[GO] Unrated, Unranked, or No Points Games

[singcricketsing]

thank you Megadeth666 and walnutwatson for your halfway intelligent responses (yes, that's a compliment)

No, I didn't read anybody else's version of this suggestion. I apologize for my ignorance.

Oh well, I tried.

[Ditocoaf]

It's been suggested before; you should have revived one of the old threads. (I support this, btw).

Also,

you should really change the title. o/

Yes, I have suggested it in a reply to someones thread, But I thought that it needed a thread and poll of its own. And if someone has indeed already suggested this system, I would ask that you supply me with the link, so I can salute the genius in person.

I believe that there are actually 2 or 3 topics in Suggs&Bugs, about this suggestion. Before you post a suggestion, you're supposed to use the "search" feature to find if there's already a thread about it; they don't like multiple threads about the same thing.

[porkenbeans]

It's been suggested before; you should have revived one of the old threads. (I support this, btw).

Also,

you should really change the title. o/

Yes, I have suggested it in a reply to someones thread, But I thought that it needed a thread and poll of its own. And if someone has indeed already suggested this system, I would ask that you supply me with the link, so I can salute the genius in person.

I believe that there are actually 2 or 3 topics in Suggs&Bugs, about this suggestion. Before you post a suggestion, you're supposed to use the "search" feature to find if there's already a thread about it; they don't like multiple threads about the same thing.

Are you trying to tell me that the exact same Idea, with all the points listed, is already out there ?

[BaldAdonis]

So, what if no one around your rank wants to play the same games you want to play?

[porkenbeans]

So, what if no one around your rank wants to play the same games you want to play?

Well, That prob. means that you need to re-think your choices and play the more popular games. The ranking system should be about ranking risk players to their skill. Not the best at obscure maps and settings.

[redhawk92]

how would the cite make money

[Ditocoaf]

It's been suggested before; you should have revived one of the old threads. (I support this, btw).

Also,

you should really change the title. o/

Yes, I have suggested it in a reply to someones thread, But I thought that it needed a thread and poll of its own. And if someone has indeed already suggested this system, I would ask that you supply me with the link, so I can salute the genius in person.

I believe that there are actually 2 or 3 topics in Suggs&Bugs, about this suggestion. Before you post a suggestion, you're supposed to use the "search" feature to find if there's already a thread about it; they don't like multiple threads about the same thing.

Are you trying to tell me that the exact same Idea, with all the points listed, is already out there ?

Having games that do not effect your rank has been suggested before, and so has having automatically-assigned opponents. Combining the two previous suggestions doesn't warrant a new thread, I think... but I'll leave that up to cicero and stop derailing the topic.

[porkenbeans]

how would the cite make money

You may just want to go ahead and check box #2. WTF are you talking about ? Nothing in that respect changes. But since you brought up the subject of money, I would submit that the site would make more of it.

[porkenbeans]

It's been suggested before; you should have revived one of the old threads. (I support this, btw).

Also,

you should really change the title. o/

Yes, I have suggested it in a reply to someones thread, But I thought that it needed a thread and poll of its own. And if someone has indeed already suggested this system, I would ask that you supply me with the link, so I can salute the genius in person.

I believe that there are actually 2 or 3 topics in Suggs&Bugs, about this suggestion. Before you post a suggestion, you're supposed to use the "search" feature to find if there's already a thread about it; they don't like multiple threads about the same thing.

Are you trying to tell me that the exact same Idea, with all the points listed, is already out there ?

Having games that do not effect your rank has been suggested before, and so has having automatically-assigned opponents. Combining the two previous suggestions doesn't warrant a new thread, I think... but I'll leave that up to cicero and stop derailing the topic.

There has been hundreds of ideas on this subject. Dont you think that the final solution will be a combination of the best ones ? If you show me the exact same thing as I have worked out, then I will Give credit where it is due. But, none of that is the point. Here it is now. and here is the poll. Lets see the results, OK ?

[The Neon Peon]

This is the list of problems with the suggestions that is currently being discussed, I am editing it as we go along.

revised text - this text is no longer part of the suggestion
needs revising - it has been determined that there is a problem with the suggestion in this area
revised - this is a revision to the suggestion
resolved - this part of the suggestion does not need to be revised

So, what if no one around your rank wants to play the same games you want to play?

Well, That prob. means that you need to re-think your choices and play the more popular games. The ranking system should be about ranking risk players to their skill. Not the best at obscure maps and settings.

Ah yes, I am sure this will go around well... no more playing those types of games you like... yes, this will go very well...

Site would have "non-sanctioned" games. These are games that in no way effect your rank.

Site would have "sanctioned" games. These games are used to determine your rank and position on the leaderboard.

Okay, firstly... separating ranked and unranked games... that defeats the purpose of rank. Rank is how good you are at playing the game. If you separate that, then people will only play on 1 single type of game for rank, and then play all other games as unranked. Right now, if I choose to specialize that much, I give up 99% of the good things about the site. If this suggestion comes through, specialists will be giving up absolutely nothing.

Opponents in all sanctioned games are "auto-matched".

Secondly, how can I be auto-matched with an opponent and choose what type of game I am playing? Now, assuming you find a way to do that... what is the point of auto-matching people? If Player1 starts a game, it may have as well been Player2... that part of the suggestion is pointless. Player1 might be an expert on the map... so? Someone else will be auto-matched with him = Useless.

There are no points to collect. Only a running tally of the players positive or negative games won for the week. ("Week" has been changed to "month," and there is a minimum of 10 games for qualification) The top 20% from each rank level will receive a promotion in rank. And the bottom 20% from each rank level will receive a demotion in rank at the end of every week. (Month)

Thirdly, if there is no points to collect, only # of games won. There go 8 man games... I assume you mean # of players beaten? Also... 1 week? I can not finish any games within several weeks depending on my preferred game type... and... wait a minute... this is tilted too much for who plays more games. ("Week" has been changed to "month," and there is a minimum of 10 games for qualification. The equation now used to calculate score is number-of-players-defeated / number-of-players-played x 10)

The top 20% of the top bracket are entered into the weekly showdown turny. The winner of the showdown receives a seat in the annual Turny of Champions, which will crown the next years Conqueror.

A whole lot of problems right there.
1. What if I don't want to enter a tourney?
2. I don't know where you have been, but a week is nowhere near enough to play a tourney... more like several months, or many months, with the amount of people you want to participate.
3. What if they are freemium?
4. Winner is 1 out of a rank? You have to be kidding me... only that 1 person deserves a chance for conqueror, huh?
5. Okay, I slaughter everyone in the game, get to top 20%. I am so good that I win the tourney for that 20%. I get bad dice in the final tournament and someone who has barely been pulling along wins... stages do not work.
6. Conqueror for a year? That is 33% of CCs history...
7. What is a "Turney"?

[FarangDemon]

Option for unrated games:

• add an option when creating a game to specify whether the game transfers points at the end of the game.

Specifics:

• This option would be similar to one featured in some Yahoo! games.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• allowing experienced players to teach recruits without farming/ risking their points
• letting players play "for fun" and to improve strategy
• remove suspicion from games involving friends IRL of different skill levels (for instance, I want to teach one of my friends to play, which would involve repetitive games with the same two players without being accused of multi) also to remove farming/ risking points between two radically different ranks

What do you say? All feedback welcome.

This is really a great and obvious idea. There is no reason why this would be harmful and can only benefit the players.

For example, my brother really wanted to play me 1 on 1. He beat me in 2 one on ones in a row, going first both times, and I lost 100 points. I just can't play in game with a smart guy with low rank with such risky map settings. I'll win more often over time, but not enough to make up for the losing 60 points vs winning 8 points. This allows people who care about their score to join games with riskier map settings with friends who are really low ranked.

There is one valid concern, what effect does it have when too many lower ranked people stop playing ranked games? Like if you kill all the plankton the ecosystem crashes.

Of course I see this would also negatively impact farmers because more of their prey would be off-limits.

[porkenbeans]

So, what if no one around your rank wants to play the same games you want to play?

Well, That prob. means that you need to re-think your choices and play the more popular games. The ranking system should be about ranking risk players to their skill. Not the best at obscure maps and settings.

Ah yes, I am sure this will go around well... no more playing those types of games you like... yes, this will go very well...

Site would have "non-sanctioned" games. These are games that in no way effect your rank.

Site would have "sanctioned" games. These games are used to determine your rank and position on the leaderboard.

Okay, firstly... separating ranked and unranked games... that defeats the purpose of rank. Rank is how good you are at playing the game. If you separate that, then people will only play on 1 single type of game for rank, and then play all other games as unranked. Right now, if I choose to specialize that much, I give up 99% of the good things about the site. If this suggestion comes through, specialists will be giving up absolutely nothing.

Opponents in all sanctioned games are "auto-matched".

Secondly, how can I be auto-matched with an opponent and choose what type of game I am playing? Now, assuming you find a way to do that... what is the point of auto-matching people? If Player1 starts a game, it may have as well been Player2... that part of the suggestion is pointless. Player1 might be an expert on the map... so? Someone else will be auto-matched with him = Useless.

There are no points to collect. Only a running tally of the players positive or negative games won for the week. The top 20% from each rank level will receive a promotion in rank. And the bottom 20% from each rank level will receive a demotion in rank at the end of every week.

Thirdly, if there is no points to collect, only # of games won. There go 8 man games... I assume you mean # of players beaten? Also... 1 week? I can not finish any games within several weeks depending on my preferred game type... and... wait a minute... this is tilted too much for who plays more games

The top 20% of the top bracket are entered into the weekly showdown turny. The winner of the showdown receives a seat in the annual Turny of Champions, which will crown the next years Conqueror.

A whole lot of problems right there.
1. What if I don't want to enter a tourney?
2. I don't know where you have been, but a week is nowhere near enough to play a tourney... more like several months, or many months, with the amount of people you want to participate.
3. What if they are freemium?
4. Winner is 1 out of a rank? You have to be kidding me... only that 1 person deserves a chance for conqueror, huh?
5. Okay, I slaughter everyone in the game, get to top 20%. I am so good that I win the tourney for that 20%. I get bad dice in the final tournament and someone who has barely been pulling along wins... stages do not work.
6. Conqueror for a year? That is 33% of CCs history...
7. What is a "Turney"?

Noen, you threw enough mud to confuse everyone. I have answers to every point that you tried to make. So why dont we do this. Start with your most important one. I will answer you. then we can take each one, one at a time, so all can follow the debate. OK ?

[The Neon Peon]

Why don't you answer all then since it will happen eventually? This way, there will be no other posts in between.

[The Neon Peon]

The Text in Green is my own additions to other people's quotes to show their relevancy to their current discussion.

the whole point of the rating systems is to tell other players how good you are, if we start having friendlys then theres not much point of having it at all really, its more fun to risk your points to test out a new map than just playing friendlys where they mean nothing.
By the way, if your friends are actually good but are cooks, then they are going to earn themselves a rank. It can be against you, or someone else. Now, why are you so special?

The reason it was rejected is because:
A) Higher Ranked Players could have 1 game scored and Infinite Unranked to get their risk fix
Aware that this is happening now, the difference being this: right now, if you choose to do this, you do not play CC at all. With unranked games, you would be playing CC a whole lot with the same result in your rank.
B) The scoring is passive, so if you're good enough you should be able to point points on the line
Your score is only accurate/valuable/shows anything at all... if you play all types of games, rather than just farm, or play only high ranks, or only on a certain map... if you do not do that, what does your score even show?
C) If you care about points enough to want to play Unranked games you probably don't deserve the rank.
Probably a little too harsh. I would say that if you care about your score so much that you are resorting to such methods as only playing very low ranks, only playing very high ranks, only playing 1v1s on a map others don't understand, etc... you don't deserve your rank. If you care about your rank, but play normally, I see why you might just want to play some games for fun where you do not have to worry about winning.

[porkenbeans]

Why don't you answer all then since it will happen eventually? This way, there will be no other posts in between.

Well, I have pondered all of your points and more. To follow this debate to any sane conclusion, We will need to cover each point one at a time. If you feel as strongly as you seem, Then you should have no problem defending your position. What I offer is a civil conversation that just might finally come to some kind of solution. God knows this problem has been batted around for far too long. So my friend, Give me your best point.

[The Neon Peon]

Why don't you answer all then since it will happen eventually? This way, there will be no other posts in between.

Well, I have pondered all of your points and more. To follow this debate to any sane conclusion, We will need to cover each point one at a time. If you feel as strongly as you seem, Then you should have no problem defending your position. What I offer is a civil conversation that just might finally come to some kind of solution. God knows this problem has been batted around for far too long. So my friend, Give me your best point.

Start with that last list, then.

[porkenbeans]

Why don't you answer all then since it will happen eventually? This way, there will be no other posts in between.

Well, I have pondered all of your points and more. To follow this debate to any sane conclusion, We will need to cover each point one at a time. If you feel as strongly as you seem, Then you should have no problem defending your position. What I offer is a civil conversation that just might finally come to some kind of solution. God knows this problem has been batted around for far too long. So my friend, Give me your best point.

Start with that last list, then.

I am begining to think that you are not up to the task of defending your flawed argument. This is perplexing to me, because you sure had lot to say about the matter. Is your argument so weak that it cant stand up to proper scrutiny ?

[spiesr]

1. A week is not long enough to finish most games. It would not be long enough to find players for most games if you could only play your own rank.
2. Many game specific game settings would not be able to ever start under the system.
3. A poll is useless when the question displays obvious bias.
4. Answer all of these in one post or many but they are posted together weather you like it or not...

[The Neon Peon]

Why don't you answer all then since it will happen eventually? This way, there will be no other posts in between.

Well, I have pondered all of your points and more. To follow this debate to any sane conclusion, We will need to cover each point one at a time. If you feel as strongly as you seem, Then you should have no problem defending your position. What I offer is a civil conversation that just might finally come to some kind of solution. God knows this problem has been batted around for far too long. So my friend, Give me your best point.

Start with that last list, then.

I am begining to think that you are not up to the task of defending your flawed argument. This is perplexing to me, because you sure had lot to say about the matter. Is your argument so weak that it cant stand up to proper scrutiny ?

Okay, will you finally get this thread on topic?

*lists a whole lot of problems*

I have answers for everything, but tell me which problem to address first.

Answer all of them, it does not matter which is first.

I know a solution to everything, but we need to answer these things one at a time.

Fine, start with Problem X, then.

Oh, your arguments are flawed and you are scared to defend them

I follow this discussion worse than your arguments in the first post. Just answer what I have said, and stop making a deal out of what comes first, pick anything, and say what you want against it.

[spiesr]

I am begining to think that you are not up to the task of defending your flawed argument. This is perplexing to me, because you sure had lot to say about the matter. Is your argument so weak that it cant stand up to proper scrutiny ?

Are you kidding?! He posted his arguments but you refuse to respond to them unless they are posted seperatly. You can already answer them one at a time if you want...

[porkenbeans]

Why don't you answer all then since it will happen eventually? This way, there will be no other posts in between.

Well, I have pondered all of your points and more. To follow this debate to any sane conclusion, We will need to cover each point one at a time. If you feel as strongly as you seem, Then you should have no problem defending your position. What I offer is a civil conversation that just might finally come to some kind of solution. God knows this problem has been batted around for far too long. So my friend, Give me your best point.

Start with that last list, then.

I am begining to think that you are not up to the task of defending your flawed argument. This is perplexing to me, because you sure had lot to say about the matter. Is your argument so weak that it cant stand up to proper scrutiny ?

Okay, will you finally get this thread on topic?

*lists a whole lot of problems*

I have answers for everything, but tell me which problem to address first.

Answer all of them, it does not matter which is first.

I know a solution to everything, but we need to answer these things one at a time.

Fine, start with Problem X, then.

Oh, your arguments are flawed and you are scared to defend them

I follow this discussion worse than your arguments in the first post. Just answer what I have said, and stop making a deal out of what comes first, pick anything, and say what you want against it.

Am I supposed to pick your best point for you ? Better pick it up neon, the poll is not going your way. And oh by the way, If you are going to quote me, Please use my words. I take great care in selecting them, and I dont cotton to being misquoted.

[spiesr]

Here is the deal. You don't need to only defeat his best point but all of them. You might as well pick sone or all of them and get started.

[lancehoch]

Can we get an option that reads: No, I do not like the idea.

[Ditocoaf]

Can we get an option that reads: No, I do not like the idea.

Porkenbeans doesn't believe that an unbiased poll will go his way, so he fees the need to make the poll biased as the only way it will even look like he has any credibility.

Just vote "maybe" or "no," and ignore the part where he forces you to insult yourself.

[Timminz]

The title of this thread makes me think of Europe.