get where you are coming from but the problem is major is a decently big group of people so I dont see a major rank as high, since there are some majors who are just barely 2000 and arent that great of players.

General Mayhem wrote:b) god damn allying before one single player is double the size or a very reasonable threat to all others.

I have a bit of a problem with this one. Lower ranks aren't the only players making poor alliances. Often higher ranks will band together and kill off the lower ranks just to save points. Just as poor, in my opinion.

killmanic wrote:yeah i get where you are coming from but the problem is major is a decently big group of people so I dont see a major rank as high, since there are some majors who are just barely 2000 and arent that great of players.

Cooks are an even bigger group, and (at least) some of them are decent players. Are you suggesting that someone in the 2nd percentile is not high-ranked, while someone in the 98th percentile is low ranked?