Forum

by **Army of GOD** on Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:07 am

If we're looking for a way to practice maps with little/no risk, then I still don't see why practice games haven't been implemented yet.

by **Bruceswar** on Fri Aug 05, 2011 7:14 am

drake_259 wrote:doodle assassin with x2 points nice way to burn your points

Or win points ...

by **jammyjames** on Fri Aug 05, 2011 7:26 am

you would end up getting the lucky kids that win 3 or so in a row sitting at colonel area! :lol:

by **Augustus Maximus** on Fri Aug 05, 2011 6:23 pm

This certainly isn't a feature that I would ever chose to use were it available.

by **drunkmonkey** on Sun Aug 07, 2011 12:27 am

Doesn't this defeat the entire purpose of the point system & score calculations? We'd be throwing the history of points out the window for a new "poker chips" system.

by **greenoaks** on Sun Aug 07, 2011 7:31 am

drunkmonkey wrote:Doesn't this defeat the entire purpose of the point system & score calculations? We'd be throwing the history of points out the window for a new "poker chips" system.

exactly

by **40kguy** on Sun Aug 07, 2011 7:58 am

also really easy to point dump. so i think it would be nice but... reject it.

by **Gillipig** on Sun Aug 21, 2011 9:10 am

This is actually one of the worst suggestions I've ever seen! Legalized farming would be taken to a new stratosphere if this was to be implemented (which it never will) ! You suggest an option were it would be possible for a cook and a general to risk the same amount of points in a 1v1? Your suggestion is basically to scratch CC as we know it!

by **zimmah** on Sun Aug 21, 2011 11:36 am

drake_259 wrote:doodle assassin with x2 points nice way to burn your points

and also a nice way to get up in points when you are 'lower then average'.

doodleassasin is just pure gambling.

Ontopic, this idea is pretty stupid, and i disapprove with it. score should be an indication of skill (and even tho it isn't currently, your idea is not going to improve it)

by **Victor Sullivan** on Mon Aug 22, 2011 7:51 am

If nothing else, I get the feeling lack wouldn't be too into implementing this... Betting points doesn't seem to support the "casual gaming" this site is attempting to reflect.

-Sully

by **blakebowling** on Mon Aug 22, 2011 12:24 pm

Victor Sullivan wrote:If nothing else, I get the feeling lack wouldn't be too into implementing this... Betting points doesn't seem to support the "casual gaming" this site is attempting to reflect.

-Sully

QFT

by **Lindax** on Tue May 15, 2012 9:53 pm

Don't know if this has been suggested before. I know I mentioned it, but I'll make it an official suggestion.

Concise description:
I would like to have the option to start a game and set the amount of points players stake on the game.

Specifics/Details:
Instead of having the standard CC way of calculating points, you start a game where everybody puts 20 points in the "pot". No matter if you're a cook or a general, you stand to lose 20 points or win 20 point times the amount of players. In an 8 player game the winner would get 160 points, in a 1v1 game the winner would get 40 points, no matter if the winner is a cook or a general.

The 20 points is just an example, you should be able to play for any amount within certain boundaries, say anywhere between 10 and 50 points, which I think is pretty much the average range. So, if you set up a 4 player game with a 40 point stake, the winner would get 160 points. And obviously it's all voluntary, you only join if you want to play for the specific amount of points.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
Of course it would be an additional option. One I think that will make players more active, especially higher ranked players. It would be the perfect solution for people like myself, people that love to play, but right now lose a disproportionate amount of points when they lose and get few points when they win. Yesterday for example, I won 68 points in a 6 player speed game and lost 47 in a 1v1 tournament game.

I really think that it would especially attract a lot more players to speed games. I personally don't care enough about points to not play 6, 7, 8 player escalating games with all lower ranked players, but I know a lot of people do.

Following the same line of though, I also think it would be a possible incentive for a lot more players to join tournaments. And we all know tournaments are one of the most important activities that keep people playing on CC.

Those type of games would also eliminate the ever-present "need" for lower ranked players to go after the highest ranked player first.

I'm pretty sure it's a win-win option for us players as well as for CC.

Only thing I can think of people saying is that it would give almost-farmers a chance to get even more points easily. Maybe question marks and freemiums shouldn't be able to join games with this option, I don't know. But hey, there will always be a small amount of people taking advantage of any system. In the meantime it would give many players an additional option that I think would get many players to play more and enjoy Conquer Club a lot more....

Lx

by **vodean** on Wed May 16, 2012 4:04 pm

whats in it for the lower-ranked players??

by **Lindax** on Wed May 16, 2012 4:12 pm

vodean wrote:whats in it for the lower-ranked players??

More people to play with, especially for speed games.

Lx

by **agentcom** on Wed May 16, 2012 4:16 pm

Vodean, I believe the answer is the opportunity to play against and learn from higher ranked players who would otherwise be unwilling to play them. Or the chance to play a friend on equal footing without having the higher ranked player be as concerned with points.

I have mixed feelings about this, as I see the many avenues of abuse (both to give and take points) it could create. But I also like that people would be able to do what they want with their points.

A hypothetical question: What if a person at the top of the leaderboard PMs players: "I will take all comers on City Mogul that are willing to wager 20 points, in exchange I will teach you how to play this map. Please respect that I am interested only in non-officers (but also non-?s) only with limited experience on CM and a desire to learn."

This is a version of the rationale that some have used to justify their quasi-farming activity. This justification has been somewhat accepted (or at least not rejected). But under the proposed system, you have now eliminated the single remaining barrier to this activity (since it has been stated that this is not against the rules). That last remaining barrier is/was the potential point loss differential.

The only safeguard to this would be C&A and the C&A mods would have to come up with an entirely new paradigm for these types of cases similar to the mess that they have dealing with quasi-farming cases. What percentage of such games is too many, and hence, abuse? Does it matter if the person wagers 1 point at a time, but wins 90% of their games or 20 points at a time and wins 60% of their games? Does it matter if this occurs on certain types of maps? Does it matter if it's affecting certain types of players?

I would love to have the option of hitting up some majors in speed games and saying: "Hey, I know we're probably about as good as each other..." or "Hey, I'll play this map that you're an expert on..." or "Hey I like playing with you normally..." "but I don't want to risk a ton of points doing it."

Right now, I'm a little proud of my hat and want to keep it for a while. Unfortunately, that's meant fewer speed games lately and more games that I don't like quite as much.