[GO] Unrated, Unranked, or No Points Games

[stahrgazer]

We've all been there. The game is down to 3 players from 8 ... it's the gunfight scene from the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. The guy who shoots first will get killed by the 3rd guy. So everyone sits there waiting ... and waiting ... until one guy cracks.

It's not really a game. I've got one game where I'm training my kids to take over because I think it will outlast my lifetime. What we need is a "REQUEST TIE" button. Any player presses it, and the others can respond on their next turn (anonymously). If everyone agrees, the points are split equally as if they were a team. But everyone has to agree.

It might be that "Tie-able / One Winner" might be an option like "Manual / Automatic", so players who didn't want this could avoid those games.

If no points were split, I'd think this might fly.

But splitting points seems unfair if they're not going to play the game out like the first 5 did.

[Woodruff]

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.

Exactly. This would simply result in friends playing games AS IF POINTS WERE NOT COUNTED, with the agreement to ditch the game as it neared it's end. For instance, the big outcry against "no points games" is that people can then figure out a map without risking anything. Well, implementing this would result in precisely the same thing happening.

[Metricsystemlove]

Concise description:
After purchasing premium, members should be able to play live games on the site with a friend in the room, off of the same computer. I know the quick answer would be to tell a friend to go freemium, and play your friends this way. However, this would involve constant logging in and out of CC with different usernames and passwords, making it look like you would be a multi using the same IP address.


Specifics/Details:
While playing Live Games, your score/rank will not be affected.


How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
This will bring new people to the site, plain and simple. Countless times as a member of CC, a friend has come over to my house, and they see me totally addicted to CC. I tell them all about it, they become interested, but they can't play. They watch me play it. I suggest that they start a fremium account, but they never do. This could also work within the confines of the referral program, there could be a question such as: "Were you referred to CC by an active user?"

[TheSaxlad]

Its a nice Idea but I believe the idea of offline gaming, has been suggested and dumped before?

[Metricsystemlove]

My entire reason for suggesting this is that any offline gaming, will more often than not lead to online gaming. Conquer Club is great, and I believe that this will lead to more business for the site.

Also, I tried searching for a suggestion like this, but I couldn't think of the proper wording for it.

[iamkoolerthanu]

I also think this has been suggested and rejected before.. But I am not sure why

All it would do is add to the member-base! I showed my friend the site yesterday, she thought it was cool, but wouldn't take the time to make an account and try to learn how to play on her own. If live games was implemented, I could have started a game with her and showed her how to play instantly, potentially getting her addicted to join CC

[Metsfanmax]

Moving to REJECTED because of potential to intentionally use this feature for no-points games.

[wildwilliam]

Concise description:

• Have option to play a friendly game where no points are awarded or lost.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• would allow users to play new maps they normally wouldn't for fear of not understanding how to play.

[TheForgivenOne]

Suggested and Rejected before.

[wildwilliam]

what was the reason?

[greenoaks]

all games count

[blakebowling]

Points aren't for wagering or betting, they're designed to be a measure of your skill.

[TheForgivenOne]

Why gives players the ability to master a map without risking points? If you want to learn a map, risk the points.

[crazymilkshake5]

ok, so what i mean by recreational game is this:
your points stay the same
edit the map and any other game options

now wait before you say "but then the person on top of the leaderboards will come down" thats why you put a limit of how many you can play a day (i was thinking 5?)

so ya, thats it, love to get feedback...

[Pirlo]

the webmaster had made it clear that no game with no points risk will be allowed.

[MoB Deadly]

Concise description:

• Allow players to offer a draw, once 100 rounds have been reached.

Specifics/Details:

• This has been rejected many times, because of the potential abuse from it. I think limiting it so that draws can occur on games that exceed a round limit will prevent abuse.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• It will make the site more pleasurable if the players that are involved in a really long game and lose interest in it, they can end the game peacefully without having to deadbeat.
• There are Round Limits available to us, but some players will forget to choose 100.
• This will end tournament games that last forever.
• This will end having to settle the original game, by creating a new game, making players lose twice the points.

Thanks for the feedback. I have added the 30 rounds to the existings options since that is what almost everyone wants

Limit it so draws can only be offered after games that exceed round 100? Im pretty sure that wouldn't encourage abuse

Very good point - perhaps we should reconsider vote for draw!

[greenoaks]

voting for a draw will allow clans to train on maps with no points exchanged.

[eddie2]

they have said 100 times they will not allow any form of game that does not issue points. i have seen about 30 threads around this kind of thing in last 18 months. also for the reason of allowing a draw for games that go on for to long they have added a option of round limits, so there is no point in continueing with this sug.

[Kaskavel]

Concise description:

• Allow an option to create and play games that are not going to be rated

Specifics/Details:

• Simple and trivial. There will be rated and unrated games

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• This will hugely increase games played in CC and allow much more interaction between different ranks. Currently strong players are not playing games they are expected to lose points. It is suicide for me for example to play classic 1 vs 1, I am soon going to lose 2500 points. Playing multiplayer is also forbidden, people suicide, get bored and deadbeat etc. But the truth is, that I do want to play classic 1 vs 1. I want to try more maps. I want to play a world 2.1 with 7 cooks and have some fun without getting angry when the cook eliminates the wrong player in an assasin game. I am tempted to create a second account to do so. An obvious answer, some would say, is that we should not care about points and our standing and just have fun. Ok, this is cute, but reality is that ambition encourages most players and that is the reason that scoreboard exists after all. If we remove it,number of games would seriously decline. Most people would reduce playing in that case and that is the reality, not some assumption. All gaming sites boost their numbers by adding a scoreboard. So...we should add an option to create games that do not count in score. this will have many benefits.
  1. Increase number of games
  2. Allow strong players to learn new settings or have fun in settings they used to play when they were low ranked.
  3. Allow weak players to face strong ones, thus improving their play.
  4. Reduce second accounts, since some of them are created to safely play unfavourable settings.
  5. Reduce tension and arguments created.
  6. Allow challenges between players of different scores.
  I am number 4 or 5 in the world and I do not know what a doodleass game is. I have never played an assasin game. There are majors that would easily crush me in a freestyle 1 vs 1 game. This has to change. Creating the option is hardly difficult, but outcome is hugely favourable.

[Seulessliathan]

1. Increase number of games
2. Allow strong players to learn new settings or have fun in settings they used to play when they were low ranked.
3. Allow weak players to face strong ones, thus improving their play.
4. Reduce second accounts, since some of them are created to safely play unfavourable settings.
5. Reduce tension and arguments created.
6. Allow challenges between players of different scores.
I am number 4 or 5 in the world and I do not know what a doodleass game is. I have never played an assasin game. There are majors that would easily crush me in a freestyle 1 vs 1 game. This has to change. Creating the option is hardly difficult, but outcome is hugely favourable.[/list]

1. why?
2. They are already allowed to do that.
3. same as 2.
4. interesting accusation, if you are sure about this, maybe start C&A reports
5. sure?
6. same as 2.

May i make a different suggestion? Don´t fall in love with your points. Enjoy the game and play all the games you want to play. You are allowed to do it. Really.

Btw, this has been suggested and declined more than once already.

[Kaskavel]

1. Increase number of games
2. Allow strong players to learn new settings or have fun in settings they used to play when they were low ranked.
3. Allow weak players to face strong ones, thus improving their play.
4. Reduce second accounts, since some of them are created to safely play unfavourable settings.
5. Reduce tension and arguments created.
6. Allow challenges between players of different scores.
I am number 4 or 5 in the world and I do not know what a doodleass game is. I have never played an assasin game. There are majors that would easily crush me in a freestyle 1 vs 1 game. This has to change. Creating the option is hardly difficult, but outcome is hugely favourable.[/list]

1. why?
2. They are already allowed to do that.
3. same as 2.
4. interesting accusation, if you are sure about this, maybe start C&A reports
5. sure?
6. same as 2.

May i make a different suggestion? Don´t fall in love with your points. Enjoy the game and play all the games you want to play. You are allowed to do it. Really.

Btw, this has been suggested and declined more than once already.

I do not understand why you challenge the 6 points, they are pretty much obvious, especialy the first four ones. Many top players do not dare play unknown settings, many top players do not dare play with cooks and low rated players are not allowed to join many private games with strong ones. Those are facts.
I understand that one can ignore his score and just have fun and I already mentioned that in initial post. But reality is that some do so and some do not do so. They have to choose and some choose one way and some choose other way. Some climb up and then drop down to have fun. They need not have to make this choice.
After all, why do we have the scoreboard? With your logic, we might be better without it.
I didnt find the suggestion having been made in the past in my search, could you please have the kind to offer me the link so that I can see comments and opinions there?

[Seulessliathan]

Your arguments make no sense unless you see it from the point of view of a point hoarder. And CC doesn´t like to make rules for point hoarders.
I suggest you read the other threads about this suggestion and check the arguments why this has been declined.

About links: Someone else will come up with them hopefully, i won´t search them now, but i am sure this suggestion has been made at least twice.

About Scoreboard: I guess we have it because it´s common to have scoreboards. I don´t need it, and if they want to delete it, that´s fine with me. Usually about 50% of the top 50 are point hoarders and farmers, only about 10-15 are really good players. In case you disagree about this, have a look at threads where people name their personal top 5 players, and then check how many of them hit the top 50.

Btw, i am not against this, i don´t see why this should be needed, but on the other hand i don´t see any disadvantage in it so far, so i am just a neutral spectator here. Not trying to argue with you against it.

[chapcrap]

I'd have to agree with the cookie monster here. And this has been rejected multiple times already.

[agentcom]

I am also a dissenter here. Same reasons as have been pointed out. Yes it may reduce multi accounts, but at the expense of allowing players to basically use their own accounts as multis: one set of games for points another set of games for fun.

Everyone recognizes that you have to give up certain types of games to get points. That's part of the price of trying to head to the top of the scoreboard.

Also have you ever played a Freeroll poker game online? People do the most asinine stuff because it doesn't cost them anything. It's not fun to play, it's barely even the same game.

[darth emperor]

plus, if you have reach to get that quantity of points, you can play the uknown settings, have your fun, loose 2500 points and then go back to your speciality and get your points back. If you have reach once here you can reach again am I wrong?? Or are you telling me you reached there just by pure luck?