Update 9/5/13

[Jippd]

From now on, we will be accepting appeals from Permabanned players.

Shit, does that mean that Max may be back?

We believe that Permabanned players were permabanned for good reasons....

Lx

Also in before the conspiracy around El Jefe and GLG is enhanced with this. It really is the only way GLG could come back, right?

Not a subscriber to that but interested to see it start being discussed.

First thing I thought!

[Jippd]

Definitely not a fan of this idea. A lot of people would play games for 1 point. A lot of farming would be done against the noobs that think they can win 50 points, etc. All I see is potential for abuse and people working the system on this.

that's the way i see it too.

Or as you say friends volunteering and giving up games. We already see it being done where a player will throw games to help their friend win. Allowing them to win even more points would be too easy.

If I want to cheat I create a few games and make them worth 100 points. I could easily have low rank multi accounts join and lose the game to earn easy points.

I could also maybe "borrow" some points from friends to achieve a higher rank for a certain period of time, only to return them later by throwing games

[D4 Damager]

Should we not take this to Suggestions now?

Please make a new thread for this in Suggestions, I will definitely endorse it. To be clear, I mean having points-free games as betiko and Shannon Apple have been suggesting. I don't see any reason to cap the number allowed (apart from the usual 4 maximum for freemiums, of course), but I think they should not count as games which keep people on the scoreboard. I mean that people should have to play a competitive game (for points) at least once per month to stay on the scoreboard. Good suggestion from iAmCaffeine. This is essential, otherwise of course the people at the top would not play any games for points at all.

In any major game or sport there is the distinction between competitive and friendly games. It is obvious why: having a fun environment in which people can train boosts enjoyment of the game and improves the standard of players overall. It is also vital for getting newcomers involved. Can you imagine how many less people would play tennis if they were forced to play their first three games against Rafa Nadal, Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic? (and get smashed to pieces in the process, of course) In your first few games, you are simply not ready to receive the lessons you would get from playing that calibre of player.

[greenoaks]

and it is all high rank people posting here wanting to play CC with no Risk.

[Shannon Apple]

It is all mid- high ranked people posting in here for or against. period. Sooo, that makes no sense.

[OliverFA]

and it is all high rank people posting here wanting to play CC with no Risk.

Perhaps that high-ranked (or medium-ranked) people complain too much, perhaps not. But one thing is clear, and many people have pointed this over the time: Maintaining rank after some point is so demanding that it is some sort of issue. Some people solve it by not playing low ranked players, other people solve it by just playing their map and settings, and some other just do their best.

Is not about not having risk, but perhaps about having the right balance between risk and reward. Of course everybody has his own idea about where this balance is, but looks like many people (or at least many people who care to talk about it) thinks like this balance point is far from the current situation and could be improved.

[iAmCaffeine]

It is all mid- high ranked people posting in here for or against. period. Sooo, that makes no sense.

That's not true. Of course, major isn't considered a particularly high rank, but in comparison to the majority of registered active players, it is.

I'm still against this idea.

[greenoaks]

It is all mid- high ranked people posting in against. period.

exactly. cooks aren't beating down the doors demanding CC implement a way for them to beat a Major and receive no reward for doing so.

[D4 Damager]

It is all mid- high ranked people posting in against. period.

exactly. cooks aren't beating down the doors demanding CC implement a way for them to beat a Major and receive no reward for doing so.

Indeed. Instead they are beating down the doors and leaving. Because the only majors that would play them were farming them, and were not playing for fun

[iAmCaffeine]

It is all mid- high ranked people posting in against. period.

exactly. cooks aren't beating down the doors demanding CC implement a way for them to beat a Major and receive no reward for doing so.

Indeed. Instead they are beating down the doors and leaving. Because the only majors that would play them were farming them, and were not playing for fun

Actually, most low ranks probably leave because they don't like losing.

[betiko]

It is all mid- high ranked people posting in against. period.

exactly. cooks aren't beating down the doors demanding CC implement a way for them to beat a Major and receive no reward for doing so.

Indeed. Instead they are beating down the doors and leaving. Because the only majors that would play them were farming them, and were not playing for fun

Hey mate, I created a thread about this yesterady in the suggestions forum. Thanks to drop by and vote yes on the poll as it s very close between yes and no.

In other news, i still don t get the arguments of people against and how can "games not counting" could abuse the system.
I guess that people like greenoaks and caffeine always stand at a very median level. Where they stand, they can play all the games they want, it will always reballance between games played vs lower and higher ranked players. So basically winning half of the games they join they can expect to stall and not go down dramatically. Higher ranked players would be less tempted to join them in a 1v1 for points, because it would basically be 50/50 odds of winning with a very bad payback.

[agentcom]

For those of you that would like to comment on these topics, I have looked into them very intensely in the past. As a result of which, I have collected them into respective topics and written an explanatory note at the beginning of each thread. Regardless of what side you are on in the debate, I caution you all to realize that what you have thought of has probably been brought up before. This isn't saying that you can't go lend your support to your chosen side, but do know that these issues were not simply dismissed without careful consideration. Regardless of what side you are on, the other side has some valid points of view (and of course each side has people with not-so-valid POVs ).

Even if you don't read the entire threads, I encourage you to at least read the explanatory OPs that have been provided as they address a lot of the questions and points that have been brought up here. I will include these OPs in a spoiler below for those that are too lazy to click through

Subject: Make games require minimum or maximum points/rank [REJECTED]

Spoiler

Mod edit: This will be a repository for most suggestions that in some way attempt to allow an option for players to segregate public games by score. There are many users on this site that would like this to be a feature. But for now, the official status of these suggestions is REJECTED. All of them. Even ones that limit to +/- 2 ranks above/below the creator's. No matter how creative or unique they have been, they have all been REJECTED up to this point. This is not to say that the discussion needs to stop, or that you should be discouraged from lending your support to this idea. However, as it stands now, this is not and will not be implemented. It has been suggested for a variety of reasons including reducing farming, reducing defenses to farming allegations, convenience and personal preference. If you must post a new suggestion of this manner, please catch yourself up on this idea's history. Your idea has probably been thought of and posted before. If you see any other topics that should be MERGED with this one, please post them here. - agentcom

On a similar note, other methods of segregation have also been REJECTED. For example:

By allowing this option only for premiums - http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... &p=2274718
By allowing an option to disallow lower ranked players - http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 71&t=68844
By other criteria such as games played or attendance/turn percentage - http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... &p=2334949
Or even by age - http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... &p=2376063
By allowing players to drop a game that has a high point difference - http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... &p=3429757

Here are some highlights of this thread:

July 11, 2006:

I don't like this idea. What if it became popular? New recruits would have trouble finding games. They would be stuck in games with other new recruits and their first CC experience would be full of deadbeating.

You only get one chance to make a first impression

July 15, 2009:

i am not a gold member, so how can i avoid playing cooks?

$25

He could find a premium friend that starts passworded games too.

If this gets brought up multiple times a month maybe there is something to it?

A poor and/or unwanted idea doesn't get any better/wanted just because it is repeatedly suggested.
Rank discrimination is still possible, CC just don't want to make it too easily done.

July 17, 2010:

The reason this won't be done is that they believe if new recruits are less able to join games with high rankers, that means they are going to be playing with themselves more often. Games with new recruits are generally less enjoyable because they tend to deadbeat or suicide more often than experienced players. So new recruits would be less likely to stay and ultimately purchase premium because they would have a more negative experience by playing in games with more deadbeats like themselves. Along with the fact point segregation is bad. How are lower ranks supposed to learn if they can't find an open game against a higher rank? They will just keep learning bad strategies

Finally, some users have posted suggestions that you be able to filter Game Finder results by rank (among numerous other desired filters). This thread is not intended to cover such modifications to the Game Finder results and display. I recognize that there are topics along those lines that were merged with threads that were later merged here. However, if you would like to propose modifications to the Game Finder search results/display, please find an appropriate thread. One is here: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... &p=2365772

We should have games that you can enter only if you've reached a certain level, this way we can have games with people of similar skill and dedication.

Subject: Option for players to set, stake or bet points [REJECTED]

Spoiler

Mod Edit: The suggestion to allow players to set, stake or bet the amount of points that each player could lose to the winner has been suggested several times. It has also been REJECTED several times. Recently, MichelSableheart explained it well:

The problem with this suggestion is that it doesn't respect the philosophy behind the current score system. Currently, scores are still somewhat indicative of ability, in the sense that if two players only play a certain type of game against each other, their points will reach a natural balance which reflects their ability. The same is true on a larger scale. The fact that most players vary the type of games they play makes the scoreboard less reliable, and abuse does take place, but the principle is still there. The fact that a players score won't grow higher at a certain point is part of that.

By giving players the option to play for a set amount of points, this natural balancing factor will disappear. You give up whatever indication of strength is there to change the system into a flat out race. Definately not a fan.

This thread contains many of these suggestions. If you want to suggest some variation of betting points, please catch up on the ideas history in this thread and the related threads that are mentioned below. If you see a thread that should be merged here, please inform a moderator. Thank you. --agentcom

Along the same lines, some users have suggested options to wager points in other ways. For example:

An option to make a game worth double the amount of points it would be worth otherwise - http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... &p=2721168
An option for a tournament "pot" - http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... &p=2983671
An option to gamble points on casino games - https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 71&t=32961

This topic is also related to, but distinct from, the idea of having games worth no points, which has been rejected. In fact, if you were allowed to "stake" zero points, this suggestion would actually allow for these "unrated" games. That discussion is here: https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... =471&t=720

It would be a great idea if we could set the stakes (points) of the game. This way there would be more at risk if you lose or win.

Subject: Unrated, Unranked, or No Points Games [REJECTED]

Spoiler

Mod Edit: The option to create games for no points has been suggested dozens of times under numerous monikers including: Unrated games, Unranked games, No Points games, Sparring games, Friendly games and Recreational games. Each time it has been REJECTED. The simple reason for this is that it undermines the scoring system. If people were allowed to play all the games that they weren't very good at "for fun" or "for practice" and only play games that they could likely win points on "for realsies" or "for keeps" then all of a sudden everybody would be a farmer of sorts. Perhaps you think this would be a good thing. However, as it stands now, there appears to be almost zero chance that Conquer Club will engage in this experiment anytime in the foreseeable future.

This thread is related to the separate suggestion of allowing players to "stake" or set the amount of points that a game is worth. That idea, too, has been rejected countless times as you can see here: https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 471&t=9694. Other related topics that I found, but felt they were distinct enough not to warrant a merge were for Anonymous, no points games and not allowing (as in not a user option) points to be collected for certain game types, e.g. freestyle games. However, this thread does include discussion of allowing "pointless" games within the Society of Cooks.

If, however, you would like to lend your support to the idea of unrated games, please do so here rather than creating yet another thread, which the moderators will have to merge with this one. If you see another thread that should be merged here, please inform a moderator. Thank you. --agentcom

I think it would be great if you had the option to select ranked or unranked when creating a game. That way you can play a friendly games against your friends without tempers running high. Some people take ranks and points way too seriously.

[greenoaks]

Your assessment of me betiko is fairly accurate. My ideal rank is the sword & baton but i enjoy playing too wide a variety of maps & settings to maintain it. However, when i see it appear i feel joyous. I do have what it takes to be Conquerer but what it takes for me is to play Realms 2 & 3 exclusively. Boring.

[betiko]

Your assessment of me betiko is fairly accurate. My ideal rank is the sword & baton but i enjoy playing too wide a variety of maps & settings to maintain it. However, when i see it appear i feel joyous. I do have what it takes to be Conquerer but what it takes for me is to play Realms 2 & 3 exclusively. Boring.

so i don't get this greenoaks. If there are some game modes you just like to play for fun, why would you see it as a problem to play them points free?
I am shit at realm of might maps, but I'm sure that anyone playing realm of might for points would be very good, therefore you wouldn't get the win rates you're expecting. Competitive games would be more "competititve". You would most likely meet guys that are really good at a given map/setting.

(also don't forget that if you go up in the ranking, the points earned would dramatically fall and the points loss would increase the same way, you have earned lots of points on these maps indeed, but because you get the points at a sargent/low major level)

[greenoaks]

Your assessment of me betiko is fairly accurate. My ideal rank is the sword & baton but i enjoy playing too wide a variety of maps & settings to maintain it. However, when i see it appear i feel joyous. I do have what it takes to be Conquerer but what it takes for me is to play Realms 2 & 3 exclusively. Boring.

so i don't get this greenoaks. If there are some game modes you just like to play for fun, why would you see it as a problem to play them points free?
I am shit at realm of might maps, but I'm sure that anyone playing realm of might for points would be very good, therefore you wouldn't get the win rates you're expecting. Competitive games would be more "competititve". You would most likely meet guys that are really good at a given map/setting.

(also don't forget that if you go up in the ranking, the points earned would dramatically fall and the points loss would increase the same way, you have earned lots of points on these maps indeed, but because you get the points at a sargent/low major level)

because my score represents ALL games i have played and won, played and lost, played while drunk, played and missed turns, played with others missing turns, etc. that score is me.

once you have no point games my score no longer represents me. it only represents a cordened off portion of me. my rank is a charade.

it is like life. our personalities and points of view are formed from ALL the experiences we have had up to that point in time. we don't get to pick and choose what days or activities will mean something and which won't.

[OliverFA]

because my score represents ALL games i have played and won, played and lost, played while drunk, played and missed turns, played with others missing turns, etc. that score is me.

once you have no point games my score no longer represents me. it only represents a cordened off portion of me. my rank is a charade.

it is like life. our personalities and points of view are formed from ALL the experiences we have had up to that point in time. we don't get to pick and choose what days or activities will mean something and which won't.

Wow! That makes a lot of sense.

[betiko]

Your assessment of me betiko is fairly accurate. My ideal rank is the sword & baton but i enjoy playing too wide a variety of maps & settings to maintain it. However, when i see it appear i feel joyous. I do have what it takes to be Conquerer but what it takes for me is to play Realms 2 & 3 exclusively. Boring.

so i don't get this greenoaks. If there are some game modes you just like to play for fun, why would you see it as a problem to play them points free?
I am shit at realm of might maps, but I'm sure that anyone playing realm of might for points would be very good, therefore you wouldn't get the win rates you're expecting. Competitive games would be more "competititve". You would most likely meet guys that are really good at a given map/setting.

(also don't forget that if you go up in the ranking, the points earned would dramatically fall and the points loss would increase the same way, you have earned lots of points on these maps indeed, but because you get the points at a sargent/low major level)

because my score represents ALL games i have played and won, played and lost, played while drunk, played and missed turns, played with others missing turns, etc. that score is me.

once you have no point games my score no longer represents me. it only represents a cordened off portion of me. my rank is a charade.

it is like life. our personalities and points of view are formed from ALL the experiences we have had up to that point in time. we don't get to pick and choose what days or activities will mean something and which won't.

it does make some sense, but it doesn't apply here. In any competitive sport or activity, you do train, play friendly games, teach students playing the game ect ect. No points games can be reflected on your wall page separately. So you know that this guy played 500 competitive games and 1500 points free games for example. It would still reflect all his experiences and you'd make your own idea of what kind of player he is.

[ender516]

Your assessment of me betiko is fairly accurate. My ideal rank is the sword & baton but i enjoy playing too wide a variety of maps & settings to maintain it. However, when i see it appear i feel joyous. I do have what it takes to be Conquerer but what it takes for me is to play Realms 2 & 3 exclusively. Boring.

so i don't get this greenoaks. If there are some game modes you just like to play for fun, why would you see it as a problem to play them points free?
I am shit at realm of might maps, but I'm sure that anyone playing realm of might for points would be very good, therefore you wouldn't get the win rates you're expecting. Competitive games would be more "competititve". You would most likely meet guys that are really good at a given map/setting.

(also don't forget that if you go up in the ranking, the points earned would dramatically fall and the points loss would increase the same way, you have earned lots of points on these maps indeed, but because you get the points at a sargent/low major level)

because my score represents ALL games i have played and won, played and lost, played while drunk, played and missed turns, played with others missing turns, etc. that score is me.

once you have no point games my score no longer represents me. it only represents a cordened off portion of me. my rank is a charade.

it is like life. our personalities and points of view are formed from ALL the experiences we have had up to that point in time. we don't get to pick and choose what days or activities will mean something and which won't.

it does make some sense, but it doesn't apply here. In any competitive sport or activity, you do train, play friendly games, teach students playing the game ect ect. No points games can be reflected on your wall page separately. So you know that this guy played 500 competitive games and 1500 points free games for example. It would still reflect all his experiences and you'd make your own idea of what kind of player he is.

Absolutely. Chess masters are rated on games that are designated as important in some way. They don't include games played for fun, or exhibitions where a master plays thirty games at once.
The easy solution is to have the system keep two scores: one for all games, just like now, and another for rated games only.

[OliverFA]

A double scoring system could be interesting, because it would be like the Schrodinger game, a game that is rated and unrated at the same time

[Leehar]

Your assessment of me betiko is fairly accurate. My ideal rank is the sword & baton but i enjoy playing too wide a variety of maps & settings to maintain it. However, when i see it appear i feel joyous. I do have what it takes to be Conquerer but what it takes for me is to play Realms 2 & 3 exclusively. Boring.

so i don't get this greenoaks. If there are some game modes you just like to play for fun, why would you see it as a problem to play them points free?
I am shit at realm of might maps, but I'm sure that anyone playing realm of might for points would be very good, therefore you wouldn't get the win rates you're expecting. Competitive games would be more "competititve". You would most likely meet guys that are really good at a given map/setting.

(also don't forget that if you go up in the ranking, the points earned would dramatically fall and the points loss would increase the same way, you have earned lots of points on these maps indeed, but because you get the points at a sargent/low major level)

because my score represents ALL games i have played and won, played and lost, played while drunk, played and missed turns, played with others missing turns, etc. that score is me.

once you have no point games my score no longer represents me. it only represents a cordened off portion of me. my rank is a charade.

it is like life. our personalities and points of view are formed from ALL the experiences we have had up to that point in time. we don't get to pick and choose what days or activities will mean something and which won't.

it does make some sense, but it doesn't apply here. In any competitive sport or activity, you do train, play friendly games, teach students playing the game ect ect. No points games can be reflected on your wall page separately. So you know that this guy played 500 competitive games and 1500 points free games for example. It would still reflect all his experiences and you'd make your own idea of what kind of player he is.

Absolutely. Chess masters are rated on games that are designated as important in some way. They don't include games played for fun, or exhibitions where a master plays thirty games at once.
The easy solution is to have the system keep two scores: one for all games, just like now, and another for rated games only.

Wouldn't it be easier to have unrated games with no score, but still affecting your win percentage?

[Swifte]

Wouldn't it be easier to have unrated games with no score, but still affecting your win percentage?

Win % is a silly statistic on here anyway, unless you know the distribution of the number of team and standard games the person is playing. 30% is great if you play 8p standard games, crap if you only play team games.

[DoomYoshi]

Your assessment of me betiko is fairly accurate. My ideal rank is the sword & baton but i enjoy playing too wide a variety of maps & settings to maintain it. However, when i see it appear i feel joyous. I do have what it takes to be Conquerer but what it takes for me is to play Realms 2 & 3 exclusively. Boring.

so i don't get this greenoaks. If there are some game modes you just like to play for fun, why would you see it as a problem to play them points free?
I am shit at realm of might maps, but I'm sure that anyone playing realm of might for points would be very good, therefore you wouldn't get the win rates you're expecting. Competitive games would be more "competititve". You would most likely meet guys that are really good at a given map/setting.

(also don't forget that if you go up in the ranking, the points earned would dramatically fall and the points loss would increase the same way, you have earned lots of points on these maps indeed, but because you get the points at a sargent/low major level)

because my score represents ALL games i have played and won, played and lost, played while drunk, played and missed turns, played with others missing turns, etc. that score is me.

once you have no point games my score no longer represents me. it only represents a cordened off portion of me. my rank is a charade.

it is like life. our personalities and points of view are formed from ALL the experiences we have had up to that point in time. we don't get to pick and choose what days or activities will mean something and which won't.

it does make some sense, but it doesn't apply here. In any competitive sport or activity, you do train, play friendly games, teach students playing the game ect ect. No points games can be reflected on your wall page separately. So you know that this guy played 500 competitive games and 1500 points free games for example. It would still reflect all his experiences and you'd make your own idea of what kind of player he is.

This isn't some competitive sport. This is the sum total of my life.

[Dukasaur]

If I was sparring with Mike Tyson, I wouldn't want to be judged on the result.

[agentcom]

The chess analogy isn't exactly fitting. Chess is one game with one setting on one "map." Same with most other games where the scoring system that allows for practice games is allowed. Other games that put you in a variety of situations often don't have quite the same system and often have some form of "lifetime" scoring involved. Thing of multi-player shooters or even old SNES games where you had a limited number of lives to accomplish an objective or a big OMRPG. Granted there are still exceptions or inadequate analogies even within those games.

But the key point for our purposes, is that it's at least theoretically possible to design a scoring system that allows points to be distributed fairly even when players of disparate levels are playing against each other. This possibility is a direct result of the simplicity of the situation that players can find themselves in. Players of the game will only find themselves faced with one situation and it is reasonable to assume that one can predict the amount of games a skilled player will win against a player of lesser skill.

With CC and it's variations, not so much. As GLG proved, there are some games that a skilled player can win 95%+ of the time. As joining any 1v1 Classic or Doodle game with standard settings proves, there are some games where even the best players can't hope for more than maybe a 60% win percentage against an unskilled opponent.

Instead of tryingto work that out (etc., etc.), CC has decided to do its form of lifetime scoring, which assesses all games equally.

The consequence of this system is that there are not practice games. As one poster here said, each game you play is part of who you are on this site. Anybody looking at your score alone can figure out something about you. If they look at your game selection, they get context to that.

Taking away a piece of that information has a counterpart, which may be a negative from many peoples' standpoint: A player will get to choose which games he is rated on and will likely choose only games that he thinks the net outcome will be positive. Think of who will benefit from that system. It will be the players with the most experience. Many will be outraged by the "new farming" that occurs as experienced players "shop" for net positive games. I can GUARANTEE that there will be C&A cases about inappropriate "shopping" for rated games. Will these games be evaluated under the current C&A guidelines or will we say caveat emptor to those noobs that get "shopped"? This will require a rethinking of how we evaluate farming on this site. And if we do come down on this side of free-for-all, this will inevitably add to the complexity of future C&A cases. (I sincerely hope that if these problems do come to pass, and if this activity is outlawed, that this form of abuse will be called "shopping" ).

A further point that I'd like to note is that not all "practice" games are beneficial. If any of you has ever been on a poker site where they allow freeroll tourneys or other types of free play, you will know that the difference between poker for money and how people play with free chips is night and day.

For more on this topic, see here.

Please note that I am not saying that no points games would be a "bad" thing. I am simply pointing out what a monumental shift in the mentality of this site that they would represent. Personally, I am undecided whether I am for or against the idea. However, I think a change of this magnitude requires clear and convincing evidence that it is preferable to the users, and I do not see that.

[OliverFA]

A further point that I'd like to note is that not all "practice" games are beneficial. If any of you has ever been on a poker site where they allow freeroll tourneys or other types of free play, you will know that the difference between poker for money and how people play with free chips is night and day.

This argument seems like an epic win.

I think that double score could be interesting, that would enable some people to ignore the "lifetime" score and pretend the only score that matters is the "official" score. But other than that, free games are like playing poker with chips.