@Donelladan: To not answer your post line by line, I may in general conclude that you practically compared playing Public games (calling it non-selective) with all other type of games (calling it selective).
At first, what I pointed out is that 52,3% my ever played games are tournament+standard (more than 70 standard tournaments) which is one of the most non selective methods to get an opponent. It is even less selective than public games and here is why: When you join tournament, at first you join something (map, settings, structure) that you are having fun to play, but at the same time your opponents are the ones who also like to play that structure like you, and, more important, your opponents are forum users, they are not NSs with less than 5 games played, they probably have 98%+ attendance (minimum requirements in many tournaments) or they have some other minimum requirements which are described in first post of the tournament. On that way, you play non-selective games (your opponent can be anyone randomly chosen) who also likes that map, like you like. All your opponents signed for the tournament because they like format, not because they just want to beat a general, for example.
In contrary to that, when you join public game, those are pros/cons:
1. That player do not know the map but joined just to play vs let's say Conqueror or General. Result: Easier win in Public game for you, harder win in tournament game for you.
2. That NS or some noob or deadbeat player joins your game. Result: Easier win in Public game, harder win in Tournament game. Whoever reads forum (which is first step to join tournament), is already probably familiar with BOB and clickies, and is familair with map/settings that he signed up for in the tournament. In public game maybe you were the only game waiting, or game waiting with the most ranked player, so that was the only reason for joining of that NS/noob/deadbeat and giving you free win.
3. In Public game, I would risk someone completely clueless to join my game. That would be really not fun for me. I have really much better way of using one hour, than clearing Hive map of player who attacked all 3v3s in round 1. In Tournament game, I am completely sure that my opponent will not do all 3v3 attacks in round 1.
If you see those my Hive/Feudal or whichever games you highlighted, go to profile of my opponent and map rank him on the same map. You will see, my key to select opponents for 1v1s are maps where strategy has dominated role over dice, but I am also seeking for players who are top notch on the same map (ISN2 on CM, dkmaster on Feudal, ccatman on Hive, just see how many games played vs them on their specialist map/settings), in order to have top class challenge, not in order to have easy wins.
With private games, I ensure my opponents will give me top class challenge on the given map, which is my top goal in having fun.
With tournament games, I ensure to participate in structured competition, and I am sure my opponents will not be total noobs, their skills will vary, but they will at least know what they are doing.
With public games, nothing of this is ensured, there is big risk I will not get any proper opposition so I will just lose my time by playing the game instead of having fun from playing the game. It can also happen that some skilled player will join, but is it any difference if I arrange private game vs skilled played on some map (which I do) or I join public game and the same player joins? There is no difference, so I prefer make games private with arranged opponents, rather than risk some noob or NS or deadbeat joins and I just need to lose my time by clearing the board.
Conclusion: Of all types of games, Public games are in general the least competitive. Tournament games are very competitive, and private games depends on case-by-case basis, but in my case they are also very competitive because I play them only vs players who show outstanding results for the particular map. So between choosing very competitive private games vs very competitive opponents and very competitive tournaments vs random opponents, or risking that clueless players will join my Public games, I really prefer the former.
betiko wrote:josko.ri wrote:If you want to be high ranked, then let it be overall representation of your achievements, not representation of only your the best skills. Otherwise, we can have again ruined Scoreboard where top places would lost respect by community because of the ways and loopholes available to use to come to top will be wider, and I am sure many players would use them, as we can see in past cases when it existed much more "point management" loopholes than today.
well i can see from your medals that there are tons of game modes you hardly ever play josko. You would probably enjoy them but you probably restrain yourself from playing them because of the cost.
Also as said before, tons of players on the top are ultra selective, does that makes them better players?
When I was in the pack there was a bunch of clan mates who would always do the yoyo between brig and caporal, because they were 8 man freestyle doodle assassin freaks. How is the scoreboard more accurate, or how is it accurate when you play them as caporals?
I have all medals that are possible to have, and none of them are platinum, which shows enough that I do not focus on only one game type (I would have platinum if I do), but have also tried all variety of settings. Of course that after trying all I have preferences about which game type I like and which game type I dislike and then I choose my games accordingly.
About your saying of 8 man doodle fresstyle assasin freaks, it is very possible to advance on scoreboard even with those settings. I am sure if they tried to find, they would find another top players with the same preferences of game types, like for example top players found another ones to play multiple 6 man standard escalating games under comic boy's hosting. Who is better in those games, he would win more than others and progress in his ranking to next level and then play vs higher ranked players with similar game preferences. For example, there were rumors that players from top of Scoreboard never play 1v1 games. When I came to conqueror position, I sent pm to all top 10 players asking them to play whether 1v1 games on random map, or 1 game of their choice and 1 game of my choice at a time. I enjoy 1v1 Sequential gaming (1548/2858 my games ever played are 1v1 Sequential) and I asked players of similar rank than mine if they are interested too. Of 10 contacted, 5 replied positive (with some of them I already played, and some said yes but later when their RL stuffs calm down), 3 declined because 1v1 is not in their interest, and 2 never replied. Now when you know this, think again of past CC gossips how players from top of scoreboard never play 1v1 games. Why the same cannot be done for 8 man doodle Freestyle games? Contact players who are around you on Scoreboard, ask to play with you, and I am sure you will find 7 others with +- 100 score from you who are interested. If you are better than them, you will win more than lose, progress in rankings, and then contact others who are now close to you on Scoreboard. I am sure regardless of your rank, you will find others of similar rank who are interested to play any settings with you, if they realize your wish to have fun in games, not to take advantage of knowledge of some settings.
Principle like this is also in real sports, every Soccer domestic competition has many levels of playing. Once when you become champion, you progress in upper level and play vs better teams. If you keep doing so, someday you will come to Champions League and play vs the best teams. Would FC Barcelona ever be interested to play vs someone who is competing in 5th English League (the same comparison like General vs Cook)? I don't think so. So why would CC be different? If you play vs players of similar rank like you who like similar game play style, then even Scoreboard would be the most representative in history of CC, because better ones would progress to upper rank, and lower ones would be decreased in lower rank, and everyone would still have wide variety of potential opponents to play with.
In pure essence of your suggestion, it is borderline with having second multi account. One account serves as representation of your the best skills and there you only care to hold high rank, and in second account you play all variety of games vs all variety of opponents just for fun, while not caring for rank at the same time. In essence that is the same, and accepting this suggestion would only allow legal structure to do so in practice, with only difference that you will be using the same name for that, which is different than multies who are using 2 names for their doings.
Donelladan wrote:If you really think people may play to much points free game. You can even say maximum 1 point free game active at once. That way you can't really abuse it. It is either to learn, or to play speed.
This I support, but in any way no more than this. If speed games are your concern and basis for the suggestion, then anyway no more than 1 game active at once is needed. Also in addition to one game active at once, I think there should be monthly cap of 10 or so games. Otherwise accepting this suggestion may really lead to essentially having second "multi" account for non ranked games.