Conquer Club

That's more addressed to the guy who wants the points system revamped so he can finally get down to what's important in life: farming more points off of noobs

Attrition wrote:In a response to Treefiddy, not much for him to comment on since he has an awful habit of going deadbeat when defeat is pending. Check his games. Thats fair

Thank you for talking out of your ass. If you actually checked my games like you said you did, you would have seen that I rematched all those people after the experiment's results were posted.

By the way, my play style or play history has nothing to do with the fact that the point system is just fine the way it is.

This is what I find interesting in this discussion; a CC player who posts a banner from a CHILDS CARTOON is attempting, poorly I might add, to post some type of insult by calling me a girl. I have to ask, what colour is your school backpack skippy? The other CC player posting is a habitual deadbeat and under my rules would lose double the points for deadbeating, but no comments about that from him. The childs cartoon, my 6yr old sson finds exceedingly stupid.

Exile is right the point system is fine. You are saying that you want to lose less for second place then you would for last. that is dumb. In war there is no second place. No one cares if you were the last to be killed. You were still killed. Also you are saying that you want to win more if you win in a 6 player game then you would in a 2 player game. That is already true. If you have 1000 points and you are playing a 2 player game with someone who has 1000 points if you win you get 20 points. If you have 1000 points and play in a 6 player game with 5 players who all have 1000 points and win then you get 100 points. The point system if fine.

Attrition,

You're no longer making your point and now you're just trolling. Makes sense, really, since your idea was horrible from the start. Your only goal was to troll.

Attrition wrote:I am ranked 2198 with 205 played and 62 won. The player ranked at 2197 has played 1733 and won 396.

Then the system is working.

As somebody fairly new here I believe the handicapped points system is very equitable. I have seen it work on my own score and the points I gt reflect the rank of my opponent relative to my own this is very fair.

If it was to be reviewed the two items I would suggest need reviewing are the 100 pts maximum - if a cook or some low ranked player beats a blitz or a JR the same formula should apply without the safety net of a max no. of points. In reality the amount of times this would happen would be few and far between so in the interest of equity I would like to suggest that this safety net be removed.

The other pts related issue i'd like to raise is the 1,000 point starting value for new members. I'm not sure if the equity of this has been looked at before but ideally this figure should equate to the average of all non new members in effect a mid point where they can drop or progress from, i'm not sure if 1,000 fits that bill.

rebelman wrote:As somebody fairly new here I believe the handicapped points system is very equitable. I have seen it work on my own score and the points I gt reflect the rank of my opponent relative to my own this is very fair.

If it was to be reviewed the two items I would suggest need reviewing are the 100 pts maximum - if a cook or some low ranked player beats a blitz or a JR the same formula should apply without the safety net of a max no. of points. In reality the amount of times this would happen would be few and far between so in the interest of equity I would like to suggest that this safety net be removed.

The other pts related issue i'd like to raise is the 1,000 point starting value for new members. I'm not sure if the equity of this has been looked at before but ideally this figure should equate to the average of all non new members in effect a mid point where they can drop or progress from, i'm not sure if 1,000 fits that bill.

Without a safety net a guy with 1 point (or just a very low score) could steal all the points from someone

Clive wrote:

rebelman wrote:As somebody fairly new here I believe the handicapped points system is very equitable. I have seen it work on my own score and the points I gt reflect the rank of my opponent relative to my own this is very fair.

If it was to be reviewed the two items I would suggest need reviewing are the 100 pts maximum - if a cook or some low ranked player beats a blitz or a JR the same formula should apply without the safety net of a max no. of points. In reality the amount of times this would happen would be few and far between so in the interest of equity I would like to suggest that this safety net be removed.

The other pts related issue i'd like to raise is the 1,000 point starting value for new members. I'm not sure if the equity of this has been looked at before but ideally this figure should equate to the average of all non new members in effect a mid point where they can drop or progress from, i'm not sure if 1,000 fits that bill.

Without a safety net a guy with 1 point (or just a very low score) could steal all the points from someone

Yep,. so it's open to abuse. See simtom.

shit player = 1 point

good player = 3400 points

(losers score/winner score)*20

(3400/1)*20=68000

that pritty much means you can take all a players points if you beat them.

Thats why the maximum of 100 points was introduced.