Leaderboard

[MrT]

Excluding Jack and Stone88, the rest of the top 8 have only played 10 games between them in the past 14 days. I know these discussions have been had in the past but perhaps it's time to rethink the current 2 week inactivity rule to stop people parking at the top of the leaderboard and the leaderboard becoming stale.

The top 10 won't like the idea, but it would probably make the game more interesting for the many other players outside the top 10.

Any sensible thoughts welcome

MrT/johnjones/rcb321

[galm]

I think that would be more interesting, I have other ideas also, like showing points gained or lost per game, and showing ur rank if ur not on the leaderboard do when u play someone with a rating of like 1634 u can find out what their rank is.

[kou]

MrT wrote:

Excluding Jack and Stone88, the rest of the top 8 have only played 10 games between them in the past 14 days. I know these discussions have been had in the past but perhaps it's time to rethink the current 2 week inactivity rule to stop people parking at the top of the leaderboard and the leaderboard becoming stale.

The top 10 won't like the idea, but it would probably make the game more interesting for the many other players outside the top 10.

Any sensible thoughts welcome

MrT/johnjones/rcb321

They know " good way to take point."

[wonderer]

I know I'm starting to dislike this game cause thier people I'm trying to pass but they don't even play. they just show up every three weeks to play few games then leave.

[LawrenceA]

Iv said in the past that we could have minimum number of games played a week when in the top 25 that's relative to the number you have played per week that you have played While not in the top 25

[kou]

The point and ability doesn't relate.
Mr T & wonderererere are good.
Lawrence is ... Hahaha

[scottlu]

The current rules don't address the problem, I agree. I want to stop the camping at the top. The question is, what is the best way to do it? Currently it is play 1 game per week, or face a 10 point deduction that week. That isn't nearly enough. Here is a proposal.

It's a sliding scale.

score 2200+: 7 games a week, 4 points deducted each missed game.
(1 game a day)

score 2100+: 6 games a week, 4 points deducted each missed game.
(.85 games a day)

score 2000+: 5 games a week, 4 points deducted each missed game.
(.71 games a day)

score 1900+: 4 games a week, 4 points deducted each missed game.
(.57 games a day)

score 1800+: 3 games a week, 4 points deducted each missed game.
(.42 games a day)

score 1700+: 2 games a week, 4 points deducted each missed game.
(.28 games a day)

score 1600+: 1 game a week, 4 points deducted each missed game.
(.14 games a day)

There will be arguments that "this is too much". The point is, it keeps the leaderboard fluid. This approach makes people decide how much they want to be there, compared to the next player.

[bradleygrayson]

I will be the first to say that that is entirely too much. I do not have time to play that many games. If you put that kind of pressure on the leaderboard, then it will seem more like a job.

Docking 4 pts is killer at the top. Its hard enough to get one point when being ranked high.

I am totally against that idea. I will not play the game anymore if this is implemented.

[subzero707]

Say it was implemented. What if you could get more points at the top than you can now to make it easier? Is there a way to make it work?

[wonderer]

"score 2200+: 7 games a week, 4 points deducted each missed game.
(1 game a day) "

that means one game per day or lose points or 7 games in one week? and what's the .86 perday?
it's alot but hay I like this job it gives me cookies.

does anons counts as a game I mean if you figh them.(

[subzero707]

Or if you were to play 3 games one day, 2 games the next, then 2 more another day.

I really don't think 7 games in one week is very much. And currently we both know you don't get points playing an anon. Considering the new update may not be having anons, we will say no.

[wonderer]

if this does happen then are we going to be able to see how many games we played or if we need to play more games before the end of the week. it could be shown on the stats.

subzero what does this mean?"Considering the new update may not be having anons, we will say no."

[subzero707]

Yes, showing the amount of games played every week/month/year would be pretty cool and helpful to make sure you have the amount of games you need to keep you where you want to be at on the leaderboard.

Wonderer, that means that Scott might be removing the anons all together in the next update.

[scottlu]

bradleygrayson wrote:

I will be the first to say that that is entirely too much. I do not have time to play that many games. If you put that kind of pressure on the leaderboard, then it will seem more like a job.

Docking 4 pts is killer at the top. Its hard enough to get one point when being ranked high.

I am totally against that idea. I will not play the game anymore if this is implemented.

Bradley you're a great player (2nd on the list!). When you were scaling the leaderboard, I think you played more than 1 game a day. But now you don't because it's too risky - you might lose points. That is the problem we're trying to address. Remember this rule would apply to all players. If you get docked 4 points, so would another player at the top who isn't playing that user name much.

I expect top scores to go down because those players will need to play with those player names more and take on more risk, but that is ok, and the point of this. It forces top players to keep playing, which means they are more actively testing their skills against other players, which in turn gives other players a chance at the top too.

Btw I don't expect players at the top to like any idea that subtracts points. My goal and responsibility is to do the best thing for all players, not just the ones at the top.

I'm still listening to feedback, so please keep it coming.

[galm]

But sub this is a server change and i think the delay is waiting for graphics to finish, we might have to wait a bit.

[subzero707]

Yes Galm, im sure all the waiting will pay off. Just be patient guys.

[BrianBSHS]

scottlu wrote:

bradleygrayson wrote:

I will be the first to say that that is entirely too much. I do not have time to play that many games. If you put that kind of pressure on the leaderboard, then it will seem more like a job.

Docking 4 pts is killer at the top. Its hard enough to get one point when being ranked high.

I am totally against that idea. I will not play the game anymore if this is implemented.

Bradley you're a great player (2nd on the list!). When you were scaling the leaderboard, I think you played more than 1 game a day. But now you don't because it's too risky - you might lose points. That is the problem we're trying to address. Remember this rule would apply to all players. If you get docked 4 points, so would another player at the top who isn't playing that user name much.

I expect top scores to go down because those players will need to play with those player names more and take on more risk, but that is ok, and the point of this. It forces top players to keep playing, which means they are more actively testing their skills against other players, which in turn gives other players a chance at the top too.

Btw I don't expect players at the top to like any idea that subtracts points. My goal and responsibility is to do the best thing for all players, not just the ones at the top.

I'm still listening to feedback, so please keep it coming.

I solved this problem weeks ago. Just have a ladder. Every so often the leader board resets, the risk goes down, and the games played goes up. The more competitive the game become, the more players you have because everyone has a thrill seaker inside of them.

[wonderer]

three days ago anon asked one of my ID did I pay to get an account. well I don't now which app game he came from but I told him just to get an email adress he didn't now how to get and ID can you send these anon an email when they download this game informing them how to set up an account. or make it easiser other the. coming here to the web page or have greating message to anons or new players saying how to get an iD.

I now I say this every so often but every so often anon ask how to get an I'd and they ask why we don't play with them :-/

[sars]

so let's understand what we are doing the top25 has to play at least 7 games per week(7days in a week) or we lose 4 points.
we have to us all of our iD in top 25 or they will lose points as well. we can't not login as anons to play our 7 games per week.
during our 7 games per week we have to fight other top25 new ID's and everyone else with lower ranking.

********so can we just fight anons to stay on top so we don't lose our points and can it just be for a minute and the game will still count as our seven games?*******

[kou]

scottlu wrote:

The current rules don't address the problem, I agree. I want to stop the camping at the top. The question is, what is the best way to do it? Currently it is play 1 game per week, or face a 10 point deduction that week. That isn't nearly enough. Here is a proposal.

It's a sliding scale.

score 2200+: 7 games a week, 4 points deducted each missed game.
(1 game a day)

score 2100+: 6 games a week, 4 points deducted each missed game.
(.85 games a day)

score 2000+: 5 games a week, 4 points deducted each missed game.
(.71 games a day)

score 1900+: 4 games a week, 4 points deducted each missed game.
(.57 games a day)

score 1800+: 3 games a week, 4 points deducted each missed game.
(.42 games a day)

score 1700+: 2 games a week, 4 points deducted each missed game.
(.28 games a day)

score 1600+: 1 game a week, 4 points deducted each missed game.
(.14 games a day)

There will be arguments that "this is too much". The point is, it keeps the leaderboard fluid. This approach makes people decide how much they want to be there, compared to the next player.

When does this rule start? :oops:

[wonderbra]

I decided it.

I play with zoob and zelda ,everyday!!

[LawrenceA]

scottlu wrote:

The current rules don't address the problem, I agree. I want to stop the camping at the top. The question is, what is the best way to do it? Currently it is play 1 game per week, or face a 10 point deduction that week. That isn't nearly enough. Here is a proposal.

It's a sliding scale.

score 2200+: 7 games a week, 4 points deducted each missed game.
(1 game a day)

score 2100+: 6 games a week, 4 points deducted each missed game.
(.85 games a day)

score 2000+: 5 games a week, 4 points deducted each missed game.
(.71 games a day)

score 1900+: 4 games a week, 4 points deducted each missed game.
(.57 games a day)

score 1800+: 3 games a week, 4 points deducted each missed game.
(.42 games a day)

score 1700+: 2 games a week, 4 points deducted each missed game.
(.28 games a day)

score 1600+: 1 game a week, 4 points deducted each missed game.
(.14 games a day)

There will be arguments that "this is too much". The point is, it keeps the leaderboard fluid. This approach makes people decide how much they want to be there, compared to the next player.

I am in total support. The leaderboard, in my opinion, is ment to show who has more dedication and skill with warfare Inc compared to the next guy. And the more games u play a week the more dedication you have. This change will... Stop the current rating. It may show to a greater extent who plays most rather than who is the best. Which can have downsides

[MrT]

I like your proposal Scott.

As you say it's amazing how many people play this game lots when climbing the leaderboard only to become socialites or workaholics when they get into the top 25 so they can't play the game much anymore

[yatsuhashi]

The point increases every day.
The person who obtains 2400+ points also will show up in three months.

Every time, scott change the rule?
This will confuse a lot of player.

So I recommend


Top 1-25: 7 games a week, 4 points deducted each missed game.
(1 game a day)

Top 26-50: 6 games a week, 4 points deducted each missed game.
(.85 games a day)

Top 51-75: 5 games a week, 4 points deducted each missed game.
(.71 games a day)

Top 76-100: 4 games a week, 4 points deducted each missed game.
(.57 games a day)

Its simple and u dont have to change rule,if the player of 3000+ appears　lol

[berlyhendrawan]

hi all...
if u or we want this game ( WI ) will played on so many players, i think the rules of lose point is -50point if not played 7games in a week.
-4point is not enaugh..
thanks

[Jack van java]

Omg......- 50 points?...thats not enough, i think -500 points is better.....?-.-

[berlyhendrawan]

hmm im agree with you dude..
but -500 : 10 = -50points
if the rules only lose point is still under -30point, i think is not good

[galm]

So ur saying if ur ranked 1st and don't get to play cause the power is out, u go down to 15th in a day, or what if ur wifi is down for a week, u shouldn't lose 400 points, and be way off the leaderboard, that is messed.

[wonderer]

yes yes yes yes!!!((30 sounds real nice))) go berly!!!! if you lose wifi or weak wifigo here:

Mc Donald's
jack in the box
star box
friends house
family house
if you realy care about your rank you will make the light turn back on.

[galm]

U just want to be on top, be rational.

[trineroks]

galm wrote:

So ur saying if ur ranked 1st and don't get to play cause the power is out, u go down to 15th in a day, or what if ur wifi is down for a week, u shouldn't lose 400 points, and be way off the leaderboard, that is messed.

ummm.... thats a really rare occassion. ESPECIALLY if ur power's out for over a week.

plus, its boring with the same ppl on top 25. give others a chance!

[wonderer]

during Ike we had places near Houston power was out for 3weeks and some

[LawrenceFA]

I remember something about with the new 4 firmware it has it's own leaderboard system that can intergrate into the game. What's the story with that?

[Da Dealer]

no i cant play 5 a week listen if i lose 1 game i fall 20 if i win 1 game i go up 1

[scottlu]

LawrenceFA wrote:

I remember something about with the new 4 firmware it has it's own leaderboard system that can intergrate into the game. What's the story with that?

I'm looking in to this.

[GoldenArcher]

if scott makes the one id update a go then i believe the leaderboard will be more sporadic

[wonderer]

Thier will be bigger spaces when you move up rank cause now one point and you can pass three people but when those ID's goes away thier will need more points to move up a rank.

[Da Dealer]

and if i go on vacation or somthing