Yeah. It's the way the ladder points is set up. Beating a higher ranked player gets you more points than if the same player beat a low ranked player. If people got the same points for beating anybody, then it would give high ranked players an incentive to only ever play low ranked players.
Remember this ranking system is used in chess to measure players against each other. If a newbie beats a grand master, they should get a lot more points than if they beat another newbie. Likewise, if the grand master beats the newbie, he shouldn't get that many points at all.
Let's just take a completely hypothetical scenario. Let's say that you, (Prince) only ever played zero gamers and that you won every time. You would gain points every time but the amount of points you'd gain would gradually decrease over time because the system is effectively punishing you for not playing higher ranked players.
You got 16 points for your first win over a zero-gamer but only 15 points for your next win over a zero-gamer. Soon that would decrease to 14 and so on.
It is technically possible to be so highly ranked that you'd get zero points from beating a really low ranked player but you'd need to be hundreds of points apart before that could happen. And if you lost to that player, you'd lose a whopping 32 points!
The maths & probability calculations involved are a little head melting which is why nobody else is doing a ladder by themselves. It's also why the ladder took so long to debug.
-Love Gaius
TWH Seraph, TWH Grand Zinquisitor & Crazy Gaius the Banstick Kid
Got news regarding Total War games that should be publicised? Then email m2twnews@heavengames.com. My blog.
Nelson was the typical Englishman: hot-headed, impetuous, unreliable, passionate, emotional & boisterous. Wellington was the typical Irishman: cold, reserved, calculating, unsentimental & ruthless" - George Bernard Shaw
Vote for McCain...he's not dead just yet! - HP Lovesauce