Why not option of games where players only lose 20 points?

[Teutonics]

Why can't we have have the option of starting games, in which each player only loses 20 points, regardless of the rank of the player who wins the game?

This thread is meant for discussion. I am sure it has been suggested before (in the suggestion forum), but I don't know why it was not implemented.

One of my frustrations with this site is that I often have to run the risk of losing maybe 30-40 points to play in the games I enjoy the most, the fog games, which are somewhat uncommon. I spoke with another player, who used to love to play the terminator games, until his score got too high, and he had to quit them because he had become "the target" that many people went after.

It's frustrating to have to risk taking a large point loss in order to play in the games I enjoy the most.

[oVo]

I like this concept and think it is worthy of discussion and consideration. The higher rank thing is a double edged blade, as early in the game you may be targeted forcing conservative play, but late in the game some players giver the higher rank the benefit of the doubt over a lower rank... trying to save their own points when their chances are slim.

The game is more entertaining when you quit worrying about ranks/points and just play. There are actually players out there who are more threatened by high ranks than the player's actual postion on the map and the size of their fortifications.

[BaldAdonis]

I spoke with another player, who used to love to play the terminator games, until his score got too high, and he had to quit them because he had become "the target" that many people went after.

It's frustrating to have to risk taking a large point loss in order to play in the games I enjoy the most.

That was me. I think the best way to deal with it is to play private games with similar ranks, or tournaments where the groups are based on rank. It's worked for me so far, I just don't get to see as many new faces.

As it is, I wouldn't want to see flat score games because there are already enough people who abuse new players, either with established teams, or freestyle games, or obnoxious maps. Right now, they only get 5-6 points in any of these games, but if they could set up games for 20 points either way, new recruits wouldn't know the difference, and they'd fly up the scoreboard.

The game is more entertaining when you quit worrying about ranks/points and just play.

Terminators are a bit tougher when everyone suicides into you in the early rounds though. It makes sense, if they can get 40 for the kill and only lose 20 when they die, then they're up some, but from the other side of the attacks, it's hard to ignore that and just play.

[owenshooter]

before this gets moved, let me toss something out too.. it would be cool if you could play people on your friends list (maybe an abbreviated list) and in your clan, without losing pts. when i first joined, i got slaughtered by my "friend" trying to "teach" me how to play. and after that, as i met people i enjoyed playing against, we kind of just traded pts until it just became too big a liability to pts/rank. i would love to play my friends on here for no pts or a few pts or a set amount of pts. anyway, great idea.. glad i thought of it and started this thread.-0

[oVo]

Considering the posts by BaldAdonis and owenshooter... I much prefer the "unrated option"
where no points are conceded over the "set point" exchange. The fact that point hors can't
abuse it is a definite plus.

[ahunda]

The game is more entertaining when you quit worrying about ranks/points and just play.

Terminators are a bit tougher when everyone suicides into you in the early rounds though. It makes sense, if they can get 40 for the kill and only lose 20 when they die, then they're up some, but from the other side of the attacks, it's hard to ignore that and just play.

Yeah, I had an experience like this just recently, when a lower ranked player tried to take me out in a Terminator Escalating game with the first cash-in (4 armies worth). He of course failed, but crippled me & himself beyond repair in round 4 of the game.

Well, lesson learnt. I won´t join any public Terminator games in the near future, but stick to private games. I don´t mind putting some points on the line, but being targeted from the get-go only for my rank somewhat spoils the fun & entertainment of the game.

[Teutonics]

Considering the posts by BaldAdonis and owenshooter... I much prefer the "unrated option" where no points are conceded over the "set point" exchange. The fact that point hors can't abuse it is a definite plus.

The only problem with this is that with zero points to lose, some people will be much more tempted to play wild and suicide more often. There should be some points at stake. I could see 10 point games or maybe even 5, but not zero.

[oVo]

I would welcome some wild games and don't expect a higher rate of ciding
from anyone but noobs, as skilled players will always go with the flow.

[MeDeFe]

For terminator games either this or zero-point games would definitely be good options. As ahunda pointed out, it's the suiciders and being the prime target that keep me from playing terminator, which would otherwise be a lovely alternative and make for somewhat faster gameplay.

[joecoolfrog]

Set rate point games, regardless of the amount of points, simply wont work because of the obvious potential abuse by players such as JR and SkyT. The problems with termanitor games can be easily overcome by setting up private games with players of similar rank, that leaves no point games with friends which is certainly workable and seems a good idea.

[gdeangel]

If you create "no-point" games, that would create some obviously problems... high ranked people would only play low ranked people on "no points" basis, so you'd have no way to work your way up the ranks. Also, people would start using this to inflate their win rates by picking "soft touch" games.

I appologize in advance, but I'm going to digress a bit... the idea of "stop loss" games, where you could put a lower limit to the ranks that could join your games, would effectively do the same thing as a "flat rate" game... The problem is that the geniuses who rule on this stuff consider that the idea to be the same as setting in absolute terms the rank of who can join. If you just give an option to turn on a stop-loss filter, and have that loss cap set globally at something like 30 or 40 points, so that people with less than say 1/2 your score couldn't join, that's the way to go.

Now back on topic... of course the stop loss wouldn't help you if you just want to tool around with friends. To really get that effect, you could use an odds calculation, much the same way they currently calculate, but allow the players to stake varying amounts of points. For example, if we agree the stakes are 10, then you'd earn 10 x (loser score/winner score). Right now it's a forced 20 bet, but it'd be great if you could a higher number of points as well as a lower number of points... down so a minimum of say 5-10, so that you don't hit the first issue I mentioned on the no-point game.

[Top Dog]

for once I agree with owen.... wow, that's unexpected... but playing good players or friends... My best friend played me once and never again cuz I smoked him if it were no points I could go easy on him and he'd think he was actually good when he "beat" me LOL

[Kemmler]

I suggested this to - would be a good idea

Only problem is the people on the top of the scoreboard would get 20pts per win which is too much - 0 pts (unranked games) would be much better, because otherwise you'll get to a point when the 20point option is better than normal anyway

[wacicha]

As for moving this-No not yet. This is a discussion and looks like a good discussion staying on topic. That is what General discussions is about. Sorry for the interruption.

[owenshooter]

The only problem with this is that with zero points to lose, some people will be much more tempted to play wild and suicide more often. There should be some points at stake. I could see 10 point games or maybe even 5, but not zero.

i said, specifically, people on your FRIENDS LIST or an ABBREVIATED FRIENDS LIST or people IN YOUR CLAN. i don't mean that you could just play anyone on the site on a whim... this would be a very small number of people you could play. i also play on scrabulous, and you can set the number of pts you win lose per game, and it is alot of fun to play friends losing 1pt than 20 or more...

As for moving this-No not yet. This is a discussion and looks like a good discussion staying on topic. That is what General discussions is about. Sorry for the interruption.

Wac-y... why are you trying to poke your nose in here without offering up any input!! i really want to hear what you think about this. imagine if your cook school could play games against each other while learning, without losing many pts!!!-0

[bbqpenguin]

how about adjusting terminator games so that all the players have the option of being anonymous, so there's no way to tell who they are or what rank they are? they could be known simply by their color until the end of the game, when their identities would then be revealed, or maybe when they're eliminated

[killmanic]

I was am mentoring 2 players and played each on in a 1v1 game, and both times luck was horrid so i end up losing both and over 100 points, so now i am not really wanting to teach them as much since if i play another game i stand the same risk.

[owenshooter]

how about adjusting terminator games so that all the players have the option of being anonymous, so there's no way to tell who they are or what rank they are? they could be known simply by their color until the end of the game, when their identities would then be revealed, or maybe when they're eliminated

um, this is a freaking GREAT idea... Fog of Player games!!! it would be cool in all games!!! ha!!-0

[Top Dog]

I don't know about fog of player.... your rank is for a reason, and you could just scoreboard search their name, unless it was just colors... but I don't play assassin, to unfair, whoever gets the worst player for a target wins usually... I like no point or 5 point (not 10) games no matter who wins for friends very much however...

[owenshooter]

I don't know about fog of player.... your rank is for a reason, and you could just scoreboard search their name, unless it was just colors... but I don't play assassin, to unfair, whoever gets the worst player for a target wins usually... I like no point or 5 point (not 10) games no matter who wins for friends very much however...

how could you search a Question mark that is a color? riddle me that, oh spammer of the forum...-0

[Top Dog]

you are a spammer of the forum, I misunderstood what you meant...

[owenshooter]

you are a spammer of the forum, I misunderstood what you meant...

so easy... it isn't even fun anymore... *snicker*....-0

[bbqpenguin]

if it were to work, you'd also have to hide the game number, and also leave it out of people's games list until they were over

[Kemmler]

how about adjusting terminator games so that all the players have the option of being anonymous, so there's no way to tell who they are or what rank they are? they could be known simply by their color until the end of the game, when their identities would then be revealed, or maybe when they're eliminated

Absoultely brilliant and original idea!

[greenoaks]

if it were to work, you'd also have to hide the game number, and also leave it out of people's games list until they were over

so for that reason it is unlikely to happen. a shame really, i was liking the idea.