Timing your wins and losses?

[thone]

Hello everybody,

i'm currious about something. Do you get advantage by postponing your wins and rush your losses?
I made a little calculation and this is what i get.

Situation:
- i'm playing vs 2 players with equal points.
- I'm having 1000 points.
- I'm winning one, and losing one.


Situation 1: First win, then lose
Start total: 1000 points
Winning of somebody with 1000 points: + 20
New total: 1020 points
Losing of somebody with 1000 points: - 22 (because i have more points, i lose more)
Final total: 998 points


Situation 2: First lose, then win
Start total: 1000 points
Losing of somebody with 1000 points: - 20
New total: 980 points
Winning of somebody with 1000 points: + 22 (because i have less points, i win more)
Final total: 1002 points





Do i see this correct?
Can you really gain extra points by using this?
Or did i miss something?

 

[KungFuDuet]

Yes - I had been thinking of that lately (I am not lying at all here) as I have been losing a few games.

Doing the above would actually save you some points - I tried it.

 

[Incandenza]

Yes, by timing these things you can save a point or two here and there, but in my experience it's probably not worth the effort in the long run, compared to the potential ill-will you'll engender by stalling games that you're clearly losing. However, if it's the difference between finally getting a rank medal or not, I say go for it.

 

[thone]

Yes, by timing these things you can save a point or two here and there, but in my experience it's probably not worth the effort in the long run, compared to the potential ill-will you'll engender by stalling games that you're clearly losing. However, if it's the difference between finally getting a rank medal or not, I say go for it.

Its just the other way around. Stalling your wins and rushing your losses.

When you dont do it, you can get a rank medal faster, but your final score is lower...

 

[Incandenza]

Ah, I see what you mean. I've only ever done it the other way, rushing a victory when I know I'm on the verge of a new personal best (or a new rank medal). The way I see it, rushing wins gives you a big short-term boost and a slight long-term loss, rather than the short-term loss and slight long-term gain from rushing losses. We're still talking about a point here or there, though I can imagine that a disciplined player could possibly see some significant profit if they kept it up over a long enough time period.

 

[ORBOTRON]

I was pretty disciplined at doing this early in my MC career, it got me a few extra points, but mostly made people want to punch me in the face for prolonging their inevitable demise. It's also a really DB move to pull on Grunt Class users, as they often won't be able to start another game until you finish them off. It quickly got to the point where the hate-mail wasn't worth it.

 

[thone]

Yeah, i guess its just not worth it. Doing it for some games during one day is fine i guess. But stalling games for longer then 20 hours is just not worth it.

 

[Badorties]

The effort to points ratio seems too high for me.

 

[mapguy]

This is not true. Your example is not complete. It does not take into account the next following game. if you have manipulated things so as to have the 1002 instead of the 998, then your next game will garner either a bigger loss (if you should loose), or a smaller gain (if you should win).
So yeah, you can easily shift a few points around, but theoretically the long run will just even out your short term gain.

As others have stated, Holding hostages and prolonging games is NOT a very nice thing to do, especially to a grunt with a maximum of only 4 games to play at a time.

But it seems that MC is throwing out mixed messages here. The whole idea of having a "Consecutive" scoreboard actually promotes this very thing. It is viewed as some kind of great skill to put together a winning streak.

It is not that great of a skill if you ask me. It only requires that you learn how to play the "hostage" game. :dancing2:

 

[AAFitz]

I have to assume holding hostages is against the rules, especially if blatent no matter the reason. Surely that would make you that guy.

I think when on a massive cudo run though, it would be obvious you might not play the one losing game as fast, but I cant imagine those streaks are a result of that. They are clearly a result of game choices that allow a massively high win rate, and some serious luck as well, because its pretty easy to lose one game.

In any case, like all stats, it means nothing without the proper context. Like most of the numbers and stats, the score included....mostly game choice and type is represented, and any who do not realize that, well....they just should.

 

[mapguy]

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX?

Please refrain from posts like this that add nothing to the conversation, are blatant personal insults, and serve no purpose other than starting a heated argument.

--ORBOTRON

 

[Shepherd]

I +1'd mapguy's previous comment, since he's right on. Sure you get 4 points, but in the long run it comes out in the wash... and all this manipulation makes you look like a prick. Not worth it.

Users will always find ways to game the system, but picking up a few cheap points here and there doesn't actually make you better at the game. Play, learn, have some fun.

 

[mapguy]

@Orbo,
Sorry friend but my comment was only meant to show the lengths that some people will go to protect their stupid CUDO scores. Fitzy's post was to that end. It totally glossed over the logic of my post, and spewed nonsense all over the place.

 

[AAFitz]

I +1'd mapguy's previous comment, since he's right on. Sure you get 4 points, but in the long run it comes out in the wash... and all this manipulation makes you look like a prick. Not worth it.

Users will always find ways to game the system, but picking up a few cheap points here and there doesn't actually make you better at the game. Play, learn, have some fun.

Well, its true if youre hostaging people you really are a prick. Especially if its for a new player who only has limited games.

However, nothing really makes you better at the game, except really devoting yourself to learning the specifics of it. Playing it on normal settings for years wont add anything to your skill level really, because at heart its really a basic game, and one must understand it fully, to really appreciate how basic it is.

However, the game does get fun when players push the envelope and really challenge the barriers. Its definitely not for everyone though. Some absolutely enjoy learning new ways to win. Some enjoy just relaxing over some basic games. Both players cant have fun doing it the other way, so having fun is a very relative term.

I think the key is to keep people from really breaking the boundaries of sportsmanship and the rules of the game. When rules are broken or seriously bent, then its just not fun for anyone. But trying to suggest what should be fun for one player or another is just as pointless as telling them what they should do for a living. The best part about the game, is that everyone likes something different. And its those that push the boundaries that pave the way for learning in the end.

 

[mapguy]

And more nonsense.
Fitz why don't you go back and read the title of this thread, maybe you would be so kind as to grace us with your keen insight on the topic, instead of this mindless diatribe about God knows what.

 

[goweje]

Reviving this thread, as it goes to something I've been wondering about. An assumption of this conversation is points are calculated based on participant's scores at the end of the game rather than the beginning. Are we sure this is correct? The wiki doesn't specify.

https://www.majorcommand.com/wiki/FAQ#How_do_the_points_work.3F

Thanks

 

[NewSheriffInTown]

Hi goweje,

Yes, that is correct. Points are based on the player's score when the game ends, not their score when the game starts.

1) Personally I think that rule is a bit backwards, it should be the other way around. When the opportunity arises, I will consider changing it so that points are based on a players starting points, not the points at the end of the game. But if that changes, it won't be for a while.
2) Thanks for pointing out the Wiki omission, we just fixed it.

Thanks!

 

[rob6483]

1) Personally I think that rule is a bit backwards, it should be the other way around. When the opportunity arises, I will consider changing it so that points are based on a players starting points, not the points at the end of the game. But if that changes, it won't be for a while.

Couldn't that be pretty badly abused though? Say my score is getting down there and I crack into the kitchen patrol. So... I join 100 games against high level opponents - now all 100 games I'll get huge piles of points for winning and any I lose would be hardly nothing lost if points are based off of score going in, so if I win a fraction of those games I'd still jump up through the ranks like crazy.

Not saying that I love the current system since it sucks when your opponents were majors at the start of the game and are busted down to lieutenant by the end dropping your point winnings. Thus the problem with "timing wins/losses".

 

[Cardinalsrule]

Rob makes a valid point. Basically I guess both could be abused. I just don't see a pressing need to change the way it's done.

If I was going to change anything I'd change the formula for points awarded. I'd chance the * factor from 30 to perhaps 20. Makes it so that the 100 point catastrophic losses aren't as likely. Maybe that way more high ranking players would be willing to play lower ranks.

 

[NewSheriffInTown]

Both excellent points.