[GO] Unrated, Unranked, or No Points Games

[Donelladan]

As I said, I am for a limitation of active points free game, rather than 10 points free game a month.

One way, you can create 10 points free game every month, some of them, according to the setting, can last a long time, and next month you got another 10 free ?
I prefer 4 active points free game maximum at any time. That way once one is finished you make a new one, but you can never have more than 4 points free games at a times.

Of course my proposition avantages those who want to play speeds.

[betiko]

As I said, I am for a limitation of active points free game, rather than 10 points free game a month.

One way, you can create 10 points free game every month, some of them, according to the setting, can last a long time, and next month you got another 10 free ?
I prefer 4 active points free game maximum at any time. That way once one is finished you make a new one, but you can never have more than 4 points free games at a times.

Of course my proposition avantages those who want to play speeds.

i'd rather have that cause i play only one speeder at a time and i woud... spend all my free games in one night of speed gaming if it was only 10

[betiko]

I have added a few more conditions in the OP following the last discussions.

[Chariot of Fire]

As I said, I am for a limitation of active points free game, rather than 10 points free game a month.

One way, you can create 10 points free game every month, some of them, according to the setting, can last a long time, and next month you got another 10 free ?
I prefer 4 active points free game maximum at any time. That way once one is finished you make a new one, but you can never have more than 4 points free games at a times.

Of course my proposition avantages those who want to play speeds.

Good idea. It would certainly liven-up the speed games on this site if members could play without the ludicrous risks involved.

[DoomYoshi]

I will point out that I am avoiding this thread on purpose.

[betiko]

I will point out that I am avoiding this thread on purpose.

Please hop in suggestions mod!

Anyway, I just wanted to add that I personally want this for speed games only. I don t care if it s applied for sequential really, if others do it it doesn t bother me.
Speed games are kind of a whole different state of mind. You sit in front of your computer and you actually play. There is very little choice in terms of opponents and popular settings, so unless you want to wait for hours you join what s on. It is often very luck based and opponents are generally under ranked.
As said earlier, speed games are one of the major perks you make freemiums salivate on to buy premium. Not sure they d be happy when they see what speed games are currently about, very little games, farmers (noob or high rank) ect..
Allowing points free games to speed would bring back tons of players willing to join just about anything. You wouldn t lose 55 pts in seconds vs that low rank who started first with a bonus and killer dice. Those same 55 points that took you 3 weeks to gain over 3 team games.

[BigBallinStalin]

So everyone agrees that getting "free points" is a bad idea; whereas, getting "free point games" is a much better idea?

[Denise]

I like this idea. I think a limited allotment with no benefits gained is a good idea. If they can't be used to medal hunt, win %, clan or tournament games, etc., I don't see the harm. The scoreboard would still represent a players real ability as much as it does now because without this change the players in question won't play maps they would play in points free games.

I would use my points free games for speed games. I often visit the speed games page on a dull evening but resist playing because of the points risk. Since points are important to me I would continue to enjoy points games because this is the only way to increase my points. I would also use my games to play more 1 vs 1's on maps I am unfamiliar with because I think this is the best way to learn a new map. Problem with that now is the risk involved. It's just not worth it. The 3rd way I would use my points free games is in teaming with less experienced or new players, or with playing lower ranked friends 1 vs 1.

Clans are always looking for new talent. Part of that process involves teaching low ranks the ropes and the best way to do that is to play games with them. Even teaming with them is risky because they will make many mistakes. That's why I think many high ranked players avoid teaming with lower ranks. If we did this, it would help new players feel more a part of the site. I remember as a new player wanting very badly to go against high ranks just so I could learn by watching them play. As far as that goes, why not use point free games as a reward or incentive to the SOC for their work with new players? They risk their points all the time and this would motivate more players to help out in growing the site by helping new players. Instead of general achievement medals for their contributions, they could be awarded some points free games. I think it would be a great incentive.

[betiko]

Humm so basically we can see that most top players stay out of speed games because it s too costy and it gives ridiculous odds.
Why pay for premium exactly if the system keeps you out of them?
Perks for premium:
-speed games
-unlimited active games.

Being a top player means having a limited game count to think each turn right and the ones of your teammates, and keeping out of speed games!! What s the point of renewing membership exactly?

[Chariot of Fire]

With the introduction of the Bots - as useless as they are - I guess it resolved the dilemma of getting a 'quick fix' without sacrificing points.

Problem solved.

[DoomYoshi]

With the introduction of the Bots - as useless as they are - I guess it resolved the dilemma of getting a 'quick fix' without sacrificing points.

Problem solved.

That`s why I avoided this topic. I`m not allowed to divulge the top-secret stuff.

[betiko]

With the introduction of the Bots - as useless as they are - I guess it resolved the dilemma of getting a 'quick fix' without sacrificing points.

Problem solved.

That`s why I avoided this topic. I`m not allowed to divulge the top-secret stuff.

it does solve partly the problem.. though the IAs really suck and would be good with some real IA competition and all settings/maps avail.

[sleepykarly]

I am currently in a two-player trench game that is stuck in a stalemate.

Statistically, there is a slight advantage to the attacker in any battle. When there are two very large stacks (say, 500 or more units each) separated by one intervening space in a Trench game, that means that neither player wants to move into that space in force, or they will lose the counter-attack and provide the opponent with a surplus of troops which (even though small in the context of the original forces) would still be substantial in the context of the post-annihilation moves.

Obviously this is not a problem in non-trench games; the attacker can continue rolling through.

So I suggest that AT LEAST FOR TRENCH GAMES there should be an option that would allow a draw if all players agree to it. The game would not affect anyone's stats, but simply dropped out of the reckoning. The mechanics of this might be a button that could toggle between 'offer draw' and 'refuse draw'; and if this offer is toggled to 'offer draw' by all players at any one time, the game is automatically abandoned.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[JamesKer1]

As of now, this suggestion is rejected. No resign, ties, forfeits, or game deletion on any settings, any map. My advice- play another 1v1 game for "all the marbles", whoever wins that should be allowed to win this game as well.

[patrickaa317]

no, this would be abused. move this to rejected.

Solution: Play with round limits or don't play 1v1 trench where it could become a long game.

[agentcom]

no, this would be abused. move this to rejected.

Solution: Play with round limits or don't play 1v1 trench where it could become a long game.

I'm almost certain this has been suggested and rejected before (many times). It's kind of in the same vein as the "resign/quit" options that have all been merged together, but I'm sure you could make another huge merged thread of all this stuff.

It basically presents the same potential for abuse as the resign/quit button does but on a smaller scale because it's only "half" of a quit

[FreeFalling123]

I almost want to say there should be a way to set an agreed round limit

[friendly1]

[GP/UI] - Tournament Games exempt from scoreboard calculation


I did a search and checked through the index and did not find this anywhere, apologies if it has been previously suggested.

Not too long ago I entered an auto join tourney, and faced off with 3 1vs1 games against one player, the results of which we're losing 2 games for a points loss of 111 points, then winning the third game for a point gain of 8 points. I don't begrudge the loss of points (especially as I really should have lost the third game as well) but after that I am reluctant to join any singles tournaments. I suspect this may be the case for many of the higher ranked players who try to maintain or increase their score.

Seeing as how the system is built for the new bots to have zero point change from games, I was wondering if this might be done for other games as well? While it has been mentioned before about training games, etc I was thinking specifically about tournaments, and only as an option, not for every tournament. The example I would offer is the conquer cup tournament - if there was no points change for games played I believe many more people would enter. To me this would be a very good change as I would believe this tournament specifically would want to draw the largest population possible (and not just for revenue purposes). Not sure where the lines would be drawn on where it could be used or who would be permitted to offer it.

I expect this would be popular among a smaller population of players, and highly unpopular among a larger population of players but I figured I'd make the suggestion anyways.

[shoop76]

As a player who plays a lot of tournaments including many 1 v 1, I can see where friendly is coming from. I, for one, have come to the realization that my score will never get beyond a certain point with all the tourneys I play.

I would be more in favor of a separate score (scoreboard) for tourney games.

[NoSurvivors]

Concise description:

• Players being able to play games without fear of losing points

Specifics/Details:

• an option along with fog and trench (I forget what they were called) where a player can decide to play a game worth points or not to
• Unranked games will NOT count toward activity (players cant just play unranked games and stay on the scoreboard)

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• High ranked players can play terminator games with the rest of the community without worry of being attacked for points
• Benefits everyone who wants to play high ranked players as well as the high rank players themselves
• Makes community more competitive

[degaston]

I'm all for it. Chess sites have both ranked and unranked games, and poker sites have play money and real money, why not unranked games on CC?

More reasons for doing it:

• Beta maps should not have to be played for points.
• People might be more willing to try maps they have not played before.
• It would reduce farming.

[spiesr]

MERGED: Unranked Games

[NoSurvivors]

To say this is rejected is kinda stupid.

Betiko made some really good points in the freefalling thread... Like making these limited,needing inventory conquer coins to play the unranked games.