points what about?

[koul]

i can't understand how you can gain points,for example i win somebody and the game give to me 9 points then i loose and i loose 14 points could somebody explain to me what's happening

thanks at first

[AndyDufresne]

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.

Depending on the amount of points you have, and the amount of points the other players have, affects how many points you lose and how many points you gain.


--Andy

[koul]

thnks andy i am new in the game and i just learning

[misterman10]

thnks andy i am new in the game and i just learning

go to the help tab to find answers for any questions

[Attrition]

The explanation of points awarded v deducted doen't make any sense. If you take for example a player who deadbeats a game will/can lose less than a player who finishes 2nd or 3rd. To suggest that a player can be awarded 8 points for winning in a 2 player game than lose 30 points for losing a 2 player game is ludicris. Just because you are of a higher rank should not dictate you lose more points. There should be an automatic calculation based on the number of players regardless of rank IE. 25pts X 2 players, 15pts X 3 players and so on. For those players that deadbeat they should be penalized double the amount they would lose in a normal game. It is infinitly frustrating to play a brilliant game and be awarded 8 points and then because the luck of the random draw you lose 30. This is an obvious problem and needs to be rectified.

[The1exile]

This is an obvious problem and needs to be rectified.

No, it doesn't.

If you are at the stage where you are winning 10 points and losing 40, if you can't beat 4 players for everyone one you lose to, then evidently you aren't worthy of your rank, and so you will lose points. This is not impossible, and it's why most of the upper ranks have high win %'s.

You could, alternatively, play with people you own rank, so you're only winning 18-22 and losing the same.

[Attrition]

The argument posted by the 1 exile is groundless considering the #4 ranked player has a 39% win percentage and the #9 ranked player has a 32% win percentage. To suggest that I am not worthy of my rank is frankly, insulting. This is a discussion about the inequity of points awarded V deducted. Suggesting that the staus quo is acceptable displays an inability to grasp the concept of fairness when awarding/deducting points. I would suggest to the 1 exile refrain from commenting on topics that are over his/her head. The points need to be awarded/deducted in a fair manor regarless of rank.

[The1exile]

The argument posted by the 1 exile is groundless considering the #4 ranked player has a 39% win percentage and the #9 ranked player has a 32% win percentage.

No, it's not. That means they probably play 6 players games - most ly against people their own ranks, as I recommended - and win (let's say) 30% of them. given that the average win rate, to break even against opponents your own rank is only 16.6%, higher win % = more points keeping them at the top spot.

To suggest that I am not worthy of my rank is frankly, insulting. This is a discussion about the inequity of points awarded V deducted. Suggesting that the staus quo is acceptable displays an inability to grasp the concept of fairness when awarding/deducting points. I would suggest to the 1 exile refrain from commenting on topics that are over his/her head. The points need to be awarded/deducted in a fair manor regarless of rank.

Yet you suggest that in 18+ months of designing this site, lack has somehow deliberately overlooked the fact that the point system is *obviously* flawed, and instead assumed that the fact that there are people with more than twice your points who manage to play and maintain their rank indicated that the system worked fine, and you don't think that's insulting to him?

if you can maintain 1400 points, then good for you. If you can't, then you will naturally drop in rank. My point barrier is at the moment about 1600-1800points which I float between depending on how my luck goes.

[treefiddy]

The1exile is right. The point system is fine.

[Attrition]

The point system is obviously flawed. If in any game the 2nd player out of the game loses as many points as the player who finishes 2nd or the last player out before the end of the game, regardless of rank, isn't fair. The point system needs to be set so the player finishing last loses the most regardless of rank, assuming the game is a multi player game. The point is this; being of a higher rank should not dictate the loss of more points, it should simply mean a loss and points lost depending on finish position. I say again deadbeats should lose double the points. The points availble for a victory should also be stated while the game is in progress.

[AAFitz]

if a linear point system, and a non handicapped system was implemented, the scores would go through the roof

The scoring prevents experienced players from playing non experienced players, and winning huge.

I would love it believe me, id have thousands more points, as would most experienced players....problem is that a new player would get here, see the top score was 15000, and he would see no light at the end of the tunnel.

The way it is set up now... any truly gifted player, can get to the top in 200 games. few have done it, but since they have, its obviously possible with work and ingenuity with probably a dash of luck.

the score system is the way it is, because it has to be that way...otherwise, he who played the most games would always have the highest score.

Now, high ranked players have to be careful, precise and make no mistakes to gain from lower ranks, or just play higher more experienced players themselves.

Exile is correct... the scoring system is not broken. It can be annoying, and perhaps could be changed slightly, but can be no other way.

[codyjd]

The scoring prevents experienced players from playing non experienced players, and winning huge.

Luckily, the opposite is true

[Attrition]

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

[AAFitz]

The scoring prevents experienced players from playing non experienced players, and winning huge.

Luckily, the opposite is true

It is not true. to win from simply playing new recuruits takes many, many games with a win percentage that makes making mistakes impossible. That is not winning huge...its winning tiny, many times over...totally different...if experienced teams can win hundreds and thousands of points in this system, calculate how much they'd have in a flat scoring system...there would be no ceiling, and would crush competition...the only reason points are hard to come by is the scoring system...change it, and pros will mop up beyond comprehension...at least now it takes some precision, and there is risk to playing below your point level

[Attrition]

Again; the points system needs changing, handicapping is not working. There must be a set amount of points avaiable for the victor, yes I know its a max of 100. It is obvious by the rankings that playing the most games is not the way to the top of the charts. Again, having the higher rank should not dictate the loss of the most points.

[codyjd]

The scoring prevents experienced players from playing non experienced players, and winning huge.

Luckily, the opposite is true

It is not true. to win from simply playing new recuruits takes many, many games with a win percentage that makes making mistakes impossible. That is not winning huge...its winning tiny, many times over...totally different...if experienced teams can win hundreds and thousands of points in this system, calculate how much they'd have in a flat scoring system...there would be no ceiling, and would crush competition...the only reason points are hard to come by is the scoring system...change it, and pros will mop up beyond comprehension...at least now it takes some precision, and there is risk to playing below your point level

By the opposite I meant that lower ranks can hit the jackpot by winning against the higher ranks.

[AAFitz]

The scoring prevents experienced players from playing non experienced players, and winning huge.

Luckily, the opposite is true

It is not true. to win from simply playing new recuruits takes many, many games with a win percentage that makes making mistakes impossible. That is not winning huge...its winning tiny, many times over...totally different...if experienced teams can win hundreds and thousands of points in this system, calculate how much they'd have in a flat scoring system...there would be no ceiling, and would crush competition...the only reason points are hard to come by is the scoring system...change it, and pros will mop up beyond comprehension...at least now it takes some precision, and there is risk to playing below your point level

By the opposite I meant that lower ranks can hit the jackpot by winning against the higher ranks.

I completely misunderstood

be less vague dammit

[Attrition]

With all contest in life sometimes you're the shark sometimes you're the bait. The truly good players will get better and the others, well, will not. If you don't want to get hurt stay in bed. A flat scoring system, or any system that exihbts fairness is better. Who cares if the top dog has 15,000 points. This is risk.

[Incandenza]

You're missing an essential point here. If all it takes is quantity of wins, with no regard to the quality thereof, then the people at the top of the scoreboard would be the ones that played the most games, period. There are some on this site with 3000+ games played, as opposed to many on page one with fewer than 200, and anyone with 3000+ games played is going to win a decent amount of them. Under your proposed rules, what's the point for a player that can only devote a small amount of time per day to playing the game? You claim to support fairness, yet such a system would be extremely unfair to the students and working professionals and parents that make up 98% of the site membership. Nothing against people that play a shitload of games, but they shouldn't be the overall leaders simply because they play a shitload of games.

Plus there's the concept of fluctuation, the increasing difficulty of protecting one's rank the higher one goes, with the risk going up as well.

As it stands, I, at 300 or so games, might find myself on the scoreboard between someone with 2500 games and someone with 45. Life's rich pageant.

[Attrition]

I am ranked 2198 with 205 played and 62 won. The player ranked at 2197 has played 1733 and won 396. Simply by playing more games does not assure a higher rank. Oh you bet I feed on the weak when I can, I have also taken on the same and higher ranks. There is more in the drop and dice than one may think, not to mention some brow beating on occasion. I am here to win where I can, I am not interested in making it a pleasant experience for others so they don't get discouraged. I want points. I also don't see any need nor logic behind losing more points because I am a higher rank. As I have stated before, the first player eliminated from the game loses the most and the last player eliminated loses the least that is the only fair way to award points and it needs to be regardless of rank.

[Attrition]

If the intent of the scoring system is to make everybody feel warm and fuzzy, then take up knitting. Who cares if the weak get feasted upon, that is simply life. Look around you it happens every day. I am personnaly not interested in some sociallist collective with everybody looking at the pretty colours. The need is great for changing the scoring system with the strongets and best at the top and the sheep getting fleeced. Maybe I will just buy the whole thing and make the changes myself.

[misterman10]

If the intent of the scoring system is to make everybody feel warm and fuzzy, then take up knitting. Who cares if the weak get feasted upon, that is simply life. Look around you it happens every day. I am personnaly not interested in some sociallist collective with everybody looking at the pretty colours. The need is great for changing the scoring system with the strongets and best at the top and the sheep getting fleeced. Maybe I will just buy the whole thing and make the changes myself.

by all means do that, you sound like a little girl who cries whenever she doesnt get it perfect and exactly the way she wants it. The point system will not be changed and theres nothing you can do about it.

[Clive]

I am happy with the point system...

And it can't be changed because it would make all previous games obsolete, and cause mass quiting.

[ClessAlvein]

Why don't you just win more games

[Clive]

Why don't you just win more games

If only it were that easy lol