[GO] Unrated, Unranked, or No Points Games

[chapcrap]

I swore I saw this idea in the rejected pile.

it has been rejected many times and will be again, as it should be.

come on mods, merge this.

I have been letting discussion go on this because it's a little bit different than what has been suggested before.

Free speed games was rejected many times. We have a new leadership, one that may be willing to take more chances.

That's a completely different reason for rejection though. It's not really a fair comparison.

Never understood the reason for a pointless game.

You win some, you lose some. If you want to learn a new map, you can either play against others who have never played it (via invites) or you can learn faster by playing someone who knows the map. Either way, you may win some, you may lose some.

Agree with greenoaks as well. Why should someone who plays a lot of these games as a cook or private, get really good at a map, only to play for points and win a shit load.

90% of the players don't use PMs, wall posts, forums, etc. How are people who are trying to learn a map supposed to a) co-ordinate a team together and b) find another team that is specifically trying to learn the same map with the same amount of skill.

That's a made up stat. I'll accept the premise that probably a large majority of regular players do not interact on CC outside of games.

I learned Stalingrad by playing it 1v1. City Mogul 1v1 is totally different than team City Mogul, so that option doesn't exist.

How do people learn to play City Moguls team games at all then? Someone learned somewhere and it wasn't from pointless training games.

Never understood the reason for a pointless game.

You win some, you lose some. If you want to learn a new map, you can either play against others who have never played it (via invites) or you can learn faster by playing someone who knows the map. Either way, you may win some, you may lose some.

Agree with greenoaks as well. Why should someone who plays a lot of these games as a cook or private, get really good at a map, only to play for points and win a shit load.

Koontz, I understand where you're coming from; I don't understand the necessity for pointless games either. I could care less about it, but the fact of the matter is that a lot of top players do care-whether or not they should. I also don't think you'll have to worry about people playing lots of games on a single map and getting super good, I don't think the academy allows that for the simple reason that they want to produce all around good players.

I can tell you now, that things will not be implemented to get point hoarders to play a broader range of games. Personally, I am for rank segregation, but a large majority (including admin and owners) are not.

And greenoaks, with that type of logic, we shouldn't even train new guys. It'd be a lot better for my points if no one else had a clue what they were doing.

That's not really the logic being used. He's saying that if someone has a score of 850, but the ability of someone who is a major, then it's really not fair to the opponent. He's not supporting all players being crappy, he's saying that it's not fair to others' points to let training games exist without points being risked.



I don't see this happening because of the reasons that greenoaks stated. Not only that, not making it available to everyone doesn't seem fair either. SoC does not let everyone in. There aren't enough teachers for that. So, while someone might be a legitimate candidate for this (under the proposed system), they may not even be able to use this for a lengthy amount of time.

Honestly, if some kind of pointless games were ever implemented, I see the most viable options as either something that would just be an added game option for every game with no limit or something that would be available for everyone a certain number of times (1-3?) per map. This just doesn't have enough widespread good to overcome the previous rejections.

MERGED

[spiesr]

MERGED:

• Zero Points Games
• Option for no point games
• No-Rank Games
• Unranked Games
• Unranked games

[betiko]

Yes I know, similar suggestions were made many times and always rejected. Please give a shot at this one given that we have a new management that might be opened to this idea; also the angle of approach of this idea is slightly different.

-Are you tired of having to restrain yourself from playing games that could cost you a lot of points but that could be really fun? (1v1 speed games vs anyone, 8 player assassin on small maps, terminator games without being noobed because of your rank, battle royales, 12 player freestyle ect ect..)

-Would you really like to test that new beta map, or that new setting without being farmed?

-Would you like to train a bit more on new maps/new settings before playing it competitively?

-Would you like to play your real life friend you've advised to join without suffering the consequences of playing him on simple settings? Or simply teach someone new tricks without losing tons of points?

All this could be achieved and make everyone happy adding a few conditions:
- every player would have a limited amount of points free games per month/ or a limited amout of active "free" points" games (TBD)
- Players who have disapeared from the scoreboard because of their inactiveness would not reapear by playing points free games.
- games would still affect your win rate (TBD)
- games would not count for medal hunting
- Tournaments, clan games, special event games will never be "points free" games

other conditions can be added!

[Armandolas]

If i disagreed about the whole idea, now with the added suggestion of a "month limit", i have to say i support this

[cooldeals]

I like the idea.

An interesting idea to entertain along with these games is the possibility of no rules in these games since they have no points. Only saying this because I recently was talking to another mod about the possibility of unranked no rules games elsewhere.

Don't want to hijack your idea though. It's good as it is.

[betiko]

what do you mean with no rules cooldeals?

[koontz1973]

what do you mean with no rules cooldeals?

Secret diplomacy is not only allowed but encouraged.

[Swifte]

I guess maybe this is just my way of viewing things, but points come and points go.. risk some points now to learn the map/settings, gain some points later... it's not the end of the world unless you're really one of the 5-10 people in the chase to be conqueror, why are your points so important? I get why people would choose to play with this, rather than risk points if they can avoid it, I guess I just don't see why people are so particular about possibly losing a few points while they're learning a new map/settings. It happens to us all equally, so what's the problem?

[betiko]

I guess maybe this is just my way of viewing things, but points come and points go.. risk some points now to learn the map/settings, gain some points later... it's not the end of the world unless you're really one of the 5-10 people in the chase to be conqueror, why are your points so important? I get why people would choose to play with this, rather than risk points if they can avoid it, I guess I just don't see why people are so particular about possibly losing a few points while they're learning a new map/settings. It happens to us all equally, so what's the problem?

I love playing silly luck based games just for fun, and when i'm into it I lose like 1000 points in a few days. Those points were really hard to get and I always have to restrain myself from joining any type of game. This is a gaming site, and I think it's too bad that we can't have the possibility of playing any settings; because some settings are real poisons. There was a whole discussion about this mode in the last CC update thread. Losing a few points on a new map isnot my concern. Playing all kind of speeders, playing real life friends is more my concern. And points aren't about being conqueror, at least no me personally but it's always nice to beat your high score and to be on your tops rather than being over a thousand points away from it because you enjoy CC joyrides.

And koontz; no, if that's what cooldeals meant I wouldn't agree. I'd like points free game to be within the rules.

[Metsfanmax]

I guess maybe this is just my way of viewing things, but points come and points go.. risk some points now to learn the map/settings, gain some points later... it's not the end of the world unless you're really one of the 5-10 people in the chase to be conqueror, why are your points so important? I get why people would choose to play with this, rather than risk points if they can avoid it, I guess I just don't see why people are so particular about possibly losing a few points while they're learning a new map/settings. It happens to us all equally, so what's the problem?

You can't wield the argument both ways. If you don't think points are important, then you shouldn't care if people can choose to play for no points. If you do think points are important, then you should be concerned about the pollution and demeaning of point values when people cannot practice. It essentially means that someone playing a map for the first time is giving away points if they play someone much more experienced then them -- which means that the other person isn't really earning their points in a stiff competition (which is what we really want if we desire the points to be meaningful). If I want to play for points, then I only want to do that against people who are playing the best that they can and know the map.

With the recent change in site administration and change in Suggestions management, I can say for sure that unranked games suggestions will be taken a lot more seriously than they have in the past, but I cannot say where exactly we'll land on it. It depends a lot on community input, so please have your say.

[Swifte]

I guess maybe this is just my way of viewing things, but points come and points go.. risk some points now to learn the map/settings, gain some points later... it's not the end of the world unless you're really one of the 5-10 people in the chase to be conqueror, why are your points so important? I get why people would choose to play with this, rather than risk points if they can avoid it, I guess I just don't see why people are so particular about possibly losing a few points while they're learning a new map/settings. It happens to us all equally, so what's the problem?

You can't wield the argument both ways. If you don't think points are important, then you shouldn't care if people can choose to play for no points. If you do think points are important, then you should be concerned about the pollution and demeaning of point values when people cannot practice. It essentially means that someone playing a map for the first time is giving away points if they play someone much more experienced then them -- which means that the other person isn't really earning their points in a stiff competition (which is what we really want if we desire the points to be meaningful). If I want to play for points, then I only want to do that against people who are playing the best that they can and know the map.

With the recent change in site administration and change in Suggestions management, I can say for sure that unranked games suggestions will be taken a lot more seriously than they have in the past, but I cannot say where exactly we'll land on it. It depends a lot on community input, so please have your say.

I just did have my say, but thanks for shooting it down.

[Swifte]

I'm not wielding the argument both ways. I don't think the points are that important, so I don't think it's that important to implement something that only serves the purpose of helping people avoid losing points.

[Metsfanmax]

I'm not wielding the argument both ways. I don't think the points are that important, so I don't think it's that important to implement something that only serves the purpose of helping people avoid losing points.

There are people who do think points are important, and this is a valuable part of our community. The surrender and unranked games threads collectively have 2000+ posts, more discussion than has been had for any other issue in this forum, so I think it's pretty important that we settle this issue.

[Swifte]

Alright, well if you're going to come from the perspective of 'this is going to happen, so let's iron out the details' then I guess I think it's silly to restrict the number of free games.

[Shannon Apple]

I guess maybe this is just my way of viewing things, but points come and points go.. risk some points now to learn the map/settings, gain some points later... it's not the end of the world unless you're really one of the 5-10 people in the chase to be conqueror, why are your points so important? I get why people would choose to play with this, rather than risk points if they can avoid it, I guess I just don't see why people are so particular about possibly losing a few points while they're learning a new map/settings. It happens to us all equally, so what's the problem?

The suggestion he posted came out of the news thread where it kinda developed into this from discussions.

One of the reasons I was pushing this suggestion a bit was for new players. Their first X number of games should be points free with an opt out option to start playing for points if they wish after 10 games. Don't you think that players would be more willing to stick around? It would be nice for everyone to have this option, but especially for them.

Also, I wouldn't mind bringing friends to play a game of risk against me if I knew they weren't gonna take 50 points off me in one shot. I have a couple of people that I referred here but they don't play often. I don't wanna lose 1000 points or something because I was playing brand new players, so I don't invite them to play much.

I explained reasons in the other thread:

I agree, I have a friend from the USA who joined up to play against me. I won 2 games and he won 1. Because my rank was lower at the time, winning 2 games to his 1 almost set us back even. If there were no points involved, I would certainly invite more people to come challenge me.

Okay, you're going to say "play team games" but they don't want to play team games. They want a real time fight against their friends. Betiko I am sure knows exactly what I am talking about. When you play against friends for the first however so long, they just wanna kill you. It's a lot of fun, but playing a complete noob account is not fun points wise.

Before you say "points don't matter" they do. If you want to play against good players, you need to keep your score around the 2000 mark at least. People judge your ability by your score. Half a year ago, I was playing 1v1 games non stop and was holding a rank of sargeant first class and no one of equal skill to myself wanted to play with me. If I joined a public team game, the higher ranked player would drop the game. I have a 51% win rate on 1v1, but I was losing more points due to who I was losing to. I can't have been that bad, I ended up in one of CCs top clans a couple of months ago when I stopped 1v1 and upped my rank to major. However one of their members had played with me several times and advised me out of 1v1.

I have a huge problem with farming. If there are ways to reduce farming, why not do it. I would rather see our noobs becoming better and kicking our asses than our noobs leaving the site because BillyNoMates turned them into cooks.

[greenoaks]

the people who want to play no point games are those at the top.

they will play no point games unless they have almost no chance of losing (ie. for points games on their specialty) or they are up against similar ranked players.

the rest of the site will get screwed over by this.

[Armandolas]

I would definitly use my limit of "unranked games" to play more speeders.
Also i only support this, if there is a limit per month/day/whatever

[betiko]

I'm not wielding the argument both ways. I don't think the points are that important, so I don't think it's that important to implement something that only serves the purpose of helping people avoid losing points.

I'm sorry but I don't really understand your point of view here swifte. If you don't think points are important, why would you care about a subject points related? mets is totally right.
Also what's that whole thing about always saying points are unimportant? is it something shamefull to admit that it's enjoyable to rank up and it sucks to lose rank? Who doesn't like to win and hates to lose? that is just so hypocritical. Of course people give more or less importance to it.

What exactly is wrong/dammagable about playing a few unranked games?

Say you receive an invite in a game with only people from forums. You know you'll enjoy the banter in chat ect, it can be really fun. Player A is a cook and player B is a caporal though. A wise player would turn down the invite. What would be the harm of making it points free and play it just for the fun of a little risk game between aquaintences, without having to bother about the 100 points you'll lose if the cook gets it?

Also, I see that more people are in favour than agains in the discussion, but not on the poll. would be nice if people in favour could add a little vote!

[Swifte]

Say you receive an invite in a game with only people from forums. You know you'll enjoy the banter in chat ect, it can be really fun. Player A is a cook and player B is a caporal though. A wise player would turn down the invite. What would be the harm of making it points free and play it just for the fun of a little risk game between acquaintances, without having to bother about the 100 points you'll lose if the cook gets it?

This is where we fundamentally disagree - and that's okay - but it is definitely where we differ. If I got an invite like that, and I wanted to do it, I would play it with absolutely no regrets. I join tournaments all the time on beta maps against players of all levels, some with settings and maps that I've never tried before, sometimes even with mixed partners, and during none of it do I think ' oh no, i''m gonna lose too many points in these games'! If I want to play something I play it. I even joined a game a week or so ago w/ a total stranger that wandered in to live chat with just 13 games under their belt, a 90% turn taken rate, who wanted to try team games. And yeah, he deadbeated out and nearly cost me a lot of points, but I would do it again if someone else asked me to show them the ropes. I just don't let the consideration of points stop me from doing what I want to do. And for all that, I maintain a pretty steady score regardless.

In essence, my point of view is this: for my experience and activity on the site, even if 'no point games' were available, I would play all the same games I currently play. Maybe I would play some of them for 'no points', but I don't think it would change my CC experience to the point that I think it is a necessary change. If my point of view differs from that of the majority - so be it.

[betiko]

well it would depend for me if i'm on a stupid game frenzy or trying to get points back. In the first case, I do join these kind of games and even worse.

Anyway, you ve raised a good point. I know you are a very good player, and I think that you would agree that you could beat many players above you in the scoreboard (on a large scale of games, not just on 1). Players that play very few games, very few type of games, and that avoid low ranks at all cost.
How would my suggestion not make the scoreboard more accurate?
In the example you gave, a player with 13 games and 90% points taken that wants a little help on team games. Do you think many players would've "shown him the ropes" given his history of missing turns? And do you think that if there was a no points game option, the percentage of players accepting to give him a hand wouldn't increase dramatically?

[Shannon Apple]

the people who want to play no point games are those at the top.

they will play no point games unless they have almost no chance of losing (ie. for points games on their specialty) or they are up against similar ranked players.

the rest of the site will get screwed over by this.

I'm not at the top, and never been higher than major. I don't see what your point is. I've got a few more points than you is all.

This suggestion originally sparked from Lindax's suggestion of having an "ante" but that can be abused. So, to avoid abuse of the system and encourage more games, we (and that is a few different members) came up with the idea of no point games. The cap came out of you saying that no one would ever play for points.

I highly doubt that anyone can abuse it. In order to play tournaments, clan wars and all the various competitions that people on top of the scoreboard like to take part in, they play for points. If there's a cap on it, there's no chance in hell that it'd be allowed in competitive games on the site.

Your whole argument against this is completely unjustified because even when the suggestion evolved to your concerns, you're still shouting about abuse. To be honest, I'd like to hear what the cooks, cadets and people who get farmed on a regular basis would think about having the ability to start 0 points games and learn, and hopefully get people to teach them since they're not playing for points.

I honestly don't think it would be quite as popular as you think it would be. My main motivation would be to start public games on a map I've never tried and test it out rather than waiting to create a team game with someone who knows the map already (please note: same outcome from both methods, except 1 is more practical) I hate getting farmed and I don't do farming either.

The other motivation is to get people to come play me. I'd love to have X number of games that I could use to get people in to play just for the satisfaction of winning, or their satisfaction. Who knows, might even get people to stay on CC.


EDIT: Swifte did bring up a valid argument. I honestly do that too. There was a guy that I was playing against 1v1 and and I was hammering him. He and I were chatting away and he wanted to keep getting hammered by me, so I offered to show him the ropes. I feel bad about beating on new players. He didn't do particularly well, but I made a friend. I'm reluctant to do that too often though. Last night I started a bunch of 1v1 games. First time in a long time for the hell of it. We all do that. . I would still do that, but I would use it for what I said above. A cap would keep the idiots from overdoing it.

Also, win rate should totally still be affected. Map rank would still show their wins and losses, so their win rate should honestly reflect that regardless of points.

[Donelladan]

the people who want to play no point games are those at the top.

they will play no point games unless they have almost no chance of losing (ie. for points games on their specialty) or they are up against similar ranked players.

the rest of the site will get screwed over by this.

Well. It is already the case.
I mean, there is no "no point games". But as far as I can see, people at the top, the real top, not major/colonel, don't play games unless on their speciality or against similar ranked player.
You may find exception, but in general people that are in top 30 dont play public multiplayer games ( they may play 1vs1, 2vs2, 3vs3, 4vs4), and don't play speed game.

You can try yourself, take 10 top player name, go in game finder, and look for "game waiting for player" with any of the top 10 players. Most of the case you will have no game, and if not it will be team game where, I'll quote you greenoaks "they have almost no chance of losing", or private game. And if you look at active game you see somehow the same. And you can more or less do that to everyone that has rank equal or higher than brig's.

So, the eventual problem you are describing, is already there.

Now I am considering it is, but I dunno I didnt ask them, it is really a loss for high ranked player not to be able to play anything because they can't if they want to maintain their rank.
And, I also find really sad that it is almost impossible for most of playesr to face the conqueror, or a even general, here on CC.
I think that would be great if high ranked player could play game with low ranked player during no point games, then low ranked could learn from high ranked.

[betiko]

Exactly Don. As I mentioned in the update thread, GLG was the only top of the scoreboard guy to play low ranks, and it was for farming, he pretended he was teaching them something.
If you are general and you want to maintain your rank, you can t afford to have some captains or majors in your 8 man escalating or whatever they play, the point loss would be huge.
The higher you get on the scoreboard, the more selective you become.
playing no points game would give everybody the chance to play the elite of CC without affecting their rank.

[greenoaks]

playing 'no point' games gives the elite the chance to slum it with the pretence of doing those poor cooks a favour teaching them how to play.

if there was a huge demand for that training this thread would have been inundated with support by the lower ranks.

[Donelladan]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 5872#p5872

You can see there is a huge demand on those threads no?
Plus, I think I never saw any suggestions being inundated with support.

And wether this is supporter by "lower rank" or "higher rank" does not tell you if the suggestion is good or bad.

Except that you don't like it, I have difficulty to see arguments against the idea.

Ps : I didnt understand that :
"playing 'no point' games gives the elite the chance to slum it with the pretence of doing those poor cooks a favour teaching them how to play."