Those damn points

[palmono]

Hi.

I've been around for over five years, and one thing that bothers me is that higher players are usually too concern of keeping their position. They are reluctant to play with lower rank players, and restrict their participation to closed or team games. I don't know what you think about it, but I say let's worry less about the ranking, and more about having a good time, one board at the time.

Take Cardinalsrule's example, goddamit!

Cheers!

Palmono

 

[Tapeworm]

That definitely doesn't apply to me. I'll play anyone as long as the game is at minimum 4 players and they aren't settings I hate. Preferably more than 6 than six players. I've given lots of points to newcomers. .

 

[bilsi]

Ya, I disagree totally. I have the shittiest rank possible and I get invited to games with the top players...I blame my rank on the dice lol...I'm old, played this game in 1980.

 

[engineerairborne]

I play what ever game interest me regardless of players involved. I'm sure if I played less games I would be a higher rank, but I am here to have fun.

 

[kenjoh]

I'm sure if I played less games I would be a higher rank, but I am here to have fun.

The enjoyment I receive from MC is the intellectual stimulation, the challenge of matching wits with my peers here and the anticipating the outcomes. I get a lot of enjoyment from playing fewer than 20 games at a time, I suppose I just get more enjoyment from each game by taking my time. That way, I get rank and fun. I also enjoy chatting. I try think of MC players as friends first and opponents second. That's how I see things here.

 

[kenjoh]

Hi.

They are reluctant to play with lower rank players, and restrict their participation to closed or team games.

My observation has been that players with lower ranks tend to make more mistakes, including ones that are not only detrimental to themselves but to certain of their opponents as well. For example (and this happened to me more than once recently), if someone eliminates me but in doing so, weakens himself too much, such that he himself gets eliminated, I have probably lost due to a mistake that a high-ranked player would not have made.

If a player does that to me, I am reluctant to play in games with them, especially if I see them constantly making bad choices and mistakes. It's not always about the points.

 

[bilsi]

I tend to agree with engineer...

 

[kenjoh]

I've been around for over five years, and one thing that bothers me is that higher players are usually too concern of keeping their position. They are reluctant to play with lower rank players, and restrict their participation to closed or team games. I don't know what you think about it, but I say let's worry less about the ranking, and more about having a good time, one board at the time.

Maybe we ought to change the current point system so that a player would earn the same amount for a win regardless of the score(s) of his opponent(s).

Then the generals et al should be much more willing to play lower-ranked players. As well though, lower-ranked players may be more inclined to play opponents at their own score level or lower, whom they would perceive as more beatable than higher ranked players.

I think a move in this direction might be a good thing to resolve the issue that Palmono has raised.

What say you all?

 

[chacha75]

yes, exactly on point: I am not sure it is more about the points but rather a predictable good strategy from the other party.

 

[once]

Maybe we ought to change the current point system so that a player would earn the same amount for a win regardless of the score(s) of his opponent(s).

i don't know about this. seems to me a reward for beating senior players is justified, as well as a potential penalty for trying to trick unsuspecting newbies (high risk, little gain). yes it might be annoying that certain players prefer to stick to their peers, but i think 1st of all: to each his own, and secondly doesn't this make sense too? apart from the issue kenjoh raised of the occasional nut who might ruin a game for others too, why wouldnt you play among your peers, point-wise, if you are looking for a challenge & understand challenge in direct correlation to score: higher score = bigger challenge. of course this is faulty & overly simplified, there are truly excellent players who play all over the scoreboard & their score reflects this unbiased approach. so to go back to palmonos original post: lets worry less about rank & more about fun - this is good advice regardless, and i think all that needs to be considered. however, the issue i think is a bit of a non-issue, i know am having fun here, and i am not bothered by anyone having less or more fun than me. this being said, maybe there is a way some kind of reward system could be implemented to justify the comparatively high risk for a general going vs a cadet. not sure what this could be.. a SENSEI SCORE maybe? reflecting how much you are willing to play outside of your comfort zone? oh, and dedicated medals, everyone loves those!

 

[kenjoh]

Once, I appreciate your well-reasoned post. It adds a lot to this topic.

To further the discussion, what if we merely adjusted the formula to make it less harsh on higher-score players who are willing to play lower-score players. When my score was lower, I learned a lot by playing the top players. Of course tournaments already make gaining that experience possible, so it's not like the generals et al never play lower-score players, right?

 

[Bluebonnet]

Just taking a quick look at the scoreboard. I think most of the higher ranks are approachable for a game. You just need to know where to look. Any private can find them in general tournaments or the private MOM games going on (limited to commander class).

If they show up in casual games, they do receive grief occaisonally. Personally I always looked forward to high ranks in casual. But you get accusations of noob hunting (true for me but i like medals ), or ruining it for lower ranks who want to play amongst them selves.
But if you make friends with one, then they are usually open to games no matter the rank.

As for changing scoring. Bigger issue than just changing a formula. Will the old score dissapear, or will it be recalculated since inception of first game? A lot of people put in a bunch of time to obtain their scores based on how it works now. What will happen to it?

And if you say keep old score and just change scoring from point forward. A lot of high ranks may hibernate within their own ranks if it benefits them in keeping their current score.

so a big potential for a lose lose lose

 

[kenjoh]

GTI - the present scores don't need to change. The only effect of changing the formula would be that if the generals et al lose to a lower ranked player, they just would not lose as many points as they do now. Conversely, the lower ranked players would not receive as many points as they do now.

Lower ranked players lose a bit with this adjustment, but in theory, it should be a bit easier for them to find games with the higher-score players. Seems like only winning this way.

 

[Sebrim]

I agree with da hoe (gtivan), that creating incentives like this won't necessarily change the behaviour of the mass of players. The most important thing for aspiring players is to communicate and not be afraid to ask about a game. Most high-level players I have experienced are very happy to play committed noobs willing to learn. Many low level players on this site do not have the ambitions, the patience, or the willingness to actually play interesting game and learn from others in the process. Changing the way points are awarded won't change this behaviour.

An idea: what about differentiating the way points are distributed in casual and real time games?

 

[linkinpark]

Is this even a real thing? I personnaly don't avoid anyone based on their points. Actually changing the point system would ruin the effect that low-risk-low-gain equals high-risk-high-gain. If I wanted to climb up the scoreboard I obviously wouldn't play against anyone above 1225 points then.

 

[Redstorm]

I agree completely with Sebrim.

The most important thing for aspiring players is to communicate and not be afraid to ask about a game. Most high-level players I have experienced are very happy to play committed noobs willing to learn.

That was my experience as a noob. As a cadet I asked for and got 1v1 games with 4 of top 10 ranked players all of which were more than happy to give me pointers because I asked them to.

 

[Bluebonnet]

An idea: what about differentiating the way points are distributed in casual and real time games?

Changes to scoring methodology will not get people to convert from casual to real time.

Still way too many instances of "that guy" that destroy the game. Most casual players won't put up with it.
-When you win you are called a cheater
-When you have a plan different than what someone wants they feel they have the right to abuse you verbally.
-Dice are unfair
-Going AWOL

 

[Bluebonnet]

GTI - the present scores don't need to change. The only effect of changing the formula would be that if the generals et al lose to a lower ranked player, they just would not lose as many points as they do now. Conversely, the lower ranked players would not receive as many points as they do now.

Lower ranked players lose a bit with this adjustment, but in theory, it should be a bit easier for them to find games with the higher-score players. Seems like only winning this way.

Correct, lower ranked players lose because they don't get as many points when they win.
So being able to climb the ranks just became that much more difficult. Good/great players will have a longer struggle going from Private to General because they are not rewarded the same as people sued to be.

You could make the argument, it would be just as easy since higher ranks would play more against lower ranks, so they would have more opportunities.

But that is supposition. While we can guess at what people will do and how things will change. We don't know. So any change made "for the better", may actually make things worse than they are now.

 

[riskyone]

Changes to scoring methodology will not get people to convert from casual to real time.

Still way too many instances of "that guy" that destroy the game. Most casual players won't put up with it.
-When you win you are called a cheater
-When you have a plan different than what someone wants they feel they have the right to abuse you verbally.
-Dice are unfair
-Going AWOL

Very interesting thread to read. My problem with RT games is that Cadets are to quick to vote you dishonorable if they lose. Some Cadets have told me they think members get better dice because they pay money. Maybe this should be considered.

 

[riskyone]

The only time I cared about my rank was the 2-3 weeks that I once fell out of the top 200. Just want to be in the top 200, that's all. Just see my name there. I try to play for fun, but I get caught up in medal chasing. If the top spots never change it doesn't bother me. I've played with 90% of the players and find that top players will usually play with me. I like the example brought up about mentoring. That is just one of the things Cards contributes to this site. It's very enjoyable. I learn more from playing better players. friendly rivalries are great also. What's the fun at sitting at the top if your not playing and defending your status. Bring it.