[GO] Unrated, Unranked, or No Points Games

[lord voldemort]

abuse much

[General Mayhem]

so lets say Warsteiner for some reason decides he doesnt want to lose any more points so he puts the POINTS OFF option on.

then after a while thinks OK time to turn it back on

then hes back at Private???

Yep. Tough luck. Or maybe gets deducted as penalty for being sneaky

[General Mayhem]

abuse much

not really. your either a points player or not.

[Timminz]

abuse much

not really. your either a points player or not.

but giving "points players" points for beating "non-points players", would be open to huge amounts of abuse. Not to mention, the massive increase in point inflation.

[General Mayhem]

ok then. howz about no points are gained from no points players. doesnt bother me. i'll still play them for the fun of it.
problem solved

[4 U 2 NV]

In my opinion, this would be way more complicated than just having an option at the start of the game that says "not rated" making it a no points game. this probably has been suggested already.

[Thezzaruz]

In my opinion, this would be way more complicated than just having an option at the start of the game that says "not rated" making it a no points game. this probably has been suggested already.

The idea of "unrated" games have been around before (been shoot down too). Do a search and you should find a few threads.

[max is gr8]

I have mentioned several times that maybe you have to pay maybe 20 points per each no point match. Then you have to carry on playing plenty of point games to keep a score.

[General Mayhem]

sorry - didnt do a search. the results on these forum searches always seem long winded.

yeah i like the non rated game idea.

but my point really was for those players who dont give a monkeys about points to be non scored. so we cant take points from them and they dont gain any. there just in whatever game for fun.

[Timminz]

so we cant take points from them and they dont gain any.

[General Mayhem]

so we cant take points from them and they dont gain any.

dont take my quote out of context you dickhead.

ive already siad id be happy with no point loss/gain from fun/no score players.

WTF. im pissed and you piss me off.

[Timminz]

I didn't take that out of context, did I? I thought you were suggesting that some players don't want to play for score, and they should be able to do so, but when someone who IS playing for points beats a "no points" player, they should win some points.

That was a full sentence, that I quoted.

[barterer2002]

I agree with Tim here I think. Either you're playing for points or you're not. This whole idea of one player is playing for point and another isn't is just silly. Seems to me there could be three options.

1. No points games-as it says no points for winning or losing
2. Wager games-creater puts in a number and that's the points each player puts in to join each game (or if you necessary it can be standard at 20 or 30 or whatever)
3. Normal game-things as they are now.

[greenoaks]

Fun players who don't give a hoot about points at all.

why would you create a game option for them ?

if they don't care about points then they can join the points games because they won't care if they loose points from a lose.

[dustn64]

Maybe not restart points, but just take them off the scoreboard.

[lancehoch]

2. Wager games-creater puts in a number and that's the points each player puts in to join each game (or if you necessary it can be standard at 20 or 30 or whatever)

To quote lovo, abuse much? Take an example of someone (for the sake of simplicity use Warstiener) is playing a cook he is losing that game. What is to then stop him from playing a "Wagered" game against poo-maker, bet most of his points and lose to poo-maker. Then lose to the cook. Then play another wagered game against poo-maker and take his points back? Sorry to poo-maker and Warsteiner if they take offense to the example, but I grabbed the top two names off of the scoreboard.

[General Mayhem]

I didn't take that out of context, did I? I thought you were suggesting that some players don't want to play for score, and they should be able to do so, but when someone who IS playing for points beats a "no points" player, they should win some points.

That was a full sentence, that I quoted.

Sorry Tim! I think i miss read you last night. I was drunk, and in a hurry to get to my bed and shouldnt have been here typing!!!
Yeah your right. I think some token point level should be awarded for the points player otherwise they may lack the want to play a fun 'no-score' player. Maybe 5 or 10 points?

[yeti_c]

2. Wager games-creater puts in a number and that's the points each player puts in to join each game (or if you necessary it can be standard at 20 or 30 or whatever)

To quote lovo, abuse much? Take an example of someone (for the sake of simplicity use Warstiener) is playing a cook he is losing that game. What is to then stop him from playing a "Wagered" game against poo-maker, bet most of his points and lose to poo-maker. Then lose to the cook. Then play another wagered game against poo-maker and take his points back? Sorry to poo-maker and Warsteiner if they take offense to the example, but I grabbed the top two names off of the scoreboard.

I'm pretty sure that a "wagered" version - would have limits - probably akin to the 100 points limit that we already have for "normal" games?!

C.

[greenoaks]

2. Wager games-creater puts in a number and that's the points each player puts in to join each game (or if you necessary it can be standard at 20 or 30 or whatever)

To quote lovo, abuse much? Take an example of someone (for the sake of simplicity use Warstiener) is playing a cook he is losing that game. What is to then stop him from playing a "Wagered" game against poo-maker, bet most of his points and lose to poo-maker. Then lose to the cook. Then play another wagered game against poo-maker and take his points back? Sorry to poo-maker and Warsteiner if they take offense to the example, but I grabbed the top two names off of the scoreboard.

I'm pretty sure that a "wagered" version - would have limits - probably akin to the 100 points limit that we already have for "normal" games?!

C.

which would be open to abuse.

if very high ranked players could play cooks for a fixed set of points then it would just create a race for who can play the most cooks to get to the top of the leaderboard. much like what Klobber has been doing with n00bs.

[yeti_c]

I'm pretty sure that a "wagered" version - would have limits - probably akin to the 100 points limit that we already have for "normal" games?!

C.

which would be open to abuse.

if very high ranked players could play cooks for a fixed set of points then it would just create a race for who can play the most cooks to get to the top of the leaderboard. much like what Klobber has been doing with n00bs.

Then you disallow "wagered" games from the join a game page for noobs - until they've completed 5... just like Team games.

C.

[greenoaks]

I'm pretty sure that a "wagered" version - would have limits - probably akin to the 100 points limit that we already have for "normal" games?!

C.

which would be open to abuse.

if very high ranked players could play cooks for a fixed set of points then it would just create a race for who can play the most cooks to get to the top of the leaderboard. much like what Klobber has been doing with n00bs.

Then you disallow "wagered" games from the join a game page for noobs - until they've completed 5... just like Team games.

C.

i said cooks not n00bs, there is a diference.

[yeti_c]

I'm pretty sure that a "wagered" version - would have limits - probably akin to the 100 points limit that we already have for "normal" games?!

C.

which would be open to abuse.

if very high ranked players could play cooks for a fixed set of points then it would just create a race for who can play the most cooks to get to the top of the leaderboard. much like what Klobber has been doing with n00bs.

Then you disallow "wagered" games from the join a game page for noobs - until they've completed 5... just like Team games.

C.

i said cooks not n00bs, there is a diference.

Well then they should know better...

C.

[Timminz]

I didn't take that out of context, did I? I thought you were suggesting that some players don't want to play for score, and they should be able to do so, but when someone who IS playing for points beats a "no points" player, they should win some points.

That was a full sentence, that I quoted.

Sorry Tim! I think i miss read you last night. I was drunk, and in a hurry to get to my bed and shouldnt have been here typing!!!
Yeah your right. I think some token point level should be awarded for the points player otherwise they may lack the want to play a fun 'no-score' player. Maybe 5 or 10 points?

No harm, no foul.

the idea of winning points from people who don't have any is still never going to fly. Even without the possibility of abuse, there's still the problem of point inflation. Every game between a ranked and non-ranked player would be pumping points into the system from nowhere.

[Renee_W]

Then how about leave points in place but give players an option to hide the system. If a player turns off the point system their score is still kept but.

1 They are given a special non-ranked icon displayed to everyone and no rank hover text.
2 Their score doesn't show in their profile.
3 They are not listed on the score board.
4 The listing of points lost/won in a game is not added to their copy of the page.

Points are still won and lost like normal but they are oblivious.

I have a mixed view of points myself. When my rank was down in the private-corporal range I didn't care and just played any game that looked fun. As my rank rose I wanted to protect and improve it and started skipping games that looked fun to focus on games I felt most competent at to try to improve my score. Right now I'm paying less attn to score and just trying to have fun but if my score falls too far I'll probably switch back to what I know better to build it back up. I think in a diverse game like this with so many settings and maps score has a tendency to create specialists. As long as my rank is listed I to some extent care about it but if it could be removed/hidden I'd probably do that so I could just go into all sorts of crazy games and have fun without caring about score.

[Timminz]

Then how about leave points in place but give players an option to hide the system. If a player turns off the point system their score is still kept but.

1 They are given a special non-ranked icon displayed to everyone and no rank hover text.
2 Their score doesn't show in their profile.
3 They are not listed on the score board.
4 The listing of points lost/won in a game is not added to their copy of the page.

Points are still won and lost like normal but they are oblivious.

That's a very interesting idea.