[GO] Unrated, Unranked, or No Points Games

[AndyDufresne]

Sounds like more of a suggestion. I do believe it has been rejected though, as of this time.


--Andy

[wrightfan123]

Like exhibition games. But there should be a limit. More premiums, you can only have four going at a time. For non-premiums, they count toward your regular games total.

-W123

[weidsun]

yes i agree they should count towards the game limit for non premiums

[NESconqueror]

Allow unrated games, but ONLY ONE unrated game PER person that counts toward the 4game limit!

[Risktaker17]

It has been rejected countless times.

[ParadiceCity9]

It has been rejected countless times.

[Blitzaholic]

I voted no

[plysprtz]

It would be useful for new maps. If you have never played a map before and you finally try it, it would be easier to go un-rated and not risk the points

[insomniacdude]

I for one vote that this is reconsidered by the powers-that-be. This has been rejected before, and I've heard many of the arguments against them, but I think the benefits far outweigh negatives of this feature. Is it possible to get an official word on why this has been rejected?

[john9blue]

I remember thinking that CC should have something like this a while ago. After looking through the to-do list, I find it rejected, even though it received a great deal of support. The only complaint so far is that it would be abused to save one's rank. The solution is simple: unranked games won't reset the 30-day count on the scoreboard. The outcome of the game won't affect the scoreboard anyway, so it need not have anything to do with the scoreboard at all.

Furthermore, having an 'unranked games' option seems like a good opportunity to activate some options that could be abused in ranked games, such as mission cards, unfair teams, wild cards, and different numbers of dice (e.g. 4 attacking dice or 3 defending dice.) This would definitely give CC a lot more playability and value, without having to worry about how it would affect the score.

Many of the other posts on this thread give good reasons why this idea should be approved. If a mod could either approve of this, or explain why it was rejected, that would be helpful.

[Herakilla]

sure, make it not reset the scoreboard

just get to a high rank then start playing only unranked and once a month play one speed game

see what i mean?

[InkL0sed]

Well, make it so you have to play ranked games to be on the scoreboard.

[lozzini]

how about each player gets 20 (for example) unranked games and there first 5 are enforced unranked so they can test if the game is for them, and get used to the tactics, then use lets say the other 15 on perfecting there play or on new maps, which can be used at any time

[john9blue]

sure, make it not reset the scoreboard

just get to a high rank then start playing only unranked and once a month play one speed game

see what i mean?

I'm afraid not. If a player wanted to remain on the scoreboard, they would play one speed game a month anyway. The unranked games would be just for fun.

If this really bothers you, there are several ways around it. We could make it illegal to play three unranked games in a row. We could lower the time limit to a week. We could make speed games not count. It really doesn't matter, as long as the high ranked players earn their rank legitimately.

This idea has seen a great deal of support, and I would like to see it work. I'm sure there's a way to do this without high ranked players abusing it.

[insomniacdude]

Furthermore, having an 'unranked games' option seems like a good opportunity to activate some options that could be abused in ranked games, such as mission cards, unfair teams, wild cards, and different numbers of dice (e.g. 4 attacking dice or 3 defending dice.) This would definitely give CC a lot more playability and value, without having to worry about how it would affect the score.

A bonus that has gone unmentioned so far in the arguments for unranked games, but an absolutely HUGE positive. It far outweighs the only current negative.

How's this for a solution: a play must have a ranked game for each unranked game he or she joins.

[snoman99991]

I know the idea for unranked matches was denied, but I think there might be a better alternative.

Imagine that all premium members could possibly have an extra option when they create a game. When they select a private match, and add in all of the other settings, they could also select whether or not the match is ranked. However, this doesn't allow for anonymous unranked play. Although people could maybe guess passwords and such, the requirement for having a password limits the game to whomever the game creator wants in their game.

So picture this. I want to play a doubles game with three of my friends, but we do this routinely, and don't want to give away points all of the time. This would probably be a daily thing. In order to avoid having to throw our rankings all over the place (when we still play public games anyway), we'd make a private game, and specify that it's unranked. Because it's private, nobody else would be taking advantage of the system to avoid playing public matches.

Additionally, if people are using private games, they need to organize. In order to do this, we would see an influx of members into the forums and the Live Chat, which would bolster community involvement. Ultimately, this feature would supplement the current system, and would encourage more users to play more games, and it would improve the general skill level of those who play often.

This could also be implemented using the pending "request to join game" feature, and invites could potentially be used as a method of streamlining the process.

Thanks for your time,

Eric

[got tonkaed]

maybe instead you could just lose less often.

[snoman99991]

How much do you lurk around these forums Justin???

[got tonkaed]

How much do you lurk around these forums Justin???

quite a bit...perhaps enough that its not to hard to find the rare occasions when your little brother posts.

[snoman99991]

So... yes, no? Just trying to bounce an idea here.

[got tonkaed]

So... yes, no? Just trying to bounce an idea here.

i guess its alright, the only problem i see, is if your playing with your friends, why would it matter so much about the rank, your only going to be wanting to beat them anyway....or you could set up the teams so that your not going to lose as many points either way.

[snoman99991]

I suppose, but imagine I'm playing against John, and I'm tired of completely destroying him every single time.

Worse yet, he plays more games than me, and therefore has a higher rank. If he has to play ten games just to make up for the one embarrassing loss to me, that totally sucks for him, because it was just a friendly match to begin with.

[hecter]

This thread scares me...

[snoman99991]

I can't help it if my older brother has supernatural lurking abilities. Kind of creepy if you ask me.

o_O

[Plutoman]

Ever wanted to play a game with a friend, but not have to worry about one of you losing your rank from it?

I propose to add an option to play games without any points gained or lost. Possibly not even counted towards the game win/loss percentage, and the game count.

This would allow friends to play games, test each others skills, without the loss of points from a friend. I've played several games where we lost a rank from a friend, and neither of us wanted that. Especially if you're low ranked, and your friends are high ranked. They end up going down quite a bit if they lose a game.