Conquer Club

Make top ranking players more competitive

Currently you can play none rated games and maintain your position at the leaderboard even at top position. That makes the leaderboard quite constant and top ranking players are not encouraged to play many games. That's bad for many obvious reasons.

There are sports where playing games is very important to maintain a potision at the leaderboard like tennis and others that not, like chess, in order to better indicate the best player.
In cc rating doesn't realy reflect how good player you are anyway because it is subject of the settings someone is playing.

I think best way to impliment a punishment for not playing many games while being at top rankings and also making it easier to reach the top with many changes at the leaderboard is the lets say 10 top ranked players to lose constatly points every month. More spesifically each one of the 10 top ranked players will see thire rating dropped at the 1st of each callendar month. An indicated amount of the drop can be:

1) -200, 2) -180, 3) -160 4) -140 .... 9) -40, 10) -20

In this case you will see top ranked player drop to about 4000 points and players with many games, less affected by the drop would reach top potition

Decent idea.

Or let the Points be valid for a year. Then u will gradually lose your Point if not playing. This how sports ranking in general terms work to reflect more actual strength not ancient wins

I see where you're going with this.
There is a long standing website that organizes leagues on games like clue, monopoly, yahtzee, etc.
It is called Cases Ladder, or Myleague.com (they are one in the same).
Players play games on sites like Conquer Club and are members of their leagues created by other players.
CC keeps its ranking, but players also report wins and losses to their leagues (sort of like gamebattles).
Whether or not you participate in Myleague.com, we could learn something from the ranking system they use.
Players who win 5 games in a row become, "HOT" and players who lose five games in a row go, "COLD."
And players advance up their league ranking (scoreboard) by playing players higher ranked than them, to move up in position.
So, for example, if narutoserigala (#1) plays against random21 (#2), and random21 wins, then random21 immediately moves to the top #1 position of the scoreboard.
Or if #3 plays against #15 and #15 wins, #15 would move up to #10 or so, not #3, but based on an algorithm...
In other words, the scoreboard ranking is based on position instead of score.
If nothing else, we could add some jazz to the leaderboard or possibly another new leaderboard (e.g.; hot and cold to keep high ranks and generally everybody motivated; and/or a penalty for refusing a match against the player directly beneath you on the leaderboard).
Either way, I have no problem with the system we currently use, but wanted to provide some suggestions for your idea.

mc05025 wrote:Make top ranking players more competitive

Currently you can play none rated games and maintain your position at the leaderboard even at top position. That makes the leaderboard quite constant and top ranking players are not encouraged to play many games. That's bad for many obvious reasons.

There are sports where playing games is very important to maintain a potision at the leaderboard like tennis and others that not, like chess, in order to better indicate the best player.
In cc rating doesn't realy reflect how good player you are anyway because it is subject of the settings someone is playing.

I think best way to impliment a punishment for not playing many games while being at top rankings and also making it easier to reach the top with many changes at the leaderboard is the lets say 10 top ranked players to lose constatly points every month. More spesifically each one of the 10 top ranked players will see thire rating dropped at the 1st of each callendar month. An indicated amount of the drop can be:

1) -200, 2) -180, 3) -160 4) -140 .... 9) -40, 10) -20

In this case you will see top ranked player drop to about 4000 points and players with many games, less affected by the drop would reach top potition

Your suggestion targets top ranked players and in particular the Conqueror rank. By virtue that I am the current Conqueror, I will say this.

In principle and fair competition, I am all for not blocking anybody aspiring to the top. But if you believe this, then it is only natural that the same for those at the top.The reason that nobody could topple me is not good enough. Surely you are not implying that no one else here has the ability to overtake me? In fact, e.g. you. I think you have the ability (you were Conqueror) but are you willing to spend the effort? This requires really hard work on your part, not my part for not playing regularly which is lesser factor if at all.

Anyone who is truly secure in his own abilities and devoted to achieve this goal, he has no need for such crutches. I am sure no one wants to see the next Conqueror lacking merits to be elevated to that rank. It diminishes the Conqueror rank prestige.

Like I said, it is very hard but failing to achieve the rank by merit (or any rank for matter that matter) doesn't excuse stealing the achievement of others. I know this is very base human instinct but we should be better than that.

Let me emphasize this again, I believe that with dedication and good strategy, the Conqueror rank is achievable. There should be better ideas out there. Maybe Aba's idea is worth exploring further. Think harder

hmm...i'll trade you my bronze x map medal for your conq. medal, naruto. sound good? it's a fair deal in that neither of us is likely to attain them by any other means, no?

Aba wrote:I see where you're going with this.
There is a long standing website that organizes leagues on games like clue, monopoly, yahtzee, etc.
It is called Cases Ladder, or Myleague.com (they are one in the same).
Players play games on sites like Conquer Club and are members of their leagues created by other players.
CC keeps its ranking, but players also report wins and losses to their leagues (sort of like gamebattles).
Whether or not you participate in Myleague.com, we could learn something from the ranking system they use.
Players who win 5 games in a row become, "HOT" and players who lose five games in a row go, "COLD."
And players advance up their league ranking (scoreboard) by playing players higher ranked than them, to move up in position.
So, for example, if narutoserigala (#1) plays against random21 (#2), and random21 wins, then random21 immediately moves to the top #1 position of the scoreboard.
Or if #3 plays against #15 and #15 wins, #15 would move up to #10 or so, not #3, but based on an algorithm...
In other words, the scoreboard ranking is based on position instead of score.
If nothing else, we could add some jazz to the leaderboard or possibly another new leaderboard (e.g.; hot and cold to keep high ranks and generally everybody motivated; and/or a penalty for refusing a match against the player directly beneath you on the leaderboard).
Either way, I have no problem with the system we currently use, but wanted to provide some suggestions for your idea.

Do you realy consider your suggestion better than what I posted?

What you are saying, i.e. the ladder system, is not applicable at cc for varius reasons the most important of them is that
1) It will require a completely new system of ranking the whole board (something imposible and unnecessary as cc ranking system is fine and applicable in sports)
2) In cc there are many settings and multiplayer games which makes the 1v1 matches unsuitable for best player decider

I only consider it a suggestion, not better, want to add to the conversation is all.
We have not always had four leaderboards, so I think adding a fifth leaderboard would not be impossible and unnecessary as you mention.
Many games that have multiplayer games use the ladder system.
I do think your suggestion would cause more changes in the leaderboards, more people will become Conqueror because the top 10 spots will be knocked out immediately as soon as they make it that high.
I'm not sure I agree with a head tax on those at the top, as narutoserigala suggested, it would not be very fair to give people point reductions simply because they are at the top.
Although, if we do decide to implement a drain on points for people at the top, I think the numbers you suggest are pretty reasonable.

CC has something Aba suggested. People either don't know about it or don't care tho


viewtopic.php?f=341&t=194552

Let me also say that I applaud the General for making this suggestion and I agree it is kinda dumb that some of the players with the highest scores barely play or don't play at all but I don't agree with any type of point loss due to not playing X amount of games per month/year...

Real Life can pull someone away from the internet for long periods at a time and they shouldn't be punished for not wanting to log on and play a game. I used to play online poker 10-14hrs a day but a tragedy in my life made me not touch the internet for about a year and based on that experience if anyone on here went through something similar it would be shameful on CC's part to punish them for not playing games.

If you do not play any games for one month then you get out of the scoreboard, you are not at the first 10 top ranked and you do not lose any points. If you come back, you continue from where you left like it is now. The points reduction will apply only for active players show up at the scoreboard. It isn't a punishment for not playing many games as it will apply regardless the amount of games. Rather it will just give you a motivasion to play more games because your rating will be lower from your real abilities (due to the reduction).

Changing frequently conquerors and in general the top ranking line is beneficial for the site. If you are afraid that conqueror title will be achived at 4000 ponts or less and maybe the player would not be that good (personally I doubt that any player with 4000 is worse than a player who is inactive for 2 years but anyway) then the point reduction can be much less, like -50,-45,-40 etc and the conqueror title will be at about 4500.
The argument about making the conqueror title less prestigeous seems hilarious to me. What makes less prestigeous the title from a conqueror that is practicaly inactive for like 1 or 2 years?

I support this idea from mc05025.

riskllama wrote:hmm...i'll trade you my bronze x map medal for your conq. medal, naruto. sound good? it's a fair deal in that neither of us is likely to attain them by any other means, no?

Elaterate wrote:Let me also say that I applaud the General for making this suggestion and I agree it is kinda dumb that some of the players with the highest scores barely play or don't play at all but I don't agree with any type of point loss due to not playing X amount of games per month/year...

Real Life can pull someone away from the internet for long periods at a time and they shouldn't be punished for not wanting to log on and play a game. I used to play online poker 10-14hrs a day but a tragedy in my life made me not touch the internet for about a year and based on that experience if anyone on here went through something similar it would be shameful on CC's part to punish them for not playing games.

This is exactly what I am going through in RL!

mc05025 wrote:If you do not play any games for one month then you get out of the scoreboard, you are not at the first 10 top ranked and you do not lose any points. If you come back, you continue from where you left like it is now. The points reduction will apply only for active players show up at the scoreboard. It isn't a punishment for not playing many games as it will apply regardless the amount of games. Rather it will just give you a motivasion to play more games because your rating will be lower from your real abilities (due to the reduction).

Changing frequently conquerors and in general the top ranking line is beneficial for the site. If you are afraid that conqueror title will be achived at 4000 ponts or less and maybe the player would not be that good (personally I doubt that any player with 4000 is worse than a player who is inactive for 2 years but anyway) then the point reduction can be much less, like -50,-45,-40 etc and the conqueror title will be at about 4500.
The argument about making the conqueror title less prestigeous seems hilarious to me. What makes less prestigeous the title from a conqueror that is practicaly inactive for like 1 or 2 years?

You missed the point. Stealing points like this is not going to help. anyone or CC advance.

narutoserigala wrote:

mc05025 wrote:If you do not play any games for one month then you get out of the scoreboard, you are not at the first 10 top ranked and you do not lose any points. If you come back, you continue from where you left like it is now. The points reduction will apply only for active players show up at the scoreboard. It isn't a punishment for not playing many games as it will apply regardless the amount of games. Rather it will just give you a motivasion to play more games because your rating will be lower from your real abilities (due to the reduction).

Changing frequently conquerors and in general the top ranking line is beneficial for the site. If you are afraid that conqueror title will be achived at 4000 ponts or less and maybe the player would not be that good (personally I doubt that any player with 4000 is worse than a player who is inactive for 2 years but anyway) then the point reduction can be much less, like -50,-45,-40 etc and the conqueror title will be at about 4500.
The argument about making the conqueror title less prestigeous seems hilarious to me. What makes less prestigeous the title from a conqueror that is practicaly inactive for like 1 or 2 years?

You missed the point. Stealing points like this is not going to help. anyone or CC advance.

Its called diluting not stealing. That is normal process in this universe... Nothing is eternal

Active points decay is a great idea if we want the people at the top of the scoreboard to play less. But that'll be the main effect. Paradoxically it will also hurt the people who are further down, as they will now gain just that little bit less points from beating the top players, and lose just that little bit more.

great point about the points differential.
you think a decay will make top players play LESS?

niMic wrote:Active points decay is a great idea if we want the people at the top of the scoreboard to play less. But that'll be the main effect. Paradoxically it will also hurt the people who are further down, as they will now gain just that little bit less points from beating the top players, and lose just that little bit more.

I suppose you are trolling about top ranked play less. If there is someone who will play less he will stop being top ranked which is actually beneficial for cc and the point of the suggestion.

At initial post I have a large decay but then I reconsidered with a smaller decay of -50,-45 etc. This is a decrease of 250 points per month and it will be a negligible decay to the ranking system. Consider that any player who starts with 1000 and quiting when reaching 3000 points is producing a decay of 2000 points.

I think it a very good idea.

In the OP you said top ranked player can play non rated games and remains on the scoreboard. It seems to me that is the issue. Nom rated game shouldnt count to make you stay on the scoreboard. this force player in to keep playing game. It seems easier and way more acceptable for everyone.

Side question. You say top 10 players would lose points. Let say I became number 7 om the 31st of the month but was below top 10 during the month. You'd have me lose points ?

Donelladan wrote:Side question. You say top 10 players would lose points. Let say I became number 7 om the 31st of the month but was below top 10 during the month. You'd have me lose points ?

I presume you will lose points at the beginning of the month

Donelladan wrote:In the OP you said top ranked player can play non rated games and remains on the scoreboard. It seems to me that is the issue. Nom rated game shouldnt count to make you stay on the scoreboard. this force player in to keep playing game. It seems easier and way more acceptable for everyone.

Side question. You say top 10 players would lose points. Let say I became number 7 om the 31st of the month but was below top 10 during the month. You'd have me lose points ?

People can play 1 rated team game per month and stay at the scoreboard. This is also a problem for me and it doesn't realy make a big difference from playing non rated games.

Yes, you will lose a small amount of points, like 20 points. Lets be realistic. Currently player no 7 has 4077, so at the 1st of the month he would see his rating becoming 4057. For a player that was unter the top 10 and gained quite a lot of points to achieve position 7, 20 points aren't that many. In the contrary, for a player who isn't playing more than a couple of games per month 20 or 40 points would be quite a lot. But in any case due to the problem this suggestion is tryong to deal with what you are saying very rarely happens. Top 10 players are playing few games and the scorebord isn't realy changing. A month ago it was pretty much the same.

mc05025 wrote:If you do not play any games for one month then you get out of the scoreboard

That + a "current scores" list = problem solved?

Currently you have to play X amount of games to get on the "Power Rankings" of the month as well as the "Most Improved" so I agree the "Scoreboard" should be for active players... Conquer Title should be for an active player. No need to deduct points from anyone if you just remove them from the Scoreboard if they become inactive and like you said...

mc05025 wrote:If you come back, you continue from where you left....

When an athlete retires his career stats don't change, no scoring titles or other individual awards are taken away, and he has the option to come back and play if he wants