Forum
unknown4699013
|
chris_in_kc wrote
at 11:14 PM, Tuesday December 5, 2006 EST
I don't understand the point of this! I mean, you can play 10 games and finish in the middle of the pack - out 3rd or 4th, and then you play one game where you get 3 areas and the fewest men on the board - and you lose the entire ranking you have earned.... WHAT A CROCK OF SHIT!
If this is the way this game is going to be scored then I'm done with it. There is no fun in seeing everything you've worked for flushed away because you get a gameboard with crappy position. There needs to be a simple scoring system - none of this "chess" crap or whatever it is. This is NOT chess, it's risk. You get 1 point every time you take a property. You get 5 bonus points if you lead the board. And you get 10 points for every position you finish in (First is 70 pts, and last is 10 pts). If you sit out - you get no fininsh points.... period. |
« First
‹ Previous
Replies 21 - 27 of 27
|
lkea wrote
at 7:44 PM, Sunday June 14, 2009 EDT I miss elo, we should go back to that scoring system. flagging is balls.
|
|
|
KDICEMODisGay wrote
at 9:06 PM, Sunday June 14, 2009 EDT What the hell is ''elo''?
Explain to us ''newbs'' |
|
|
lkea wrote
at 10:59 PM, Sunday June 14, 2009 EDT Well, if you read from what the parent post said (chris in kc).
It's a "CROCK OF SHIT" |
|
mr Kreuzfeld wrote
at 11:24 PM, Sunday June 14, 2009 EDT dang there is a guy called Mr.K
the system that was kdice 2 years ago was a system where every player started with 1500 (or1600) points. every match you won, you scored points, every match you lost you dropped points. the tables where like say; 0 table, 1500 table, 1700 table 1900 table (they sometimes changed) so if you had like 2000 points, and the average points of the table was 1800, it would be more difficult for you to gain points, but if you lost you would loose ALOT of points. same went the other way if you where 1800 at a table averaging 2000, you would loose almost no pts for 7th, but gain ALOT for 1st. all theese point where carryover from month to month, they did only decide the rate of witch you scored winning points for month competition now lets say you just finished a game, and your new score (f.eks 1730) put you in 375th place among all scores. now you would score 1/375 pts towards the end of the month score, while someone on 10th would score 1/10 pt for every game he finished and 1st would score 1 pt. that is how the leader could in 40 games score 40 pts, but a player ranked 100th would have to play 4000 games for that same score, and a lower ranked player a 1000 would have to play 40 000 games. i do belive rnd won a month with 40 some games one month he won this system made is extreamly difficult to climb (bc of ofthen 300 pts difference on table lvls) and it made you put in months of work to get to a place where you would have a shot at getting any medal |
|
Lemonion wrote
at 2:19 AM, Monday June 15, 2009 EDT Doesn't EVERYONE have to deal with the current scoring system? If so, then whatever scoring system is used, it's fair.
It doesn't matter what system is used if everyone uses it. |
|
dasfury wrote
at 10:19 AM, Monday June 15, 2009 EDT PAGE 1
Ryan: bye chris heh. |
|
Hand Shake wrote
at 11:14 AM, Monday June 15, 2009 EDT the 0 and 100 tables are minefields. even if you do get lucky and start off well, then some noob suicides into you because he doesnt like you color.
took me 10 days of frustration to get off those tables. as soon as you can play at the 500's and work your way up. we all deal with your point chris, its part of the game. without the lower table madness then noobs would be all over the higher tables. the higher tables are calm, calculated and more about skill than luck. keep trying to get there bro |
