divide competition into divisions - revised [Page 1]

Suggestions that have been inactive for a long period of time.

Moderators: Suggestions Team, Global Moderators

Re: divide competition into divisions

Postby yeti_c on Fri Oct 10, 2008 3:03 am

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.
Image
Highest score : 2297
User avatar
Lieutenant yeti_c
 
Posts: 9670
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am
Medals: 46
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (13) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (10)

Re: divide competition into divisions

Postby cicero on Fri Oct 10, 2008 3:27 am

yeti_c wrote: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!
FREE M-E-Mbership and simple rules. Conquer Club - it's not complicated.

random me statistic @ 13 December 2008 - 1336 posts : 232nd most public posts (not counting Tower of Babble) of all time.
User avatar
Sergeant cicero
 
Posts: 1358
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:51 pm
Location: with the infected neutrals ... handing out maps to help them find their way to CC
Medals: 9
Standard Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) General Contribution (3)

Re: divide competition into divisions

Postby yeti_c on Fri Oct 10, 2008 5:35 am

cicero wrote: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.
Image
Highest score : 2297
User avatar
Lieutenant yeti_c
 
Posts: 9670
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am
Medals: 46
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (13) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (10)

Re: divide competition into divisions

Postby PLAYER57832 on Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:33 am

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.
Sergeant PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2377
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: divide competition into divisions

Postby sully800 on Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:48 am

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?
User avatar
Major sully800
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:45 pm
Location: Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2) Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (3) Map Contribution (1) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (5)

Re: divide competition into divisions

Postby cicero on Fri Oct 10, 2008 12:21 pm

sully800 wrote: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.

sully800 wrote: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.

sully800 wrote: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 ...

sully800 wrote:Clan games (if approved) would still be scored like private and tourney games?
Yep.
FREE M-E-Mbership and simple rules. Conquer Club - it's not complicated.

random me statistic @ 13 December 2008 - 1336 posts : 232nd most public posts (not counting Tower of Babble) of all time.
User avatar
Sergeant cicero
 
Posts: 1358
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:51 pm
Location: with the infected neutrals ... handing out maps to help them find their way to CC
Medals: 9
Standard Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) General Contribution (3)

Re: divide competition into divisions

Postby OliverFA on Sat Oct 11, 2008 1:39 pm

e_i_pi wrote:Dammit my last reply just went into the ether.

I wholeheartedly support this idea. =D> =D> =D> 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".
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class OliverFA
 
Posts: 2354
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:30 am
Location: Somewhere in Spain
Medals: 32
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (3) Training Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (2) General Contribution (5)

Re: divide competition into divisions

Postby OliverFA on Sat Oct 11, 2008 1:44 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote: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.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class OliverFA
 
Posts: 2354
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:30 am
Location: Somewhere in Spain
Medals: 32
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (3) Training Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (2) General Contribution (5)

Re: divide competition into divisions

Postby jnd94 on Sat Oct 11, 2008 1:46 pm

What if you are in Div. 2, you get a gmae going with otehr div 2 'ers, then demote to 3?
Captain jnd94
 
Posts: 7190
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 4:22 pm
Medals: 39
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (3) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (3) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (1) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (2)

Re: divide competition into divisions

Postby cicero on Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:50 pm

jnd94 wrote: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.]
FREE M-E-Mbership and simple rules. Conquer Club - it's not complicated.

random me statistic @ 13 December 2008 - 1336 posts : 232nd most public posts (not counting Tower of Babble) of all time.
User avatar
Sergeant cicero
 
Posts: 1358
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:51 pm
Location: with the infected neutrals ... handing out maps to help them find their way to CC
Medals: 9
Standard Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) General Contribution (3)

Re: divide competition into divisions

Postby Blinkadyblink on Sun Oct 12, 2008 6:11 pm

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?
User avatar
Major Blinkadyblink
 
Posts: 459
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 6:19 pm
Location: The Local Group
Medals: 47
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (11) General Achievement (5)
Clan Achievement (5) Tournament Contribution (2)

Re: divide competition into divisions

Postby InkL0sed on Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:16 pm

Blinkadyblink wrote: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.
User avatar
Lieutenant InkL0sed
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:06 pm
Location: underwater
Medals: 23
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2)
Teammate Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)

Re: divide competition into divisions

Postby cicero on Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:02 am

Blinkadyblink wrote: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.
FREE M-E-Mbership and simple rules. Conquer Club - it's not complicated.

random me statistic @ 13 December 2008 - 1336 posts : 232nd most public posts (not counting Tower of Babble) of all time.
User avatar
Sergeant cicero
 
Posts: 1358
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:51 pm
Location: with the infected neutrals ... handing out maps to help them find their way to CC
Medals: 9
Standard Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) General Contribution (3)

Re: divide competition into divisions

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:10 pm

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.
Sergeant PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2377
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: divide competition into divisions

Postby Mr Changsha on Sat Oct 18, 2008 11:01 am

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.)
User avatar
Colonel Mr Changsha
 
Posts: 1627
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:42 am
Medals: 14
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (3)

Re: divide competition into divisions

Postby Gunner1980 on Tue Oct 28, 2008 7:50 pm

I like many of the ideas mentioned here, wanted to suggest some of them myself but i was convinced that it was discussed earlier and that it was rejected. Guess not. My suggestions would be:

* divisions are OK, but maybe they should be divided by ranks? For instance 1st div would be boys and girls from general to colonel/captain, 2nd league would be from colonel/captain to sergeant/srgnt 1st class, 3rd div are the guys below that line and then after 3 months we see who is who in divisions, and move them to divisions accordingly to their ranks
* scoring system is the same, but no points will be given for private games, and in private game all ranks can play, regardless of the division they currently reside in. Hence private games would be used by guys wanting to play their friends or by clans, who want to brush up their strategies.
* in tourneys - everyone is invited, and the scoring system is as now. That would give additional charm to tourneys
* clan games - clan calls out other clan? all guys in clan can play, regardless of their position within cc world

I know that my suggestion for private games might be a bit drastic, but what totally pisses me off is to see highly ranked guys that are playing exclusively private games with their friends and they are holding each others scores way up high. Like someone said,if you want to call yourself a conqueror, you should be playing against ppl from the whole CC community (or in new case, from the division u r in). For instance, i have a high amount of respect towards Prankcall, as he starts open freestyle 8 men games, not caring who will join in. I do not know the guy, he might be a total dickhead :lol: , but he plays against whomever, as oppose to some guys.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Gunner1980
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Croatia, of course...
Medals: 11
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) Assassin Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1) Tournament Achievement (1)

Re: divide competition into divisions

Postby THE ARMY on Tue Oct 28, 2008 7:55 pm

i like it but it will be too complex
User avatar
Major THE ARMY
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:13 pm
Location: The Empire State
Medals: 22
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (3) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (3)

Re: divide competition into divisions

Postby Nikolai on Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:10 pm

I will now do something I try never to do: jump in without reading the whole thread. I have a couple of comments.

First, I suspect the problems of making games entirely division specific have already been mentioned... clan games, etc. become a problem, and if a high rank doesn't play for a month or two, then comes back and is sitting in cookland and can only play cooks, he's probably going to lose a lot of points. Having been one who left for a year and came back, I know it'd piss me off royally if I worked up to a high rank and then felt like I couldn't take a break without losing my rank. That would encourage point dumping. This could be fixed if an option were added whereby you could make games division specific or not... but that would go a long ways towards defeating the goals of ending noob farming. It's still a solid idea for giving middle rankers something to play for, but... yeah.

Second, it would be fairly easy for people to be working on stat manipulation so that they could be the lower division conqueror, or whatever. I think this could be handled by providing awards and maybe status rankings in the forums to encourage people to try to stay in the higher divisions. Of course, some people will always be stupid, but... no system is going to prevent stupidity.

Third, I think you could have a problem with new players feeling like they aren't going to learn anything if all they can play is low level types for a while. I know when I joined, I learned more playing with and against Pilate and Highborn and a few other highly ranked (at that time) players than all the low-level opponents put together, and I was willing to take the chance of losing points to improve. (And, as it happened, I won a few and lost a few, and probably came out ahead for being willing to play high ranks.) Again, I wouldn't make all games division specific.

Also, since I think I saw something about this earlier, remember that new players often aren't going to rush out and start up their own games... they prefer to join other peoples' games to find out what kind of game they like.

If this has all been answered, just tell me to shut up. 8-)
Sergeant 1st Class Nikolai
 
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:11 pm
Medals: 4
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1)

Re: divide competition into divisions

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:18 pm

I think you made some good points, Nikolai, particularly about leaving for a long while.
Sergeant PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2377
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: divide competition into divisions

Postby cicero on Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:51 am

Nikolai wrote:I will now do something I try never to do: jump in without reading the whole thread. I have a couple of comments.
lol :) ... It shows that you didn't read it since these points have been addressed, but since you've resurrected a promising idea, no harm done ;)

Nikolai wrote:First, I suspect the problems of making games entirely division specific have already been mentioned... clan games, etc. become a problem, and if a high rank doesn't play for a month or two, then comes back and is sitting in cookland and can only play cooks, he's probably going to lose a lot of points. Having been one who left for a year and came back, I know it'd piss me off royally if I worked up to a high rank and then felt like I couldn't take a break without losing my rank. That would encourage point dumping. This could be fixed if an option were added whereby you could make games division specific or not... but that would go a long ways towards defeating the goals of ending noob farming. It's still a solid idea for giving middle rankers something to play for, but... yeah.
Regarding clan games: There is a separate suggestion for a new game type "clan". This suggestion uses that to allow private, clan and tournament games to be conducted outside the divisions. Regarding taking a long break: Assuming you were a division one player at the outset and were then inactive for the last 30 days of two consecutive seasons you would come back to find yourself a division 3 player. However your rank would not have changed, so you'd almost certainly be at the top of division 3 and well set for a promotion. In the meantime you'd not exactly be "in cookland" since division 3 will contain all but the top 12000 players (using the originally suggested division sizes) and so (by today's approximation) you'd be playing ranks up to around Private 1st Class [see footnote]. Finally re point dumping, you've provided your own answer when combined with the fact that private, clan and tournament games would be conducted without the division restriction.

Nikolai wrote:Second, it would be fairly easy for people to be working on stat manipulation so that they could be the lower division conqueror, or whatever. I think this could be handled by providing awards and maybe status rankings in the forums to encourage people to try to stay in the higher divisions. Of course, some people will always be stupid, but... no system is going to prevent stupidity.
I'll quote the response I made to the same point earlier in the thread:
cicero wrote:I really don't think that's the case since dropping a division to have a bite at an hourly changing rank in a lower division seems bizarre ... even setting aside the transient (hourly) element how many real life 'division 1' sports teams would consider deliberately sacrificing a whole season just so that they could 'be the best in division 2'? Even if there are some players who would exhibit this motivation I am convinced that the additional motivation for the majority of medium and low rankers far outweighs this. Even if this isn't correct and people will abuse the divisions as you describe at least they will only be able to do so every other season (rather than continuously as some abusers do now) since they will have to play the season after demotion 'properly' in order to achieve their temporary 'be the best in division 2' goal.


Nikolai wrote:Third, I think you could have a problem with new players feeling like they aren't going to learn anything if all they can play is low level types for a while. I know when I joined, I learned more playing with and against Pilate and Highborn and a few other highly ranked (at that time) players than all the low-level opponents put together, and I was willing to take the chance of losing points to improve. (And, as it happened, I won a few and lost a few, and probably came out ahead for being willing to play high ranks.) Again, I wouldn't make all games division specific.
Again clan, private and tournament games are not division specific.

Nikolai wrote:Also, since I think I saw something about this earlier, remember that new players often aren't going to rush out and start up their own games ... they prefer to join other peoples' games [see footnote] to find out what kind of game they like.
I see your point, but I think division three is going to be so large that there won't be a problem.

footnote: Actually these two points bring me to think that the top two divisions should be slightly smaller than the originally proposed 4000 and 8000 to improve the quality and quantity available in division 3.

Nikolai wrote:If this has all been answered, just tell me to shut up. 8-)
:-^ ...
No, really, thanks for your input Nikolai, what do you think of the responses?
In fact, you've inspired me to revise the whole proposal to reflect the discussions to date.

Cicero
FREE M-E-Mbership and simple rules. Conquer Club - it's not complicated.

random me statistic @ 13 December 2008 - 1336 posts : 232nd most public posts (not counting Tower of Babble) of all time.
User avatar
Sergeant cicero
 
Posts: 1358
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:51 pm
Location: with the infected neutrals ... handing out maps to help them find their way to CC
Medals: 9
Standard Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) General Contribution (3)

Re: divide competition into divisions - revised [Page 1]

Postby cicero on Wed Oct 29, 2008 4:08 am

See revised post on page 1.
FREE M-E-Mbership and simple rules. Conquer Club - it's not complicated.

random me statistic @ 13 December 2008 - 1336 posts : 232nd most public posts (not counting Tower of Babble) of all time.
User avatar
Sergeant cicero
 
Posts: 1358
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:51 pm
Location: with the infected neutrals ... handing out maps to help them find their way to CC
Medals: 9
Standard Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) General Contribution (3)

Re: divide competition into divisions - revised [Page 1]

Postby yeti_c on Thu Oct 30, 2008 12:09 pm

I like the revisions Cic...

1 small query...

As you can see - my name begins with a y... (A lower case y as well) which means I'm pretty damn screwed when it comes to alphabetical ordering... - So to ensure fairness for people with names like mine - I propose that in case of any draws that lead to people being not promoted/demoted if they are higher up the board (which is highly likely) then we choose a deciding factor that isn't alphanumerically based...

My initial thought was "Win Percentage" - however - I know that this percentage isn't really that accurate as it depends on what types of games you play...

So my next thought was - "Streak" - who's won the highest number of games in a row when the results are done... see above for similar problems though...

My next thought was - "Seasonal points" - who has scored the most points in this season... and I think this is probably the best factor.

Could throw in turns taken percentage too.

C.
Image
Highest score : 2297
User avatar
Lieutenant yeti_c
 
Posts: 9670
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am
Medals: 46
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (13) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (10)

Re: divide competition into divisions - revised [Page 1]

Postby cicero on Thu Oct 30, 2008 12:17 pm

yeti_c wrote:I like the revisions Cic...

1 small query...

As you can see - my name begins with a y... (A lower case y as well) which means I'm pretty damn screwed when it comes to alphabetical ordering... - So to ensure fairness for people with names like mine - I propose that in case of any draws that lead to people being not promoted/demoted if they are higher up the board (which is highly likely) then we choose a deciding factor that isn't alphanumerically based...

My initial thought was "Win Percentage" - however - I know that this percentage isn't really that accurate as it depends on what types of games you play...

So my next thought was - "Streak" - who's won the highest number of games in a row when the results are done... see above for similar problems though...

My next thought was - "Seasonal points" - who has scored the most points in this season... and I think this is probably the best factor.

Could throw in turns taken percentage too.

C.
Whatever the factors that are currently used to decide the order in the scoreboard will be retained. Those that do not appear in the scoreboard, because they haven't taken a turn for 30 days, to be ordered in the same way as those who do with the addition - as already set out in the suggestion - that they will be lower for promotion/demotion purposes than all those who do appear.

I don't think changing what constitutes "scoreboard order" is something we should even go near for the purposes of this suggestion ...
FREE M-E-Mbership and simple rules. Conquer Club - it's not complicated.

random me statistic @ 13 December 2008 - 1336 posts : 232nd most public posts (not counting Tower of Babble) of all time.
User avatar
Sergeant cicero
 
Posts: 1358
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:51 pm
Location: with the infected neutrals ... handing out maps to help them find their way to CC
Medals: 9
Standard Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) General Contribution (3)

Re: divide competition into divisions - revised [Page 1]

Postby bonzifan on Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:43 pm

I actually think this is an excellent Idea!. The only suggestion I would make, is to ensure people can mutualy "friend" people from other strains who you could still play with.

I have several RL friends on here who I would'nt be able to play with if you didn't add this option.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class bonzifan
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 2:50 pm
Medals: 8
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1)

Re: divide competition into divisions

Postby Nikolai on Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:31 pm

cicero wrote:lol :) ... It shows that you didn't read it since these points have been addressed, but since you've resurrected a promising idea, no harm done ;)


Yeah, well, to be fair I did warn you. :lol:

cicero wrote:Regarding clan games: There is a separate suggestion for a new game type "clan". This suggestion uses that to allow private, clan and tournament games to be conducted outside the divisions. Regarding taking a long break: Assuming you were a division one player at the outset and were then inactive for the last 30 days of two consecutive seasons you would come back to find yourself a division 3 player. However your rank would not have changed, so you'd almost certainly be at the top of division 3 and well set for a promotion. In the meantime you'd not exactly be "in cookland" since division 3 will contain all but the top 12000 players (using the originally suggested division sizes) and so (by today's approximation) you'd be playing ranks up to around Private 1st Class [see footnote]. Finally re point dumping, you've provided your own answer when combined with the fact that private, clan and tournament games would be conducted without the division restriction.


The clan games idea takes care of my problem with clan games, but not necessarily a lot else. EDIT: No, strike that, it does take care of the point-dumping concerns.

As far as delays go... I recognize that your idea is that you don't lose points or anything for not playing for a while, but that wasn't really my concern. My concern is that if I'm a field marshal (unlikely, I know, but as an example...8-)) and I stop playing for a few months and get dropped to division III, when I come back I'm going to have a hard time maintaining that rank when the highest ranked people I can play will walk away with huge point scores for beating me. Even if I win most of my stuff because I really deserve to be a field marshal, bad luck can happen to anyone. Hence my concern. Granted, I could play just enough games to stay on the scoreboard, which would probably ensure that I don't lose too many points, but that's just not fun... certainly not what I would want to do when I was coming back after a break.

cicero wrote:I'll quote the response I made to the same point earlier in the thread:
cicero wrote:I really don't think that's the case since dropping a division to have a bite at an hourly changing rank in a lower division seems bizarre ... even setting aside the transient (hourly) element how many real life 'division 1' sports teams would consider deliberately sacrificing a whole season just so that they could 'be the best in division 2'? Even if there are some players who would exhibit this motivation I am convinced that the additional motivation for the majority of medium and low rankers far outweighs this. Even if this isn't correct and people will abuse the divisions as you describe at least they will only be able to do so every other season (rather than continuously as some abusers do now) since they will have to play the season after demotion 'properly' in order to achieve their temporary 'be the best in division 2' goal.


That is helpful, to a certain extent, but I would continue to suggest some sort of reward - maybe status tags or something - for being in the higher divisions. I do think you're right about it adding motivation for the majority, though.

cicero wrote:Again clan, private and tournament games are not division specific.


Okay, but that doesn't help much. If I'm in a clan with high level players, I might get to play with them a bit, and tourneys are certainly an option. But I don't think a whole lot of newbies who are just learning the game are going to rush out and join a tournament, much less a clan. And I can virtually guarantee they won't be up to sending invites to private games to high rankers. wacicha's school helps this out a little bit, but the problem remains that if all public games are division specific, newbies who are just learning will probably not get to play very good players for a long time. I can see that resulting in a very slow (at best) climb up to the higher divisions.

cicero wrote:I see your point, but I think division three is going to be so large that there won't be a problem.


Yeah, maybe. I guess that's one of those things where we won't know until it happens.

cicero wrote:footnote: Actually these two points bring me to think that the top two divisions should be slightly smaller than the originally proposed 4000 and 8000 to improve the quality and quantity available in division 3.


Eh... keep in mind that some point inflation is ongoing. Admittedly, sometimes it gets set back, like when people like max get banned and take 4000+ points with them. But the player roster also continues to increase... I think if CC continues to grow, the original numbers will probably be about right.
Sergeant 1st Class Nikolai
 
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:11 pm
Medals: 4
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1)

Next

Return to Archived Suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Login