Forum

here · by **sempaispellcheck** on Wed Nov 28, 2012 10:00 pm

This seems to me to be a really good idea.
The problem is, it would probably be very hard to implement for at least a couple of reasons:

1) Not having opponents would probably require some kind of AI player.
2) These practice games would, ideally, involve no loss or gain of points.

Both of these seem to me like they would not be very easy to code.

That said, this is a really good idea. It would, if done right, reduce the number of players who leave after short periods of time and also reduce players' ability to "farm" new recruits.

Then again, multis who might otherwise be busted as having "knowledge beyond their experience," so to speak, might be written off as having played a lot of practice games - and players who play a lot of practice games before playing real games might be reported for being multis.

So, I'm for it, overall, but curious to know what others think.

by **greenoaks** on Wed Nov 28, 2012 10:23 pm

your score reflects the games you have played, all of them.

practice games allow you to greatly increase your skill on a map and then gain far more points then you would have because now you will win more games than a beginner yet receive the points as though you were still one.

here · by **sempaispellcheck** on Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:14 pm

greenoaks wrote:your score reflects the games you have played, all of them.

So maybe the AI player (if that's how it's done) could be assigned some arbitrary score, say 1000?

greenoaks wrote:practice games allow you to greatly increase your skill on a map and then gain far more points then you would have because now you will win more games than a beginner yet receive the points as though you were still one.

Yes, but if you replace "you" with "everyone" it's a lot fairer than that.

by **greenoaks** on Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:39 pm

sempaispellcheck wrote:
greenoaks wrote:practice games allow you to greatly increase your skill on a map and then gain far more points then you would have because now you will win more games than a beginner yet receive the points as though you were still one.

Yes, but if you replace "you" with "everyone" it's a lot fairer than that.

but that's just it, not everyone will practice and those that do wont to the same extent.

it will allow those that care to become really good at a map without the natural loss of points. perfect for high ranks to never play a lower ranked again until they have completely mastered the map and can be assured victory every game ie. farming GLG style.

here · by **sempaispellcheck** on Thu Nov 29, 2012 12:34 am

What if we limit it to, say, 5 practice games per player per map? Do you think that might work?

by **Metsfanmax** on Thu Nov 29, 2012 12:36 am

greenoaks wrote:your score reflects the games you have played, all of them.

practice games allow you to greatly increase your skill on a map and then gain far more points then you would have because now you will win more games than a beginner yet receive the points as though you were still one.

Yes, and practicing chess with a friend at home allows you to greatly increase your chess skill and then go to a tournament and gain far more points than you would have. Is this unfair? Should people be banned from practicing competitive games?

Of course not. That extra point gain would only happen once, at which point you would equilibrate to a rating reflecting your actual skill level.

it will allow those that care to become really good at a map without the natural loss of points. perfect for high ranks to never play a lower ranked again until they have completely mastered the map and can be assured victory every game ie. farming GLG style.

People who put in that much dedication to learning a map should be the ones who have the high ranks. Why would we want to punish people who try really hard to perfect their skill?

by **greenoaks** on Thu Nov 29, 2012 3:24 am

this has been suggested and rejected numerous times.

by **Metsfanmax** on Thu Nov 29, 2012 9:20 am

greenoaks wrote:this has been suggested and rejected numerous times.

It has been suggested and let die numerous times. This is one of those suggestions that has fallen into the feedback loop where, because it was already sent to rejected, people just say "it's been rejected" and let it die without talking about why. If you look at the collated topic in Rejected, something like the first 10 pages goes by without even a single coherent argument against the suggestion.

by **chapcrap** on Thu Nov 29, 2012 10:43 am

The difference between practicing chess at home and CC at home is that chess is universal and the same everywhere. These maps are not.

People CAN practice Risk at home on the Classic style map (and a few other Hasbro specialty maps), but they can't practice Stalingrad and Das Schloss and things like that at home because they only exist here.

In my opinion, I would not have a problem with this if it were done from the beginning, but changing it in the middle takes away from all the players that have already had to risk points on unknown maps because they were not able to practice it first. If I were going to get behind this suggestion, I would need to see some kind of limitations. Like only available on Classic or only available 1 time per map. Unlimited usage on unlimited maps would be a no from me.

by **Metsfanmax** on Thu Nov 29, 2012 11:08 am

chapcrap wrote:In my opinion, I would not have a problem with this if it were done from the beginning, but changing it in the middle takes away from all the players that have already had to risk points on unknown maps because they were not able to practice it first. If I were going to get behind this suggestion, I would need to see some kind of limitations. Like only available on Classic or only available 1 time per map. Unlimited usage on unlimited maps would be a no from me.

Nobody forced them to risk points on unknown maps. If they wanted to be protective of their points, they could have stuck to maps that they knew. We shouldn't continue to make a bad decision because of bad decisions that were made in the past.

by **chapcrap** on Thu Nov 29, 2012 11:10 am

What makes it a bad decision?

by **Metsfanmax** on Thu Nov 29, 2012 11:23 am

chapcrap wrote:What makes it a bad decision?

Mainly that it excludes a whole host of opportunities to play games without the pressure of points. For some reason, a number of people in the old threads enforced this mentality that you either play for points, or you don't care about points. But that's not true. Sometimes I want to play for points (if I'm playing on maps that I'm experienced at, and I want to test my mettle against other people who are experienced) and sometimes I don't (if I'm playing on unfamiliar maps). I want to have the fun of playing these other maps, without risking my reputation on the maps that I care about. I have avoided a whole lot of maps for this reason, but I would try out a whole lot more of the maps we have if I weren't risking points to do so.

by **Funkyterrance** on Thu Nov 29, 2012 12:55 pm

While I too have my reservations about this idea, they are self-interested and therefore shouldn't count. Of course it would be hard to take if a cook beats me badly on a map but hey, if he's better at the game than me, so be it. I think the rating system is somewhat bunk anyway so something like this could be quite refreshing. Point hoarders would cry bloody murder but I think the overall effect of this would be a more accurate reflection of the skill level of every player and who can object to that? I am in favor of this one.

P.S.- OP, please correct the spelling of the title?

by **Funkyterrance** on Thu Nov 29, 2012 10:20 pm

I've been thinking about this suggestion and I really want it. These old crusty players with their "favorite" maps and setting are getting tiresome. Would be nice to practice some cryptic map a little instead of having to learn against a point hoarder, making him/her just a little bit fatter. Besides, I don't think that people would practice until they completely mastered a map, just until they were comfortable enough to not make completely noobish moves on it. The people who were really good at a map would still reign superior.
Also, this would make it more fun to play against a friend to prevent bad blood due to loss of points. Did I mention I like this suggestion?
In a war situation everyone is trained/briefed before they head out to battle. Why should here be any different?

by **agentcom** on Sun Dec 09, 2012 3:10 pm

I agree that this particular suggestion would be pretty difficult because it would either require AI or maybe an option to allow you to fill up all the game slots yourself. I think it's a better suggestion than the one to allow no-points practice games against others even though I think that suggestion would be easier to implement. But to briefly rehash the argument against no points games and to respond to metsfan, I think there is a good reason not to allow practice games:

The system is currently set up so that you have to choose between hoarding points and playing lots of different maps and settings--what a lot of people would refer to as having fun on this site. I like that. I wouldn't want the Conqueror who plays nothing buy City Mogul against noobs to also be able to play whatever maps they want for free. This is totally a matter of personal preference, but I like that those that are high on the scoreboard have to be dedicated to the pursuit of points. I respect the guys who have been able to do that even if it was by gaining a handful of points at a time in exchange for winning 90% of their games. That takes effort.

For those of you that want to discuss the no points option further, that topic is here.