Update 9/5/13

[iAmCaffeine]

I don't see any need for a change in the points system. If you care so much about losing points to lower ranks, don't play them. If you want to learn a map with less chance of losing points then you've already answered that problem; use team games.

[Metsfanmax]

It seems the rating system is what it is. You really want unrated games since it makes no sense that you can dictate the value of a win to the rating system.

This!

I was thinking about it, and even 20 point games would result in some serious abuses, especially with high ranks vs low ranks. I don't think farming is right, and while it goes on now, it's still a risk for the farmer. (along with the risk of getting banned)

If there was an option to play 0 point games, this might appeal to those just wanting to play for fun. No risk of abuse whatsoever.

absolutely a risk of abuse.

practise on a map until you're awesome, then play for points.

That is not abuse; that is precisely the point of practice.

[greenoaks]

It seems the rating system is what it is. You really want unrated games since it makes no sense that you can dictate the value of a win to the rating system.

This!

I was thinking about it, and even 20 point games would result in some serious abuses, especially with high ranks vs low ranks. I don't think farming is right, and while it goes on now, it's still a risk for the farmer. (along with the risk of getting banned)

If there was an option to play 0 point games, this might appeal to those just wanting to play for fun. No risk of abuse whatsoever.

absolutely a risk of abuse.

practise on a map until you're awesome, then play for points.

That is not abuse; that is precisely the point of practice.

not on this site.

our score is an amalgamation of the experience gained from every single game we have played. no point games allow a player to have a score greater than they deserve. that's abuse.

[betiko]

It seems the rating system is what it is. You really want unrated games since it makes no sense that you can dictate the value of a win to the rating system.

This!

I was thinking about it, and even 20 point games would result in some serious abuses, especially with high ranks vs low ranks. I don't think farming is right, and while it goes on now, it's still a risk for the farmer. (along with the risk of getting banned)

If there was an option to play 0 point games, this might appeal to those just wanting to play for fun. No risk of abuse whatsoever.

absolutely a risk of abuse.

practise on a map until you're awesome, then play for points.

That is not abuse; that is precisely the point of practice.

not on this site.

our score is an amalgamation of the experience gained from every single game we have played. no point games allow a player to have a score greater than they deserve. that's abuse.

well you don't get the point. Many players are on top of the scoreboard because they are 1 trick poneys and they have cold feet to join anything outside of their comfort zone. Many very good players are under ranked because they join carelessly any game. You've just said it yourself. The point system reflects your experience on the site (not how good you are).
If you had games just to fool around worth no points, and competitive games to improve your rank, the ranking would be much more accurate and would reflect in a better way where everyone stands. As I said, everyone being on the same boat!

For example, I had a friend who just joined conquer club and wanted to play me 1v1. I was brig at the time, and I though it was stupid to have to say no just because statistically I would lose tons of points. I won 4/6 because shit dice happen, and lost 90 points. How is it abusing the system if I just want to play some casual 1v1 games with a real life friend just for the fun of playing them without losing points that were won with lots of efforts? This is just one of the many examples we could have.
Also points free game would increase a lot the amount of games played and the traffic on the site. It's just a win win for everyone.

[Shannon Apple]

I agree, I have a friend from the USA who joined up to play against me. I won 2 games and he won 1. Because my rank was lower at the time, winning 2 games to his 1 almost set us back even. If there were no points involved, I would certainly invite more people to come challenge me.

Okay, you're going to say "play team games" but they don't want to play team games. They want a real time fight against their friends. Betiko I am sure knows exactly what I am talking about. When you play against friends for the first however so long, they just wanna kill you. It's a lot of fun, but playing a complete noob account is not fun points wise.

Before you say "points don't matter" they do. If you want to play against good players, you need to keep your score around the 2000 mark at least. People judge your ability by your score. Half a year ago, I was playing 1v1 games non stop and was holding a rank of sargeant first class and no one of equal skill to myself wanted to play with me. If I joined a public team game, the higher ranked player would drop the game. I have a 51% win rate on 1v1, but I was losing more points due to who I was losing to. I can't have been that bad, I ended up in one of CCs top clans a couple of months ago when I stopped 1v1 and upped my rank to major. However one of their members had played with me several times and advised me out of 1v1.

[greenoaks]

It seems the rating system is what it is. You really want unrated games since it makes no sense that you can dictate the value of a win to the rating system.

This!

I was thinking about it, and even 20 point games would result in some serious abuses, especially with high ranks vs low ranks. I don't think farming is right, and while it goes on now, it's still a risk for the farmer. (along with the risk of getting banned)

If there was an option to play 0 point games, this might appeal to those just wanting to play for fun. No risk of abuse whatsoever.

absolutely a risk of abuse.

practise on a map until you're awesome, then play for points.

That is not abuse; that is precisely the point of practice.

not on this site.

our score is an amalgamation of the experience gained from every single game we have played. no point games allow a player to have a score greater than they deserve. that's abuse.

well you don't get the point. Many players are on top of the scoreboard because they are 1 trick poneys and they have cold feet to join anything outside of their comfort zone. Many very good players are under ranked because they join carelessly any game. You've just said it yourself. The point system reflects your experience on the site (not how good you are).
If you had games just to fool around worth no points, and competitive games to improve your rank, the ranking would be much more accurate and would reflect in a better way where everyone stands. As I said, everyone being on the same boat!

For example, I had a friend who just joined conquer club and wanted to play me 1v1. I was brig at the time, and I though it was stupid to have to say no just because statistically I would lose tons of points. I won 4/6 because shit dice happen, and lost 90 points. How is it abusing the system if I just want to play some casual 1v1 games with a real life friend just for the fun of playing them without losing points that were won with lots of efforts? This is just one of the many examples we could have.
Also points free game would increase a lot the amount of games played and the traffic on the site. It's just a win win for everyone.

what would happen is high ranks would play almost exclusively no point games, preventing anyone below them from moving up and would only play for points when they were absolutely assured victory - farming.

[Armandolas]

what would happen is high ranks would play almost exclusively no point games, preventing anyone below them from moving up and would only play for points when they were absolutely assured victory - farming.

thats exactly my concern.I can see why people want "no points" games, but i can also see the scoreboard even more boring

[betiko]

what would happen is high ranks would play almost exclusively no point games, preventing anyone below them from moving up and would only play for points when they were absolutely assured victory - farming.

I still don't agree. If that system was in place, people would not join games where they almost stand no chance vs a super high ranked player unless it s points free. People could actually learn a lot from those games in points free games. Take GLG. He used to wall low ranks to lure them in his trap games and get his 5 pts each time. Why were people joining? because he was acually conqueror,he would teach them stuff, and they would just lose 5 points from the operation. If the no points system was in place, they would just say OK, I'll be glad to play you in a no points game! The guy would play a conqueror and learn from him... and GLG would either "teach" as he claim he was doing, or not accept and reveal his true nature!

At least Shanon seems to share my point of view!

Regarding your other point, if high ranked players play only no points games they would likely stall or go down. Say you're a 4000pts general; why would you only play no points game, why do that instead of chasing people above you???

As an example again; I've lost like 4200pts in 1v1 speedgames (54% 0,88 relative rank). I just enjoy playing stupid 1v1 speedgames where it's almost entirely luck, just for fun. I'd join anyone. Only thing is that high ranked players never join those, so you can only expect to play vs low ranked players and lose a lot, even with a positive win rate. What harm would it do to be able to play these just for fun and not having to be pissed because you lose tons of points by playing too many of those?
The system actually rewards people who never want to get out of their comfort zone and who play the least games possible to go up slowly but surely. How is that not boring?

[Shannon Apple]

What I was saying above. My win rate on 1v1 is 51% and my score is -1414. That's friggen crazy. That's not quite as bad as betiko, but I haven't been playing CC long enough to rack up that negative score lol (nevermind my join date)

I've seen another player that I map ranked for the hell of it with a win rate of 42% and a score of +2000 on 1v1.

This is purely the luck of the draw on who joins those games and which ones you win or lose. 1000-ish of my games were 1v1 classic which was a stupid thing to do I might add. lol.

Having said that, I don't think it would change anything regarding being able to tell a player's skill from their score. I've seen majors play like noobs. It might improve the rate of retaining players and have a positive impact on CC. Hell you could even cap the number of pointless games that a player can play per month or something. Newbies should definitely have this option open so that they can start 0 point games until they are comfortable to start raising their rank.

[betiko]

Hell you could even cap the number of pointless games that a player can play per month or something.

that is a very good idea that might change the opinion of people who are against. Say you can play 30 stupid luck games a month or something, just for the fun of it (or to train on new maps/settings) and your rank won't get affected.

[iAmCaffeine]

Hell you could even cap the number of pointless games that a player can play per month or something.

that is a very good idea that might change the opinion of people who are against. Say you can play 30 stupid luck games a month or something, just for the fun of it (or to train on new maps/settings) and your rank won't get affected.

Having a cap would make it more acceptable from my perspective - although I'm not in agreement - but thirty is ridiculously high. I'd say a cap of.. five. You only have to play take one turn a month to be on the scoreboard.

Should we not take this to Suggestions now?

[betiko]

Hell you could even cap the number of pointless games that a player can play per month or something.

that is a very good idea that might change the opinion of people who are against. Say you can play 30 stupid luck games a month or something, just for the fun of it (or to train on new maps/settings) and your rank won't get affected.

Having a cap would make it more acceptable from my perspective - although I'm not in agreement - but thirty is ridiculously high. I'd say a cap of.. five. You only have to play take one turn a month to be on the scoreboard.

Should we not take this to Suggestions now?

Well let s say that to be on the scoreboard, you need to play points games; playing no points games can t make you come back on the points scoreboard, I see no reason for that. (What was it, you need to have at least 1 completed game in the last 30 days to still appear on it?)
And 30 is not ridiculously high at all. That's one game per day. Let s say you want to have that stupid speed game you want to play to relax each day after work, not caring if you win or lose. 30 is extremely reasonable...

Oh and the reason why I m discussing it here and not on the suggestions forum, is because it would get automatically rejected, and bigwham seems to read this thread so it goes higher on the foodchain. I don t blame the suggestion moderators, they just know that this or that was automatically rejected by former owners. Bigwham seems opened to new ideas, and i think that suggestion moderators are seeing it now, and that old suggestions can be reconsidered without autorejecting them.

[iAmCaffeine]

Thirty seems reasonable to people like you and I who play frequently, but the majority of the players at the top of the scoreboard don't play such large quantities and could manipulate this too easily.

[betiko]

Thirty seems reasonable to people like you and I who play frequently, but the majority of the players at the top of the scoreboard don't play such large quantities and could manipulate this too easily.

Manipulate what/how?
I thought your point was regarding players who left the scoreboard because they stopped playing, and come back once in a while to play one game to reapear as conqueror or whatever (cases like rabbiton).
I m suggesting that no points game wouldn t qualify to make you reapear as an active player on the scoreboard.

[iAmCaffeine]

Should we not take this to Suggestions now?

[Jippd]

From now on, we will be accepting appeals from Permabanned players.

Shit, does that mean that Max may be back?

We believe that Permabanned players were permabanned for good reasons....

Lx

Also in before the conspiracy around El Jefe and GLG is enhanced with this. It really is the only way GLG could come back, right?

Not a subscriber to that but interested to see it start being discussed.

First thing I thought!

[Jippd]

Definitely not a fan of this idea. A lot of people would play games for 1 point. A lot of farming would be done against the noobs that think they can win 50 points, etc. All I see is potential for abuse and people working the system on this.

that's the way i see it too.

Or as you say friends volunteering and giving up games. We already see it being done where a player will throw games to help their friend win. Allowing them to win even more points would be too easy.

If I want to cheat I create a few games and make them worth 100 points. I could easily have low rank multi accounts join and lose the game to earn easy points.

I could also maybe "borrow" some points from friends to achieve a higher rank for a certain period of time, only to return them later by throwing games

[D4 Damager]

Should we not take this to Suggestions now?

Please make a new thread for this in Suggestions, I will definitely endorse it. To be clear, I mean having points-free games as betiko and Shannon Apple have been suggesting. I don't see any reason to cap the number allowed (apart from the usual 4 maximum for freemiums, of course), but I think they should not count as games which keep people on the scoreboard. I mean that people should have to play a competitive game (for points) at least once per month to stay on the scoreboard. Good suggestion from iAmCaffeine. This is essential, otherwise of course the people at the top would not play any games for points at all.

In any major game or sport there is the distinction between competitive and friendly games. It is obvious why: having a fun environment in which people can train boosts enjoyment of the game and improves the standard of players overall. It is also vital for getting newcomers involved. Can you imagine how many less people would play tennis if they were forced to play their first three games against Rafa Nadal, Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic? (and get smashed to pieces in the process, of course) In your first few games, you are simply not ready to receive the lessons you would get from playing that calibre of player.

[greenoaks]

and it is all high rank people posting here wanting to play CC with no Risk.

[Shannon Apple]

It is all mid- high ranked people posting in here for or against. period. Sooo, that makes no sense.

[OliverFA]

and it is all high rank people posting here wanting to play CC with no Risk.

Perhaps that high-ranked (or medium-ranked) people complain too much, perhaps not. But one thing is clear, and many people have pointed this over the time: Maintaining rank after some point is so demanding that it is some sort of issue. Some people solve it by not playing low ranked players, other people solve it by just playing their map and settings, and some other just do their best.

Is not about not having risk, but perhaps about having the right balance between risk and reward. Of course everybody has his own idea about where this balance is, but looks like many people (or at least many people who care to talk about it) thinks like this balance point is far from the current situation and could be improved.

[iAmCaffeine]

It is all mid- high ranked people posting in here for or against. period. Sooo, that makes no sense.

That's not true. Of course, major isn't considered a particularly high rank, but in comparison to the majority of registered active players, it is.

I'm still against this idea.

[greenoaks]

It is all mid- high ranked people posting in against. period.

exactly. cooks aren't beating down the doors demanding CC implement a way for them to beat a Major and receive no reward for doing so.

[D4 Damager]

It is all mid- high ranked people posting in against. period.

exactly. cooks aren't beating down the doors demanding CC implement a way for them to beat a Major and receive no reward for doing so.

Indeed. Instead they are beating down the doors and leaving. Because the only majors that would play them were farming them, and were not playing for fun

[iAmCaffeine]

It is all mid- high ranked people posting in against. period.

exactly. cooks aren't beating down the doors demanding CC implement a way for them to beat a Major and receive no reward for doing so.

Indeed. Instead they are beating down the doors and leaving. Because the only majors that would play them were farming them, and were not playing for fun

Actually, most low ranks probably leave because they don't like losing.