[Rules] divide competition into divisions

[Blinkadyblink]

What if someone in the top 4,000 of division 3 had a lower score than someone in the bottom 4,000 of division 2? Would the one with the lower score end up in the higher division once the season ends and demotions/promotions occur?

[InkL0sed]

What if someone in the top 4,000 of division 3 had a lower score than someone in the bottom 4,000 of division 2? Would the one with the lower score end up in the higher division once the season ends and demotions/promotions occur?

This is a good question. I think instead of it being a set number, it should be more of a percentage. That way, at least in the beginning of the season, everybody in division 2 will have higher ranks than everybody in division 3.

[cicero]

What if someone in the top 4,000 of division 3 had a lower score than someone in the bottom 4,000 of division 2? Would the one with the lower score end up in the higher division once the season ends and demotions/promotions occur?

That highlights one of the intentions of the idea ... Promotion/Demotion is based purely on the position in the division ... so yes, even if someone has a lower score they still get promoted.

[PLAYER57832]

It seems that while this might help the upper and very lowest ranks, the middle folks would be shortchanged. They will be restricted who they play for 3 months. This could mean someone "trapped" too low or too high... either way could be bad.

[Mr Changsha]

Not keen I am afraid...

I set up large single games and enjoy the fact that I have no idea what kinds of players will join. Sometimes it looks like an officers club and at other times I find three cooks, a cadet and a few privates.

Isn't that how CC is supposed to work?

It doesn't because a lot of the top players wouldn't dream of allowing a cook into their game, either through prejudice or fear. This concept of divisions seems to encourage that kind of thinking.

Rather like Player##### I am attracted in principle but don't think it is quite there yet.

I will have a good think about this and maybe post back in a while.

(We all know any suggestion takes at least half a millenium to be resolved anyway...no rush.)

[Gunner1980]

I like many of the ideas mentioned here, wanted to suggest some of them myself but i was convinced that it was discussed earlier and that it was rejected. Guess not. My suggestions would be:

* divisions are OK, but maybe they should be divided by ranks? For instance 1st div would be boys and girls from general to colonel/captain, 2nd league would be from colonel/captain to sergeant/srgnt 1st class, 3rd div are the guys below that line and then after 3 months we see who is who in divisions, and move them to divisions accordingly to their ranks
* scoring system is the same, but no points will be given for private games, and in private game all ranks can play, regardless of the division they currently reside in. Hence private games would be used by guys wanting to play their friends or by clans, who want to brush up their strategies.
* in tourneys - everyone is invited, and the scoring system is as now. That would give additional charm to tourneys
* clan games - clan calls out other clan? all guys in clan can play, regardless of their position within cc world

I know that my suggestion for private games might be a bit drastic, but what totally pisses me off is to see highly ranked guys that are playing exclusively private games with their friends and they are holding each others scores way up high. Like someone said,if you want to call yourself a conqueror, you should be playing against ppl from the whole CC community (or in new case, from the division u r in). For instance, i have a high amount of respect towards Prankcall, as he starts open freestyle 8 men games, not caring who will join in. I do not know the guy, he might be a total dickhead , but he plays against whomever, as oppose to some guys.

[THE ARMY]

i like it but it will be too complex

[Nikolai]

I will now do something I try never to do: jump in without reading the whole thread. I have a couple of comments.

First, I suspect the problems of making games entirely division specific have already been mentioned... clan games, etc. become a problem, and if a high rank doesn't play for a month or two, then comes back and is sitting in cookland and can only play cooks, he's probably going to lose a lot of points. Having been one who left for a year and came back, I know it'd piss me off royally if I worked up to a high rank and then felt like I couldn't take a break without losing my rank. That would encourage point dumping. This could be fixed if an option were added whereby you could make games division specific or not... but that would go a long ways towards defeating the goals of ending noob farming. It's still a solid idea for giving middle rankers something to play for, but... yeah.

Second, it would be fairly easy for people to be working on stat manipulation so that they could be the lower division conqueror, or whatever. I think this could be handled by providing awards and maybe status rankings in the forums to encourage people to try to stay in the higher divisions. Of course, some people will always be stupid, but... no system is going to prevent stupidity.

Third, I think you could have a problem with new players feeling like they aren't going to learn anything if all they can play is low level types for a while. I know when I joined, I learned more playing with and against Pilate and Highborn and a few other highly ranked (at that time) players than all the low-level opponents put together, and I was willing to take the chance of losing points to improve. (And, as it happened, I won a few and lost a few, and probably came out ahead for being willing to play high ranks.) Again, I wouldn't make all games division specific.

Also, since I think I saw something about this earlier, remember that new players often aren't going to rush out and start up their own games... they prefer to join other peoples' games to find out what kind of game they like.

If this has all been answered, just tell me to shut up.

[PLAYER57832]

I think you made some good points, Nikolai, particularly about leaving for a long while.

[cicero]

I will now do something I try never to do: jump in without reading the whole thread. I have a couple of comments.

lol ... It shows that you didn't read it since these points have been addressed, but since you've resurrected a promising idea, no harm done

First, I suspect the problems of making games entirely division specific have already been mentioned... clan games, etc. become a problem, and if a high rank doesn't play for a month or two, then comes back and is sitting in cookland and can only play cooks, he's probably going to lose a lot of points. Having been one who left for a year and came back, I know it'd piss me off royally if I worked up to a high rank and then felt like I couldn't take a break without losing my rank. That would encourage point dumping. This could be fixed if an option were added whereby you could make games division specific or not... but that would go a long ways towards defeating the goals of ending noob farming. It's still a solid idea for giving middle rankers something to play for, but... yeah.

Regarding clan games: There is a separate suggestion for a new game type "clan". This suggestion uses that to allow private, clan and tournament games to be conducted outside the divisions. Regarding taking a long break: Assuming you were a division one player at the outset and were then inactive for the last 30 days of two consecutive seasons you would come back to find yourself a division 3 player. However your rank would not have changed, so you'd almost certainly be at the top of division 3 and well set for a promotion. In the meantime you'd not exactly be "in cookland" since division 3 will contain all but the top 12000 players (using the originally suggested division sizes) and so (by today's approximation) you'd be playing ranks up to around Private 1st Class [see footnote]. Finally re point dumping, you've provided your own answer when combined with the fact that private, clan and tournament games would be conducted without the division restriction.

Second, it would be fairly easy for people to be working on stat manipulation so that they could be the lower division conqueror, or whatever. I think this could be handled by providing awards and maybe status rankings in the forums to encourage people to try to stay in the higher divisions. Of course, some people will always be stupid, but... no system is going to prevent stupidity.

I'll quote the response I made to the same point earlier in the thread:

I really don't think that's the case since dropping a division to have a bite at an hourly changing rank in a lower division seems bizarre ... even setting aside the transient (hourly) element how many real life 'division 1' sports teams would consider deliberately sacrificing a whole season just so that they could 'be the best in division 2'? Even if there are some players who would exhibit this motivation I am convinced that the additional motivation for the majority of medium and low rankers far outweighs this. Even if this isn't correct and people will abuse the divisions as you describe at least they will only be able to do so every other season (rather than continuously as some abusers do now) since they will have to play the season after demotion 'properly' in order to achieve their temporary 'be the best in division 2' goal.

Third, I think you could have a problem with new players feeling like they aren't going to learn anything if all they can play is low level types for a while. I know when I joined, I learned more playing with and against Pilate and Highborn and a few other highly ranked (at that time) players than all the low-level opponents put together, and I was willing to take the chance of losing points to improve. (And, as it happened, I won a few and lost a few, and probably came out ahead for being willing to play high ranks.) Again, I wouldn't make all games division specific.

Again clan, private and tournament games are not division specific.

Also, since I think I saw something about this earlier, remember that new players often aren't going to rush out and start up their own games ... they prefer to join other peoples' games [see footnote] to find out what kind of game they like.

I see your point, but I think division three is going to be so large that there won't be a problem.

footnote: Actually these two points bring me to think that the top two divisions should be slightly smaller than the originally proposed 4000 and 8000 to improve the quality and quantity available in division 3.

If this has all been answered, just tell me to shut up.

...
No, really, thanks for your input Nikolai, what do you think of the responses?
In fact, you've inspired me to revise the whole proposal to reflect the discussions to date.

Cicero

[cicero]

See revised post on page 1.

[yeti_c]

I like the revisions Cic...

1 small query...

As you can see - my name begins with a y... (A lower case y as well) which means I'm pretty damn screwed when it comes to alphabetical ordering... - So to ensure fairness for people with names like mine - I propose that in case of any draws that lead to people being not promoted/demoted if they are higher up the board (which is highly likely) then we choose a deciding factor that isn't alphanumerically based...

My initial thought was "Win Percentage" - however - I know that this percentage isn't really that accurate as it depends on what types of games you play...

So my next thought was - "Streak" - who's won the highest number of games in a row when the results are done... see above for similar problems though...

My next thought was - "Seasonal points" - who has scored the most points in this season... and I think this is probably the best factor.

Could throw in turns taken percentage too.

C.

[cicero]

I like the revisions Cic...

1 small query...

As you can see - my name begins with a y... (A lower case y as well) which means I'm pretty damn screwed when it comes to alphabetical ordering... - So to ensure fairness for people with names like mine - I propose that in case of any draws that lead to people being not promoted/demoted if they are higher up the board (which is highly likely) then we choose a deciding factor that isn't alphanumerically based...

My initial thought was "Win Percentage" - however - I know that this percentage isn't really that accurate as it depends on what types of games you play...

So my next thought was - "Streak" - who's won the highest number of games in a row when the results are done... see above for similar problems though...

My next thought was - "Seasonal points" - who has scored the most points in this season... and I think this is probably the best factor.

Could throw in turns taken percentage too.

C.

Whatever the factors that are currently used to decide the order in the scoreboard will be retained. Those that do not appear in the scoreboard, because they haven't taken a turn for 30 days, to be ordered in the same way as those who do with the addition - as already set out in the suggestion - that they will be lower for promotion/demotion purposes than all those who do appear.

I don't think changing what constitutes "scoreboard order" is something we should even go near for the purposes of this suggestion ...

[bonzifan]

I actually think this is an excellent Idea!. The only suggestion I would make, is to ensure people can mutualy "friend" people from other strains who you could still play with.

I have several RL friends on here who I would'nt be able to play with if you didn't add this option.

[Nikolai]

lol ... It shows that you didn't read it since these points have been addressed, but since you've resurrected a promising idea, no harm done

Yeah, well, to be fair I did warn you.

Regarding clan games: There is a separate suggestion for a new game type "clan". This suggestion uses that to allow private, clan and tournament games to be conducted outside the divisions. Regarding taking a long break: Assuming you were a division one player at the outset and were then inactive for the last 30 days of two consecutive seasons you would come back to find yourself a division 3 player. However your rank would not have changed, so you'd almost certainly be at the top of division 3 and well set for a promotion. In the meantime you'd not exactly be "in cookland" since division 3 will contain all but the top 12000 players (using the originally suggested division sizes) and so (by today's approximation) you'd be playing ranks up to around Private 1st Class [see footnote]. Finally re point dumping, you've provided your own answer when combined with the fact that private, clan and tournament games would be conducted without the division restriction.

The clan games idea takes care of my problem with clan games, but not necessarily a lot else. EDIT: No, strike that, it does take care of the point-dumping concerns.

As far as delays go... I recognize that your idea is that you don't lose points or anything for not playing for a while, but that wasn't really my concern. My concern is that if I'm a field marshal (unlikely, I know, but as an example...) and I stop playing for a few months and get dropped to division III, when I come back I'm going to have a hard time maintaining that rank when the highest ranked people I can play will walk away with huge point scores for beating me. Even if I win most of my stuff because I really deserve to be a field marshal, bad luck can happen to anyone. Hence my concern. Granted, I could play just enough games to stay on the scoreboard, which would probably ensure that I don't lose too many points, but that's just not fun... certainly not what I would want to do when I was coming back after a break.

I'll quote the response I made to the same point earlier in the thread:

I really don't think that's the case since dropping a division to have a bite at an hourly changing rank in a lower division seems bizarre ... even setting aside the transient (hourly) element how many real life 'division 1' sports teams would consider deliberately sacrificing a whole season just so that they could 'be the best in division 2'? Even if there are some players who would exhibit this motivation I am convinced that the additional motivation for the majority of medium and low rankers far outweighs this. Even if this isn't correct and people will abuse the divisions as you describe at least they will only be able to do so every other season (rather than continuously as some abusers do now) since they will have to play the season after demotion 'properly' in order to achieve their temporary 'be the best in division 2' goal.

That is helpful, to a certain extent, but I would continue to suggest some sort of reward - maybe status tags or something - for being in the higher divisions. I do think you're right about it adding motivation for the majority, though.

Again clan, private and tournament games are not division specific.

Okay, but that doesn't help much. If I'm in a clan with high level players, I might get to play with them a bit, and tourneys are certainly an option. But I don't think a whole lot of newbies who are just learning the game are going to rush out and join a tournament, much less a clan. And I can virtually guarantee they won't be up to sending invites to private games to high rankers. wacicha's school helps this out a little bit, but the problem remains that if all public games are division specific, newbies who are just learning will probably not get to play very good players for a long time. I can see that resulting in a very slow (at best) climb up to the higher divisions.

I see your point, but I think division three is going to be so large that there won't be a problem.

Yeah, maybe. I guess that's one of those things where we won't know until it happens.

footnote: Actually these two points bring me to think that the top two divisions should be slightly smaller than the originally proposed 4000 and 8000 to improve the quality and quantity available in division 3.

Eh... keep in mind that some point inflation is ongoing. Admittedly, sometimes it gets set back, like when people like max get banned and take 4000+ points with them. But the player roster also continues to increase... I think if CC continues to grow, the original numbers will probably be about right.

[PLAYER57832]

I actually like the new changes less than the original idea, because it would limit who I can play so much more.

This past 2 weeks are a good example I went from Leiutenant all the way down to private and now back up to sergeant (with a lot of back and forth between). I have no idea where I "sit" in the 3 month ranking, but do know that it will go up and down a lot. In the mean time I end up playing people who are all ranks .. and while some of the cooks were bad, others were definitely not (in at least one case "not" to the point that I wonder ..). I like playing this diverse group. I like "meeting" all these differant folks.

[Ditocoaf]

Well, player, since people do tend to fluctuate, I see no reason that division 2 (for instance) shouldn't contain a fair mix of ranks.

I fully support this idea... It solves a few problems at once.

[PLAYER57832]

I guess I still wonder if this really sorts out skill level and playing style well enough, mostly playing style.

Those at the higher ranks tend to play largely teams, with set groups of friends. Part of this is fear of losing to low rankers (due to pure luck, of course ), but not entirely. They also play freestyle a lot. I do neither, but I am also not going to be in the top rank except by bizarre fluke. So my personal playing style is perhaps not relevant there, but what about other folks? And will their "style" really change that much if they are just in their own rank.

If the divisions cooincide with these play differances, or if the division elicits significant change, then great. But I am not sure it will. Then again, I don't know how to determine this in advance , so it is just opinion.

[jpcloet]

I really don't see this happening. I would support separating out a second scoring system for 1v1 into an ELO ladder if it was a 5 games or larger series.

[PLAYER57832]

I posted a similar suggestion, but for teams only, which might serve as a "test case" for this idea or perhaps even solve some of the biggest issue with scores (?).

Anyway, please consider it.