Forum
Advisor Blog
Reviews
Strategies
Ideas
unknown6090258
|
chris_in_kc wrote
at 11:08 PM, Thursday December 14, 2006 EST
OK,
I've given this a week now. I have had good games and bad ones. I still don't understand the point of this system. I have had streaks of games where I finish first or second for five or six games in a row - then lose one game and every point I've built up is lost. I finish first and get 33 points, but get wiped out before my fist turn on another game and lose 120 points. How is this supposed to be a fair system? Plus, it is clear that many of those that have high ranks are cheating (not all of them but many). You sit at a table and have groups of players that all attack the same people but not each other.... and there is no communication between them. It is obvious that it is the same person or a couple people that know each other. It would be one thing if there was a know alliance (where they talk in chat and make a deal). But it is obvious from the way they play that they are cheating. I STILL say that we need to go to a straight points system. One that doesn't punish so much for losing a game. It is so disappointing to see everything you work for wiped out without ever having a chance to use a strategy. The common arguement is that this "balances out" or whatever. I call BS on this. How can you say it "balances" when the reward for winning and the cost of losing are so different. To make it "balance" then you should get the same amount for winning as is deducted for losing. And, I still don't understand what makes sense about someone in first or second getting less than the person in third. Explain how that makes sense? |
« First
‹ Previous
Replies 21 - 23 of 23
|
David Oliver wrote
at 10:14 AM, Tuesday December 19, 2006 EST The problem as I see it is the fact that there are tables that only allow players of certain rank to play. These should be eliminated, IMO. Otherwise what happens is that the 2000+ for example just trade points, but never have to really risk them.
|
|
|
Jaits wrote
at 11:32 AM, Tuesday December 19, 2006 EST if that was eliminated, then the ppl with high scores would loose much faster.... let me elaborate: a new player joins the game, goes to a 2k+ table... he doenst know shit... he just does random shit, his game is based solely on luck and in that process, he fucks smone over for no purpose (ie he will only win if he's extremely lucky).. if he does indeed win, all the 2k+ players will loose more than 100 points just from that game... y would they risk playing? the answer is: they wouldnt... so there would be less and less gd players playing... so u d decrease the amount of ppl playing the game... and u would make the bad players happy.. a new player with a gd strategy can easily go to the top with very few games.... i made a new account for myself (since i dont wanna risk my 1st place on the jait account) and after 30 games i can play in the 2k+ tables... so that was 2 days work... i think its a fair price to pay and the system is fine as it is.... then again i might be biased... :D
|
|
|
David Oliver wrote
at 12:18 PM, Tuesday December 19, 2006 EST I appreciate those concerns, Jaits, but I think it is just an indictment of the scoring system to be honest, if players don't feel thaey can take on all comers because they will unfairly be penalized if they get unlucky.
I would think a better way to segregate tables would be by number of games played. I.e. 100 game tables, 50 game tables, That way, if you are on a 100 game table and you are up against a 1400 player, that player is probably honestly not that good and you should beat them, somebody like me, for example. LOL |
