Queen_Herpes wrote:Ultimately, Brand new players to a map will need a few games to understand the map.
This has nothing to do with the number of maps available. You can be the best there is at Classic and go "stinko" when you play Age of Merchants or AOR2. Some people take the time to learn a map. Some people play a few games, lose and go off whining. Good riddance to them! In the meantime, by cutting out whole groups of maps, you cheat many who would might decide they like those other maps. I would never have stayed premium for two years if it were not for the huge variety of maps here. If I was limited to "classic" type maps, I never would have joined. I quickly found that those who played those maps specialized. But, I have had a lot of fun playing the wide variety of maps out there.
If you had your way, I and a lot of other people never would join. Folks who want to just play classic type maps can now use the Cook's Forum training program. That option was not even available when I started. That, already is a "self-limiting" program.
What we need is a way for people to know by a description whether they might like a map or not.
Queen_Herpes wrote:Its the truth, its a reality and a player would have to spend an inordinate amount of time researching the map (prior to playing it for the first time) to win against a player who had experience on the map (whether the player-with-experience is an effective strategist or not.) Ultimately this whole suggestion comes down to the validity of the "rank." The only way to truly validate any rank is put in place some sort of control that allows for games to be measured or not measured.
Now you are getting into something else entirely, and a topic that has beed fodder for many, many, many threads.
The real truth is that there is only a loose connection between skill and rank. Skill matters, but so does luck. A Major is probably a good deal better, in skill than a cook. However, upper ranks tend to be dominated by people who "game" the system in various ways. I am not against that. A game is a game. The problem is when people try to claim that the system
should be somehow perfect, that ranks should truly mean more than they do.
The truth is that even setting aside various "tricks" (freestyle "double turning" and missing turns were ones earlier, then farming, multism has always been an issue... etc.), the whole idea that we could have one ranking system to rank a player of AOR to a player of Classic , singles and teams, fog, nuclear spoils, etc....
is pretty strange.
Queen_Herpes wrote: While I never intend this suggestion to be debased to the point of suggesting eliminating the ranking system, it certainly makes sense to consider adding the option to either 1. play against the computer for no ranking points, or 2. to choose to play against an opponent without risking, earning, nor awarding ranking points. In every system (except here) where there is ranking, there is an option to "practice" or "scrimmage." Couldn't it be beneficial to the ranking system to build one of these two options in?
Try making this a separate suggestion, but do research all that has been said before, first. These are all things that have been discussed and discussed and discussed.
