Message text Here's the translation. 
No problem, my friend,  really!
Don't think I didn't notice the "sportmanship" of that player, and don't think I don't blame such a behaviour.
In fact, to dissipate all doubts, I always create as many scenarios as the number of planes, and I play them all... e.g. with "Snipe vs. Albatros" I play once with Snipe and twice with Albatros!
But there are just a couple of things:
1) Rules are for being followed. Inside rules, "everything" is permitted.
2) In a game like this stats are less important than fun, but are a part of it.
3) All I said nothwistanding, I'm a cheater too: I "force" my position playing a lot but... is a guilt to play a lot?
4) (Weren't they just a couple? ) I didn't hope for such a healty reaction! I cast my bait just to explain the importance of what I call "scenario rate"!
You got me!
I'll explain scenario rate again .
It's a multiplier factor to be applied after ELO,
e.g. if a player with ELO 1600 (gold) plays against a 1200 (copper) one and wins, earns (let's say) 10 ELO points, raising to 1610.
If copper wins instead, earns (let's say) 50 points, raising to 1250. Obviously, what one wins the other looses, so in the first example copper would drop to 1190, and in the second gold would drop to 1550.
My proposal is to use a likewise method for scenarios. A multiplying factor like ELO: Scenario Rate.
Leaving out details (available on request), the point is that if you play with the storngest side and win you get few points, but if you loose you loose many.
This way, "clever" players are discouraged.
What do you think about it?
Sorry for the long mail, BTW on an old topic, but it's something I repute of grat importance. |
|
|
Donate
Leagues
Gonzaga
Blue Max
Cartagena
Wooden Ships...
King Me!
VampiRing
