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...
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 ?
Agreed. A positive compromise.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.
Exactly so the truly vulnerable are protected.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.
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.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.
Yep.sully800 wrote:Clan games (if approved) would still be scored like private and tourney games?
e_i_pi wrote: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)
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.
jnd94 wrote:What if you are in Div. 2, you get a gmae going with otehr div 2 'ers, then demote to 3?
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.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?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest