|
Thread: In order to encourage ANY player to accept challengies... | This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
balcough_dra...
Supreme Hero
unlucky? i want to pump you up
|
posted December 31, 2003 01:59 AM |
|
|
i am a lord
and i play barons with 1350 plus with np
and i will play lower if i know them
it must be this way or people will become newbie killers even worse then it is now
a person that plays 2 maps vs. any rank can make lord in like a month as it is now
____________
slayer
whos your daddy and what does he do?
|
|
Blue_Camel
Famous Hero
|
posted December 31, 2003 02:10 AM |
|
|
Quote: Karim is on the right track - a fair system might be two points for a win and one point for a loss - no matter who you play. That way even the number one player is available to play with everyone, but at the same time his score is not an unreachable goal.
yep, prob with this system would be you would have lords/emperors who have never even played a baron or higher
|
|
Hadrian
Tavern Dweller
|
posted December 31, 2003 02:27 AM |
|
|
You are obsessed with ranks. A player should have a point score - forget calling him a Lord because he has 1500 point or whatever. This only divides players from one another. If you look at someone's score and who they have played you can choose whether or not to play them. It is a myth that you can be a high ranked player from only playing newbs - there are not enough newbs to go around.
|
|
Blue_Camel
Famous Hero
|
posted December 31, 2003 08:22 AM |
|
|
with the system suggested in the quote (2 points for a win, PERIOD) you would have lords, or if you prefer to call them 1700+ players, there is no difference, who would play little or no games against opponents of skill to acheive their rank (or point total, if you wish). i'm not sure how you can back up what you are saying about # of noobs, as you are never on Gamespy. if you are gracious enough, it is not hard to get a new(ish) player registered w/toh and then get him to play you. and not all the victims of such cherry picking lords/emperors would be complete noobs. they could just be squires and footmen who may have plenty of games on record but just arent that good.
and anyway, it would be ridiculous if a squire managed to beat an emperor but still only got 2 points.
|
|
Hadrian
Tavern Dweller
|
posted January 01, 2004 01:17 PM |
|
|
The current points system divides players. Most highly ranked players won't play outside their ranking because there is no incentive to do so. Lower ranked players lose the opportunity to play higher ranked people and gain from the experience. Higher ranked players wont risk the possibility of losing a lot of points playing a squire or footman even when they are confident of a win. If they did lose it is too costly to their ranking.
Lets take an extreme example under a new proposal. Two points for a win and one for a loss. If a top player had played 50 games for 50 wins he would have 100 points and a bad player had played 50 games for 50 losses he would have 50 points - (these points are for experience. Even a lower ranked player can have high honour).
Under the current system there is no way the top player would play the lower player. But if the object was to play for only two points then the high ranked player has nothing to fear and would consider playing the low ranked player at least once.
The low ranked player gets the benefit of advice and the experience of playing the higher player. If by some miracle he wins he should not gain an enormous points bonus from one fluke win and jump up the scale - each win should be of the same value - just like football.
The myth is that the good players would play noobs and build enormous points. But there are not that many players. No good player is going to play newbies consistently. Yes they might do it for a few games, but even if someone does develop a high score from seeking out lowly players when they play in a tournament restricted to higher ranks they wíll come up against the limitations of their poor strategy.
This points system allows the good players to keep building points and become established at the top of the scale, because they win most games. But at the same time they have the option of playing a newbie without having to worry about losing a lot of points from one bad game against a new player. This system also helps prevent problems such as players setting up false name accounts and other nefarious activities, because there is no advantage.
The current system causes problems with people not willing to play against particular players because of the map or their style of play or because they might lose a lot of points etc etc. If the most anyone can gain is two point maybe the intensity will reduce and people will have fun again......
yes I only play once every couple of weeks and yes the world is round and there are different time zones when some are playing and others are asleep...
|
|
Targan
Known Hero
|
posted January 01, 2004 07:17 PM |
|
|
the points system is good as it is.
|
|
balcough_dra...
Supreme Hero
unlucky? i want to pump you up
|
posted January 02, 2004 02:48 AM |
|
|
yup i agree
if you actually played hardian and made squire you would play legionairs easy
i don't think there is one emerpor or lord that won't play a baron
get to baron and shouldn't be a problem
theres plenty of newbs that want a game
so come play with them
____________
slayer
whos your daddy and what does he do?
|
|
Tortoise
Known Hero
Master of Reptiles.
|
posted January 10, 2004 08:00 AM |
|
|
teacher, i will play you..
i'll get owned, but i'll still play you
best way to improve is getting your ass handed to you over and over and over...
____________
All living things have a history. The history of the Tortoise is long and rich.
|
|
|