[GO] Unrated, Unranked, or No Points Games

[BigBallinStalin]

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.

Right. In addition to being allotted x-amount of "points free" games, it might also be best--or better--to simply host games that don't count. For those games, you get to host x-amount per week.

[BigBallinStalin]

To further expand on greenoak's post:

We seem to have two kinds of suggested settings here: (1) some allotment of "free points" to be spent in whatever game, and (2) some allotment of "free point games" to be hosted. (2) is superior in that all players who join have to agree to earning no points; whereas, (1) seems troublesome if you can join any game without risking points because the other players would have no ability to agree to that condition (e.g. why host/join a game with the purpose of gaining points and then have 'no-pointers' join it?)

Wouldn't the scenario of (1) be more of a nuisance for such players?

It seems best to implement a setting which allows all players to agree to a 'no points' game because if the decision is unanimous, then this will minimize the chances of unintentionally wasting others players' time and enjoyment of their game.



(Don offers the best conditions for no-point games)

[Shannon Apple]

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.

If something like this came into play, I'd be 100% for putting a cap on the foe list as well. No one should need to foe that many people and it's my opinion that this practice is also killing CC because 100s of players may be excluded from joining up to 100 waiting games of each person who's hunting. I'm a lot against the practice of foeing people for medals. I see people with all platinum or whatever and I am honestly not impressed by it. Just screams "I foed people to get these." So yeah. *hides before medal hunters get their pitchforks*

I dunno where this idea of two types came out of. This thread is like Chinese whispers. Obviously ONLY THE HOST of the game would decide if it was for 0 points or not when making said game. The other would not ever work. Common sense, people. lol

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.

This is exactly what I've been saying n my posts. So This 100%

[Chariot of Fire]

Just challenge Josko to a best-of-five on your settings and see if he accepts.

Then the facts will be plain to see.

[Shannon Apple]

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.

This bit, I will disagree with because the idea is not to give people the chance to play however many they want, but a limited number, much like the freemiums get a limited number of speed games per month.

So, say they gave us 10-20 non-point games a month (whether you host it or not it counts as 1 game used) then that's 10-20 speed games a month that these people can play, giving them a chance to have some non-risk fun.

New players could start these games too to encourage players to come fight them. You only learn if you play against people better than yourself or play on a team with them.

People like you and I could invite that newbie friend who likes Risk to come challenge us every now and then in a game. I have one, General Kaji, but he only comes to play if I facebook him. "Come fight me!" But he doesn't like to take my points haha. He actually said that and hasn't played in months. And yes, sometimes people are going to use them up to learn a new map, but really, isn't that just encouraging people to go try out new maps and hopefully become better players.

That's why we think it should be limited (as in the title of the thread) to prevent the type of idiots you mentioned from abusing it. That cap should be no more than 30, no less than 10 imo. Maybe 10 for freemiums, 20 for premiums or something like that.

[Donelladan]

As I said, I am for a limitation of active points free game, rather than 10 points free game a month.

One way, you can create 10 points free game every month, some of them, according to the setting, can last a long time, and next month you got another 10 free ?
I prefer 4 active points free game maximum at any time. That way once one is finished you make a new one, but you can never have more than 4 points free games at a times.

Of course my proposition avantages those who want to play speeds.

[betiko]

As I said, I am for a limitation of active points free game, rather than 10 points free game a month.

One way, you can create 10 points free game every month, some of them, according to the setting, can last a long time, and next month you got another 10 free ?
I prefer 4 active points free game maximum at any time. That way once one is finished you make a new one, but you can never have more than 4 points free games at a times.

Of course my proposition avantages those who want to play speeds.

i'd rather have that cause i play only one speeder at a time and i woud... spend all my free games in one night of speed gaming if it was only 10

[betiko]

I have added a few more conditions in the OP following the last discussions.

[Chariot of Fire]

As I said, I am for a limitation of active points free game, rather than 10 points free game a month.

One way, you can create 10 points free game every month, some of them, according to the setting, can last a long time, and next month you got another 10 free ?
I prefer 4 active points free game maximum at any time. That way once one is finished you make a new one, but you can never have more than 4 points free games at a times.

Of course my proposition avantages those who want to play speeds.

Good idea. It would certainly liven-up the speed games on this site if members could play without the ludicrous risks involved.

[DoomYoshi]

I will point out that I am avoiding this thread on purpose.

[betiko]

I will point out that I am avoiding this thread on purpose.

Please hop in suggestions mod!

Anyway, I just wanted to add that I personally want this for speed games only. I don t care if it s applied for sequential really, if others do it it doesn t bother me.
Speed games are kind of a whole different state of mind. You sit in front of your computer and you actually play. There is very little choice in terms of opponents and popular settings, so unless you want to wait for hours you join what s on. It is often very luck based and opponents are generally under ranked.
As said earlier, speed games are one of the major perks you make freemiums salivate on to buy premium. Not sure they d be happy when they see what speed games are currently about, very little games, farmers (noob or high rank) ect..
Allowing points free games to speed would bring back tons of players willing to join just about anything. You wouldn t lose 55 pts in seconds vs that low rank who started first with a bonus and killer dice. Those same 55 points that took you 3 weeks to gain over 3 team games.

[BigBallinStalin]

So everyone agrees that getting "free points" is a bad idea; whereas, getting "free point games" is a much better idea?

[Denise]

I like this idea. I think a limited allotment with no benefits gained is a good idea. If they can't be used to medal hunt, win %, clan or tournament games, etc., I don't see the harm. The scoreboard would still represent a players real ability as much as it does now because without this change the players in question won't play maps they would play in points free games.

I would use my points free games for speed games. I often visit the speed games page on a dull evening but resist playing because of the points risk. Since points are important to me I would continue to enjoy points games because this is the only way to increase my points. I would also use my games to play more 1 vs 1's on maps I am unfamiliar with because I think this is the best way to learn a new map. Problem with that now is the risk involved. It's just not worth it. The 3rd way I would use my points free games is in teaming with less experienced or new players, or with playing lower ranked friends 1 vs 1.

Clans are always looking for new talent. Part of that process involves teaching low ranks the ropes and the best way to do that is to play games with them. Even teaming with them is risky because they will make many mistakes. That's why I think many high ranked players avoid teaming with lower ranks. If we did this, it would help new players feel more a part of the site. I remember as a new player wanting very badly to go against high ranks just so I could learn by watching them play. As far as that goes, why not use point free games as a reward or incentive to the SOC for their work with new players? They risk their points all the time and this would motivate more players to help out in growing the site by helping new players. Instead of general achievement medals for their contributions, they could be awarded some points free games. I think it would be a great incentive.

[betiko]

Humm so basically we can see that most top players stay out of speed games because it s too costy and it gives ridiculous odds.
Why pay for premium exactly if the system keeps you out of them?
Perks for premium:
-speed games
-unlimited active games.

Being a top player means having a limited game count to think each turn right and the ones of your teammates, and keeping out of speed games!! What s the point of renewing membership exactly?

[Chariot of Fire]

With the introduction of the Bots - as useless as they are - I guess it resolved the dilemma of getting a 'quick fix' without sacrificing points.

Problem solved.

[DoomYoshi]

With the introduction of the Bots - as useless as they are - I guess it resolved the dilemma of getting a 'quick fix' without sacrificing points.

Problem solved.

That`s why I avoided this topic. I`m not allowed to divulge the top-secret stuff.

[betiko]

With the introduction of the Bots - as useless as they are - I guess it resolved the dilemma of getting a 'quick fix' without sacrificing points.

Problem solved.

That`s why I avoided this topic. I`m not allowed to divulge the top-secret stuff.

it does solve partly the problem.. though the IAs really suck and would be good with some real IA competition and all settings/maps avail.

[sleepykarly]

I am currently in a two-player trench game that is stuck in a stalemate.

Statistically, there is a slight advantage to the attacker in any battle. When there are two very large stacks (say, 500 or more units each) separated by one intervening space in a Trench game, that means that neither player wants to move into that space in force, or they will lose the counter-attack and provide the opponent with a surplus of troops which (even though small in the context of the original forces) would still be substantial in the context of the post-annihilation moves.

Obviously this is not a problem in non-trench games; the attacker can continue rolling through.

So I suggest that AT LEAST FOR TRENCH GAMES there should be an option that would allow a draw if all players agree to it. The game would not affect anyone's stats, but simply dropped out of the reckoning. The mechanics of this might be a button that could toggle between 'offer draw' and 'refuse draw'; and if this offer is toggled to 'offer draw' by all players at any one time, the game is automatically abandoned.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[JamesKer1]

As of now, this suggestion is rejected. No resign, ties, forfeits, or game deletion on any settings, any map. My advice- play another 1v1 game for "all the marbles", whoever wins that should be allowed to win this game as well.

[patrickaa317]

no, this would be abused. move this to rejected.

Solution: Play with round limits or don't play 1v1 trench where it could become a long game.

[agentcom]

no, this would be abused. move this to rejected.

Solution: Play with round limits or don't play 1v1 trench where it could become a long game.

I'm almost certain this has been suggested and rejected before (many times). It's kind of in the same vein as the "resign/quit" options that have all been merged together, but I'm sure you could make another huge merged thread of all this stuff.

It basically presents the same potential for abuse as the resign/quit button does but on a smaller scale because it's only "half" of a quit

[FreeFalling123]

I almost want to say there should be a way to set an agreed round limit

[friendly1]

[GP/UI] - Tournament Games exempt from scoreboard calculation


I did a search and checked through the index and did not find this anywhere, apologies if it has been previously suggested.

Not too long ago I entered an auto join tourney, and faced off with 3 1vs1 games against one player, the results of which we're losing 2 games for a points loss of 111 points, then winning the third game for a point gain of 8 points. I don't begrudge the loss of points (especially as I really should have lost the third game as well) but after that I am reluctant to join any singles tournaments. I suspect this may be the case for many of the higher ranked players who try to maintain or increase their score.

Seeing as how the system is built for the new bots to have zero point change from games, I was wondering if this might be done for other games as well? While it has been mentioned before about training games, etc I was thinking specifically about tournaments, and only as an option, not for every tournament. The example I would offer is the conquer cup tournament - if there was no points change for games played I believe many more people would enter. To me this would be a very good change as I would believe this tournament specifically would want to draw the largest population possible (and not just for revenue purposes). Not sure where the lines would be drawn on where it could be used or who would be permitted to offer it.

I expect this would be popular among a smaller population of players, and highly unpopular among a larger population of players but I figured I'd make the suggestion anyways.

[shoop76]

As a player who plays a lot of tournaments including many 1 v 1, I can see where friendly is coming from. I, for one, have come to the realization that my score will never get beyond a certain point with all the tourneys I play.

I would be more in favor of a separate score (scoreboard) for tourney games.