Points awarded/lost with no cap?

Can someone explain the points system again? I found on the forums that points are awarded in this manner: [quote]John 1000 points Bob 1500 points Billy 3000 points They play together and Bob wins: (1000+1500+3000 / 3 players) = 1833 average (I round down) John loses 11 points (1000 john points / 1833 average)*20 Billy loses 33 points (3000 billy points / 1833 average)*20 Bob gains 44 points (11 john points + 33 billy points) The play together and Billy wins: (1000+1500+3000 / 3 players) = 1833 average John loses 11 points (1000 john points / 1833 average)*20 Bob loses 16 points (1500 bob points / 1833 average)*20 Billy gains 27 points ( 11 john points + 16 bob points) [/quote] If that is true, then their isn't much of a cap on the number of points you could lose? If player 1 has 3000 points and players 2 and 3 have 600 pts each then player 1 will lose 40+ points if s/he plays with the other 2 and loses. That's a disincentive to play with anyone who doesn't have enough points (which are not displayed in profiles) and since it's not always easy to get games on D12, its a disincentive to always log on and play (if you're concerned with keeping your points). I think D12 should consider doing 2 things: 1) Display each players points in their profile (skill level and rank are not accurate representation of points) 2) Set a cap on the number of points a player can lose in any given game. I'd say 25, but of course that's open to debate. Just my thoughts, what do you all think?

Well, there is a reason why there aren't many generals. You have to be really good to keep that rank :). And yes, if I play 4 player games with newbies, I kind of have to win half of them to keep up my rank.

Just play, rank is just there for people who get ego boners.

We could at least display player points in the profile. Not sure why that's not displayed in the first place? That way it's easier to be picky about who you play with.

You just need to convince a programmer to take their time to add that to the profile page. Seems like there's always something more interesting to do.

That is the reason for the ranking, and when someone don't buy rank it is hard to know how many points they have. And if some people here chose not to buy rank for their own preference, showing their points on their profile is against what they chose to do. Freedom should be given to all members. You probably can estimate how many points someone has after a few games, so, if you don't like it then don't play them anymore.

@Supiachao, that's a falsehood of logical consequence. Ranking cannot be simultaneously the reason/purpose of points and also very obviously not reflect the points. Better than even having to buy rank is just to give all players rank based on their points. I'm not sure the token system is an incentive to play more to buy rank when rank is also dictated by points. The incentive still exists to keep playing and gain points to be higher rank. so if points/rank are to matter at all, then why not just award it to all players that achieve it regardless of tokens/purchasing. [b]Or[/b] we could just do away with points/rank etc and just have everyone play everyone. [b]Or [/b][u] just display the points on the players profile and solve all of this[/u]....

@Vexer, You and Matty are on this thread... how do I convince you to do this? I can't imagine that it can be that time consuming to program. The player's points exist in a linked table to the player (or maybe in the same table?). In the same manner that the "games played", "turns missed", "resigned", etc are in tables and linked to the player and displayed on the profile. Wouldn't you just use the same skeleton code, point to the correct table, and add a field to the player profile that pulls from that table? I fully appreciate that you guys do this for free, and have many priorities. All I'm really saying is, what more can I say to convince you?

There have been many topics on this subject. I personally like to have a bit of mystery around how good a player exactly is. There are pro's and con's about showing your true rank or something a bit below (or even none at all). It's strategy in itself.

That is why im selective about the games a play.

I have entered many discussions about rank showing, but one thing has just popped up in my memory... In a lot of wars and conflicts, high ranking officers HAD TO hide their rank or wear a non-commissioned rank in order to stop them being rank attacked. In most cases shot by a sniper or spotted & mortared, but this seems to be the general thought of most new players, "if I kill the highest rank whilst I can, we will all have a better chance of winning", of course, not realising that they will have absolutely no chance of even surviving the next round let alone winning, by doing this. However, this is not a real life or death situation, it's a board game with dice and anyone who attacks a rank rather than playing to win is a poor player and would never be invited back to the 'games night' unless they learned how not to spoil the game and instead learned a bit of strategy!

Lol slap i pvc badge on me then.