Setting the new points cap, and a balanced scoring system for future wars.

dancash1808 wrote:Why dont you have a cap on points or time that can be earned via fighting randomers or a time cap perhaps + any number you get from fighting forum goers which could go over the points cap if you see what I mean

So say the points cap was 300 I would get 287 say from invading and 30 from fighting forum goers. giving me 317. this means that people have an incentive to meet up and fight and it also limits the amount of worries about the legitimacy as others will have witnessed their level of activity.

Don't understand what do you mean dan but meeting forum members is the goal. However, some might not meet any forum members due to time difference and console.

WyrmHero wrote:Time is not the only variable that affect points amos. You can easily get 400 points in 5 hours while me as DM only get 50.

Aye! The chance of invade others with the Blue Eye is very less than with the Red Eye thus giving Darkwraith at advantage. (my experience in the last mass invasion proved that)

Any Cap sucks

Hoshizoku wrote:Any Cap sucks

The sky is the limit!!!!!

What I mean wyrm is essentially, whatever limit you impose forum members come outside of it. and you can exceed the cap but only via beating forum members.

This would, I hope result in a system where you would be able to quite easily gauge the legitimacy of scores, provide an incentive to meet other forumers and likely to have a wave of duels later in the event and provide a way for those who wish to try and do as well as possible to do that.

(Oh and the sky is only the limit if you lack the ambition to pierce the heavens! )

How can the sky be the limit Wyrm... The sky could be subjective - one man may consider the sky to be the heavens, which in turn could be looked upon as space... In essence there is no limits only self imposed ones.

Our minds are anomalous, why cannot the rules imposed upon the war be too?

^It was the theme of my high school graduation.

@Dan I get it now, I like the idea but meeting forum members is completely random and depends on console and time zone. For example last war I met almost all the DS on PS3 but some NK on XBL didn't meet any Gravesworn (example).

Well you could always arrange to fight
and im not at all shocked that the co opers didnt run into the hosters I mean... think about it. I ran into a large number of NK's in a short amount of time.

Dans idea is awesome, and it would work. We should vote about that instead

Wow thanks man C:

ViralEnsign_ wrote:I prefer the Timed Scoring suggestion Rooster made to a specific points cap. If we are limited to two or three hour sessions then it becomes very clear which points are valid and which arent. I this way people can still score well.....just not ridiculously well.

Thanks for the recognition viral..... and I def think this could help fix this. If there is a specific time frame, or several shorter time frames, you are point capped because you can only participate a certain amount of time.

This should be seriously considered

Hmm, but pre-planned Time Frames would penalise people with irregular Schedules. I for instance can`t really say when I can be on because frankly my responsibillites don`t allow that.

How about we make people give a, say, 3 hour period where they will play and score points the day before the event. Only their points from that period will count (maybe allow them to only count points from beating a forum-goer after that?). Don't break it up into categories, so they can pick the times they will score.

If people think that this would just make the bigger covenants win, we could add that the side with less people will allow enough people to take TWO blocks of time to equal the total man-hours of the other side. That would balance time, but still limit the overall effectiveness of any one member.

Obviously, the three hour blocks was just a random number. Heck, it wouldn't even have to be a "block". They could go for an hour, skip an hour, and then play two more.

On common SL.
Knight builds dont work below 80. Invasions are good at 55. We dont want invaders at a level where they cant get invasions. I think the SLs are fine as they are. GS and Nk hit the sweet spot, DS are a little low so can invade everyone, and hosts can pick anywhere between 60 and 80.

On points cap.
This may sound a little arrogant but for any event I create, I do have final say on the scoring system. I would much rather figure out a better scoring system than impose a point cap. I was a little disappointed no on picked up on Viral's idea of rounds. We have 3 8 hour rounds, european, american and oceania. Each round has its own points system to account for lower co-op and hosting rates, but steady invasions. Each person records how many points they scored in each of these rounds. Each rounds points is added up separately, and the winner is the bet of 3. SO if one person scores super high in one round, they dont screw the whole event, just guarantee winning in that round.

I vote for the 3 round wars. Because they don't have to be the same day, they could be over the weekend or whenever else.

I think we need a new poll.
Gather up the main ideas and options and see what people think

I don't understand the rounds thing but would like to see how you guys implement it in future wars. Remember that the purpose of this is to limit individual members from scoring super high scores and to show the covenant skills as a whole.

Its all an anti darkstalker conspiracy *starts making and handing out tinfoil hats at firelink shrine*

The rounds thing works by making a super high score less important. So it allows people to score super high, but instead of that being an auto win button its only a helps their team win button. If everyone wans to list their ideas we can make a new poll. I'll just describe each in the OP so people know whats going on.

cloudyeki wrote:I vote for the 3 round wars. Because they don't have to be the same day, they could be over the weekend or whenever else.

Hurrah my unformed idea that dough formed and suggested was liked.... ILL TAKE FULL CREDIT!

ALl it takes is two high scorers, one from each of two regions. If, as Dough admitted, a high scorer "only" wins their side that round, than that means they only need to beat the other side in one of the other rounds to win.

It also polarizes the factions, as the side with the most Americans will probably win that round, same with the Europeans, and etc.

Shkar wrote:ALl it takes is two high scorers, one from each of two regions. If, as Dough admitted, a high scorer "only" wins their side that round, than that means they only need to beat the other side in one of the other rounds to win.

It also polarizes the factions, as the side with the most Americans will probably win that round, same with the Europeans, and etc.

By that logic it doesnt matter whether or not there are rounds or caps because the side with high scorers will win anyway.

Why not then divide the total score of the rounds by number of participants?

Basically there is no perfect system.....

Shkar wrote:ALl it takes is two high scorers, one from each of two regions. If, as Dough admitted, a high scorer "only" wins their side that round, than that means they only need to beat the other side in one of the other rounds to win.

It also polarizes the factions, as the side with the most Americans will probably win that round, same with the Europeans, and etc.

Are you saying it's a bad idea shkar? Sorry I feel stupid today and don't understand lol.

You've got a point shkar, but as Viral pointed out there is a better chance for the other side to win.