[GO] Unrated, Unranked, or No Points Games

[Mr_Adams]

get over the points and play for fun. I could be a major or better if I played for points, and Tdans could be conqueror. But we both play for fun, and so our ranks are lower (albeit, mine is MUCH lower )

[mybad]

+1 and slap knowitall freemies

[Queen_Herpes]

get over the points and play for fun. I could be a major or better if I played for points, and Tdans could be conqueror. But we both play for fun, and so our ranks are lower (albeit, mine is MUCH lower )

I'm confused. Is your argument in favor of "no points games?" I continue to think that there would be a great benefit to the system to offer "practice" games where points are not risked and I fail to see the detriment to the system if such games exist.

[Funkyterrance]

Concise description:

An option to play against someone without points at stake.

Specifics/Details:[/b

A Gentleman's wager has nothing at stake but the honor and standing of the opponents involved. This would be a way for friends to play one another without having to feel bad about winning (or losing lol) points from a friend.


How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

It would be a way to let down your guard a little and try out maps that are unfamiliar without having to lose tons of points in the process. It would also be a much more pleasant way to play against a friend. Sometimes the whole points thing can overshadow a game and it would be nice to drop that weight every once and a while .

[TheForgivenOne]

Merged

Try searching before posting

[Funkyterrance]

Lol thx.

[blakebowling]

This has been rejected many times.

[Funkyterrance]

Could you in a few sentences explain to me why it has been rejected?
My biggest bone of contention about rated games is I don't like to play my friends for points. While sometimes it can be completely cool there are other times where it can be... awkward.
As far as learning new maps there are other ways to get then hang of them and I am usually willing to try a map a few times if it interests me and usually end up losing in the process to someone who has already gotten the drop on it.

[blakebowling]

Points are supposed to be a measure of skill, not a currency with which to bet.

[Funkyterrance]

Well I must say that it is true that they are "designed" and "supposed" to reflect skill level and I believed that they did when I initially joined this site but after playing for a while I have found this not to be strictly true. I would provide for-instances of both players who had high scores and not high skill level as well as players with low scores who had superior skills but I don't want to name anyone for obvious reasons.
Also, I'm not sure what your brief post is really suggesting.... could you elaborate a little?

[Woodruff]

My biggest bone of contention about rated games is I don't like to play my friends for points. While sometimes it can be completely cool there are other times where it can be... awkward.

It shouldn't be. If you're just playing for fun and if all of you are similarly skilled, the wins will be diverse enough that there is no problem. Unless you (or the others) are a point whore in which case...wah.

[Funkyterrance]

Well I don't even know what a "point whore" is. Does it take one to know one? I play the games/maps that I enjoy. I play a lot of 1v1 and dubs games because I feel those are the types of games where cheating is least likely or impossible. I think you really may have jumped the gun with your last post as it sounds like some sort of insinuation. I have friends that are very concerned with points and I think that should be their business and they should not be judged for it. They aren't cheaters. When I play these players I would like to avoid the whole issue. Kapeesh?

[Mr_Adams]

Well I don't even know what a "point whore" is. Does it take one to know one? I play the games/maps that I enjoy. I play a lot of 1v1 and dubs games because I feel those are the types of games where cheating is least likely or impossible. I think you really may have jumped the gun with your last post as it sounds like some sort of insinuation. I have friends that are very concerned with points and I think that should be their business and they should not be judged for it. They aren't cheaters. When I play these players I would like to avoid the whole issue. Kapeesh?

Point whore would be exactly the kind of person who cares far to much about their score, if Woodruff means what I think he means.

[Funkyterrance]

Tbh he sounds bitter to me.

[nvrijn]

We've all been there. The game is down to 3 players from 8 ... it's the gunfight scene from the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. The guy who shoots first will get killed by the 3rd guy. So everyone sits there waiting ... and waiting ... until one guy cracks.

It's not really a game. I've got one game where I'm training my kids to take over because I think it will outlast my lifetime. What we need is a "REQUEST TIE" button. Any player presses it, and the others can respond on their next turn (anonymously). If everyone agrees, the points are split equally as if they were a team. But everyone has to agree.

It might be that "Tie-able / One Winner" might be an option like "Manual / Automatic", so players who didn't want this could avoid those games.

[tennischamp5]

It's a great idea, but steps would have to be taken to prevent abuse. Off the top of my head, I could already think of a few ways it could be abused.

However, couple questions...

How would the points be calculated? It's currently loser's score/winner's score... would it now be an average of the tie-rs' (for lack of a better word) score? or would it be similar to the team game system?

The other issue with a tie button is that keeping anonymity would be exceedingly difficult... if it's a three-player standstill, two want to tie, and one doesn't - a simple question in the game chat could point out the deviant - and from there, its a small step to unintentional secret diplomacies.

However, if there's a solution to these, I'd totally be up for this (I'm currently stuck in a three-way tie game, except none of us want to give in... it's been two and a half years, 666 sequential rounds, shows no signs of stopping any time soon.)

Also a thought, this is mainly why I tend to stick to terminator games. Three way standstill -> knock out one guy, other guy gets you... 2/3 end up happy.

[nvrijn]

"How would the points be calculated? It's currently loser's score/winner's score... would it now be an average of the tie-rs' (for lack of a better word) score? or would it be similar to the team game system?"

One way would be to make it the same as if the folks agreeing to the tie were on the same team. No matter who has more men or territories, no matter who has a higher rank, it ends like they were a 3 or 4 way team all along, and points are taken from those eliminated based on the combined rankings of the "tie-ers", and divided equally among them.

"The other issue with a tie button is that keeping anonymity would be exceedingly difficult... if it's a three-player standstill, two want to tie, and one doesn't - a simple question in the game chat could point out the deviant - and from there, its a small step to unintentional secret diplomacies."

Good point. This would align the interests of the lesser 2 players against the main player unless he agreed to a tie. It could be used as blackmail. Imagine the 3-way gunfight standoff where instead of firing, one guy says "let's put down our weapons", the 2nd guy agrees and the 3rd guy doesn't. In that case it's not hard to imagine what happens next.

But even then, if it was an option that folks could select going in - as sort of an insurance policy against endless games, then there shouldn't be complaints from the lead player ... who likely wouldn't be able to cash in for the better part of a year. And of course, gamers could ignore the option.



However, if there's a solution to these, I'd totally be up for this (I'm currently stuck in a three-way tie game, except none of us want to give in... it's been two and a half years, 666 sequential rounds, shows no signs of stopping any time soon.)

[IcePack]

This Has been suggested many times before. You should do a search of old suggestions before posting something that's been beat to death.

IcePack

[TheForgivenOne]

Any player presses it, and the others can respond on their next turn (anonymously). If everyone agrees, the points are split equally as if they were a team. But everyone has to agree.

This part, won't be happening. This would create SOOO many cases of players going into the game, and once eliminating all the other players, call for a tie. Viola! They don't risk losing points, and they all gain.

It's either - There are no ties, or no points are awarded to anyone.

[nvrijn]

This Has been suggested many times before. You should do a search of old suggestions before posting something that's been beat to death.

Icepack,

Sorry I only looked at the recent questions and didn't see it. On the other hand, if something keeps getting suggested again and again, maybe there is a reason.

The one disappointment with CC I'm having is the number of deadlocked games. The incentive is to keep going on forever until one player "cracks" and essentially suicides, letting the 3rd guy win. Sometimes that takes 6 months, and you go in every day and take a null turn, waiting ... It gets old. I can't believe others aren't being affected by this.

I can think of two clean ways to allow the remaining players to end the game gracefully (there may be others). Both of these would clearly be options (so players would know they existed in a given game before going in).

1. The ability for all the remaining players to declare an "Armistice" ending the war.

The survivors (as in any war) split the spoils. There is a clearn way to do this ... treat the remaining players as a team, and have them divide the points of the players who have been defeated before the stalemate occurred. In a terminator variant, since points were previously awarded, the "Armistice" becomes an effective "terminate" (see below).

2. The ability for all the remaining players to mutually "terminate" the entire game.

Here there are no points awarded at all after this point (so earlier terminator awards are unaffected). The game simply ends by mutual agreement and everyone just walks away. For a player eliminated earlier in the standard variant, it's sort of a dream come true, as they lose no points.

I personally favor option1 (it adds a lot more diplomacy to the game, and there are some folks (myself included) who like that aspect of the game. Others hate it ... and might not chose to play that variant. That's what options are for ... no one size fits all. But I could live with #2. Either one seems an answer to a very real problem with the current CC.

Thanks,
Nvrijn

[TheForgivenOne]

1. The ability for all the remaining players to declare an "Armistice" ending the war.

The survivors (as in any war) split the spoils. There is a clearn way to do this ... treat the remaining players as a team, and have them divide the points of the players who have been defeated before the stalemate occurred. In a terminator variant, since points were previously awarded, the "Armistice" becomes an effective "terminate" (see below).

This won't be happening. Players could easily just work together to eliminate the competition, then end the game. They could join as many big games as they could, then reek the benefits. It won't be happening.

[TheFissk]

it would be like a team game but the second team doesn't even know it

[jgazaille]

rather than having a single turn where a tie can be declared why not just include a check box somewhere on the action panel and if everyone checks it, then it automatically ends the game and divides the points. If not everyone checks it, the game continues as planned with no one knowing who wants to go what way. Sure it could get brought up in game chat, but there would at least be an option for the third guy to see people are wanting to call a stalemate and not be caught completely off-guard.

[MeanestBossEver]

While I understand the value of this, I think it should be discouraged. My recommendation would be, if this is implemented, it is done without awarding full points. In fact, I'd recommend that the players each get 0 points. They don't lose anything but they also don't get the points of anyone who has already been defeated.

[TheForgivenOne]

While I understand the value of this, I think it should be discouraged. My recommendation would be, if this is implemented, it is done without awarding full points. In fact, I'd recommend that the players each get 0 points. They don't lose anything but they also don't get the points of anyone who has already been defeated.

I've been saying this, appears nobody wants to read my posts though.