Conquer Club

Timminz wrote:

General Mayhem wrote:so we cant take points from them and they dont gain any.

dont take my quote out of context you dickhead.

ive already siad id be happy with no point loss/gain from fun/no score players.

WTF. im pissed and you piss me off.

I didn't take that out of context, did I? I thought you were suggesting that some players don't want to play for score, and they should be able to do so, but when someone who IS playing for points beats a "no points" player, they should win some points.

That was a full sentence, that I quoted.

I agree with Tim here I think. Either you're playing for points or you're not. This whole idea of one player is playing for point and another isn't is just silly. Seems to me there could be three options.

1. No points games-as it says no points for winning or losing
2. Wager games-creater puts in a number and that's the points each player puts in to join each game (or if you necessary it can be standard at 20 or 30 or whatever)
3. Normal game-things as they are now.

General Mayhem wrote:Fun players who don't give a hoot about points at all.

why would you create a game option for them ?

if they don't care about points then they can join the points games because they won't care if they loose points from a lose.

Maybe not restart points, but just take them off the scoreboard.

barterer2002 wrote:2. Wager games-creater puts in a number and that's the points each player puts in to join each game (or if you necessary it can be standard at 20 or 30 or whatever)

To quote lovo, abuse much? Take an example of someone (for the sake of simplicity use Warstiener) is playing a cook he is losing that game. What is to then stop him from playing a "Wagered" game against poo-maker, bet most of his points and lose to poo-maker. Then lose to the cook. Then play another wagered game against poo-maker and take his points back? Sorry to poo-maker and Warsteiner if they take offense to the example, but I grabbed the top two names off of the scoreboard.

Timminz wrote:I didn't take that out of context, did I? I thought you were suggesting that some players don't want to play for score, and they should be able to do so, but when someone who IS playing for points beats a "no points" player, they should win some points.

That was a full sentence, that I quoted.

Sorry Tim! I think i miss read you last night. I was drunk, and in a hurry to get to my bed and shouldnt have been here typing!!!
Yeah your right. I think some token point level should be awarded for the points player otherwise they may lack the want to play a fun 'no-score' player. Maybe 5 or 10 points?

lancehoch wrote:

barterer2002 wrote:2. Wager games-creater puts in a number and that's the points each player puts in to join each game (or if you necessary it can be standard at 20 or 30 or whatever)

To quote lovo, abuse much? Take an example of someone (for the sake of simplicity use Warstiener) is playing a cook he is losing that game. What is to then stop him from playing a "Wagered" game against poo-maker, bet most of his points and lose to poo-maker. Then lose to the cook. Then play another wagered game against poo-maker and take his points back? Sorry to poo-maker and Warsteiner if they take offense to the example, but I grabbed the top two names off of the scoreboard.

I'm pretty sure that a "wagered" version - would have limits - probably akin to the 100 points limit that we already have for "normal" games?!

C.

yeti_c wrote:

lancehoch wrote:

barterer2002 wrote:2. Wager games-creater puts in a number and that's the points each player puts in to join each game (or if you necessary it can be standard at 20 or 30 or whatever)

To quote lovo, abuse much? Take an example of someone (for the sake of simplicity use Warstiener) is playing a cook he is losing that game. What is to then stop him from playing a "Wagered" game against poo-maker, bet most of his points and lose to poo-maker. Then lose to the cook. Then play another wagered game against poo-maker and take his points back? Sorry to poo-maker and Warsteiner if they take offense to the example, but I grabbed the top two names off of the scoreboard.

I'm pretty sure that a "wagered" version - would have limits - probably akin to the 100 points limit that we already have for "normal" games?!

C.

which would be open to abuse.

if very high ranked players could play cooks for a fixed set of points then it would just create a race for who can play the most cooks to get to the top of the leaderboard. much like what Klobber has been doing with n00bs.

greenoaks wrote:

yeti_c wrote:I'm pretty sure that a "wagered" version - would have limits - probably akin to the 100 points limit that we already have for "normal" games?!

C.

which would be open to abuse.

if very high ranked players could play cooks for a fixed set of points then it would just create a race for who can play the most cooks to get to the top of the leaderboard. much like what Klobber has been doing with n00bs.

Then you disallow "wagered" games from the join a game page for noobs - until they've completed 5... just like Team games.

C.

yeti_c wrote:

greenoaks wrote:

yeti_c wrote:I'm pretty sure that a "wagered" version - would have limits - probably akin to the 100 points limit that we already have for "normal" games?!

C.

which would be open to abuse.

if very high ranked players could play cooks for a fixed set of points then it would just create a race for who can play the most cooks to get to the top of the leaderboard. much like what Klobber has been doing with n00bs.

Then you disallow "wagered" games from the join a game page for noobs - until they've completed 5... just like Team games.

C.

i said cooks not n00bs, there is a diference.

greenoaks wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

greenoaks wrote:

yeti_c wrote:I'm pretty sure that a "wagered" version - would have limits - probably akin to the 100 points limit that we already have for "normal" games?!

C.

which would be open to abuse.

if very high ranked players could play cooks for a fixed set of points then it would just create a race for who can play the most cooks to get to the top of the leaderboard. much like what Klobber has been doing with n00bs.

Then you disallow "wagered" games from the join a game page for noobs - until they've completed 5... just like Team games.

C.

i said cooks not n00bs, there is a diference.

Well then they should know better...

C.

General Mayhem wrote:

Timminz wrote:I didn't take that out of context, did I? I thought you were suggesting that some players don't want to play for score, and they should be able to do so, but when someone who IS playing for points beats a "no points" player, they should win some points.

That was a full sentence, that I quoted.

Sorry Tim! I think i miss read you last night. I was drunk, and in a hurry to get to my bed and shouldnt have been here typing!!!
Yeah your right. I think some token point level should be awarded for the points player otherwise they may lack the want to play a fun 'no-score' player. Maybe 5 or 10 points?

No harm, no foul.

the idea of winning points from people who don't have any is still never going to fly. Even without the possibility of abuse, there's still the problem of point inflation. Every game between a ranked and non-ranked player would be pumping points into the system from nowhere.

Then how about leave points in place but give players an option to hide the system. If a player turns off the point system their score is still kept but.

1 They are given a special non-ranked icon displayed to everyone and no rank hover text.
2 Their score doesn't show in their profile.
3 They are not listed on the score board.
4 The listing of points lost/won in a game is not added to their copy of the page.

Points are still won and lost like normal but they are oblivious.

I have a mixed view of points myself. When my rank was down in the private-corporal range I didn't care and just played any game that looked fun. As my rank rose I wanted to protect and improve it and started skipping games that looked fun to focus on games I felt most competent at to try to improve my score. Right now I'm paying less attn to score and just trying to have fun but if my score falls too far I'll probably switch back to what I know better to build it back up. I think in a diverse game like this with so many settings and maps score has a tendency to create specialists. As long as my rank is listed I to some extent care about it but if it could be removed/hidden I'd probably do that so I could just go into all sorts of crazy games and have fun without caring about score.

Renee_W wrote:Then how about leave points in place but give players an option to hide the system. If a player turns off the point system their score is still kept but.

1 They are given a special non-ranked icon displayed to everyone and no rank hover text.
2 Their score doesn't show in their profile.
3 They are not listed on the score board.
4 The listing of points lost/won in a game is not added to their copy of the page.

Points are still won and lost like normal but they are oblivious.

That's a very interesting idea.

I would like to suggest unranked games be implemented. Sometimes I just want to play with my friends, and I'd like to see both my friends and I do well in Conquer Club. If we play each other, which we don't currently, then that can't happen.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

- Friends able to play each other just for fun
- Does not seem like something that is difficult to code, or would
- More people would try newer maps as well. They wouldn't be worried about doing horrible in a map they don't know anything about, as many times you need to lose on a map to really know it.

This idea has already been suggested and rejected. (i personally don't think its so bad though)

original topic:
viewtopic.php?t=1218

lack's to-do list: look for "unranked games option" under the 'rejected' category
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2970

There was a thread a couple weeks ago that gained a lot of support for un-rejecting the idea. the naysayers didn't really have any good reasons, (practical or technical) to disallow unranked games (as long as it didn't count as a game for those wanting to stay on the scoreboard). But, since debate kind of died for lack of opposition, the thread fell by the wayside. Things get buried way to quickly in this forum.

Concise description:
A new game type for players looking to play a fun game, and a fun game only.

Specifics:
Make a game type option which is just like any other game, but no points are gainer or lost, and dice are not random. The dice will even themselves out automatically once they get to a certain level. The game starts out with normal rolls, but as soon as your losses or wins exceed the other by x percent, the dice will be altered to put that back from the limit (one roll, should do this. if after that the person loses or wins again, the dice are altered to be maintained in the range around one kill for one death)

Basically, this game type will not be determined by dice, but dice are still a factor as some will have slightly better or worse dice than others, but not by a significant amount.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:
Players that play more for fun than score will have a better experience

I have played in many games which were really fun, a lot of strategy, alliances, manuevering of troops, planning... aka. a really hard game where everyone is about equal and a balance of power exists which you always try to break. A person will sometimes come to the top, but eventually the balance is restored and the game continues with each player slowly rising or falling in strength [not a build game, people attack every turn].... anyways. This is all fun and well, then one person loses a 12 v 1, or wins a 6 v 18 and the entire game is then over in 3 rounds because of that one roll. This is especially annoying when you are the strongest player after a whole lot of careful strategy to get there, then lose because of one lucky roll, or if you are absolutely equal with another player and then win because of one roll, making the win not satisfactory whatsoever

Cliff notes for everyone who is too lazy to read through that:
No points gained or lost.
Dice are not random, but made to never be too favorable for or against any player
Too many games are ended before they can even become fun in the first or second round by one dice roll

The Neon Peon wrote:Concise description:
A new game type for players looking to play a fun game, and a fun game only.

Specifics:
Make a game type option which is just like any other game, but no points are gainer or lost,

This has been rejected in the past, and will not be implemented, all games are for points, if you want to play just for fun, dont worry about your rank, if you play for rank, you always play for rank.

The Neon Peon wrote: and dice are not random. The dice will even themselves out automatically once they get to a certain level. The game starts out with normal rolls, but as soon as your losses or wins exceed the other by x percent, the dice will be altered to put that back from the limit (one roll, should do this. if after that the person loses or wins again, the dice are altered to be maintained in the range around one kill for one death)

Basically, this game type will not be determined by dice, but dice are still a factor as some will have slightly better or worse dice than others, but not by a significant amount.

Then what's the risk, if everyone will have the same dice.

The Neon Peon wrote:This will improve the following aspects of the site:
Players that play more for fun than score will have a better experience

I have played in many games which were really fun, a lot of strategy, alliances, manuevering of troops, planning... aka. a really hard game where everyone is about equal and a balance of power exists which you always try to break. A person will sometimes come to the top, but eventually the balance is restored and the game continues with each player slowly rising or falling in strength [not a build game, people attack every turn].... anyways. This is all fun and well, then one person loses a 12 v 1, or wins a 6 v 18 and the entire game is then over in 3 rounds because of that one roll. This is especially annoying when you are the strongest player after a whole lot of careful strategy to get there, then lose because of one lucky roll, or if you are absolutely equal with another player and then win because of one roll, making the win not satisfactory whatsoever

Cliff notes for everyone who is too lazy to read through that:
No points gained or lost.
Dice are not random, but made to never be too favorable for or against any player
Too many games are ended before they can even become fun in the first or second round by one dice roll

Right, but that's th e game risk, it's not called, "Everyone roll the same dice and no one really wins or looses unless they really f*ck up"

Sounds like pointless diplomacy to me...

As much as I hate to revive dead threads...this must be done.

I just got a friend of mine to sign up on CC, and because she didn't know the first thing about risk, I played a few games with her to show her the basics. Upon completion, I thought about how useful unranked games would be, and then I found this thread.

The only decent argument I can see is that high-ranked people can take advantage of unranked games by playing once a month and staying on the scoreboard. I don't know much about coding, but couldn't non-ranked games just not count as real games at all?

Call it practice, training, friendly, or unranked, I think non-ranked games would be great for trying out new maps/gametypes, helping not-so-skilled people improve their game, or even playing games with friends of all ranks and not having to worry about points...

Please un-reject this.

Why aren't they telling us why it was rejected .Not a nice way to treat paying customers .

The reason it was rejected is because:

A) Higher Ranked Players could have 1 game scored and Infinite Unranked to get their risk fix
B) The scoring is passive, so if you're good enough you should be able to point points on the line
C) If you care about points enough to want to play Unranked games you probably don't deserve the rank.

max is gr8 wrote:The reason it was rejected is because:

A) Higher Ranked Players could have 1 game scored and Infinite Unranked to get their risk fix
B) The scoring is passive, so if you're good enough you should be able to point points on the line
C) If you care about points enough to want to play Unranked games you probably don't deserve the rank.

Who are you ?