[GO] Unrated, Unranked, or No Points Games

[Shannon Apple]

That's your opinion greenoaks. You think people at the top of the scoreboard will use that opportunity to play weak players for 0 points? Really? They would really want to waste their time playing those games without any benefits? Those guys will continue to do what they always do. Fight it out in private matches between themselves. If you are of a certain skill, you have no desire to play against people of lower skill except to farm them for points, and I don't see anyone who is currently on top of the scoreboard doing that right now. I therefore don't see them reap any rewards otherwise. Are you saying that someone of josko.ri's skill would waste his time playing low rankers for 0 points? He's not there because he farmed points. That guy is the most skilled player I know right now and possibly the best player on CC.

I dunno why you're being accusing over the people that made the suggestion. Really? lol. The people at the top of the scoreboard would consider a major a low rank. haha!

The ones most put out by this suggestion would be the mid ranking players who like to farm weak ones. There are lots of those around, and I'm sure they'll all vote no as well. LOL.

With a reasonable cap on it per month, it's not like people can create 100s of them, so again, I fail to see the abuse.

[Metsfanmax]

the people who want to play no point games are those at the top.

they will play no point games unless they have almost no chance of losing (ie. for points games on their specialty) or they are up against similar ranked players.

the rest of the site will get screwed over by this.

If you look at other games with similar ranking systems (e.g. chess), you'll see that although point protection is a valid concern, it's not typically engaged upon by the majority of the high-ranking players. Magnus Carlsen is the top-rated chess player in the history of the game, and likely if he stopped playing now people would have a tough time reaching his score -- but he still continues to play rated games. Now, obviously he doesn't play low-ranked players -- he's taking too much of a risk for no good reason to do that in a rated game setting. But that concern is true in either system -- people will generally shy away from games with the low-ranked players in a rated game situation. At least in the alternative system, they'll play with low-ranked players some of the time. It doesn't matter whether they're doing it out of the goodness of their heart or not, because the low-ranked players who participate will still get something out of it.

[betiko]

That's your opinion greenoaks. You think people at the top of the scoreboard will use that opportunity to play weak players for 0 points? Really? They would really want to waste their time playing those games without any benefits? Those guys will continue to do what they always do. Fight it out in private matches between themselves. If you are of a certain skill, you have no desire to play against people of lower skill except to farm them for points, and I don't see anyone who is currently on top of the scoreboard doing that right now. I therefore don't see them reap any rewards otherwise. Are you saying that someone of josko.ri's skill would waste his time playing low rankers for 0 points? He's not there because he farmed points. That guy is the most skilled player I know right now and possibly the best player on CC.

I dunno why you're being accusing over the people that made the suggestion. Really? lol. The people at the top of the scoreboard would consider a major a low rank. haha!

The ones most put out by this suggestion would be the mid ranking players who like to farm weak ones. There are lots of those around, and I'm sure they'll all vote no as well. LOL.

With a reasonable cap on it per month, it's not like people can create 100s of them, so again, I fail to see the abuse.

well here's the thing shannon; being a higher ranked player doesn't give you a lot of advantages in most cases, unless you are on very specific settings.
Playing 1v1 vs a caporal on normal settings hardly gives you an advantage. There's a few tweeks that can make your gameplay supperior, but at the end of the day it's a dice game, and you can 0-4 trying to get a bonus while your opponent tries out 3v3 all over the board and succeeds; he gets rainbow trades starting first while you double pair red/green; he starts first and it was manual trench...
If someone like josko starts playing anyone in 1v1, he'd probably need a 95% win rate or something, which is completely impossible in a dice game. The luck part is a huge element of the game.
This is a bit like if in a poker game, any hand won by a pro player had its pot divided by 3 and a hand lost by a pro player would mean he'd have tomultiply by 3 what's he's been putting in the pot vs an amateur player. No pro would ever accept to play an amateur!And that's what's going on on this site with the points system. As for risk, poker is a mix of skills and luck. Someone noobing you can totally beat you. This is not like a tennis game for example! If you face Nadal, you'd have no chance of winning.

As a conclusion this is not about noob farming; this is about higher ranked players farmed by lower ranked if they join too many types of games.

[greenoaks]

the people who want to play no point games are those at the top.

they will play no point games unless they have almost no chance of losing (ie. for points games on their specialty) or they are up against similar ranked players.

the rest of the site will get screwed over by this.

If you look at other games with similar ranking systems (e.g. chess), you'll see that although point protection is a valid concern, it's not typically engaged upon by the majority of the high-ranking players. Magnus Carlsen is the top-rated chess player in the history of the game, and likely if he stopped playing now people would have a tough time reaching his score -- but he still continues to play rated games. Now, obviously he doesn't play low-ranked players -- he's taking too much of a risk for no good reason to do that in a rated game setting. But that concern is true in either system -- people will generally shy away from games with the low-ranked players in a rated game situation. At least in the alternative system, they'll play with low-ranked players some of the time. It doesn't matter whether they're doing it out of the goodness of their heart or not, because the low-ranked players who participate will still get something out of it.

how many points will the low ranked player get out of it?

[catnipdreams]

I like any idea that allows players more freedom (or more perceived freedom) to play any map and any settings that they want to.

As I am writing this post, I am at number 50 on the scoreboard, a Brigadier with 3428 points.

I had to go look this up, because I pay very little attention to where I am on the scoreboard, and how many points I have. I always see my Brigadier symbol by my name in games, though, so I am much more aware of it when this changes. How much do I care about this? I care to some extent, because this is the CC rating system, and like any human being, I have a certain degree of ego involved in any sort of system that ranks me against others. I am at the lower end of the spectrum here (I really don't try to "keep up with the neighbors" irl), but I am not completely ego-free.

Do I select games based on the rank of other players, to preserve my points? Sort of. Being in a clan, and playing mostly clan games, I can't really choose to play only those opponents who are highly ranked. But when looking for a casual game, if I find a public game that has the map and settings I want, yet the other players are of much lower rank, I would tend to not join that particular game. Partly because I don't enjoy playing against noobs, partly because I don't want to lose a lot of points.

There is one particular type of game that is absolutely deadly for someone of my rank to play with lower ranked opponents, and that is a terminator game. Regardless of my somewhat casual attention to my points, others may covet them, sometimes to an extreme. How much fun is it to be in a terminator game with lower ranked players who almost ALWAYS target you for your points? Such that you basically have no chance of getting even a single kill? It's absolutely no fun at all being cannon fodder simply because of your rank.

Another consideration is being accused of deliberate point dumping. I know that I am not skilled at speed games. Suppose I decide to start playing speed games? I could easily end up at Cook rank in a very short amount of time. I might be having a great time, but, under the current system, I would likely have a C&A case made against me. So I am effectively discriminated against because of my rank.

No system is perfect; I wouldn't mind a different ranking system, but that is a different topic. I see no harm in having points-free games, whether limited in number or not. It would give players in my situation a lot more freedom, which I personally would very much appreciate. As in, if this is implemented, look for my public speeders, and come have some fun beating the noob Brigadier!

[Shannon Apple]

how many points will the low ranked player get out of it?

If the low ranks are the ones starting the 0 point games to attract people of different skill levels to learn from their moves. EVERYTHING. It's not like people wouldn't have a choice in what to join. You make it sound like only high rankers would start those games if given the choice.

I would also like to point out that you are not a low ranking player. You're a mid rank like myself.

*Sigh* what does the high ranks that you're talking about get out of playing low ranks points or no points. Nothing, Zilch, Nada. Why would a guy with 4000+ points want to play against a cook either way? Explain this please? They don't do it now, they won't do it then. Not unless the player was someone they introduced to CC.

The people at the very top of the scoreboard would very likely not even bother with no points games. Their goal is to challenge each other for the conquerer title. No one of high rank just below the conquerer would want to play them if they were playing for 0 points just to hold their spot. It would be pointless because they wouldn't be able to play with people of equal skill. I know most of those guys up there like a challenge, so that makes that point invalid. They would get mighty bored playing noobs.

It has benefit to the mid ranking and low ranking players like I said.

[Chariot of Fire]

Very good posts made by Shannon and others who support the idea (because they can appreciate there's absolutely no harm in the concept of playing for zero gain or loss).

After a year on the site I became fairly stuck in the routine of playing clan and tourney games, which wasn't why I had joined CC at all. I like the thrill and distraction of a quick speed game on a rainy afternoon, yet I've given up looking at the speed games waiting because they are all filled with low-ranking players. I stand to gain 5pts and risk 80, yet there's no way I'm entering those games with odds of 16:1 in my favour, so why risk it? The lack of high-ranked players in speed games speaks volumes about the inequity of the current points system. As for my favourite game type....it would be terminator, multiplayer esc. But enter one of these as a high rank and you immediately have a target on your back, so that's another reason not to join them.

I can see no valid argument that could support not playing for zero points, yet I can lay out many that have detracted from my enjoyment of the site due to my reluctance to play approx 75% of its members due to the point differential.

How many times have we seen someone challenge another to, say, a best-of-five to establish superiority? And how many times has that challenge been declined because the player is not prepared to put anywhere up to 500pts on the line in return for five to 20?

As for the proposal for zero point games for newcomers for their first 10 games....excellent idea.

[Mr Changsha]

Very good posts made by Shannon and others who support the idea (because they can appreciate there's absolutely no harm in the concept of playing for zero gain or loss).

After a year on the site I became fairly stuck in the routine of playing clan and tourney games, which wasn't why I had joined CC at all. I like the thrill and distraction of a quick speed game on a rainy afternoon, yet I've given up looking at the speed games waiting because they are all filled with low-ranking players. I stand to gain 5pts and risk 80, yet there's no way I'm entering those games with odds of 16:1 in my favour, so why risk it? The lack of high-ranked players in speed games speaks volumes about the inequity of the current points system. As for my favourite game type....it would be terminator, multiplayer esc. But enter one of these as a high rank and you immediately have a target on your back, so that's another reason not to join them.

I can see no valid argument that could support not playing for zero points, yet I can lay out many that have detracted from my enjoyment of the site due to my reluctance to play approx 75% of its members due to the point differential.

How many times have we seen someone challenge another to, say, a best-of-five to establish superiority? And how many times has that challenge been declined because the player is not prepared to put anywhere up to 500pts on the line in return for five to 20?

As for the proposal for zero point games for newcomers for their first 10 games....excellent idea.

The fact that learning a new form has a cost, that chasing medals has a cost, that playing the idiotic has a cost, that having a high rank has a cost is something I completely support.

The higher one's rank gets the less one is able to enjoy all that this site has to offer. Personally, my guilty little enjoyment is public, standard, speed, flat 4-5 man. Can I realistically play it even off of my score? Not really. IF I want to play it I'll have to drop my rank to around 2000. Now this creates a continuous annoyance for me without question, for I can't have it all. Just like everyone else I want it all. Yet, that I can't do exactly what I want may perversely increase my (and your) enjoyment of this site. We all wonder why we are so pathetically hooked on CC. I speculate that it is in part because we are always slightly unsatisfied with what we are doing, always dreaming of doing something else (in both our cases just 'playing for fun') yet our innate characters stop us from doing it.

Am I making any sense..? I often don't, even to myself.

The pursuit of status comes with a cost..the narrowing of gaming options. The pursuit of medals comes with a cost...the lessening of status. To me that is an integral balance of the deeper currents of CC and I would be very opposed to messing with it.

[Chariot of Fire]

The pursuit of status yes, I'd agree. But having attained it why then be handcuffed to have to retain it? Once it is earned it is earned and one shouldn't have to be forced to gamble when the odds are so inequitable.

I've lost the thrill of adding a stripe or a pip that I once enjoyed when joining this site, as well as sacrificing the enjoyment I felt at playing speeders or terminators. It shouldn't be that way. A successful business is one that enhances your enjoyment of being a loyal customer. Paradoxically I find I'm constrained to selective games - although I've never been as cheap as to select my opponents - which is a far cry from the laissez-faire environment that I used to enjoy when being a humble NCO.

I think zero point games would greatly enhance the site. It would allow for far more open tournaments with all comers welcome and no one participant in fear of losing points, or being upset when the muppet two turns ahead goes for an unlikely sweep and costs you the game.

Under the current constraints the best way for a high-ranked player to continue his enjoyment of speed or terminator games is to have a secondary account under another IP. It shouldn't have to be that way.

[betiko]

yes, and maybe some people might be tempted to play on an other family member's account speeders or whatever...
0 points games would highly encourage people who don't play speeders to play once in a while. Higher ranked players being super selective and not playing speeders for the most part can be tempted not to renew their premium. After all, they only play sequential and play a limited amount of games to be at 100%. 4 sequential games at a time can be more than enough. Just look at the first pages of the scoreboard: it's full of freemiums! Many people lately became conqerors as freemium members. If you're score oriented, a freemium account is just fine; you need to keep away from speeders (unless you're a freestlye super clicker) and keep a low game count. Why upgrade? The just for fun games are not for you anymore.

But mr C brought up a good point: maybe unique kills in no points game shouldn't count and medal hunting should still be done on points game.

[greenoaks]

The pursuit of status yes, I'd agree. But having attained it why then be handcuffed to have to retain it?

you are not.

go play any game you like and your highest status will be forever recorded on your profile with the soon to occur update.

[Chariot of Fire]

That's not retaining it then is it. That's simply recording it.

[Donelladan]

I think zero point games would greatly enhance the site. It would allow for far more open tournaments with all comers welcome and no one participant in fear of losing points, or being upset when the muppet two turns ahead goes for an unlikely sweep and costs you the game.

I am for "points free games" but they shouldn't be part of tournament.
I think clan war games and tournament games should not be point free.
And as it has been said before, points free games should not count for medal hunting.
Actually I am for the idea that points should free games should not count for anything, even winning percentage, game won and game completed - since there is also a scoreboard for that kind of things.

Those games should not have any sort of influence on your cc status/profile/record.

The fact that learning a new form has a cost, that chasing medals has a cost, that playing the idiotic has a cost, that having a high rank has a cost is something I completely support.

Speaking of high ranked player, I am not so sure that learning is really an issue. You can learn by watching finished games, you can learn with people of a similar rank,. Usually if you have an high rank, it means you understand quite well strategy in general, so you can learn by yourself. So even if you may use point free game to learn, that is not the most importance things for high rank imo.

Chasing medal definitely have, and it should still have imo.

Playing idiotic ? if you mean playing for fun, joining for example that freestyle 8 player doodle speed assassin. It has a cost, but it doesn't have to.
I don't see why high ranked player should not be able to play speed games and have some fun.
On another topic I saw people saying stuff like " first time I am on cc and I see no speed game available". Well here is one solution ! Right now at least the 100 highest rank of this site don't play speed games.
And that would be more enjoyable for everyone.
I'd love to play the conqueror or generals on a 1vs1 speed game - and I think not only me but a bunch of players with lower ranks would like it. But since 1vs1 is more luck than skills, and that even winnin 75% of the games they would still be losing point ... they won't do it.

The higher one's rank gets the less one is able to enjoy all that this site has to offer.

That's the case, but, WTF!!!!! Why??? No reason... except some nasty feeling the low rank have like :
"I am not a high ranked player but at least I enjoy everything in the site " ?

[betiko]

I agree with everything Don said.

[Chariot of Fire]

Right now at least the 100 highest rank of this site don't play speed games.

Kinda says it all.

[macbone]

I'm with don and CoF on this. Unrated games would allow people to try out new maps and settings they wouldn't normally play and give friends a chance to kick around and have fun. We could even use 'em in the SoC (maybe).

I don't know about using them for clan wars, tournaments, or any of the more serious games, but for a fun, casual game, I think they'd be ideal.

[josko.ri]

I am totally against this idea, your points should represent your overall CC performance, not just your CC performance in games that you choose to do.

With this idea, everyone who are specialist for some map/settings/game type can play only that map/settings ranked and everything else unranked. In long term, high ranked players will have a lot of fun (by playing all games they enjoy/like unranked) and at the same time Scoreboard will become more non representative than it is today, because players who have goal to come to top of scoreboard will play only their top speciality maps ranked. They can also do it today, but at least they will not have fun in doing it (who has fun in playing 100+ times the same map/settings?) and they will not be respected by community because of that.

In short, this can lead to "playing for fun, but having artificial non reliable ranking" principle, as players will be able to choose just their the best games to be ranked, so Scoreboard will represent the best skill of players (whether it is map, special settings, or combination of those 2), and not overall skill of players.

I am saying this because in recent months, maybe first time ever, we have top 10 on scoreboard which happens to play variety of settings/game types/maps in comparison with past cases of Scoreboard, which has always received multiple complaints about how top players or conquerors are just specialists for particular settings. Give players who have personality like that unranked games, and you gave them silver plate to use advantage of that in order to artificially raise scores, while still having fun of playing non ranked games.

the people who want to play no point games are those at the top.

they will play no point games unless they have almost no chance of losing (ie. for points games on their specialty) or they are up against similar ranked players.

the rest of the site will get screwed over by this.

I will strongly disagree with you and will give you my personal example to prove my disagreement rather than pointing fingers into others and their playing styles. If you map rank josko.ri + Gametype = "Standard" + Joinability = "Tournament" you will see that I have played 1495/2858 (52,3%) my games ever as a part of an Tournament with Standard settings, mostly 1v1s and 6 player Standard ones. The most important fact is that opponents in those tournaments were drawn randomly so it was equal chance to get any ranked or any skilled player, in more than half of my games ever played. Vast majority of those 1495 games is going to tournament "6 Man Madness!", where last 178 games I was ranked Brigadier or above playing vs 5 others who were Majors or below. Tournament consisted of 322 standard 6 games players, but I highlight 178 games from Finals part because in qualifying part I was still Colonel. The other example is HA'2 200th tournament, which is ongoing and I already played 95 1v1 Sequential games vs more than 90 different players and on more than 90 different maps, the whole time being Brigadier or above, mostly General. And those are only games from official tournaments, because for those games nobody can say that I am selective of who to play and which maps to play. In addition to that you may also see how many public and private 1v1 games on vast variety of maps and settings vs wide variety of opponents (for example recent 35 1v1s vs ISN2 on his City Mogul map, from which at least 2-3 I lost only because lacking knowledge of the settings).

As conclusion, your saying that "the people who want to play no point games are those at the top" is completely not truth and I think I proved it with my example. I want to play only ranked games, and not only want to do it, but am really doing it regardless of my rank, and am planning to do it in future, by playing ranked games, so result of the games can influence my score, as it should be.

If you want to be high ranked, then let it be overall representation of your achievements, not representation of only your the best skills. Otherwise, we can have again ruined Scoreboard where top places would lost respect by community because of the ways and loopholes available to use to come to top will be wider, and I am sure many players would use them, as we can see in past cases when it existed much more "point management" loopholes than today.

[betiko]

I'm with don and CoF on this. Unrated games would allow people to try out new maps and settings they wouldn't normally play and give friends a chance to kick around and have fun. We could even use 'em in the SoC (maybe).

I don't know about using them for clan wars, tournaments, or any of the more serious games, but for a fun, casual game, I think they'd be ideal.

I never wanted to play SOC training games because basically it's terminator games you are playing vs cooks with high ranked players telling them exactly what to do on each turn. I'm sure lots of SOC instructors feel the same (even if many don't care about it)

[betiko]

If you want to be high ranked, then let it be overall representation of your achievements, not representation of only your the best skills. Otherwise, we can have again ruined Scoreboard where top places would lost respect by community because of the ways and loopholes available to use to come to top will be wider, and I am sure many players would use them, as we can see in past cases when it existed much more "point management" loopholes than today.

well i can see from your medals that there are tons of game modes you hardly ever play josko. You would probably enjoy them but you probably restrain yourself from playing them because of the cost.
Also as said before, tons of players on the top are ultra selective, does that makes them better players?
When I was in the pack there was a bunch of clan mates who would always do the yoyo between brig and caporal, because they were 8 man freestyle doodle assassin freaks. How is the scoreboard more accurate, or how is it accurate when you play them as caporals?

[Donelladan]

I will strongly disagree with you and will give you my personal example to prove my disagreement rather than pointing fingers into others and their playing styles. If you map rank josko.ri + Gametype = "Standard" + Joinability = "Tournament" you will see that I have played 1495/2858 (52,3%) my games ever as a part of an Tournament with Standard settings, mostly 1v1s and 6 player Standard ones. The most important fact is that opponents in those tournaments were drawn randomly so it was equal chance to get any ranked or any skilled player, in more than half of my games ever played. Vast majority of those 1495 games is going to tournament "6 Man Madness!", where last 178 games I was ranked Brigadier or above playing vs 5 others who were Majors or below. Tournament consisted of 322 standard 6 games players, but I highlight 178 games from Finals part because in qualifying part I was still Colonel. The other example is HA'2 200th tournament, which is ongoing and I already played 95 1v1 Sequential games vs more than 90 different players and on more than 90 different maps, the whole time being Brigadier or above, mostly General. And those are only games from official tournaments, because for those games nobody can say that I am selective of who to play and which maps to play. In addition to that you may also see how many public and private 1v1 games on vast variety of maps and settings vs wide variety of opponents (for example recent 35 1v1s vs ISN2 on his City Mogul map, from which at least 2-3 I lost only because lacking knowledge of the settings).

As conclusion, your saying that "the people who want to play no point games are those at the top" is completely not truth and I think I proved it with my example. I want to play only ranked games, and not only want to do it, but am really doing it regardless of my rank, and am planning to do it in future, by playing ranked games, so result of the games can influence my score, as it should be.

Watching your overall played game record is imo useless.
You can look mine, and see in the past 6 months I have been playing ton of speed games, lot of 1vs1 vs low ranked. So what? Will I say that you can play speed game having a brigadier rank? No. As long as I was playing speed game my rank oscillate every day between 2000 and 2800 points, average around 2200 I'd say, and I never keep the hat more than 2 or 3 day.
Since I stoped playing speed game ( speaking stuff like 1vs1 classic or freestyle assassin ), my rank stabilized over 2800 as you can see.


And I looked at your game josko.ri. ( first page) I see clan war game, I see private game against high ranked opponent. I see some public game : 1vs1 Hive, I may recall from another forum thread that hive is your speciality.
Well there is some tournament games, true, but everyone can accept to a low amount of risky games.

And please,

In addition to that you may also see how many public and private 1v1 games on vast variety of maps and settings vs wide variety of opponents (for example recent 35 1v1s vs ISN2 on his City Mogul map, from which at least 2-3 I lost only because lacking knowledge of the settings).

Variety of opponents speaking of ISN2? And for sure he was conqueror during some of those city mogul game...
So I watched your game, first I clicked all, so many tournament/clan war/private. But maybe I see only the tree that hide the forest who know. So I go game finder, I type your name, I click the box "public game" :

289 results on 3 pages.
From your wall : Games:
2858 completed, 1766 (62%) won |

So slighlty more than 10% of your game are public games.
Among those 10% of public games I chose feudal epic, feudal war, hiver and city mogul. I find : 143 results on 2 pages
So half of your public game are on only 4 different map, that I believe are map you mastered completely.


So sorry but you are definitely selective. Let's take a non-selective player. Me
Games: 5549 completed, 2294 (41%) won |
Now I put my name in game finder for public game : 3737 results on 38 pages:
Way more than 50%

That is non-selective.

So speaking of this :

If you want to be high ranked, then let it be overall representation of your achievements, not representation of only your the best skills. Otherwise, we can have again ruined Scoreboard where top places would lost respect by community because of the ways and loopholes available to use to come to top will be wider, and I am sure many players would use them, as we can see in past cases when it existed much more "point management" loopholes than today.

I call bullshit. Scoreboard is currently, people that got high rank by playing settings they are good at. Then keep playing everything with other high ranked, so points are only exchanged between them. And they may keep playing with other people on game they are expert at, or clan war games - so home map you chose your best, plus team game means relatively low point loss, plus usually rather high opposition. And sometimes a tournament

[Donelladan]

I may add. Betiko is speaking of limited points free games. He said per month.
I'd rather say, limited points free games = maximum 4 points free games active at once. I know I will use that only to play speed myself.

If you really think people may play to much points free game. You can even say maximum 1 point free game active at once. That way you can't really abuse it. It is either to learn, or to play speed.

[betiko]

I have very similar figures to Don's.
5286 games played, 4587 are public games.
I also have my speed game phases, which represent over 3700 games played. As Don is saying, it's almost impossible to maintain a colonel rank when you play speed games (I mostly join them, I don't create farming ones for those who will say that playing lots of speeders and keeping a colonel rank is easy). I need to get away from them to get back to brig each time.
Speed games are dying because high rank only join them when they are on suicide mode. Speed games are the major perk to make new people buy premium, at least that's why I bought premium the first time.

[josko.ri]

@Donelladan: To not answer your post line by line, I may in general conclude that you practically compared playing Public games (calling it non-selective) with all other type of games (calling it selective).
At first, what I pointed out is that 52,3% my ever played games are tournament+standard (more than 70 standard tournaments) which is one of the most non selective methods to get an opponent. It is even less selective than public games and here is why: When you join tournament, at first you join something (map, settings, structure) that you are having fun to play, but at the same time your opponents are the ones who also like to play that structure like you, and, more important, your opponents are forum users, they are not NSs with less than 5 games played, they probably have 98%+ attendance (minimum requirements in many tournaments) or they have some other minimum requirements which are described in first post of the tournament. On that way, you play non-selective games (your opponent can be anyone randomly chosen) who also likes that map, like you like. All your opponents signed for the tournament because they like format, not because they just want to beat a general, for example.

In contrary to that, when you join public game, those are pros/cons:
1. That player do not know the map but joined just to play vs let's say Conqueror or General. Result: Easier win in Public game for you, harder win in tournament game for you.
2. That NS or some noob or deadbeat player joins your game. Result: Easier win in Public game, harder win in Tournament game. Whoever reads forum (which is first step to join tournament), is already probably familiar with BOB and clickies, and is familair with map/settings that he signed up for in the tournament. In public game maybe you were the only game waiting, or game waiting with the most ranked player, so that was the only reason for joining of that NS/noob/deadbeat and giving you free win.
3. In Public game, I would risk someone completely clueless to join my game. That would be really not fun for me. I have really much better way of using one hour, than clearing Hive map of player who attacked all 3v3s in round 1. In Tournament game, I am completely sure that my opponent will not do all 3v3 attacks in round 1.

If you see those my Hive/Feudal or whichever games you highlighted, go to profile of my opponent and map rank him on the same map. You will see, my key to select opponents for 1v1s are maps where strategy has dominated role over dice, but I am also seeking for players who are top notch on the same map (ISN2 on CM, dkmaster on Feudal, ccatman on Hive, just see how many games played vs them on their specialist map/settings), in order to have top class challenge, not in order to have easy wins.

With private games, I ensure my opponents will give me top class challenge on the given map, which is my top goal in having fun.
With tournament games, I ensure to participate in structured competition, and I am sure my opponents will not be total noobs, their skills will vary, but they will at least know what they are doing.
With public games, nothing of this is ensured, there is big risk I will not get any proper opposition so I will just lose my time by playing the game instead of having fun from playing the game. It can also happen that some skilled player will join, but is it any difference if I arrange private game vs skilled played on some map (which I do) or I join public game and the same player joins? There is no difference, so I prefer make games private with arranged opponents, rather than risk some noob or NS or deadbeat joins and I just need to lose my time by clearing the board.

Conclusion: Of all types of games, Public games are in general the least competitive. Tournament games are very competitive, and private games depends on case-by-case basis, but in my case they are also very competitive because I play them only vs players who show outstanding results for the particular map. So between choosing very competitive private games vs very competitive opponents and very competitive tournaments vs random opponents, or risking that clueless players will join my Public games, I really prefer the former.

If you want to be high ranked, then let it be overall representation of your achievements, not representation of only your the best skills. Otherwise, we can have again ruined Scoreboard where top places would lost respect by community because of the ways and loopholes available to use to come to top will be wider, and I am sure many players would use them, as we can see in past cases when it existed much more "point management" loopholes than today.

well i can see from your medals that there are tons of game modes you hardly ever play josko. You would probably enjoy them but you probably restrain yourself from playing them because of the cost.
Also as said before, tons of players on the top are ultra selective, does that makes them better players?
When I was in the pack there was a bunch of clan mates who would always do the yoyo between brig and caporal, because they were 8 man freestyle doodle assassin freaks. How is the scoreboard more accurate, or how is it accurate when you play them as caporals?

I have all medals that are possible to have, and none of them are platinum, which shows enough that I do not focus on only one game type (I would have platinum if I do), but have also tried all variety of settings. Of course that after trying all I have preferences about which game type I like and which game type I dislike and then I choose my games accordingly.

About your saying of 8 man doodle fresstyle assasin freaks, it is very possible to advance on scoreboard even with those settings. I am sure if they tried to find, they would find another top players with the same preferences of game types, like for example top players found another ones to play multiple 6 man standard escalating games under comic boy's hosting. Who is better in those games, he would win more than others and progress in his ranking to next level and then play vs higher ranked players with similar game preferences. For example, there were rumors that players from top of Scoreboard never play 1v1 games. When I came to conqueror position, I sent pm to all top 10 players asking them to play whether 1v1 games on random map, or 1 game of their choice and 1 game of my choice at a time. I enjoy 1v1 Sequential gaming (1548/2858 my games ever played are 1v1 Sequential) and I asked players of similar rank than mine if they are interested too. Of 10 contacted, 5 replied positive (with some of them I already played, and some said yes but later when their RL stuffs calm down), 3 declined because 1v1 is not in their interest, and 2 never replied. Now when you know this, think again of past CC gossips how players from top of scoreboard never play 1v1 games. Why the same cannot be done for 8 man doodle Freestyle games? Contact players who are around you on Scoreboard, ask to play with you, and I am sure you will find 7 others with +- 100 score from you who are interested. If you are better than them, you will win more than lose, progress in rankings, and then contact others who are now close to you on Scoreboard. I am sure regardless of your rank, you will find others of similar rank who are interested to play any settings with you, if they realize your wish to have fun in games, not to take advantage of knowledge of some settings.
Principle like this is also in real sports, every Soccer domestic competition has many levels of playing. Once when you become champion, you progress in upper level and play vs better teams. If you keep doing so, someday you will come to Champions League and play vs the best teams. Would FC Barcelona ever be interested to play vs someone who is competing in 5th English League (the same comparison like General vs Cook)? I don't think so. So why would CC be different? If you play vs players of similar rank like you who like similar game play style, then even Scoreboard would be the most representative in history of CC, because better ones would progress to upper rank, and lower ones would be decreased in lower rank, and everyone would still have wide variety of potential opponents to play with.

In pure essence of your suggestion, it is borderline with having second multi account. One account serves as representation of your the best skills and there you only care to hold high rank, and in second account you play all variety of games vs all variety of opponents just for fun, while not caring for rank at the same time. In essence that is the same, and accepting this suggestion would only allow legal structure to do so in practice, with only difference that you will be using the same name for that, which is different than multies who are using 2 names for their doings.

If you really think people may play to much points free game. You can even say maximum 1 point free game active at once. That way you can't really abuse it. It is either to learn, or to play speed.

This I support, but in any way no more than this. If speed games are your concern and basis for the suggestion, then anyway no more than 1 game active at once is needed. Also in addition to one game active at once, I think there should be monthly cap of 10 or so games. Otherwise accepting this suggestion may really lead to essentially having second "multi" account for non ranked games.

[betiko]

my personal main concern is about speeders josko, and I extended it to other stuff for others.
And when I was talking about freestlye 8 men doodle assassin I was talking about speed, not sequential. And no, this is not about skills or getting better. You have 2 territories, if your target is on the other side of the board and your assassin is a cook adjacent to your 2 territories and he gets great dice he wins within seconds. Also you miss the point; this is about a quick adrenaline rush; it's not about a well planned game searching on the scoreboard and sending invites. It's about seeing something fun and available right now!
Also, your football example is a really bad one, because in national cup top teams get to play teams from any division, make it division 5 as you stated or whatever, and sometimes the division 5 wins because they get lucky.
You might not be interested in luck based games, but I am and many other people are. This is a different type of thrill that strategic games can't give you.
And no, I don't consider that reaching bronze on certain settings after almost 3000 games means you play them, it just means that you've tried them.

[Donelladan]

Well, I totally agree that you are looking for competitive game. That was not my point. My argument was related to points.

When you play public multiplayer game. Even if you're skilled, total noob can screw the game and another noob can win it making you lose 50 or more points. While, even being better, if you beat 5 low ranks, you may not even win the 50 points you lost in that other game. That was my point.
And those game can be really fun, especially mixed with high and low rank, with a lot of discussion. Sunny games with flat rate or no spoils where you have to involve a lot of diplomacy, avoiding hitting that noob because he may decide to throw all and cost the game to both of you but he doesnt care because you took that regions and he liked it. Well that's public game. That's also my point when I say you are selective.
I like those games, maybe you don't. But that is not why I'd like to see points free game. I would keep playing those games with points anyway. Otherwise no ones care and game is way less interesting.

About your saying of 8 man doodle fresstyle assasin freaks, it is very possible to advance on scoreboard even with those settings.

I was speaking about speed game. Speed game are already often difficult to fill. If I am to restrict to those having similar rank that mine they will be almost impossible to fill.
And even though I don't believe it is possible to avance with those settings. 8 players freestyle assassin doodle means everyone has 2 regions, you don't start next to your target, someone else does, auto attack, and win, end round 1, and you didn't have any chance to preven it. Whatever your skill have. Those games are not for skills, they are for fun.

3 player assassin freestyle on doodle are more skilled game, and you may progress with them. But things is, I don't play them to progress, I play them for fun. For example with 2 of my clanmate. -1-1-3- and Mishalex, we had some fun doing so. But they are as good and probably better than me because they are freestyler player so they are faster.
Both of them are usually major. If I go play with them with a brigadier rank. A win would bring me around 27 points ( 2k/3k*20*2) while a lost would cost me around 30 ( 3k/2k*20*1)
So with obviously even winning 50% of those game, that I do not do since opposition is good, won't be enough. That is the purpose of points free game to me.

In pure essence of your suggestion, it is borderline with having second multi account. One account serves as representation of your the best skills and there you only care to hold high rank, and in second account you play all variety of games vs all variety of opponents just for fun, while not caring for rank at the same time. In essence that is the same, and accepting this suggestion would only allow legal structure to do so in practice, with only difference that you will be using the same name for that, which is different than multies who are using 2 names for their doings.

Well - yes - and so what ?
Why can't I have both ?
CC is about competition. There is competition in the scoreboard. I like being able to go up the scoreboard.
Don't you like it josko.ri ?
But I also like playing freestyle assassin speed game. That's stressful, that go really fast, take less than 10 min of my time. I'd like to play that during my break at work sometimes.
But I can't do both. That is why I support the suggestion. I want to be able to do both.

I say, accept it with active game limitation to 1 or 4, and I won't do it to play all the other ranked games I play, not like I would have, but it would be impossible to do for anyone.



EDIT : Somehow same arguments that Betiko. Fully agree with him.