[GO] Unrated, Unranked, or No Points Games

[Ditocoaf]

I tried to warn him...

Aslo,

you should really change the title. o/

[barbie]

The general idea makes sense for singles games anyway. I wouldn't want to just be put in games with anyone as my partner, have tried playing with people I don't know and they generally don't go well. But it would definetly put an end to cheating.

[FarangDemon]

I agree with you in theory but not practicality.

I think that such a major overhaul of the system is not necessary or practical when a simpler solution exists, which requires no change at all except for how the scoreboard is displayed. I also think it would be a lot easier to gain acceptance of the simple solution because it does not interfere with the mechanics of the game at all.

Simple Solution http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=70978

I think the point hoarding/farming phenomenon can be more easily dealt with by simply creating two scoreboards (one competitive comprised of players who play more than half their games with peers, one non-competitive comprised of players that do not) rather than forcing people to play games with random people of the same rank. I would like the flexibility to play who I like sometimes, while still being considered a competitive player. It would take a lot of the fun out of it for me to be restricted to only play peers.

As long as each player that wants to be on the competitive ladder plays more than half of their games with "peers" the points will flow and farming becomes a waste of time because if they are not really the best, their points will trickle down to their more highly skilled peers who can then surpass them.

That being said, I think your system could be implemented as a last resort against farming/point hoarding if this simple solution fails. But I think it will not fail because it ensures trickle down of farmers' points, thus making farming an ineffective way to get to the top.

So to sum up, I would vote yes if this were the only option but I'd rather try the simple solution first.

[porkenbeans]

I agree with you in theory but not practicality.

I think that such a major overhaul of the system is not necessary or practical when a simpler solution exists, which requires no change at all except for how the scoreboard is displayed. I also think it would be a lot easier to gain acceptance of the simple solution because it does not interfere with the mechanics of the game at all.

Simple Solution http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=70978

I think the point hoarding/farming phenomenon can be more easily dealt with by simply creating two scoreboards (one competitive comprised of players who play more than half their games with peers, one non-competitive comprised of players that do not) rather than forcing people to play games with random people of the same rank. I would like the flexibility to play who I like sometimes, while still being considered a competitive player. It would take a lot of the fun out of it for me to be restricted to only play peers.

As long as each player that wants to be on the competitive ladder plays more than half of their games with "peers" the points will flow and farming becomes a waste of time because if they are not really the best, their points will trickle down to their more highly skilled peers who can then surpass them.

That being said, I think your system could be implemented as a last resort against farming/point hoarding if this simple solution fails. But I think it will not fail because it ensures trickle down of farmers' points, thus making farming an ineffective way to get to the top.

So to sum up, I would vote yes if this were the only option but I'd rather try the simple solution first.

There IS the flexibality to play whoever you want. These are called non sanctioned games.

Also, there could be sanctioned turnys, that are run by authorized directors. These authorized turnys and clan wars are counted towards your sanctioned games. Also you would still have sanctioned team games. These games are allowed to have different ranks, as the highest rank from the team is matched with same rank.

[porkenbeans]

The general idea makes sense for singles games anyway. I wouldn't want to just be put in games with anyone as my partner, have tried playing with people I don't know and they generally don't go well. But it would definetly put an end to cheating.

Youcan still play with what ever partner you wish. and from any rank, as the highest rank among you will be matched to the same rank. ...You just dont get to pick your opponents in sanctioned games.

[porkenbeans]

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

Just a little injection of humor on my part. Please forgive me if I dont know what, and what not, is allowed, in the way of my speech. as, I am fairly new to your turf.

[porkenbeans]

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...

What you are not understanding is, If I conducted this debate as you suggest, This thread would just go in circles like every one like it has. Instead, I would like to take each point one at a time. They are all good points, and deserve to be addressed one by one. If I have to put forth your argument I will, But I thought that we could have a civil conversation that tries to come to a reasonable conclusion.

[FarangDemon]

There IS the flexibality to play whoever you want. These are called non sanctioned games.

Also, there could be sanctioned turnys, that are run by authorized directors. These authorized turnys and clan wars are counted towards your sanctioned games. Also you would still have sanctioned team games. These games are allowed to have different ranks, as the highest rank from the team is matched with same rank.

Oh I forgot about the non-sanctioned games. Ok you have the blessing of the FarangDemon.

I am a little leery of the amount of freedom I would lose in choosing what maps I want to play and who my opponents are but I guess I could sacrifice that for knowing that the system is fair and the best will rise to the top.

Still, I think we should try a simpler solution first that will be less painful (i.e. zero loss of freedom), easier to implement and probably solve the problem anyway.

[Ditocoaf]

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...

What you are not understanding is, If I conducted this debate as you suggest, This thread would just go in circles like every one like it has. Instead, I would like to take each point one at a time. They are all good points, and deserve to be addressed one by one. If I have to put forth your argument I will, But I thought that we could have a civil conversation that tries to come to a reasonable conclusion.

Take the long post, and divide it up, and answer each point one by one. If you refuse to even start to respond to criticism, then you're not going to go anywhere.

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

Just a little injection of humor on my part. Please forgive me if I dont know what, and what not, is allowed, in the way of my speech. as, I am fairly new to your turf.

The problem is, I'm nowhere near the top, and I want to vote "no." The poll does not provide an option for me!

[General Brewsie]

I agree with Ditocoaf's last comment. The arguments against the proposed system are legitimate and should be addressed. Porkenbeans does not dispute this, but feels that it will be easier for all to follow if they are pesented individually. So Porkenbeans, why not just copy and paste them one by one, interjecting your rebuttal between them? This will be easiest for everyone to follow, will avoid overlooking any and make it easy for all to follow. I think your idea has much merit, but I am not confident enough of my knowledge of all the angles to say yes to the entire concept. I know my one vote carries little weight, but since it has been solicited I want to be sure I do my part and place that vote for what I decide is the best choice.

For all readers and contributors, sarcasm detracts from the benefits of having a good pro-con discussion and I suggest, no - request - that everyone conscientiously avoid making comments that could be perceived as sarcastic. There is a lot of potential in Porkenbean's ideas, whether they have been suggested before in a similar form or not. The fact is, if they have been suggested before we are not all familiar with the previous version and I, for one, find this to be a new and interesting subject. I think it is a concept well worth pursuing.

I do have one concern about the proposed system, and this is not a vote against it, but a concern that can be dismissed if it is properly addressed and put to bed. If the results are tallied weekly or at the end of any other period, and used to increase or decrease the players' ranks, then doesn't that negate the purpose of divorcing the proposed system from the existing one?

I also agree with the comment previously posted that suggests the three possible votes be reworded to not prejudice the voter in favor of a YES vote by couching the other two in terms that deprecate the voter. They should be something like "For," "Undecided" and "Against."

[The Neon Peon]

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.

Wow, if you would please actually answer something and get this f'ing discussion going, I have told you this three times:

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.

Seriously, you have wasted an entire page of this topic saying that you can't answer any point until I choose one, even after I had told you to answer that point. Stop wasting time thinking of arguments that won't make sense and get a better suggestion.

[porkenbeans]

I agree with Ditocoaf's last comment. The arguments against the proposed system are legitimate and should be addressed. Porkenbeans does not dispute this, but feels that it will be easier for all to follow if they are pesented individually. So Porkenbeans, why not just copy and paste them one by one, interjecting your rebuttal between them? This will be easiest for everyone to follow, will avoid overlooking any and make it easy for all to follow. I think your idea has much merit, but I am not confident enough of my knowledge of all the angles to say yes to the entire concept. I know my one vote carries little weight, but since it has been solicited I want to be sure I do my part and place that vote for what I decide is the best choice.

For all readers and contributors, sarcasm detracts from the benefits of having a good pro-con discussion and I suggest, no - request - that everyone conscientiously avoid making comments that could be perceived as sarcastic. There is a lot of potential in Porkenbean's ideas, whether they have been suggested before in a similar form or not. The fact is, if they have been suggested before we are not all familiar with the previous version and I, for one, find this to be a new and interesting subject. I think it is a concept well worth pursuing.

I do have one concern about the proposed system, and this is not a vote against it, but a concern that can be dismissed if it is properly addressed and put to bed. If the results are tallied weekly or at the end of any other period, and used to increase or decrease the players' ranks, then doesn't that negate the purpose of divorcing the proposed system from the existing one?

I also agree with the comment previously posted that suggests the three possible votes be reworded to not prejudice the voter in favor of a YES vote by couching the other two in terms that deprecate the voter. They should be something like "For," "Undecided" and "Against."

My problem is, I dont know how to do the quote within a quote thing. I have only just figured out how to use the form. lol. But to address your one concern, I am not proposing that ranking should be done away with. Rather, I am proposing that a ranking system with integrity, be impliminted. Who wouldnt want that. Besides from the farmers and cheats, that is.

[porkenbeans]

There IS the flexibality to play whoever you want. These are called non sanctioned games.

Also, there could be sanctioned turnys, that are run by authorized directors. These authorized turnys and clan wars are counted towards your sanctioned games. Also you would still have sanctioned team games. These games are allowed to have different ranks, as the highest rank from the team is matched with same rank.

Oh I forgot about the non-sanctioned games. Ok you have the blessing of the FarangDemon.

I am a little leery of the amount of freedom I would lose in choosing what maps I want to play and who my opponents are but I guess I could sacrifice that for knowing that the system is fair and the best will rise to the top.

Still, I think we should try a simpler solution first that will be less painful (i.e. zero loss of freedom), easier to implement and probably solve the problem anyway.

As you learn more and more options over time, your checked boxes will increase. There will be a box for you to choose how many running games you would prefer to have. Yes, this means that the more obscure maps and settings will have less traffic, but, you will certainly get those games if others check those boxes. If not, which is most unlikley, you will just have to play with yourself. Haha, But seriously, Your games will not be set up with any of the options or maps not checked. Every new game will be "potluck", but, you will be playing against players that have also checked those options for that game.

[The Neon Peon]

Could you please stop avoiding the arguments I made and answer them already?

[porkenbeans]

The general idea makes sense for singles games anyway. I wouldn't want to just be put in games with anyone as my partner, have tried playing with people I don't know and they generally don't go well. But it would definetly put an end to cheating.

All partner games will be matched to the highest ranking member from each team, so you can go outside of your rank when choosing your team.

[porkenbeans]

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

Done.

[lancehoch]

Thanks, now I voted.

[The Neon Peon]

Could you please stop avoiding the arguments I made and answer them already?

I have made more arguments against this idea than anyone else here. Now, if you would please address them?

[porkenbeans]

Could you please stop avoiding the arguments I made and answer them already?

OK, I will start with the one about how multi-player games are to be calculated. The current % tally that is being used now, is flawed. If you win an 8 player game, you are credited with 1 win. If you loose, you are credited with 1 loss.This does not result in a players true %. Rather it should be calculated like this. If you win an 8 player game, you are credited with 7 wins, because you beat out 7 players. if you loose an 8 player game, It is credited as 1 loss.

[lancehoch]

OK, I will start with the one about how multi-player games are to be calculated. The current % tally that is being used now, is flawed. If you win an 8 player game, you are credited with 1 win. If you loose, you are credited with 1 loss.This does not result in a players true %. Rather it should be calculated like this. If you win an 8 player game, you are credited with 7 wins, because you beat out 7 players. if you loose an 8 player game, It is credited as 1 loss.

So if my first game is an 8 player game and I win, i have won 7 games and have played 1, so my winning percentage is 700%?

[The Neon Peon]

Could you please stop avoiding the arguments I made and answer them already?

OK, I will start with the one about how multi-player games are to be calculated. The current % tally that is being used now, is flawed. If you win an 8 player game, you are credited with 1 win. If you loose, you are credited with 1 loss.This does not result in a players true %. Rather it should be calculated like this. If you win an 8 player game, you are credited with 7 wins, because you beat out 7 players. if you loose an 8 player game, It is credited as 1 loss.

Alright, so you are credited with how many people you beat? That makes more sense now. I suggest you revise the first post to make it more clear that you are credited for each player you kill rather than how many games you win.

Lance, I think he means that if your win rate is 100%. 7 wins, no losses.

[The Neon Peon]

[resolved] There are no points to collect. Only a running tally of the players positive or negative games won for the week. [resolved] 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.

[resolved] Thirdly, if there is no points to collect, only # of games won. There go 8 man games... I assume you mean # of players beaten? [/resolved] 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

Okay, we got the first part of that problem down, what about the second?

[Geger]

OK, I will start with the one about how multi-player games are to be calculated. The current % tally that is being used now, is flawed. If you win an 8 player game, you are credited with 1 win. If you loose, you are credited with 1 loss.This does not result in a players true %. Rather it should be calculated like this. If you win an 8 player game, you are credited with 7 wins, because you beat out 7 players. if you loose an 8 player game, It is credited as 1 loss.

That is like "Kill Ratio" in Map Rank GL. I like it

[walnutwatson]

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.

I'll respond to each point in order and while my answers may be quite short I am in no way being facetious.

So the first point I agree entirely, there is no point to the points system, you can check peoples win ratio's, if you're bothered about playing people of a certain (perceived) skill, without it so why not get rid of it and just have frendlies?

A) So what? What's so bad about that?
B) Why should you? This is not an argument it is a description of an option of playing and one which could exist alongside friendlies.
C) I don't care about points and I want to play unranked games for that reason and also to avoid the types that take this game seriously. I don't want a rank, I just want to play a game for fun and no other reason. Why then is my opinion and enjoyment apparently worth less than those who want to play for ranks/points?
I don't think that people who care about ranks would play unranked games except to possibly learn a map.

I've only responded to the original points and not the ones in green as they just seem to be describing the original points.

[porkenbeans]

[resolved] There are no points to collect. Only a running tally of the players positive or negative games won for the week. [resolved] 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.

[resolved] Thirdly, if there is no points to collect, only # of games won. There go 8 man games... I assume you mean # of players beaten? [/resolved] 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

Okay, we got the first part of that problem down, what about the second?

You do not have to finish every game in 1 week. Only games that are completed each week are calculated. And to the last point, It is not tilted at all. Just the opposite. It is a true representation of your %. It does not matter how many games you play. If you win 60% of your games, It does not matter if you play 10 or 100 games. the % is the same.