Update 9/5/13

[Lindax]

I feel like this could be abused by friends...I'll be sure to discuss it with BigWham!

BMO

Abuse takes place no matter what. I don't see why this would be more open to abuse than the current system.... How it would or would not affect the scoreboard I don't know (or care ).

And like Shannon said: You can limit it to simply 20 points for all. Or maybe only 10, 20 and 30 points, for example.

Lx

PS: Thanks for the bug-fix Blake.

[DoomYoshi]

Re betiko:Max rank has not been rejected.

Re OliverFA: I don't like the Survivor mode because stacking players (which are present in very many escalators and even win some of them) will get more of a reason to just stack.

You are judging a setting just by one of many options. Not all settings will work equally good with all the different options.

The other settings already stalemate more frequently.

[JamesKer1]

I just want to say... This new management is amazing. I've never seen any gaming company make so many great updates like this in such a short amount of time! I don't know what happened, but something must have really clicked... This is just awesome keep it up, please!!!

[betiko]

I feel like this could be abused by friends...I'll be sure to discuss it with BigWham!

BMO

Abuse takes place no matter what. I don't see why this would be more open to abuse than the current system.... How it would or would not affect the scoreboard I don't know (or care ).

And like Shannon said: You can limit it to simply 20 points for all. Or maybe only 10, 20 and 30 points, for example.

Lx

PS: Thanks for the bug-fix Blake.

I thought you were proposing something I proposed before and that was rejected, low stake games. right now we are on a 20pts basis. Sometimes higher ranked might want to play luck based games for fun vs any rank but the point system would just kick them in the nuts. Say you could make 10pts basis games (1-50pts) and other variants. This would not change the point difference won/loss in terms of ratio vs other ranks, you re just playing on half the points basis. This is just to play games for fun that would affect in a much lesser extent your rank. It would also encourage people to try new settings/maps, with little to lose until they feel comfortable about it.

[SaviorShot]

Sounds Fun

[Robespierre__]

It seems the rating system is what it is. You really want unrated games since it makes no sense that you can dictate the value of a win to the rating system.

[Shannon Apple]

It seems the rating system is what it is. You really want unrated games since it makes no sense that you can dictate the value of a win to the rating system.

This!

I was thinking about it, and even 20 point games would result in some serious abuses, especially with high ranks vs low ranks. I don't think farming is right, and while it goes on now, it's still a risk for the farmer. (along with the risk of getting banned)

If there was an option to play 0 point games, this might appeal to those just wanting to play for fun. No risk of abuse whatsoever.

[greenoaks]

It seems the rating system is what it is. You really want unrated games since it makes no sense that you can dictate the value of a win to the rating system.

This!

I was thinking about it, and even 20 point games would result in some serious abuses, especially with high ranks vs low ranks. I don't think farming is right, and while it goes on now, it's still a risk for the farmer. (along with the risk of getting banned)

If there was an option to play 0 point games, this might appeal to those just wanting to play for fun. No risk of abuse whatsoever.

absolutely a risk of abuse.

practise on a map until you're awesome, then play for points.

[betiko]

It seems the rating system is what it is. You really want unrated games since it makes no sense that you can dictate the value of a win to the rating system.

This!

I was thinking about it, and even 20 point games would result in some serious abuses, especially with high ranks vs low ranks. I don't think farming is right, and while it goes on now, it's still a risk for the farmer. (along with the risk of getting banned)

If there was an option to play 0 point games, this might appeal to those just wanting to play for fun. No risk of abuse whatsoever.

absolutely a risk of abuse.

practise on a map until you're awesome, then play for points.

and? anyone can do this. Take a poker site for example, you can play for fun with fake money to practice. Everyone is on the same boat here, everyone can practice the map they want just for fun; or simply play stupid games just for fun. I think it would encourage playing more speed games. Hell, it would increase dramatically the amount of games played on the site, eople would stop having cold feet to join this or that.
The ranking would mean a different thing I agree; points games would be much more competitive. would that be a bad thing? Do you think it's normal to have very good players at a low rank right now because they medal hunt/ play stupid games for fun? The ranking would be much more acurate.

[Shannon Apple]

It seems the rating system is what it is. You really want unrated games since it makes no sense that you can dictate the value of a win to the rating system.

This!

I was thinking about it, and even 20 point games would result in some serious abuses, especially with high ranks vs low ranks. I don't think farming is right, and while it goes on now, it's still a risk for the farmer. (along with the risk of getting banned)

If there was an option to play 0 point games, this might appeal to those just wanting to play for fun. No risk of abuse whatsoever.

absolutely a risk of abuse.

practise on a map until you're awesome, then play for points.

and? anyone can do this. Take a poker site for example, you can play for fun with fake money to practice. Everyone is on the same boat here, everyone can practice the map they want just for fun; or simply play stupid games just for fun. I think it would encourage playing more speed games. Hell, it would increase dramatically the amount of games played on the site, eople would stop having cold feet to join this or that.
The ranking would mean a different thing I agree; points games would be much more competitive. would that be a bad thing? Do you think it's normal to have very good players at a low rank right now because they medal hunt/ play stupid games for fun? The ranking would be much more acurate.

Exactly, and I'll practice until I'm awesome via teamgames anyway with someone who already knows the map rather than going down the route of joining a bunch of games outright, so I don't see how skill level on a map should matter, you can search that info anyway. If they wanna mess around on a map, then play for points, fantastic! It'd mean more people playing competitively and it could be a shitload of fun. I think win rate should still be affected by those games so that there's still something to think about.

I think that this would also help new people to get into the game.

I made a suggestion before that the first x amount of games that a newbie plays should be 0 points. Being hammered for points forces several newbies to leave.

[iAmCaffeine]

I don't see any need for a change in the points system. If you care so much about losing points to lower ranks, don't play them. If you want to learn a map with less chance of losing points then you've already answered that problem; use team games.

[Metsfanmax]

It seems the rating system is what it is. You really want unrated games since it makes no sense that you can dictate the value of a win to the rating system.

This!

I was thinking about it, and even 20 point games would result in some serious abuses, especially with high ranks vs low ranks. I don't think farming is right, and while it goes on now, it's still a risk for the farmer. (along with the risk of getting banned)

If there was an option to play 0 point games, this might appeal to those just wanting to play for fun. No risk of abuse whatsoever.

absolutely a risk of abuse.

practise on a map until you're awesome, then play for points.

That is not abuse; that is precisely the point of practice.

[greenoaks]

It seems the rating system is what it is. You really want unrated games since it makes no sense that you can dictate the value of a win to the rating system.

This!

I was thinking about it, and even 20 point games would result in some serious abuses, especially with high ranks vs low ranks. I don't think farming is right, and while it goes on now, it's still a risk for the farmer. (along with the risk of getting banned)

If there was an option to play 0 point games, this might appeal to those just wanting to play for fun. No risk of abuse whatsoever.

absolutely a risk of abuse.

practise on a map until you're awesome, then play for points.

That is not abuse; that is precisely the point of practice.

not on this site.

our score is an amalgamation of the experience gained from every single game we have played. no point games allow a player to have a score greater than they deserve. that's abuse.

[betiko]

It seems the rating system is what it is. You really want unrated games since it makes no sense that you can dictate the value of a win to the rating system.

This!

I was thinking about it, and even 20 point games would result in some serious abuses, especially with high ranks vs low ranks. I don't think farming is right, and while it goes on now, it's still a risk for the farmer. (along with the risk of getting banned)

If there was an option to play 0 point games, this might appeal to those just wanting to play for fun. No risk of abuse whatsoever.

absolutely a risk of abuse.

practise on a map until you're awesome, then play for points.

That is not abuse; that is precisely the point of practice.

not on this site.

our score is an amalgamation of the experience gained from every single game we have played. no point games allow a player to have a score greater than they deserve. that's abuse.

well you don't get the point. Many players are on top of the scoreboard because they are 1 trick poneys and they have cold feet to join anything outside of their comfort zone. Many very good players are under ranked because they join carelessly any game. You've just said it yourself. The point system reflects your experience on the site (not how good you are).
If you had games just to fool around worth no points, and competitive games to improve your rank, the ranking would be much more accurate and would reflect in a better way where everyone stands. As I said, everyone being on the same boat!

For example, I had a friend who just joined conquer club and wanted to play me 1v1. I was brig at the time, and I though it was stupid to have to say no just because statistically I would lose tons of points. I won 4/6 because shit dice happen, and lost 90 points. How is it abusing the system if I just want to play some casual 1v1 games with a real life friend just for the fun of playing them without losing points that were won with lots of efforts? This is just one of the many examples we could have.
Also points free game would increase a lot the amount of games played and the traffic on the site. It's just a win win for everyone.

[Shannon Apple]

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.

[greenoaks]

It seems the rating system is what it is. You really want unrated games since it makes no sense that you can dictate the value of a win to the rating system.

This!

I was thinking about it, and even 20 point games would result in some serious abuses, especially with high ranks vs low ranks. I don't think farming is right, and while it goes on now, it's still a risk for the farmer. (along with the risk of getting banned)

If there was an option to play 0 point games, this might appeal to those just wanting to play for fun. No risk of abuse whatsoever.

absolutely a risk of abuse.

practise on a map until you're awesome, then play for points.

That is not abuse; that is precisely the point of practice.

not on this site.

our score is an amalgamation of the experience gained from every single game we have played. no point games allow a player to have a score greater than they deserve. that's abuse.

well you don't get the point. Many players are on top of the scoreboard because they are 1 trick poneys and they have cold feet to join anything outside of their comfort zone. Many very good players are under ranked because they join carelessly any game. You've just said it yourself. The point system reflects your experience on the site (not how good you are).
If you had games just to fool around worth no points, and competitive games to improve your rank, the ranking would be much more accurate and would reflect in a better way where everyone stands. As I said, everyone being on the same boat!

For example, I had a friend who just joined conquer club and wanted to play me 1v1. I was brig at the time, and I though it was stupid to have to say no just because statistically I would lose tons of points. I won 4/6 because shit dice happen, and lost 90 points. How is it abusing the system if I just want to play some casual 1v1 games with a real life friend just for the fun of playing them without losing points that were won with lots of efforts? This is just one of the many examples we could have.
Also points free game would increase a lot the amount of games played and the traffic on the site. It's just a win win for everyone.

what would happen is high ranks would play almost exclusively no point games, preventing anyone below them from moving up and would only play for points when they were absolutely assured victory - farming.

[Armandolas]

what would happen is high ranks would play almost exclusively no point games, preventing anyone below them from moving up and would only play for points when they were absolutely assured victory - farming.

thats exactly my concern.I can see why people want "no points" games, but i can also see the scoreboard even more boring

[betiko]

what would happen is high ranks would play almost exclusively no point games, preventing anyone below them from moving up and would only play for points when they were absolutely assured victory - farming.

I still don't agree. If that system was in place, people would not join games where they almost stand no chance vs a super high ranked player unless it s points free. People could actually learn a lot from those games in points free games. Take GLG. He used to wall low ranks to lure them in his trap games and get his 5 pts each time. Why were people joining? because he was acually conqueror,he would teach them stuff, and they would just lose 5 points from the operation. If the no points system was in place, they would just say OK, I'll be glad to play you in a no points game! The guy would play a conqueror and learn from him... and GLG would either "teach" as he claim he was doing, or not accept and reveal his true nature!

At least Shanon seems to share my point of view!

Regarding your other point, if high ranked players play only no points games they would likely stall or go down. Say you're a 4000pts general; why would you only play no points game, why do that instead of chasing people above you???

As an example again; I've lost like 4200pts in 1v1 speedgames (54% 0,88 relative rank). I just enjoy playing stupid 1v1 speedgames where it's almost entirely luck, just for fun. I'd join anyone. Only thing is that high ranked players never join those, so you can only expect to play vs low ranked players and lose a lot, even with a positive win rate. What harm would it do to be able to play these just for fun and not having to be pissed because you lose tons of points by playing too many of those?
The system actually rewards people who never want to get out of their comfort zone and who play the least games possible to go up slowly but surely. How is that not boring?

[Shannon Apple]

What I was saying above. My win rate on 1v1 is 51% and my score is -1414. That's friggen crazy. That's not quite as bad as betiko, but I haven't been playing CC long enough to rack up that negative score lol (nevermind my join date)

I've seen another player that I map ranked for the hell of it with a win rate of 42% and a score of +2000 on 1v1.

This is purely the luck of the draw on who joins those games and which ones you win or lose. 1000-ish of my games were 1v1 classic which was a stupid thing to do I might add. lol.

Having said that, I don't think it would change anything regarding being able to tell a player's skill from their score. I've seen majors play like noobs. It might improve the rate of retaining players and have a positive impact on CC. Hell you could even cap the number of pointless games that a player can play per month or something. Newbies should definitely have this option open so that they can start 0 point games until they are comfortable to start raising their rank.

[betiko]

Hell you could even cap the number of pointless games that a player can play per month or something.

that is a very good idea that might change the opinion of people who are against. Say you can play 30 stupid luck games a month or something, just for the fun of it (or to train on new maps/settings) and your rank won't get affected.

[iAmCaffeine]

Hell you could even cap the number of pointless games that a player can play per month or something.

that is a very good idea that might change the opinion of people who are against. Say you can play 30 stupid luck games a month or something, just for the fun of it (or to train on new maps/settings) and your rank won't get affected.

Having a cap would make it more acceptable from my perspective - although I'm not in agreement - but thirty is ridiculously high. I'd say a cap of.. five. You only have to play take one turn a month to be on the scoreboard.

Should we not take this to Suggestions now?

[betiko]

Hell you could even cap the number of pointless games that a player can play per month or something.

that is a very good idea that might change the opinion of people who are against. Say you can play 30 stupid luck games a month or something, just for the fun of it (or to train on new maps/settings) and your rank won't get affected.

Having a cap would make it more acceptable from my perspective - although I'm not in agreement - but thirty is ridiculously high. I'd say a cap of.. five. You only have to play take one turn a month to be on the scoreboard.

Should we not take this to Suggestions now?

Well let s say that to be on the scoreboard, you need to play points games; playing no points games can t make you come back on the points scoreboard, I see no reason for that. (What was it, you need to have at least 1 completed game in the last 30 days to still appear on it?)
And 30 is not ridiculously high at all. That's one game per day. Let s say you want to have that stupid speed game you want to play to relax each day after work, not caring if you win or lose. 30 is extremely reasonable...

Oh and the reason why I m discussing it here and not on the suggestions forum, is because it would get automatically rejected, and bigwham seems to read this thread so it goes higher on the foodchain. I don t blame the suggestion moderators, they just know that this or that was automatically rejected by former owners. Bigwham seems opened to new ideas, and i think that suggestion moderators are seeing it now, and that old suggestions can be reconsidered without autorejecting them.

[iAmCaffeine]

Thirty seems reasonable to people like you and I who play frequently, but the majority of the players at the top of the scoreboard don't play such large quantities and could manipulate this too easily.

[betiko]

Thirty seems reasonable to people like you and I who play frequently, but the majority of the players at the top of the scoreboard don't play such large quantities and could manipulate this too easily.

Manipulate what/how?
I thought your point was regarding players who left the scoreboard because they stopped playing, and come back once in a while to play one game to reapear as conqueror or whatever (cases like rabbiton).
I m suggesting that no points game wouldn t qualify to make you reapear as an active player on the scoreboard.

[iAmCaffeine]

Should we not take this to Suggestions now?