Score and Ranking

[matlu]

I'm not sure, I had a feeling that this topic was already discussed somewhere, but I just cannot find it, so I started new topic. I found a discussion about rank NAMES, but that's not really important. More important is, how is the score computed. If there already is such discussion and I just overlooked it please let me know.

If I understand it correctly, in old CW you lose 2 points if you get killed, and you get 2 points for each other player if you win. So if you win 4-player game you get 6 points (and everybody else loses 2 points)

I'm not sure, but probably it's a good idea to get some bigger reward if you play stronger players,  and you should not get too many points if you win over newbies. I think it would be more motivating for newbies, as they will have better chance to advance, if they are good.

My idea is:
- if you win, you get 1 point for each player with lower ranking, and 2 (or 3?) points for players with higher ranging.
So if you play a 5-player game where 2 oponents are weaker than you and 2 oponents are stronger than you, you'll get 1+1+2+2 (or 1+1+3+3) points for victory.
- and if you get killed, you always lose 2 points. Or maybe modification: If the winner was stronger than you, you lose 1 point, if the winner is weaker you lose 2 (or 3 points).
How do you like it?

[BlitzJoker]

Yes you do have the old system described correctly.

As for the new suggestion I'm not sure how this would work. First I would have to say it's good to keep a balance of points your opponent gains from you and points you lose, because if others gain more and lose less then it will cause for a general increase in everyones points. It would have the people with really high points progress very slowly(because everyone would be lower)....Like hass for example, he had somewhere around like 4,000 points more then everyone else, he would never have anyone to play with higher points and would always get 1 point per win and he wasn't unbeatable, just put in many hours so each time he lost it would take away the same amount of points that it took him to gain through three games(proposing they were 1on1 games). In games it could be like he had a nice bounty over his head(3 pts) while everyone else in the game was about even, so they might team up and take out the big guy first for a guaranteed little 3 point bonus to the eventual winner. I think this would then discourage him to continue play on that name.

And for a situation not that extreme....Say one person who is evenly skilled as a bunch of other people, but just has played longer so he has more points. Lets say hes playing games with his 5 equally skilled friends, when playing 100 games he would have to win 48/100 games in order to break even, with probability being each person would win 16.6/100 games, while with the old system he would have to only win 16.6/100 to break even, with probability being each person would win 16.6/100 games.

So a system like that would keep one guy from going far out in the front, which everyone should have the right to do 

EDIT: I noticed my numbers were a pinch off on the "must get XX/XX games to break even" part, I apoligize for that, but I attemped to fix it.

[Odin]

If I understand it correctly, in old CW you lose 2 points if you get killed, and you get 2 points for each other player if you win. So if you win 4-player game you get 6 points (and everybody else loses 2 points)

It was 2 points from each player up to 4-player games (6 points), then became 10 points gained if you won a 5-player game and 12 points if you won a 6-player game. Not sure if it was intentional or they just miscounted it, but that's the way it was. Don't think you lost any points if the game ended in a draw, as long as you weren't one of the players eliminated. Perhaps to give a greater advantage, the points from the defeated players could be split among those remaining.

I don't really like the idea of making it so you lose more points if you lose to someone of a much lower score and gain if you beat someone of a much higher score. In Chess, Checkers and a bunch of other games, it was that way (if you had a score of 100 and lost to someone like 200, you lost 1 point and he gained the point. If the person with 200 lost to you, that player lost 10 points and you gained 10) and that was the reason I didn't really bother with them at the castle.

[BlitzJoker]

It was 2 points from each player up to 4-player games (6 points), then became 10 points gained if you won a 5-player game and 12 points if you won a 6-player game.

Are you sure? I could have swore it was 8pts for 5-player and 10pts for 6-player..

[zzboots]

For some odd reason I enjoy saying Odin is wrong and Blitz is right.  And I agree with the points blitz made about the point system with the pelalities and rewards.  Maybe win percentage could also be stressed as an important stat for players?

[ZAPTONE_Z]

the new suggested system would stop people from farming points on noobs which is good

but it would make rising the ranks tougher

[Odin]

Are you sure? I could have swore it was 8pts for 5-player and 10pts for 6-player..

I'm certainly sure. I played thousands of games, with several hundred being 6 player ones. I won more than enough to know what I was entitled to. Will admit I am not entirely sure of everything (like commander not being killed on first turn - that is a good one to implement though even if it wasn't the case back at the castle), but I am for damn sure it was 10 on 5 and 12 on 6 since it happened so often. Going back to the make-big-players-lose-more suggestion, Shadowfire, who played well over 4000 games, lost more than he won. I am guessing it due to the fact it he probably only played 3 player games and up, but if the suggested system is implemented, it will punish good players for doing it. I say there should be some extra points involved simply because most players here are so skilled and there will be few "easy kills" unless someone makes a stupid mistake that suddenly changes the outcome.

Just because you say something is one way doesn't make it so. Funny the only things on my part that come up misspelled are the usernames (expected), while various things on zz's (when quoting him) come up misspelled all the time.

P.S. I added mystownzall's (good player to some, obnoxious newbie (especially on rs) to others) aim name to my list or what it was about 2 years back. Maybe I can try to get in contact with Shadowfire through him and maybe he too can clarify it as well as another discussion I noticed.

[TheMcCool]

Are you sure? I could have swore it was 8pts for 5-player and 10pts for 6-player..

I'm certainly sure. I played thousands of games, with several hundred being 6 player ones. I won more than enough to know what I was entitled to. Will admit I am not entirely sure of everything (like commander not being killed on first turn - that is a good one to implement though even if it wasn't the case back at the castle), but I am for damn sure it was 10 on 5 and 12 on 6 since it happened so often. Going back to the make-big-players-lose-more suggestion, Shadowfire, who played well over 4000 games, lost more than he won. I am guessing it due to the fact it he probably only played 3 player games and up, but if the suggested system is implemented, it will punish good players for doing it. I say there should be some extra points involved simply because most players here are so skilled and there will be few "easy kills" unless someone makes a stupid mistake that suddenly changes the outcome.

Just because you say something is one way doesn't make it so. Funny the only things on my part that come up misspelled are the usernames (expected), while various things on zz's (when quoting him) come up misspelled all the time.

P.S. I added mystownzall's (good player to some, obnoxious newbie (especially on rs) to others) aim name to my list or what it was about 2 years back. Maybe I can try to get in contact with Shadowfire through him and maybe he too can clarify it as well as another discussion I noticed.

Well, I can say the same thing about playing hundreds of 6 player games. A full game was my most preferred game. I think I at one point thought you got 12 points for a 6 player game too. But then later realized it was 10. I can't say I'm 100% sure on that though. (As for commanders not being killed on first turn, I am 100% sure that that was in place, at least after one of Jagex's updates to the game.)

Spellcheck.. I've never even considered using it in this or any forum. Spelling mistakes on the part of others don't bother me, as long as there's coherent structure.

[zzboots]

I love to use misspelled words.  I will bet my andrew_gower name that the point values were 8 for 5 player and 10 for 6.  Well you would win the 8 from the other players and keep your orignial 2.  If you put in by Odin's standards, you will be incorrect.  But there was never bonus points for larger games.

[matlu]

It really makes no sense to argue whether you used to get 12 or 10 points after winning 6-players game.
Mainly because you are probably BOTH correct. I'm sure that they changed the rules few times, and it's possible that this was also changed.

[zzboots]

It really makes no sense to argue whether you used to get 12 or 10 points after winning 6-players game.
Mainly because you are probably BOTH correct. I'm sure that they changed the rules few times, and it's possible that this was also changed.

They didn't change the points rule.  Odin is lost in a fantasy world in which all of his ill ideas are right.    Logically it makes no sense.  I mean it is jagex, but give them some credit.

[Odin]

They didn't change the points rule. Odin is lost in a fantasy world in which all of his ill ideas are right. Logically it makes no sense. I mean it is jagex, but give them some credit.

It wasn't my idea. It was theirs. You misspelled jag ex by the way. Spell checker says so.