your score reflects the games you have played, all of them.
practice games allow you to greatly increase your skill on a map and then gain far more points then you would have because now you will win more games than a beginner yet receive the points as though you were still one.
greenoaks wrote:your score reflects the games you have played, all of them.
So maybe the AI player (if that's how it's done) could be assigned some arbitrary score, say 1000?
greenoaks wrote:practice games allow you to greatly increase your skill on a map and then gain far more points then you would have because now you will win more games than a beginner yet receive the points as though you were still one.
Yes, but if you replace "you" with "everyone" it's a lot fairer than that.
High score: 2200 - July 20, 2015 Game 13890915 - in which I helped clinch the NC4 title for LHDD
greenoaks wrote:practice games allow you to greatly increase your skill on a map and then gain far more points then you would have because now you will win more games than a beginner yet receive the points as though you were still one.
Yes, but if you replace "you" with "everyone" it's a lot fairer than that.
but that's just it, not everyone will practice and those that do wont to the same extent.
it will allow those that care to become really good at a map without the natural loss of points. perfect for high ranks to never play a lower ranked again until they have completely mastered the map and can be assured victory every game ie. farming GLG style.
greenoaks wrote:your score reflects the games you have played, all of them.
practice games allow you to greatly increase your skill on a map and then gain far more points then you would have because now you will win more games than a beginner yet receive the points as though you were still one.
Yes, and practicing chess with a friend at home allows you to greatly increase your chess skill and then go to a tournament and gain far more points than you would have. Is this unfair? Should people be banned from practicing competitive games?
Of course not. That extra point gain would only happen once, at which point you would equilibrate to a rating reflecting your actual skill level.
it will allow those that care to become really good at a map without the natural loss of points. perfect for high ranks to never play a lower ranked again until they have completely mastered the map and can be assured victory every game ie. farming GLG style.
People who put in that much dedication to learning a map should be the ones who have the high ranks. Why would we want to punish people who try really hard to perfect their skill?
greenoaks wrote:this has been suggested and rejected numerous times.
It has been suggested and let die numerous times. This is one of those suggestions that has fallen into the feedback loop where, because it was already sent to rejected, people just say "it's been rejected" and let it die without talking about why. If you look at the collated topic in Rejected, something like the first 10 pages goes by without even a single coherent argument against the suggestion.
The difference between practicing chess at home and CC at home is that chess is universal and the same everywhere. These maps are not.
People CAN practice Risk at home on the Classic style map (and a few other Hasbro specialty maps), but they can't practice Stalingrad and Das Schloss and things like that at home because they only exist here.
In my opinion, I would not have a problem with this if it were done from the beginning, but changing it in the middle takes away from all the players that have already had to risk points on unknown maps because they were not able to practice it first. If I were going to get behind this suggestion, I would need to see some kind of limitations. Like only available on Classic or only available 1 time per map. Unlimited usage on unlimited maps would be a no from me.
chapcrap wrote:
In my opinion, I would not have a problem with this if it were done from the beginning, but changing it in the middle takes away from all the players that have already had to risk points on unknown maps because they were not able to practice it first. If I were going to get behind this suggestion, I would need to see some kind of limitations. Like only available on Classic or only available 1 time per map. Unlimited usage on unlimited maps would be a no from me.
Nobody forced them to risk points on unknown maps. If they wanted to be protective of their points, they could have stuck to maps that they knew. We shouldn't continue to make a bad decision because of bad decisions that were made in the past.
Mainly that it excludes a whole host of opportunities to play games without the pressure of points. For some reason, a number of people in the old threads enforced this mentality that you either play for points, or you don't care about points. But that's not true. Sometimes I want to play for points (if I'm playing on maps that I'm experienced at, and I want to test my mettle against other people who are experienced) and sometimes I don't (if I'm playing on unfamiliar maps). I want to have the fun of playing these other maps, without risking my reputation on the maps that I care about. I have avoided a whole lot of maps for this reason, but I would try out a whole lot more of the maps we have if I weren't risking points to do so.
While I too have my reservations about this idea, they are self-interested and therefore shouldn't count. Of course it would be hard to take if a cook beats me badly on a map but hey, if he's better at the game than me, so be it. I think the rating system is somewhat bunk anyway so something like this could be quite refreshing. Point hoarders would cry bloody murder but I think the overall effect of this would be a more accurate reflection of the skill level of every player and who can object to that? I am in favor of this one.
P.S.- OP, please correct the spelling of the title?
I've been thinking about this suggestion and I really want it. These old crusty players with their "favorite" maps and setting are getting tiresome. Would be nice to practice some cryptic map a little instead of having to learn against a point hoarder, making him/her just a little bit fatter. Besides, I don't think that people would practice until they completely mastered a map, just until they were comfortable enough to not make completely noobish moves on it. The people who were really good at a map would still reign superior.
Also, this would make it more fun to play against a friend to prevent bad blood due to loss of points. Did I mention I like this suggestion?
In a war situation everyone is trained/briefed before they head out to battle. Why should here be any different?
I agree that this particular suggestion would be pretty difficult because it would either require AI or maybe an option to allow you to fill up all the game slots yourself. I think it's a better suggestion than the one to allow no-points practice games against others even though I think that suggestion would be easier to implement. But to briefly rehash the argument against no points games and to respond to metsfan, I think there is a good reason not to allow practice games:
The system is currently set up so that you have to choose between hoarding points and playing lots of different maps and settings--what a lot of people would refer to as having fun on this site. I like that. I wouldn't want the Conqueror who plays nothing buy City Mogul against noobs to also be able to play whatever maps they want for free. This is totally a matter of personal preference, but I like that those that are high on the scoreboard have to be dedicated to the pursuit of points. I respect the guys who have been able to do that even if it was by gaining a handful of points at a time in exchange for winning 90% of their games. That takes effort.
For those of you that want to discuss the no points option further, that topic is here.
agentcom wrote:I agree that this particular suggestion would be pretty difficult because it would either require AI or maybe an option to allow you to fill up all the game slots yourself. I think it's a better suggestion than the one to allow no-points practice games against others even though I think that suggestion would be easier to implement. But to briefly rehash the argument against no points games and to respond to metsfan, I think there is a good reason not to allow practice games:
The system is currently set up so that you have to choose between hoarding points and playing lots of different maps and settings--what a lot of people would refer to as having fun on this site. I like that. I wouldn't want the Conqueror who plays nothing buy City Mogul against noobs to also be able to play whatever maps they want for free. This is totally a matter of personal preference, but I like that those that are high on the scoreboard have to be dedicated to the pursuit of points. I respect the guys who have been able to do that even if it was by gaining a handful of points at a time in exchange for winning 90% of their games. That takes effort.
For those of you that want to discuss the no points option further, that topic is here.
The no-points thread is in rejected, nobody is going to see it.
I like this Idea of no points games I think more for the option of playing your friends without either of you losing points. I don't like to take points from my friends but I will never just let someone win. It would be nice to have guilt-free games against my m8s.
As far as making people choose between points vs. variety of maps, I don't think this is good for membership. People want more options and that is pretty much universal so if your priorities are making the site more successful you will go this route.
POINTless Training games]
-Ability to have games where no points are gained/lost
Details
-THESE GAMES CAN ONLY BE MADE THROUGH THE SoC (and as such can only be used for training purposes)
How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
There are quite a few players on CC who are obsessed with their ranking to the point where they refuse to play any map against any players where they have the possibility of losing. About a year ago, blitzkrieg was banned for farming after inviting inexperienced games onto his custom map/settings. His defense was that he was trying to teach those players how to play. It held up until someone asked him why he hadn't trained players in SoC. The answer? He didn't want to lose a boatload of points playing on a team with people who were just as likely to deadbeat. If it was possible to play pointless games through the SoC, I'm guessing a lot of the top players on the scoreboard would be more than willing to teach these players lessons-if only to finally have some fun.
Before you blast me, check out my game load. I'm playing numerous 1v1s and could care less about my points; I'm not trying to "finally have fun again without losing my precious rank", indeed I doubt if I would become an SoC trainer myself. And once again, these games should be limited to SoC training games.
This has been suggested a million times and I used to vehemently disagree with it. However, for allowing teams to learn complex maps like Das Schloss, I am starting to see a good argument for this option.
DoomYoshi wrote:This has been suggested a million times and I used to vehemently disagree with it. However, for allowing teams to learn complex maps like Das Schloss, I am starting to see a good argument for this option.
I too am against normal pointless games, but in the interest of teaching people how to play, I see it as reasonable.
greenoaks wrote:people coming out of the SoC will be better at maps than their score indicates, taking more points from me than they should.
All games count.
Not really... I may be mistaken, but aren't most/all of SoC games played against other SoC players? Because in that case, the average SoC player loses the same amount of points as they gain so for them it will be no different.
I would love to play pointless escalating games vs low rankers/people willing to learn. or pointless team games.
It takes time to teach team games, and the other players have to be fully immersed and willing to learn them. There is more pressure on new players who join to take it upon themselves to learn from people who already have gone through trial and error than there is for the teacher. I like teaching people who consistently take turns, listen and learn from what I tell them. BUT most people new to team games want to take it as casual as they would random flat rate games. these pointless games would serve a very good purpose to teach basics through trial and error. It is one thing to tell someone how to play through text but it is a whole other way to actually experience it yourself.
greenoaks wrote:people coming out of the SoC will be better at maps than their score indicates, taking more points from me than they should.
All games count.
Not really... I may be mistaken, but aren't most/all of SoC games played against other SoC players? Because in that case, the average SoC player loses the same amount of points as they gain so for them it will be no different.
actually it will be different.
the concept of these point less games is to encourage higher ranks to play them. SoC members wont have won any points against those players but will have picked up a lot of skill. skill they will put to use against me. i don't have a problem with losing, it is losing to someone who's score is artificially lower than it should be causing me to lose many more points than i should that is the problem.
