The Ladies' and Gents' Club (LAGC)

[Swimmerdude99]

Hey guys! I was wondering if people would be interested in a club that is of the following variety. The Ladies' and Gents' Club (LAGC), where CC members can feel free to play risky settings and experience fair-play.

For a time the Callouts forum seemed to have quite a few pickup games that followed password creation and giving out of the password to those who were within the same rank. That has increasingly shrunk down to, in my experience, only a select few devoted players creating games, and having a list of players they trust to only join when they are of a specific point status. Currently the site does not support any sort of point locking for games, but this, in turn, ends up keeping myself (and I would think others) from playing many of the maps or settings that are higher risk, due to fearing a loss of 40+ points from the cook that can snag them up from luck.

Rules

- When posting a game to the LAGC you may select a point range that the enemy must cumulatively be in range of you (and post the point range that at the time of creation your team is at). Point range minimum (per player) is 200 points difference. Point difference is + and - (so people can try new settings and not fear getting preyed upon by much better players).
- When playing a foggy game in the Ladies' and Gent's Club you must always wait 12hr from start of the game before playing unless a snap has been declared taken by all parties
- If a player breaks these rules, the players who have been infracted against will notify me. And I will take actions for those players. The goal here is not to ban, it's to allow fair-play, if you are close to the limit, post in the forum asking permission to join outside the range. Just in general, be kind.

• All players get 1 warning over lifespan
• After an infraction, another infraction within 3 months = ban
• Total of 3 infractions = ban

- Players MUST report an infraction they are unhappy with, within 3 days of the game's start. Otherwise it will be null. This is to avoid only complaining if it looks like you might lose, etc.

I'm considering initially banning the following game types so that people can keep those issues separate:
Terminator/Standard/Multiteam games that are NOT escalating

It's just about that easy.

Examples:
Quads team has four players at creation of - 1600, 1800, 2000, 2000 = 7400 points
They desire to only face opponents strictly at their point level so they go with the lowest variability possible. Their post would look like follows:

Looking for opponents in a quads game: _game_tagged_here_
Our estimated score: 7400~
Opponent range: 800 +/-

Any team comprised of 6600-8200 is allowed to join this game

A Poly game is created by a player of - 2800

Looking for opponent in game: _game_tagged_here_
Please check my score prior to joining
Opponent range: 400 +/-

Player chooses greater range as they would rather have it fill than have someone precisely his level

I think this should be pretty clear, if you have any points of discussion/interest please post here to get the discussion going. If you think its a cool idea, mention it to your friends, your clanmates etc. This will be more successful the more members there are!

[t4mcr53s2]

sounds good

[hopalong]

well thought out - gl with this.

[catnipdreams]

I really like this idea!

[hjelp]

Good idea.

So, the games will be set by passwords, or?

[Swimmerdude99]

Good idea.

So, the games will be set by passwords, or?

Yep! the idea is that I will create a club when we have enough members, then I'll set up a forum where people can post games, if you fit the criteria then you can join the games. Allows for more pickup games with high quality competition!

[Gen. Ramsarelli]

Hey Mikey, me Likey!

[catnipdreams]

A possible parameter addition could be the ability to restrict the number of games an opponent has on a given map, so that new(ish) maps (newish to the player, not to the site, necessarily) could be practiced on with rough experience equality.

[Swimmerdude99]

A possible parameter addition could be the ability to restrict the number of games an opponent has on a given map, so that new(ish) maps (newish to the player, not to the site, necessarily) could be practiced on with rough experience equality.

That is an interesting idea. Would this only apply to poly games? I think it might be harder to apply that rule for team games since multiple players could have different experience levels. Would you want to limit it based on only team/poly experience on the map? Or would any game type count as experience?

[JJ41375]

sounds like a great idea to me.

[catnipdreams]

A possible parameter addition could be the ability to restrict the number of games an opponent has on a given map, so that new(ish) maps (newish to the player, not to the site, necessarily) could be practiced on with rough experience equality.

That is an interesting idea. Would this only apply to poly games? I think it might be harder to apply that rule for team games since multiple players could have different experience levels. Would you want to limit it based on only team/poly experience on the map? Or would any game type count as experience?

I think it could be applied to both 1v1/poly, and team games. For the team games, each individual player would have to meet the criteria. Unlike points being added up and divided by the number of players on the team, imo there is a huge difference between a quads team with 1 player having, say, 8 games on a given map, and the other 3 players having no games on that map (8+0+0+0=8, then /4= 2), vs a quads team with each player having 2 games on the map (2+2+2+2=8, then /4=2). If the limit was set to, say, 5 games max per individual player, the first quads team would not meet the criteria, but the second quads team would.

I personally would simply count games on the map - any kind of games on the map, with any kind of settings. I'm thinking more of the aspect of an unfamiliar map tripping up someone who misses something map specific, rather than a refinement of team strat on a familiar map.

Kind of a "no farming" clause!

[Swimmerdude99]

A possible parameter addition could be the ability to restrict the number of games an opponent has on a given map, so that new(ish) maps (newish to the player, not to the site, necessarily) could be practiced on with rough experience equality.

That is an interesting idea. Would this only apply to poly games? I think it might be harder to apply that rule for team games since multiple players could have different experience levels. Would you want to limit it based on only team/poly experience on the map? Or would any game type count as experience?

I think it could be applied to both 1v1/poly, and team games. For the team games, each individual player would have to meet the criteria. Unlike points being added up and divided by the number of players on the team, imo there is a huge difference between a quads team with 1 player having, say, 8 games on a given map, and the other 3 players having no games on that map (8+0+0+0=8, then /4= 2), vs a quads team with each player having 2 games on the map (2+2+2+2=8, then /4=2). If the limit was set to, say, 5 games max per individual player, the first quads team would not meet the criteria, but the second quads team would.

I personally would simply count games on the map - any kind of games on the map, with any kind of settings. I'm thinking more of the aspect of an unfamiliar map tripping up someone who misses something map specific, rather than a refinement of team strat on a familiar map.

Kind of a "no farming" clause!

I suppose this makes sense! My initial worry in counting all games on the map is that I have played probably every map a couple of times and would likely be personally discounted from these types of games, but then again, if I haven't already learned them, I suppose I'm not likely to try! For most people I think this would end up being healthy, and by no means would it have to be a necessary inclusion in game requests!

[catnipdreams]

For sure, it should be an optional parameter. And certainly one could negotiate - like I could ask for someone with 5 or fewer games as my opponent, but someone who has 6 games could ask if I'd be ok with that. Just keep the opponent with 450 games on my "new" map away from me, please!

[CaronylKluster]

I'm in for this proposal - good idea swimmerdude!

[Swimmerdude99]

So far we have 8 prospective members and we need 10 to get started! If you all know anyone who would want to join, I'd love to get them in as well. The bigger the group of members the better as more games and variety of criteria will exist.

Leader: swimmerdude99
Members:
t4mcr53s2
hopalong
catnipdreams
hjelp
Gen. Ramsarelli
JJ41375
CaronylKluster

I'm also trying to think of ways that we could open it up to lower ranking players to raise their interest in team games that are fair and give them a good chance at learning and becoming more competitive. Any ideas?

[catnipdreams]

I'm fine with any/all ranks being able to join, as long as they understand what the rules are, and agree to abide by them. Since we would have our own forum, maybe have each member write an intro to what type of games they like, their play style, that sort of thing, to facilitate matchups?

[Swimmerdude99]

I'm fine with any/all ranks being able to join, as long as they understand what the rules are, and agree to abide by them. Since we would have our own forum, maybe have each member write an intro to what type of games they like, their play style, that sort of thing, to facilitate matchups?

Agreed! All players must abide by the rules. I think most matches will probably be found through posting a game and your limitations for opponents, but perhaps people can find new peeps to play with through some introductory posts!

[mc05025]

I am in.

Also, as soon as you do this I think you should also include what game abuse should considered and also punish it. You might want to include some or all of: purposely miss a turn, run out of time to skip spoil, begin turn with 5 spoils in nuke/zobie setting and run out of time without cashing, give up enemy regions while on fog of war, suicide in multyplayer games and maybe others I am missing

[catnipdreams]

I am in.

Also, as soon as you do this I think you should also include what game abuse should considered and also punish it. You might want to include some or all of: purposely miss a turn, run out of time to skip spoil, begin turn with 5 spoils in nuke/zobie setting and run out of time without cashing, give up enemy regions while on fog of war, suicide in multyplayer games and maybe others I am missing

Totally agree! Define good sportsmanship, make it very clear. Things happen, like losing connectivity, or an irl emergency, so perhaps also add a remedy? For instance, if someone times out, and it is to their advantage, then maybe they deliberately miss the next turn to "make up" for it? That way, honest players won't be penalized for circumstances beyond their control. This could get complicated - I totally trust swimmerdude's judgement in these matters, so maybe reserve the right to look at patterns of behavior, and boot a player that is pushing it?

[hopalong]

well thought out - gl with this.

hey swimmer,
my post was congratulatory, rather than a sign-up. i am over my CC weight right now and cant commit to non-clan games.
cheers.

[catnipdreams]

If you don't get enough to start a viable group, you might consider having a thread in callouts, dedicated to "those who follow the good sportsperson rules". In the first few posts, you could detail the "rules", make a list of players who have agreed to follow those rules, and a list of "not allowed" players (ones who have been kicked from the group, and ones who are known trolls, farmers, and so on). Then anyone could post a want ad for a game, specifying their requirements, and provide the password via PM if anyone suitable is interested. If someone indicates interest, either they can agree with the rules, and be listed as part of the thread/group, or, if they are already on the list, the game is good to go. This way, players like Hop can be white listed, yet not feel committed to anything. Also, anyone visiting callouts can consider what kind of game they want, and perhaps "join" the thread/group.

[Swimmerdude99]

I think this is probably the best way to go, perhaps as it grows, we can move it to a private forum so that it doesn't take so long to join. Worth a shot! I'll try to craft up a main game thread for it and pair down my original post to start us there.

[Fewnix]

I'm in.

Suggestion as to one criteria for Ladies and Gents as a simple courtesy unless this is a game specifically for learners, you do not join a game, as an individual and especially not as part of a team, unless you have some basic knowledge of the map and can play at a reasonable level,including. showing up for your turns

An "objective" criteria for having basic knowledge of the map- have played it at least 5 times ( CC call this "frequently") and won at least once..

[Swimmerdude99]

I'm in.

Suggestion as to one criteria for Ladies and Gents as a simple courtesy unless this is a game specifically for learners, you do not join a game, as an individual and especially not as part of a team, unless you have some basic knowledge of the map and can play at a reasonable level,including. showing up for your turns

An "objective" criteria for having basic knowledge of the map- have played it at least 5 times ( CC call this "frequently") and won at least once..

This is a good point. Something I definitely should include. Teams for team games can only be entered as a group. You cannot join the game unless you and your teamates meet the specified criteria. Perhaps members can contact one another or post interest, but you may not hold a spot in the game without inviting the other players that you plan to play with and meet the poster's criteria. Great point Fewnix!

As to the must having played 5 times, I think I'll leave that up to the teams playing and teams joining to decide if they want to let a newbie join them in their quest for glory!