Moderator: Community Team
How am I supposed to know how good my opponent is if their score is not indicative of their skill?
walnutwatson wrote:Anyway, the suggestion was for an option to play unranked.
I never suggested that everyone should play like that.
Just think outside the box for one moment.
walnutwatson wrote:Ok, the main reason I want to play unscored games with other people of the same persuasion is mainly because I find the attitude of a lot of people on the site irritating, self-righteous, aggressive and indignant. I like banter in games and I like people getting passionate about the game but I don't like people dictating how others should play or making assumptions about others based on the events in a game.
I'd simply like the option to play in a fun, friendly and welcoming atmosphere. I'm not saying that all CC games are full of elitist buffoons but there are a lot of them out there.
I know how you feel brother. I have been reading and writing until im blue. Sometimes I think that this place is run by a bunch of 15 year olds.Woodruff wrote:walnutwatson wrote:Ok, the main reason I want to play unscored games with other people of the same persuasion is mainly because I find the attitude of a lot of people on the site irritating, self-righteous, aggressive and indignant. I like banter in games and I like people getting passionate about the game but I don't like people dictating how others should play or making assumptions about others based on the events in a game.
I'd simply like the option to play in a fun, friendly and welcoming atmosphere. I'm not saying that all CC games are full of elitist buffoons but there are a lot of them out there.
This is precisely correct. I agree with your belief that such a points-free zone WOULD be largely without the massive number of assholes that seem to frequent this site and if this were approved, then it would at least cause me to stick around and give it a shot.
However, given that it appears that this has been previously proposed and, despite large support, shot down...please tell me the other sites of this nature that you frequent so that I can leave this one and join another. But PM me...as much as this place seems to be perfectly happy to allow assholes to flame me, I'm sure they'd cry about your advertising another site openly.
Thanks.
if you introduce an arena where there are no negative effects, the number of suiciders will drastically increase.
walnutwatson wrote:Also people keep stating as reasons against the idea various ways in which it would upset the peopled who just care about the points system. What about the rest of us? Are our needs somehow less important?
Unfortunately, you can't have it both ways. An option for unranked games is asking to care about the point system sometimes, when its really an all or nothing matter, especially if you want the point system to mean anything ever.
Certain suiciders/deadbeats would undoubtedly increase (I'm specifically thinking freemiums that have the ability to discern lost causes, this behavior also kills the idea of a practice area since its no longer indicative of how a real game is played (generally))
In fact in my opinion it is a more real game because people partaking will not have one eye on an artificial measure of how good they are compared to other people, which is what the rankings encourage.
Also I don't see why people would suicide more because they would not be playing to get to the top of a leaderboard and therefore would probably not be taking the game seriously enough to want to perform spiteful acts like that and in any case it wouldn't affect anyone's points so no one would be too bothered even if it did happen
See above. Has to be all or nothing.As for your argument that you would not know people's 'true' skill level. I think most people who want to play for points would steer clear of unranked games therefore leaving their skill level unaffected by the option.
A lot of people believe that the current scoring system can be worked, but is relatively indicative of skill. I think my statement is significantly closer to the truth.And there are a lot of people out there who believe that the ranking system is a completely inaccurate measure of peoples skill level.
You need to explain how extra motivation to win (points/epeening) demotivates players. This makes zero sense to me. If the incentive to win was a turd sandwich, I'd be inclined to agree, but its points, POINTS!
The opposition is because it will steal the farmers new crops. plain and simple. I do NOT see the other sides logic. They keep saying that the points matter because they represent the players skill. Are you kidding me ? The point system is a joke because, Those that are not good enough, circle the recruiting station like a bunch of sharks. And don't even get me started on the default ''freestyle'' setting. These sharks can NOT play ''RISK'' so they gobble up the easy points. Then you turn around and say that the points reflect a players skill. I have said it before and I will keep saying it, CCs' ranking system does NOT show the best ''RISK'' players at the top. Only a retard would subscribe to such poor logic. ...Sorry.walnutwatson wrote:if you introduce an arena where there are no negative effects, the number of suiciders will drastically increase.
I don't agree and even if this did turn out to be true it wouldn't matter because all the uptight folk who think suiciding, playing differently to them, playing experimental strategies, etc. are the work of the devil wouldn't be in the unranked area anyway, so nobody would mind too much.
I can't understand why there is opposition to this. I'll state one last time that this would be an OPTION!!!!! Nobody would force you to use it. If you're into scoring points and seeing your name on the scoreboard you would not be there in the first place so what possible reason could you have for being against it, it would not affect your game.
Also people keep stating as reasons against the idea various ways in which it would upset the peopled who just care about the points system. What about the rest of us? Are our needs somehow less important? It's this stuck up attitude from certain types that I want nothing to do with.
Herm Edwards wrote:You play to win the game.
walnutwatson wrote:That passion you speak of is anger, being masked by social norms that don't have to be adhered to on the internet. And good etiquette includes not pointlessly suiciding in the game this game may or may not be based on.
This really pisses me off. I gave you an example from my own personal experience and now, even though you don't know any of the people involved, including me, and even though you were not there you're saying that I am wrong.
How can you make such a self-important assumption? I guarantee that my friends and I are not afraid in the slightest of offending one another.
To suggest that I am masking my emotions to my friends is laughable, as is the suggestion that a game of risk is important enough for me to have genuinely negative emotions towards people who I have been friends with for between 14 to 25 years. If I could give you a few examples of the things I have been through in my life, experiences that I have shared with these people - friends with serious drug/alcohol addiction, friends who have been raped, friends who have committed suicide, divorces, redundancies, basically a hell of a lot. And for you to say to me that our emotions towards one another are 'masked by social norms' is utterly ridiculous. If we can get through the troubles I've mentioned above (and believed me that list is not exhaustive) and relate to one another honestly don't you think it's a bit idiotic to suggest that we can't show our true emotions over a board game?
walnutwatson wrote:And if you truly think things like:"Rad, new high score!" "Sweetalicious, another medal!"
then I think you should really look at your priorities.
I can't really disagree with too much here. I mean, you do further generalize my generalization, but yeah, most people are competitive. Say that you don't care about winning all you want to, but if you get even a hint of a glimmer of an iota of a quark (ad nauseum) of satisfaction, then you're lying to yourself. (I didn't explicitly say you were lying there, don't misquote me.) And Herm Edwards doesn't have to speak to CC directly, his words echo for all competitions. You play to win the game.walnutwatson wrote:And what on earth has Herm Edwards got to do with CC? He is paid money to do a job and if he doesn't he gets sacked. I play CC to have fun and if I lose, what happens? Sod all!
And I've already stated that I play for fun, but again I suppose I'm 'masking' my real emotions and am therefore a win hungry ultra-competitive person, just like everyone according to you.
I don't have issue with people suiciding, I just hope they learn from their terrible play and get better.walnutwatson wrote:And good etiquette includes not pointlessly suiciding in the game this game may or may not be based on.
As for this, that's an opinion, not a fact. As I stated before I have no problem with people suiciding but as you seem to think I'm lying or 'masking' my true emotions or whatever I don't suppose my opinion will count as much as yours.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users