divide competition into divisions - revised [Page 1]

[yeti_c]

I love the idea - although I propose the following tweaks.

a) Tournie games must be open to any and all divisions (The FA Cup is played by all teams of the league)

b) Private games should be open to any division too (Going with the football analogy consider them "showcase" games (or friendlies))

SOOOoooooooooo - points etc still calculated in the same way etc regardless of who you play...

Therefore Public games have the league restrictions - and this will still solve the problems that your suggestion solves.

C.

[cicero]

a) Tournie games must be open to any and all divisions (The FA Cup is played by all teams of the league)

b) Private games should be open to any division too (Going with the football analogy consider them "showcase" games (or friendlies))

SOOOoooooooooo - points etc still calculated in the same way etc regardless of who you play...

lol

Having slept on Sully's posts I'd come up with exactly the same thoughts and had just arrived to post them ...

a) Agreed 100%. Tournaments by their nature are competitive and already have motivation built in. And the main scoreboard being in divisions will actually add an incentive for people to enter tournaments - as 'cup competitions' - which is a positive side effect of the scoreboard structure.

b) Agreed though I'm not sure if it's a "clean" enough solution on its own. It can be argued that it could be "abused" by posting games with passwords in Callouts or wherever effectively making such games public and circumventing the divisions. For a totally "clean" solution Private games would have to be "no points" games (which is in keeping with your "showcase" or "friendly" games) which I personally favour anyway independently of this suggestion since if you want meaningful points I believe you should have to fight openly for them. However I believe is unlikely to ever get the approval of the site owner? Perhaps in this context it could/would/should ?

Re Clan games as raised by Sully if e_i_pi's suggestion for a separate 'Clan' game type were implemented these would effectively another kind of 'private' game in which points will still be scored. This allows the restriction of entry that clan matches need, the points scoring that clan matches need and - much like tournaments - since clan matches are also by their nature competitive and have motivation built in - their is no detrimental effect to the main scoreboard divisions.

Oh and finally a quick on topic plea, can we keep this thread to discussion of the suggestion rather than pursuing the argument further about how hard it is/isn't to find an open public game of a particular type and what this does/doesn't mean. Thanks!

[yeti_c]

b) Agreed though I'm not sure if it's a "clean" enough solution on its own. It can be argued that it could be "abused" by posting games with passwords in Callouts or wherever effectively making such games public and circumventing the divisions. For a totally "clean" solution Private games would have to be "no points" games (which is in keeping with your "showcase" or "friendly" games) which I personally favour anyway independently of this suggestion since if you want meaningful points I believe you should have to fight openly for them. However I believe is unlikely to ever get the approval of the site owner? Perhaps in this context it could/would/should ?

I don't think that Private games should be no-points - as then you have the problem of people getting to the top - and only playing one "meaningful" game per month - and a load of private games to keep their score static...

I don't think that abusing private games by posting them in callouts etc is too much of an issue - as I dont think it would really be a way of farming etc - (most "newbs" don't even know where the forum is let alone the callouts?!)

So in summary I agree that the "cleanest" solution would equal no points - but the safest (And therefore more likely to be implemented) solution wouldn't...

C.

[PLAYER57832]

I suggested something similar, but only for the upper bounds.

That is, everything would stay as they are for lower ranks. BUT, to get to the conquerer, you would have to play a certain number of open, public games. Personally, I could care less about rank, but it does seem that if you want to call yourself "conquerer" of all CC ... you should be open to actually playing all CC, within reason. (that 'within reason" part is where there is a lot of debate)

Maybe something similar to get to the Field Marshall/Brigadier status or some such???? It seems those are the ones who really have the biggest issue with losing points in public games ...and the biggest legitimate gripe. (that gripe being that they stand to gain very few points but will lose a LOT ... and that this will inevitably happen due to pure dumb luck if they play public games).

However, the one we have to convince of ANY "no points" option is Lack. So far, he has been completely against any such option.

[sully800]

I agree with yeti's suggestion as well. If the divisions only apply to public games then noob farming is effectively resolved and you can still play whoever you please on the private side. It would still be able to farm cooks through callouts, because there are some long time players who know about callouts and are not excellent strategists. However it would not work well for most new recruits because they would find their games through join-a-game and not callouts.

Cicero: Why was your initial suggestion 3 divisions? I like the idea as I said before, but that number was arbitrarily chosen, correct? I'm wondering how even more divisions might change the dynamic of this system, for better or worse.

Clan games (if approved) would still be scored like private and tourney games?

[cicero]

I agree with yeti's suggestion as well. If the divisions only apply to public games then noob farming is effectively resolved and you can still play whoever you please on the private side.

Agreed. A positive compromise.

It would still be able to farm cooks through callouts, because there are some long time players who know about callouts and are not excellent strategists. However it would not work well for most new recruits because they would find their games through join-a-game and not callouts.

Exactly so the truly vulnerable are protected.

Cicero: Why was your initial suggestion 3 divisions? I like the idea as I said before, but that number was arbitrarily chosen, correct? I'm wondering how even more divisions might change the dynamic of this system, for better or worse.

It wasn't entirely arbitrary . Obviously there needs to be more than 1 division or there'd be no suggestion . My original thinking was that higher numbers of divisions would magnify the effect of reducing the number of available opponents/games hence the variety of your experience in a way that wouldn't be offset by the positive effects already described. Also I felt that, applying Lack's preference for KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid), this was the simplest solution that generated all the desired positive effects and also would be the minimum "culture shock" to the majority who are naturally resistant to change.

I agree though that it's worth reflecting further on the potential effect of higher numbers of divisions. Equally I think there is some benefit in reflecting on what would actually happen over time in each of the divisions ... At first, as set out in the original post, the divisions would be set up by simply slicing up the current scoreboard appropriately ... I suspect that, rolling the model forward, to subsequent seasons wouldn't necessarily be so clear cut ...

Clan games (if approved) would still be scored like private and tourney games?

Yep.

[OliverFA]

Dammit my last reply just went into the ether.

I wholeheartedly support this idea. In my opinion, this is what it solves, permanently:

• Point farming of noobs
• Lack of available competition between players of similar rank
• Inflation of points
• Lack of goals for mid-ranked and low-ranked players

As for clan games as LFAW suggested, I am putting up a suggestion in a moment that we have a new game type called "Clan", alongside "Public", "Private", and "Tournament". It's long overdue, and opens up possibilities to allow inter-divison players in Clan or Tournament games. (Private won't do, as we'll still have the problem of one unnamed cheat luring ?s into private games)

I dislike the idea. If you are going to implement limitations on who you can play, I would use a different criteria. Something like a threshold. Something like "a player cannot join a game with players with more than 2X or less than 0.5X points, where X is player current score".

[OliverFA]

I suggested something similar, but only for the upper bounds.

That is, everything would stay as they are for lower ranks. BUT, to get to the conquerer, you would have to play a certain number of open, public games. Personally, I could care less about rank, but it does seem that if you want to call yourself "conquerer" of all CC ... you should be open to actually playing all CC, within reason. (that 'within reason" part is where there is a lot of debate)

Maybe something similar to get to the Field Marshall/Brigadier status or some such???? It seems those are the ones who really have the biggest issue with losing points in public games ...and the biggest legitimate gripe. (that gripe being that they stand to gain very few points but will lose a LOT ... and that this will inevitably happen due to pure dumb luck if they play public games).

However, the one we have to convince of ANY "no points" option is Lack. So far, he has been completely against any such option.

I agree with you. A Conqueror (and maybe also some higher ranks) must be ready to defend their score against anyone, and not choose their oponents privately.

[jnd94]

What if you are in Div. 2, you get a gmae going with otehr div 2 'ers, then demote to 3?

[cicero]

What if you are in Div. 2, you get a gmae going with otehr div 2 'ers, then demote to 3?

No problem. The game completes as usual.
Divisions only limit who you can join games with and who can join any games you start. [Tournament, Clan and Private games are all exempt from this limitation as previously noted.]

[Blinkadyblink]

What if someone in the top 4,000 of division 3 had a lower score than someone in the bottom 4,000 of division 2? Would the one with the lower score end up in the higher division once the season ends and demotions/promotions occur?

[InkL0sed]

What if someone in the top 4,000 of division 3 had a lower score than someone in the bottom 4,000 of division 2? Would the one with the lower score end up in the higher division once the season ends and demotions/promotions occur?

This is a good question. I think instead of it being a set number, it should be more of a percentage. That way, at least in the beginning of the season, everybody in division 2 will have higher ranks than everybody in division 3.

[cicero]

What if someone in the top 4,000 of division 3 had a lower score than someone in the bottom 4,000 of division 2? Would the one with the lower score end up in the higher division once the season ends and demotions/promotions occur?

That highlights one of the intentions of the idea ... Promotion/Demotion is based purely on the position in the division ... so yes, even if someone has a lower score they still get promoted.

[PLAYER57832]

It seems that while this might help the upper and very lowest ranks, the middle folks would be shortchanged. They will be restricted who they play for 3 months. This could mean someone "trapped" too low or too high... either way could be bad.

[Mr Changsha]

Not keen I am afraid...

I set up large single games and enjoy the fact that I have no idea what kinds of players will join. Sometimes it looks like an officers club and at other times I find three cooks, a cadet and a few privates.

Isn't that how CC is supposed to work?

It doesn't because a lot of the top players wouldn't dream of allowing a cook into their game, either through prejudice or fear. This concept of divisions seems to encourage that kind of thinking.

Rather like Player##### I am attracted in principle but don't think it is quite there yet.

I will have a good think about this and maybe post back in a while.

(We all know any suggestion takes at least half a millenium to be resolved anyway...no rush.)