1 week rule

[scottlu]

Currently there is a rule, that your score will drop by 10 points every week you don't play a game (after the first week).

What I've noticed is that players will work hard to get to the top, then play as few games as possible to keep that player name at the top. This is just as bad as the original parking problem that the 1 week rule was meant to prevent.

So, I'd like to change it so that this doesn't happen. Any suggestions?

We might want to consider different rules if you're in the top 50, or top 25. For example:

Top 25: 20 games a week.
Top 26-50: 10 games a week
all others: 1 game a week

This keeps the top 25 moving and prevents this "parking" problem.

Thoughts?

[johnjones]

Good idea. Although 20 games is a lot every week, maybe 10 games is fairer. And they should be scoring games, i.e. quitting before 3 mins or playing anons doesn't count.

[BrianBSHS]

I'd like it to even be a bit lower than 10, but I know people get all anal when it isnt in an increment of 5, so I guess 10 is good. Good idea Scott.

[galm]

Yeah actually I'd have to day ten is a little high, I mean we all have weeks when we have finals like five projects or something at work or are away when we don't get a change to play. I would say repo weeks then lose ten points after that every week lose ten points, so like a couple games like 6 or 7 then lose points if not done in two weeks.

[valicious]

I've already lost a lot of points for inactivity although I try to remain active. Unfortunately for me I have been way too busy these past few weeks that I cannot even play even once every 2 weeks. Too many projects and all but as soon as I'm done with them I will be playing as much as I can every week. Isn't 10 a week a little too much? A lot of players here go to work and school and sometimes we are focused on our first priorities ie; work, school and family. I do think that 5 is very reasonable. People have to realize that it's about the quality and not the quantity. So I vote for 5 games per week.

Brian set up a date for us to play again. Last time I played you were afk and I was on for like 2 hours. I kinda miss schooling all these wannabes hehehe.

[wonderer]

Make it lose a point every 24hour anons don't count. It don't matter how many games they play a week but it sounds fair.two week missed 20 points and so on.

[bradleygrayson]

I like the 10 pts a week rule. I am trying to get to the top and they just sit there.

[wonderer]

HeHeHe I was going to do the same :-/ and just make new accounts but now

[N@TE]

I say you lose ten points if you fail to succeed these rules:

Top 25: 10 games per week
Top 50: 7 games per week (7 days in a week)
Top 75: 5 games per week
Top 100: 3 games per weeks (about half of 7)
Below top 100: 1 game per week

What do you guys think? Maybe a little less on top 25?

[wonderer]

Ten games not enough. Two points per day no matter what. Ten games is done in one sitting.

Well like you u where saying less for the 26 and lower.

[No one]

i dont think the numbers of games should radically increase as you go up the leaderboard, because we can't be on WI all the time

how bout 1 game, 3 game, and 7 game?

[berlyhendrawan]

My suggestion is:
Top 25 = 5 games a week ( -10point )
Top 50 = 10 games a week ( -10 point)
please consider scott..
Thanks

[WarKilla93]

Yea i like berly's idea.

[johnjones]

berlyhendrawan wrote:

My suggestion is:
Top 25 = 5 games a week ( -10point )
Top 50 = 10 games a week ( -10 point)
please consider scott..
Thanks

Sorry but that's a crazy idea. You need to think about what's best for the game not yourself.

Recently I've been online and found 0 players at a number of different times in the day. We need to be thinking up ideas that will make people want to play the game and tell others about it so there's always lots of people about. (plus this will get Scott lots of money so he can put the time in to make the improvements people ask for ).

It may mean top players are sometimes punished through no fault of their own, but this is better than a stagnant leaderboard where new players feel like they've no chance of getting on it.

I've read people saying that this game is not that important to them, they've got other priorities etc. That's obviously how it should be, but if the game's not that important that you don't play much then don't worry about losing some points here and there when you're busy doing other things. It sounds hypocritical to say the game's low down on your priorities so you can't play much but then being annoyed about losing points.

[elamre]

hmz, and do you go points up too? if your on rank 1200 ie?

[Jack17]

Top25= 5 games a week(if not -5 points)
top50=10 games a week(if not -5 points)

[johnjones]

Am I missing something? Why do people think the top 25 have to play less than those ranked 25-50?

[archangel666]

johnjones wrote:

Am I missing something? Why do people think the top 25 have to play less than 25-50?

dis all bs man! all should be 5 games or more. shoud be even fo all playrs.

[galm]

For once I agree with u.

[berlyhendrawan]

Hi scott..
Please ur confirm if this rules is already or not & whats ur consider about my suggestion pls..
Thanks

[sars]

Berly do you ever play does the van javas real play or is it just me I see all clans fighing and or playing each other but not the van javas isen't a part of cheating like the former bit clan. I say we should have more maps played or points taken away for no reasons I'm trying to find my way to the top but I see none of the topplayers ever playing maybe it's the time I come online and play or maybe they don't even play anymore.

[ElectronicFlesh]

i would like to put a spin on Nates idea by saying that we could record the average games per week for a player and once they reach a certain position on the leaderboard they have to keep the same number of games or more between weeks or their points drop by some decrement.

[wonderer]

So is this still going to happen? Or just lost in all the upgrades? Or well see in a later time?

[scottlu]

Yes something needs to happen. I want players to play even if they are at the top of the leaderboard. I've noticed that players at the top stop playing that player name as much, so they don't risk losing points.

I don't know yet what priority this work has. More info on it soon.