[GO] Unrated, Unranked, or No Points Games

[porkenbeans]

I am now convinced that this forum is a huge waist of everyone's time and effort.

Welcome to the real world. This forum is fun, though.

Well, I dont really know if that is true for me anymore. I have been under the false assumption that Suggs & Bugs was on a mission to improve and upgrade this site. It seemed to me that CC was going through an extended "beta" phase if you will. And was looking for the best solutions, to work the bugs out, like the problem with all the farming and cheating going on, for instance. Throughout my search for the answers I have learned many things that well, just are'nt pretty. Things like how when it said when I signed up, that multi accounts or any kind of cheating would result in cancellation of membership. Sounded pretty straight up to me. But ive found this to be not true. I am sure that I am not the first one to come to the same conclusion. That integrity is no where to be found here. The best risk players are not represented on the top of the leaderboard, players caught cheating are not booted, just made to pay again for a new upgrade to premium. and then turned loose on the honest players to once agan farm and cheat there way back up the joke of a leaderboard. Im sorry, its been something, ...but I dont think I could call it fun. You have to admit that if the site that I described was launched on the web, You would check it out.

[porkenbeans]

Random Points Directed at Different People
1. The To-Do list is not necessarily done in chronological order but the order of whatever lack feels like doing at the time.
2. This suggestion has the problem of when if I only want to play 3 standard player fog escalating chained civil war and 7 player assassin sunny no cards unlimited age of merchants and want those games to be ranked.
3. The way ranked team games would be handled is not well described and appears flawed.
4. This suggestion will never happen...

To your #2, It is NOT all about what YOU want. Do the Dallas Cowboys get to say that "we" only want to play in our stadium, and, we only want to play against high school teams, oh and, only when it is sunny. Hell no.They dont get to stack the deck, and cheat their way to the "Ring". Of coarse their game structure is set up to be fair. Its just to bad that CC cant grasp the reasoning of this kind of logic. With all that said, You would still be able to play those kind of games that you have described. They would be found in the sanctioned turnys, and clan wars. They already have the pick your map and settings turnys. You just dont get to pick your opponents. And you have an authorized director there, to be responsible for the integrity of the game.
As for your #3, perhaps you can be a bit more specific. So that I can explain what you do not understand.

[BaldAdonis]

I would gladly do anything that Lack could delegate to me, at no charge. I can think of a few things that I may be capable of doing. You can tweek the dead cows ass all you want. Sooner or later lack will do the only thing left for him. Bury the dead cow and get a new one. It will be a much better cow, as it will be bred with lessons learned. It would as a result, have a much longer life span than the starter cow.

I think your cow analogy is pretty poor. If CC is a farm, then the cow is doing alright, it just gets harassed by wolves at night. Put up a couple fences and we'd be fine. If someone would enumerate the "unwritten rules" and included something that outlawed (point) farming, your problem would be solved. And it's a lot easier than buying a new plot and building a new farm.

If you want to start anew and feel you could do the coding yourself, then start your own website. Considering lack won't delegate much simpler tasks to anyone, I don't think he'll put you in charge of destroying everything he's made on this site. Try to be realistic here. You're trying to build a spaceship to get to the corner shop. Just walk. It's a lot easier on everyone.

[porkenbeans]

I would gladly do anything that Lack could delegate to me, at no charge. I can think of a few things that I may be capable of doing. You can tweek the dead cows ass all you want. Sooner or later lack will do the only thing left for him. Bury the dead cow and get a new one. It will be a much better cow, as it will be bred with lessons learned. It would as a result, have a much longer life span than the starter cow.

I think your cow analogy is pretty poor. If CC is a farm, then the cow is doing alright, it just gets harassed by wolves at night. Put up a couple fences and we'd be fine. If someone would enumerate the "unwritten rules" and included something that outlawed (point) farming, your problem would be solved. And it's a lot easier than buying a new plot and building a new farm.

If you want to start anew and feel you could do the coding yourself, then start your own website. Considering lack won't delegate much simpler tasks to anyone, I don't think he'll put you in charge of destroying everything he's made on this site. Try to be realistic here. You're trying to build a spaceship to get to the corner shop. Just walk. It's a lot easier on everyone.

People like me just want to play risk and have some fun. They dont want to be cheated or lied to. It is because of the structure of lacks ranking system that allows for farmers and cheaters. So it must be changed to correct this. It is that simple. enlisting more multi-hunters is not going to do it. and putting up a little fence is not going to keep the wolves out. You must build a mote, or something, to make it impossible for them to get in. They are a very clever and determined creature. It is a simple fix, I dont know how fast or easy it would be. I am just a carpenter. And do not know the first thing about how to write code. LOL. I can however build a farm. Its a piece of cake. It is what I do.

[spiesr]

Part of this idea could be salvaged. The part about not being able to choose your opponents in ranked games. That could reduce some point farming and multi abuse. This part alone is a far simpler solution with fewer drawbacks than the whole idea. The rest of the idea is just more unnecessary changes. However, since unranked games have been rejected (and I think not being able to choose opponents has been rejected too) this will be extremely unlikely to happen.

[porkenbeans]

Part of this idea could be salvaged. The part about not being able to choose your opponents in ranked games. That could reduce some point farming and multi abuse. This part alone is a far simpler solution with fewer drawbacks than the whole idea. The rest of the idea is just more unnecessary changes. However, since unranked games have been rejected (and I think not being able to choose opponents has been rejected too) this will be extremely unlikely to happen.

I do not care if this idea is implemented or not. Just that something be done to fix the problem. This suggestion would. And others that I have seen, would. I really dont care how they do it. ...JUST DO IT. Bite the bullet and be prepared to disappoint a lot of players. Their numbers are very small compared to the thousands of players that would be rejoicing.

[The Neon Peon]

Part of this idea could be salvaged. The part about not being able to choose your opponents in ranked games. That could reduce some point farming and multi abuse. This part alone is a far simpler solution with fewer drawbacks than the whole idea. The rest of the idea is just more unnecessary changes. However, since unranked games have been rejected (and I think not being able to choose opponents has been rejected too) this will be extremely unlikely to happen.

I do not care if this idea is implemented or not. Just that something be done to fix the problem. This suggestion would. And others that I have seen, would. I really dont care how they do it. ...JUST DO IT. Bite the bullet and be prepared to disappoint a lot of players. Their numbers are very small compared to the thousands of players that would be rejoicing.

Why don't you come up with an answer to the rest of the myriad of answers against it? Pick one, answer it.

[porkenbeans]

Part of this idea could be salvaged. The part about not being able to choose your opponents in ranked games. That could reduce some point farming and multi abuse. This part alone is a far simpler solution with fewer drawbacks than the whole idea. The rest of the idea is just more unnecessary changes. However, since unranked games have been rejected (and I think not being able to choose opponents has been rejected too) this will be extremely unlikely to happen.

I do not care if this idea is implemented or not. Just that something be done to fix the problem. This suggestion would. And others that I have seen, would. I really dont care how they do it. ...JUST DO IT. Bite the bullet and be prepared to disappoint a lot of players. Their numbers are very small compared to the thousands of players that would be rejoicing.

Why don't you come up with an answer to the rest of the myriad of answers against it? Pick one, answer it.

Did we not do this already. I thought that I answered all. But I now know that it is all too much work, To implement a whole new system such as this. So, I have decided to stop trying to help in this matter. They are going to do, what they are going to do. Who knows, maybe some genius will discover some small tweek, that would fix the whole problem. You can guess to weather Im holding my breath or NOT.

[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"?

[porkenbeans]

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"?

Am I supposed to answer the orange ? I dont see any orange text.

[The Neon Peon]

I had some a bit back... (I have been keeping track of this post on the first page)

That is text that we have determined there is a problem with, but no solution has been found yet. The plain text signifies that there might be a problem, or it can turn green.

[porkenbeans]

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"?

Am I supposed to answer the orange ? I dont see any orange text.

The point to auto-matching is obvious, It kills the multi. problem.
As for the specialist, You have that now, But this does NOT support specializing. Just the opposite. As a player learns more and more maps and options, He will have more and more boxes checked. And as he advances up the ranks he will be facing others with similar knowledge. You can even play that stupid "freestlye" game if you check the box. But you will not be playing noobs that dont know the game. You will have to play experienced FS players. There could be a box to check that states how many running games you wish to have. Your games will be a complete surprise as they hit your page. But all games will be only from your boxes checked. You will not be playing with your multi, You will not get to pick and choose, other than what boxes you check. You will be able to challenge yourself against other players of the same skill level. And your true skill level will be determined. Ranks and the leaderboard will mean something.

[The Neon Peon]

What if I only check one box and farm on that one box (high ranks can farm other high ranks, it is called specializing)?

Also, what if I make a multi, find an obscure map and setting, then have the multi check the box for that obscure map and setting?

[porkenbeans]

What if I only check one box and farm on that one box (high ranks can farm other high ranks, it is called specializing)?

Also, what if I make a multi, find an obscure map and setting, then have the multi check the box for that obscure map and setting?

If you want to only play a certain map and settings, you can do that, but you will be getting matched to payers that have those boxes checked as well. So you will have to play against other players that know the board and settings also. And as for trying to set up a multi in the same with the same obscure map and setting, it will not be successful. for a number of reasons.
1.) Your multi will go down in rank as you go up in rank. Bam your now 2 ranks apart. and your multi is made useless.
2.) Team games are auto -matched with other teams, but you must pick your own team members in advance. And they can be of different ranks.

[The Neon Peon]

As for the automatching... If I want to learn a new map or setting... that would be virtually impossible for me to do, unless I am playing against all the people who want to play the same thing in my rank (very unlikely, in other words). But I can't test my skill on it, because the people will... well, imagine it is someone's first time on waterloo, and the game is not for any purpose... I don't think they will try too hard to get around the map (although it is not that complex, took two games to learn the map, excluding the strategies)

So, I just don't think this will pull through... People like choice. I do not think people will want to just be put into random games with random people. I might enjoy playing with some people more than other people, but it is not like we are best buddies and spend our time sending PMs to each other... it is not like I am going to go PM someone just because I had played one pleasant game with them a week ago. Do I join their games now? Sure. Will people go to the effort of making unranked games? Dear god, no.

I don't want to be automatched randomly to some person out there. I want to at least have a choice. Even if I don't know any of the people, I would still like to be able to at least see what I am getting into. I prefer playing with player A over player B because player A takes his turns more quickly... I don't have a choice anymore, do I? (unless I go to the great trouble to convince him to make an unrated game when he probably has no clue who I am)

Options are good.

[porkenbeans]

As for the automatching... If I want to learn a new map or setting... that would be virtually impossible for me to do, unless I am playing against all the people who want to play the same thing in my rank (very unlikely, in other words). But I can't test my skill on it, because the people will... well, imagine it is someone's first time on waterloo, and the game is not for any purpose... I don't think they will try too hard to get around the map (although it is not that complex, took two games to learn the map, excluding the strategies)

So, I just don't think this will pull through... People like choice. I do not think people will want to just be put into random games with random people. I might enjoy playing with some people more than other people, but it is not like we are best buddies and spend our time sending PMs to each other... it is not like I am going to go PM someone just because I had played one pleasant game with them a week ago. Do I join their games now? Sure. Will people go to the effort of making unranked games? Dear god, no.

I don't want to be automatched randomly to some person out there. I want to at least have a choice. Even if I don't know any of the people, I would still like to be able to at least see what I am getting into. I prefer playing with player A over player B because player A takes his turns more quickly... I don't have a choice anymore, do I? (unless I go to the great trouble to convince him to make an unrated game when he probably has no clue who I am)

Options are good.

That is the whole point. WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND. It does not matter what YOU want. What matters is the integrity of the game. The multi and farming problem is a direct result of getting to do whatever you want. This way you can still play with your friends in a game where you get to pick your opponents. but it will be off the books, as it were. You can also play team games with your buddies, no matter their rank. You just dont get to pick your opponents. You will find that most unsanctioned games where you can do whatever you want, will be a place for friends and family to play a nice friendly game. The sanctioned games are for you to try to improve your rank. Your skill at this game WILL determine where you stand on the leaderboard. Not this asinine kids shortcut to the top that we have now. It is very simple if you just stop and think about it for a bit. You are not really giving up that much. you will still see your friends in games. but now, it will be a pleasant surprise. And as you settle in to your true skill level, you will make new friends that you play a lot. And remember you still get to play in sanctioned team games with the team of your choosing. Also clan wars and turnys that have a director, can be used for all kinds of druthers that you might have. You must realize that if you make it so that you can do whatever you want, you will continue to have cheaters and farmers at the top of our leaderboard. These sacrifices are in my opinion, ... well worth it.

[The Neon Peon]

Well, that is my whole point. You are making people give up something for the integrity of the scoring system, however, many of those people do not want to give that up. Which is why it will not ever get put on the *to do* list.

P.S. I find it ironic that you are making all this talk about giving integrity to the score system when you yourself farm by specializing.

[porkenbeans]

Well, that is my whole point. You are making people give up something for the integrity of the scoring system, however, many of those people do not want to give that up. Which is why it will not ever get put on the *to do* list.

P.S. I find it ironic that you are making all this talk about giving integrity to the score system when you yourself farm by specializing.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=71514#p1732702

[Woodruff]

watson,
If you really do not care about points, does it matter if the games are ranked or not?
If you do care about points, would you rather your opponent's score represent his/her skill or not?
If it does not matter, then we do not need a new system; just play the games and don't look at the scoreboard. If you would rather that someone's score be representative, then the system cannot change.
If I am missing something, please let me know, but it seems that the argument is just that you want to be able to get better without losing points.

Yes Lance, you do seem to be missing something. For Watson (and me), it's got nothing to do with the points, it's got to do with the assholes. The assholes are (largely) assholes because of the points. This is borne out in other sites where non-point options are available...the games are far more enjoyable for those of us who don't enjoy rampant flaming and assholery.

[eclecto]

WTFD does it make if your opponents rank does not reflect his ability???

I have played Chess since I was 8 years old. At 23 I decided to play in $$$ tournament games. Did my opponents play me differently because I was a new guy? Of course not ! They made the best moves REGARDLESS of what my rating was. I think the idea of having a safe haven for new guys to get the hang of playing CC is a GREAT idea. It would cut down on the need for some players to multi while they are learning their way around CC.

Similarly, if you are learning skiing, tennis, ping pong, weight lifting, 100 meter dash, or any other competitive activity, why should your every effort be counted against you BEFORE you enter a competition? It makes no sense other than for some people who want to smash new guys before they even get a chance. Some of these boards take some time to understand. As for me I would love to see some "unknown" take out a commander or other super-board-genius because I love to see smug arrogance get it's come-up-ins when faced with a new reality.

[sailorseal]

Well I searched and it seems this has not been suggested. A game where there are no points exchanged. The game is just for fun. I know people who won't play me because I will take too many points from them and vice versa. This way people could play their friends and not have it affect their rank. You would have to play 10 regular games for every one of these. This would be a option next to Casual and Speed.

These games will not count towards number of games, wins or keep you active.

[Jeff Hardy]

a player should have to play 10 normal games for every one of these, or some would get a high rank and then just play the 'Just for Fun Game' all the time

[sailorseal]

a player should have to play 10 normal games for every one of these, or some would get a high rank and then just play the 'Just for Fun Game' all the time

True, do you think I should add that?

[Kotaro]

No points in games? Funny, sounds extremely familiar. Maybe you should modify your search, as this has been suggested... maybe 100 other times?

[sailorseal]

No points in games? Funny, sounds extremely familiar. Maybe you should modify your search, as this has been suggested... maybe 100 other times?

Well I searched no points and just for fun and got nothing...