Minimum Score to be Lost 1 Instead of 0

[Jdsizzleslice]

Concise description:

• Make the minimum score lost when losing a game be 1 instead of 0.

Specifics/Details:

• Game 19704932 - Hooch gained 0 points from playing against a low-score cook. I understand that the number of points gained is calculated based off the winner and losers score, but this should automatically default to 1 if the score variance is too great that it would result in 0 points gained by the winner.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• This ensures that players who win games actually gain points from their opponents, no matter how small. If 0 points are gained from winning against an opponent, then the game played has no merit or significance.

[DBandit70]

+++1

[betiko]

lol i didn't know you could end up winning a game and earn 0pts lol... actually... i even thought the lowest possible was 5 and the highest 100

[Hooch]

I don't mind popping into C and A or Suggestions every once in a while for a look. don't really expect to be of note in either to be honest.
Always a Bit of a laugh when this happens or the opposite where Cook strips 50+ points, I think they could have taken 58 off me if they'd won this.
I think the most I've lost is 61 and previous win 4 or 5...

Conquer Club members are initially given a score of 1000. At the end of each game, the winner takes points away from each loser. The points to be awarded is calculated as (loser's score / winner's score) * 20, up to a maximum of 100 points from each opponent.

I too thought it was 5.
Whether it was someone else with a 100 loss or 58 it is a risk, 0 is a joke, 1 is token but the disparity is concerning.

[Jdsizzleslice]

I don't mind popping into C and A or Suggestions every once in a while for a look. don't really expect to be of note in either to be honest.
Always a Bit of a laugh when this happens or the opposite where Cook strips 50+ points, I think they could have taken 58 off me if they'd won this.
I think the most I've lost is 61 and previous win 4 or 5...

Conquer Club members are initially given a score of 1000. At the end of each game, the winner takes points away from each loser. The points to be awarded is calculated as (loser's score / winner's score) * 20, up to a maximum of 100 points from each opponent.

I too thought it was 5.
Whether it was someone else with a 100 loss or 58 it is a risk, 0 is a joke, 1 is token but the disparity is concerning.

I knew that 5 wasn't the minimum. Game 16236205 is where I gained only 1 point. But that's where I thought the minimum was.

What I find fascinating is that in Game 19704932, the score you had just before winning the game was 1768 (1816-48). This means that any opponent must need a score of 44 (44.2 rounded down) to even gain any points, because the calculation of (loser's score / winner's score) * 20 is a rounded number, so anything that is 0.5 or higher will award 1 point..

Contrast that to a:

• General (3500), who needs any opponent of his to have a minimum score of 88 (87.5)
• Field Marshal (4500) who needs any opponent of his to have a minimum score of 113 (112.5)
• Current Conqueror (5680) who needs any opponent of his to have a minimum score of 142

Now, I know that the odds of one of these types of games happening are very close to zero. But at least have some sort of incentive for winning a game (even if it is 1 measly point, lol).

[Dukasaur]

Agreed.

[Odug]

Yeah that seems to me that a "good" player would have no interest in participating in the SOC and helping NOoBs become better players

[betiko]

I don't mind popping into C and A or Suggestions every once in a while for a look. don't really expect to be of note in either to be honest.
Always a Bit of a laugh when this happens or the opposite where Cook strips 50+ points, I think they could have taken 58 off me if they'd won this.
I think the most I've lost is 61 and previous win 4 or 5...

Conquer Club members are initially given a score of 1000. At the end of each game, the winner takes points away from each loser. The points to be awarded is calculated as (loser's score / winner's score) * 20, up to a maximum of 100 points from each opponent.

I too thought it was 5.
Whether it was someone else with a 100 loss or 58 it is a risk, 0 is a joke, 1 is token but the disparity is concerning.

I knew that 5 wasn't the minimum. Game 16236205 is where I gained only 1 point. But that's where I thought the minimum was.

What I find fascinating is that in Game 19704932, the score you had just before winning the game was 1768 (1816-48). This means that any opponent must need a score of 44 (44.2 rounded down) to even gain any points, because the calculation of (loser's score / winner's score) * 20 is a rounded number, so anything that is 0.5 or higher will award 1 point..

Contrast that to a:

• General (3500), who needs any opponent of his to have a minimum score of 88 (87.5)
• Field Marshal (4500) who needs any opponent of his to have a minimum score of 113 (112.5)
• Current Conqueror (5680) who needs any opponent of his to have a minimum score of 142

Now, I know that the odds of one of these types of games happening are very close to zero. But at least have some sort of incentive for winning a game (even if it is 1 measly point, lol).

GLG asks you to hold his beer

[Jdsizzleslice]

Yeah that seems to me that a "good" player would have no interest in participating in the SOC and helping NOoBs become better players

GLG asks you to hold his beer

Safe to say that even with Ranching/Farming, the overall percentage of these types of games that occur site-wide would be extremely small.