[GO] Unrated, Unranked, or No Points Games

[Army of GOD]

I like the idea just a few suggestions

offten times when i feel like ending the game or making it a draw, It is a statement with some people eliminated. How about we spread those points out to the people who can still win. For example me tdans and jsnyder are in the game, but ljex blitz and lindax are eliminated, we split up those points.

Again, this won't be happening. I've had to repeat this over and over and over again over the last few days. This is too easily open up for abuse.

wut



I remember this has been suggested before and the only way I was going to be for it was if it was a unanimous vote and no points were awarded, which Mets picked up. There is absolutely no way this could be abused (well, ok, maybe there is, like if two people who account sit for each other are in a 1v1 and one guy, who's losing, decides to log in to the other one and cancel the game, but that's pretty unlikely).

I fully support this suggestion.

[Victor Sullivan]

There's also terminator games. Points would have already been awarded in those games by the time the draw occurs.

-Sully

[Army of GOD]

There's also terminator games. Points would have already been awarded in those games by the time the draw occurs.

-Sully

I think a draw should give the points back.

[TheForgivenOne]

I like the idea just a few suggestions

offten times when i feel like ending the game or making it a draw, It is a statement with some people eliminated. How about we spread those points out to the people who can still win. For example me tdans and jsnyder are in the game, but ljex blitz and lindax are eliminated, we split up those points.

Again, this won't be happening. I've had to repeat this over and over and over again over the last few days. This is too easily open up for abuse.

wut



I remember this has been suggested before and the only way I was going to be for it was if it was a unanimous vote and no points were awarded, which Mets picked up. There is absolutely no way this could be abused (well, ok, maybe there is, like if two people who account sit for each other are in a 1v1 and one guy, who's losing, decides to log in to the other one and cancel the game, but that's pretty unlikely).

I fully support this suggestion.

I was referring to what 40kguy wrote, that in the result of a tie, the points from the eliminated players would be distributed to the remaining players.

[Army of GOD]

Oh, my beezy

[Metsfanmax]

There's also terminator games. Points would have already been awarded in those games by the time the draw occurs.

-Sully

I think a draw should give the points back.

Perhaps. In that game type there's no efficient way to collude, because only one of the conspirators can get points -- no sharing of the kill points are allowed, obviously. Another way would be to just change the terminator game type so that points are only awarded at the end of the game.

[vonraider]

I like the idea, I have to admit to cracking and mindlessly attacking out of sheer boredom, but I think this option would be abused OFTEN!

[patrickaa317]

I like the idea, I have to admit to cracking and mindlessly attacking out of sheer boredom, but I think this option would be abused OFTEN!

That's why my idea of -5 points is the best option out there. It'll avoid abuse and the only people who'd agree to are those truly in a deadlock. And it's better than just deadbeating out of it to get it over.

[Boler]

I like the idea, I have to admit to cracking and mindlessly attacking out of sheer boredom, but I think this option would be abused OFTEN!

That's why my idea of -5 points is the best option out there. It'll avoid abuse and the only people who'd agree to are those truly in a deadlock. And it's better than just deadbeating out of it to get it over.

Why would people need to lose points? Everyone would be happier AND it still could not be abused if everyone got 0. Or people got points, but only if the game has been going on for 100+ turns in Casual, or 300+ in speed.

Can someone put up a Poll? A group vote is the best solution to everything.

[patrickaa317]

I like the idea, I have to admit to cracking and mindlessly attacking out of sheer boredom, but I think this option would be abused OFTEN!

That's why my idea of -5 points is the best option out there. It'll avoid abuse and the only people who'd agree to are those truly in a deadlock. And it's better than just deadbeating out of it to get it over.

Why would people need to lose points? Everyone would be happier AND it still could not be abused if everyone got 0. Or people got points, but only if the game has been going on for 100+ turns in Casual, or 300+ in speed.

Can someone put up a Poll? A group vote is the best solution to everything.

0 points would be an easy way out for all parties. If all parties lost minimal points, it would discourage the amount of ties that would be selected but for those honest to god stalemates, it would be an option out.

[Boler]

You're worried that there would be too many ties? Remember, everyone has to agree if a stalemate should be called, and I think that as long as one player thinks s/he has any chance of winning s/he will not agree to the stalemate.

So as long as it is not a true stalemate the game won't be stopped.

[patrickaa317]

You're worried that there would be too many ties? Remember, everyone has to agree if a stalemate should be called, and I think that as long as one player thinks s/he has any chance of winning s/he will not agree to the stalemate.

So as long as it is not a true stalemate the game won't be stopped.

I think the tie option would be abused if there wasn't a small penalty behind it. I want ties to only happen in true to god stalemates. Not because players set up games to learn maps with friends, then after a few rounds, utilize the tie feature just to nullify the game so that noone loses points.

[Metsfanmax]

So where are we on this? Is there anyone out there that is actually opposed to having this option? I'd like to hear your thoughts if so.

[Boler]

No points, no problem.

It will work, and it will bring relief to people in stalemate games, especially for Freemiums.

My vote is Yes.

[greenoaks]

So where are we on this? Is there anyone out there that is actually opposed to having this option? I'd like to hear your thoughts if so.

i am opposed to it.

this would allow people to play and learn a map without losing/risking points, making the current scoring system pointless as it ceases to be a reflection of their skill/luck on ALL of the maps they have played and ALL of the games they have played.

[Metsfanmax]

So where are we on this? Is there anyone out there that is actually opposed to having this option? I'd like to hear your thoughts if so.

i am opposed to it.

this would allow people to play and learn a map without losing/risking points, making the current scoring system pointless as it ceases to be a reflection of their skill/luck on ALL of the maps they have played and ALL of the games they have played.

If I were proposing a resign option in a similar manner, I'd agree with you. But the fact is that in most cases you don't expect to be in a stalemate position in the first place. You cannot reliably go into a game and just try to play for a draw even in the new system; there's too many variables that just make it too unlikely. Remember, if even one player does not want the draw, it doesn't happen.

[greenoaks]

this is still a no points option which has been rejected many times before.

all games are for points.

[Bruceswar]

So where are we on this? Is there anyone out there that is actually opposed to having this option? I'd like to hear your thoughts if so.

i am opposed to it.

this would allow people to play and learn a map without losing/risking points, making the current scoring system pointless as it ceases to be a reflection of their skill/luck on ALL of the maps they have played and ALL of the games they have played.

If I were proposing a resign option in a similar manner, I'd agree with you. But the fact is that in most cases you don't expect to be in a stalemate position in the first place. You cannot reliably go into a game and just try to play for a draw even in the new system; there's too many variables that just make it too unlikely. Remember, if even one player does not want the draw, it doesn't happen.

I can take a friend of mine and do exactly as stated by greenoaks. Make it private and as soon as someone is going to win draw the game and play another to learn it.


This has soo many flaws but I am stopping there.

[padsta]

So where are we on this? Is there anyone out there that is actually opposed to having this option? I'd like to hear your thoughts if so.

i am opposed to it.

this would allow people to play and learn a map without losing/risking points, making the current scoring system pointless as it ceases to be a reflection of their skill/luck on ALL of the maps they have played and ALL of the games they have played.

If I were proposing a resign option in a similar manner, I'd agree with you. But the fact is that in most cases you don't expect to be in a stalemate position in the first place. You cannot reliably go into a game and just try to play for a draw even in the new system; there's too many variables that just make it too unlikely. Remember, if even one player does not want the draw, it doesn't happen.

greenoaks is right, you would get groups of friends or clanmates playing a whole bunch of new maps with a preset agreement to end the match as a draw once it is near completion with the sole purpose of learning the maps and not risking points. then taking this newfound knowledge of the map and playing random people to gain points.

[SirSebstar]

try to do this in your head. points are always the finish of cc.

[Boler]

I suggested this the the last time a similar thread was up, but...

How about a time limit?

Only games that have lasted (Insert huge amount here) of hours can use the option.
I doubt anyone will try to freely learn any games with that in effect.

[Metsfanmax]

I suggested this the the last time a similar thread was up, but...

How about a time limit?

Only games that have lasted (Insert huge amount here) of hours can use the option.
I doubt anyone will try to freely learn any games with that in effect.

For a premium clan player who has the capability of abusing this system as stated, this would not be a major issue, since it only takes a few seconds to take your turn each day once they got bored with the map and they can have dozens of other games going in the mean time.

You could also prevent a draw option in private games, although of course a clan could still create a public team game and do the same thing if they're quick about it.

[blakebowling]

As has been said many, many, many times before.

Rejected due to previous abuse.

[Qwert]

like i sugested many times, tie abuse will be eliminated,if you add that after 100 rounds , tie button will be activated, and then ,only if all players agree ,game could be announce to be tie. Ofcourse,these only work,when you have minimum of 3 players still alive,if these drop to 2 player, tie button are blocked.

[patrickaa317]

As has been said many, many, many times before.

Rejected due to previous abuse.

Did previous abuse include players accepting the tie still losing points? Noone would give into a tie and lose points if they had a chance to win and gain points.