Conquer Club

I dont know if we can rely on that... "Last edited by AndyDufresne on Wed Jul 25, 2007 6:58 pm, edited 51 times in total. "

Also i would like this, i play only Classic as the other map types are just too strange and i dont want to lose even more points...

this is obviously being ignored.

This idea is bad... Free passes suck. Suck it up and learn to play even if it cost you points. That is what the system is for...

I play a lot of Chess online and they have rated and unrated games, which allows players to participate in "preset" games without sacrificing points to do it. There are also many high rated players who will not take a match with any opponent below a certain level... unless it is unrated. So this might be worth a try.

oVo wrote:I play a lot of Chess online and they have rated and unrated games, which allows players to participate in "preset" games without sacrificing points to do it. There are also many high rated players who will not take a match with any opponent below a certain level... unless it is unrated. So this might be worth a try.

A high ranking player takes a risk playing a cook. Hey what a concept.. RISK... I am not biased and play all ranks on all types of maps. If a cook takes me out soo be it. No point games would skew this system more than it is. Bad idea all the way around. Every game should count no matter who you play and on what map. If you do not know how to play a map suck it up and play anyhow. Your point loss will be well worth it if you figure the map out.

Bruceswar wrote:This idea is bad... Free passes suck. Suck it up and learn to play even if it cost you points. That is what the
system is for...

How is the idea bad? There is no explanation in your post, please elaborate.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Bruceswar wrote:This idea is bad... Free passes suck. Suck it up and learn to play even if it cost you points. That is what the
system is for...

How is the idea bad? There is no explanation in your post, please elaborate.

It spoils the system of ranking players based on how often they can beat other ranks. Captains should beat cadets 4 times as often as they lose, and hence they stay even in points. If you play a lot of games against lower ranks and end up with a net loss, then your score was inflated to start with, and where you end up is a truer indication of your skill. Allowing unranked games throws it all out.

BaldAdonis wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Bruceswar wrote:This idea is bad... Free passes suck. Suck it up and learn to play even if it cost you points. That is what the
system is for...

How is the idea bad? There is no explanation in your post, please elaborate.

It spoils the system of ranking players based on how often they can beat other ranks. Captains should beat cadets 4 times as often as they lose, and hence they stay even in points. If you play a lot of games against lower ranks and end up with a net loss, then your score was inflated to start with, and where you end up is a truer indication of your skill. Allowing unranked games throws it all out.

Why would it? The fact is that you cannot predict the outcome of a game anyway, so it doesn't matter if you played a lot of games unranked because they simply don't affect your score in any way. You might be able to beat a cadet 4 times as often as you lose to them, but after winning 3 unranked games and losing one you cannot predict the outcome of the next ranked game against a cadet.

What you are saying is that players shouldn't be able to practice their skills without facing a pointloss, but what is a game if it cannot be practiced? Should every athlete be recorded in his practices and adjusted for his ranking depending on how he does in the practice?

Should professional poker-players always play for money? Should pro-gamers always play for money?


I don't really care about allowing non-ranked games, I just don't see any argument against it.

I think that unranked games should take 10 points from each player so people do not use them to maintain rank, just to test out maps.

I don't think having a friendly game outside of the scoring system contaminates or invalidates the scoring system in any way. If myself and another member meet and play a board game, that doesn't effect the score. Why not allow us to do that online?

And as to the suggestion that unranked games would allow someone to maintain their high score... You know what else lets you maintain a high score? Not playing. Playing unranked games could and should be considered the SAME THING as not playing at all-- so, the required 1 game per month will need to be a ranked one.

I don't care if this has been rejected; unless I hear a real reason that this simple suggestion is a no-go, I'm going to keep advocating it.

Ditocoaf wrote:I don't think having a friendly game outside of the scoring system contaminates or invalidates the scoring system in any way. If myself and another member meet and play a board game, that doesn't effect the score. Why not allow us to do that online?

And as to the suggestion that unranked games would allow someone to maintain their high score... You know what else lets you maintain a high score? Not playing. Playing unranked games could and should be considered the SAME THING as not playing at all-- so, the required 1 game per month will need to be a ranked one.

I don't care if this has been rejected; unless I hear a real reason that this simple suggestion is a no-go, I'm going to keep advocating it.

Word. (And a little bump.)

Snorri1234 wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:I don't think having a friendly game outside of the scoring system contaminates or invalidates the scoring system in any way. If myself and another member meet and play a board game, that doesn't effect the score. Why not allow us to do that online?

And as to the suggestion that unranked games would allow someone to maintain their high score... You know what else lets you maintain a high score? Not playing. Playing unranked games could and should be considered the SAME THING as not playing at all-- so, the required 1 game per month will need to be a ranked one.

I don't care if this has been rejected; unless I hear a real reason that this simple suggestion is a no-go, I'm going to keep advocating it.

Word. (And a little bump.)

QFT

I personally there should be a 20 point loss each time you play a no risk/reward game thus meaning that people will be more willing to try new maps at a small price.

I know there are 3 main camps of thought here at CC and there have been since day 1.

Fun players who dont give a hoot about points at all.
Points players who are very competitive and dont wanna drop a point for their life.
Inbetweeners - a bit of both.

Im currently 'discussing' points rather thoroughly with a chap called Dancing Mustard in general discussions.
It seems he doesnt give a shit about points and many others dont to. Thats fine.

Why dont we have an option to turn points off for these players.
They can enjoy their 'fun' games and if we play them we can get a nominal score from them of say 10-15 points. edit: or no points if thats fairer
But they take nothing from us coz they have no score and are just fun happy guys who like to play with each other

If they turn points back on they start at recruit or low level rank.

Everyones happy. No more slaggin matches. And noobs will have an option to play for fun first before getting into it.

I like the idea.

edit: they could even have a fun little clown face for their icon

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???

abuse much

TheScarecrow wrote: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

lord voldemort wrote:abuse much

not really. your either a points player or not.

General Mayhem wrote:

lord voldemort wrote: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.

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

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.

4 U 2 NV wrote: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.

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.

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.

General Mayhem wrote:so we cant take points from them and they dont gain any.