[GO] Unrated, Unranked, or No Points Games

[greenoaks]

all games count

[blakebowling]

Points aren't for wagering or betting, they're designed to be a measure of your skill.

[TheForgivenOne]

Why gives players the ability to master a map without risking points? If you want to learn a map, risk the points.

[crazymilkshake5]

ok, so what i mean by recreational game is this:
your points stay the same
edit the map and any other game options

now wait before you say "but then the person on top of the leaderboards will come down" thats why you put a limit of how many you can play a day (i was thinking 5?)

so ya, thats it, love to get feedback...

[Pirlo]

the webmaster had made it clear that no game with no points risk will be allowed.

[MoB Deadly]

Concise description:

• Allow players to offer a draw, once 100 rounds have been reached.

Specifics/Details:

• This has been rejected many times, because of the potential abuse from it. I think limiting it so that draws can occur on games that exceed a round limit will prevent abuse.

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

• It will make the site more pleasurable if the players that are involved in a really long game and lose interest in it, they can end the game peacefully without having to deadbeat.
• There are Round Limits available to us, but some players will forget to choose 100.
• This will end tournament games that last forever.
• This will end having to settle the original game, by creating a new game, making players lose twice the points.

Thanks for the feedback. I have added the 30 rounds to the existings options since that is what almost everyone wants

Limit it so draws can only be offered after games that exceed round 100? Im pretty sure that wouldn't encourage abuse

Very good point - perhaps we should reconsider vote for draw!

[greenoaks]

voting for a draw will allow clans to train on maps with no points exchanged.

[eddie2]

they have said 100 times they will not allow any form of game that does not issue points. i have seen about 30 threads around this kind of thing in last 18 months. also for the reason of allowing a draw for games that go on for to long they have added a option of round limits, so there is no point in continueing with this sug.

[Kaskavel]

Concise description:

• Allow an option to create and play games that are not going to be rated

Specifics/Details:

• Simple and trivial. There will be rated and unrated games

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

• This will hugely increase games played in CC and allow much more interaction between different ranks. Currently strong players are not playing games they are expected to lose points. It is suicide for me for example to play classic 1 vs 1, I am soon going to lose 2500 points. Playing multiplayer is also forbidden, people suicide, get bored and deadbeat etc. But the truth is, that I do want to play classic 1 vs 1. I want to try more maps. I want to play a world 2.1 with 7 cooks and have some fun without getting angry when the cook eliminates the wrong player in an assasin game. I am tempted to create a second account to do so. An obvious answer, some would say, is that we should not care about points and our standing and just have fun. Ok, this is cute, but reality is that ambition encourages most players and that is the reason that scoreboard exists after all. If we remove it,number of games would seriously decline. Most people would reduce playing in that case and that is the reality, not some assumption. All gaming sites boost their numbers by adding a scoreboard. So...we should add an option to create games that do not count in score. this will have many benefits.
  1. Increase number of games
  2. Allow strong players to learn new settings or have fun in settings they used to play when they were low ranked.
  3. Allow weak players to face strong ones, thus improving their play.
  4. Reduce second accounts, since some of them are created to safely play unfavourable settings.
  5. Reduce tension and arguments created.
  6. Allow challenges between players of different scores.
  I am number 4 or 5 in the world and I do not know what a doodleass game is. I have never played an assasin game. There are majors that would easily crush me in a freestyle 1 vs 1 game. This has to change. Creating the option is hardly difficult, but outcome is hugely favourable.

[Seulessliathan]

1. Increase number of games
2. Allow strong players to learn new settings or have fun in settings they used to play when they were low ranked.
3. Allow weak players to face strong ones, thus improving their play.
4. Reduce second accounts, since some of them are created to safely play unfavourable settings.
5. Reduce tension and arguments created.
6. Allow challenges between players of different scores.
I am number 4 or 5 in the world and I do not know what a doodleass game is. I have never played an assasin game. There are majors that would easily crush me in a freestyle 1 vs 1 game. This has to change. Creating the option is hardly difficult, but outcome is hugely favourable.[/list]

1. why?
2. They are already allowed to do that.
3. same as 2.
4. interesting accusation, if you are sure about this, maybe start C&A reports
5. sure?
6. same as 2.

May i make a different suggestion? Don´t fall in love with your points. Enjoy the game and play all the games you want to play. You are allowed to do it. Really.

Btw, this has been suggested and declined more than once already.

[Kaskavel]

1. Increase number of games
2. Allow strong players to learn new settings or have fun in settings they used to play when they were low ranked.
3. Allow weak players to face strong ones, thus improving their play.
4. Reduce second accounts, since some of them are created to safely play unfavourable settings.
5. Reduce tension and arguments created.
6. Allow challenges between players of different scores.
I am number 4 or 5 in the world and I do not know what a doodleass game is. I have never played an assasin game. There are majors that would easily crush me in a freestyle 1 vs 1 game. This has to change. Creating the option is hardly difficult, but outcome is hugely favourable.[/list]

1. why?
2. They are already allowed to do that.
3. same as 2.
4. interesting accusation, if you are sure about this, maybe start C&A reports
5. sure?
6. same as 2.

May i make a different suggestion? Don´t fall in love with your points. Enjoy the game and play all the games you want to play. You are allowed to do it. Really.

Btw, this has been suggested and declined more than once already.

I do not understand why you challenge the 6 points, they are pretty much obvious, especialy the first four ones. Many top players do not dare play unknown settings, many top players do not dare play with cooks and low rated players are not allowed to join many private games with strong ones. Those are facts.
I understand that one can ignore his score and just have fun and I already mentioned that in initial post. But reality is that some do so and some do not do so. They have to choose and some choose one way and some choose other way. Some climb up and then drop down to have fun. They need not have to make this choice.
After all, why do we have the scoreboard? With your logic, we might be better without it.
I didnt find the suggestion having been made in the past in my search, could you please have the kind to offer me the link so that I can see comments and opinions there?

[Seulessliathan]

Your arguments make no sense unless you see it from the point of view of a point hoarder. And CC doesn´t like to make rules for point hoarders.
I suggest you read the other threads about this suggestion and check the arguments why this has been declined.

About links: Someone else will come up with them hopefully, i won´t search them now, but i am sure this suggestion has been made at least twice.

About Scoreboard: I guess we have it because it´s common to have scoreboards. I don´t need it, and if they want to delete it, that´s fine with me. Usually about 50% of the top 50 are point hoarders and farmers, only about 10-15 are really good players. In case you disagree about this, have a look at threads where people name their personal top 5 players, and then check how many of them hit the top 50.

Btw, i am not against this, i don´t see why this should be needed, but on the other hand i don´t see any disadvantage in it so far, so i am just a neutral spectator here. Not trying to argue with you against it.

[chapcrap]

I'd have to agree with the cookie monster here. And this has been rejected multiple times already.

[agentcom]

I am also a dissenter here. Same reasons as have been pointed out. Yes it may reduce multi accounts, but at the expense of allowing players to basically use their own accounts as multis: one set of games for points another set of games for fun.

Everyone recognizes that you have to give up certain types of games to get points. That's part of the price of trying to head to the top of the scoreboard.

Also have you ever played a Freeroll poker game online? People do the most asinine stuff because it doesn't cost them anything. It's not fun to play, it's barely even the same game.

[darth emperor]

plus, if you have reach to get that quantity of points, you can play the uknown settings, have your fun, loose 2500 points and then go back to your speciality and get your points back. If you have reach once here you can reach again am I wrong?? Or are you telling me you reached there just by pure luck?

[greenoaks]

what a surprise. someone has achieved a high rank and now wants to change the rules so he can play without risking any points.

move this to rejected, again.

[Janomike]

Basically i find this is a good idea although i can understand the objections mentioned. Personally i do care about my points
although i play alot of different maps and settings, but i would play more speed and beta map games for example if i could play them without rating.
This could be seen as some kind of training.

What about allowing at least to play beta maps without rating? Would help with map creation as
more people would dare to try them out.

[IcePack]

IMHO the only game that should go unrated is battle royales (which should be medals).

[greenoaks]

Basically i find this is a good idea although i can understand the objections mentioned. Personally i do care about my points
although i play alot of different maps and settings, but i would play more speed and beta map games for example if i could play them without rating.
This could be seen as some kind of training.

What about allowing at least to play beta maps without rating? Would help with map creation as
more people would dare to try them out.

playing betas for no points would mean a bunch of players would be experienced on the map when it is quenched but there rank would not reflect that.

all games count.

[nicestash]

I am torn between 2 opinions here.

1) I would also like to play unrated games. I have school friends/friends from other games/family members that I like to play with in real time, but don't play very much other than that. Unfortunately, they aren't too interested in risk other than the occasional pick up game with me and so they have a very low rank and so it makes it nearly impossible for us to play. If I play and win a lot, I could easily get a ban for farming. If I play and I lose-well I'm down a lot of points. I've just decided to play the safe route and not play them anymore. Without the games against them in the early days of my CC risk playing, I certainly would've quit

2) If a rule is set in place like Kaskavel asked, CC would go WAY downhill. Players would ONLY play games on settings that they are guaranteed to win which would result in a dramatic decrease in the integrity of the scoreboard: it would turn into a contest by the best players to see who could get more people to join their specialized settings and lose points.

I can think of 2 compromises that could work.
1) Significantly limit the number of unscored games a person could play. Perhaps it could be 1 unscored game for every 10 scored games someone finishes, or a limit of 10 a month.
2) Only allow speed games to be unscored. I dislike this second option though because I love playing doodle games and making them unscored would ruin the fun.

P.S. Kaskavel: Because there are 6 players in a doodle game, you don't have to win a very large percentage to stay even with points. Most of the players that play them (and even have a chance at winning) are majors/colonels. Winning a game would like give you around 75 points, while losing one would lost you probably 30-35 points so you could win 1/3 of the games and be up.

[nicestash]

Better yet, make like 1 day a month where you can play unrated speed games. You could call it Broaden Your Horizons Day or something

[Kaskavel]

Better yet, make like 1 day a month where you can play unrated speed games. You could call it Broaden Your Horizons Day or something

+1

[Arama86n]

Better yet, make like 1 day a month where you can play unrated speed games. You could call it Broaden Your Horizons Day or something

Now that is definately an improvement on the original suggestion. Still going to be rejected though.

[Chewie1]

[
Many top players do not dare play unknown settings.

Not really Top Players then are they!

[DiM]

Many top players do not dare play unknown settings.

Not really Top Players then are they!

you've hit the nail in the head.

if a player is good then he'll play anybody on any map and any setting and win.


i'd love to see unrated games BUT they should only be available to mapmakers for private testing of map gameplay ideas. due to the nature of testing many screwups could happen so there would be no point in having points on the table.
this would be the only situation where i'd agree with unrated games