[Rules] divide competition into divisions

[cicero]

REVISED POST - 29 October 2008 - note the Frequently Asked Questions section
Concise description:

• Divide the existing scoreboard into divisions.

Specifics:
Note that all the numbers in this revised post are asterisked to show that they are not absolutely set in stone; certainly there is room for further discussion. However these numbers take into account conversation to date, I have not just plucked them out of the air ...

• in advance of implementation a date will be selected as first season start - eg 1 January 2009
• at first season start divide all users into 3* divisions as follows:
  • division 1 - top 3000* players on scoreboard
  • division 2 - next 7000* players on scoreboard
  • division 3 - all other players
• a season lasts 3* months
• during the season all conquer club features work exactly as they do now except that public games are division specific - ie if a player in division 3 starts a public game then only other players in division 3 may join
• clan, tournament and private games are not division specific
• at season end the following promotions/demotions occur:
  • bottom 1500* players in division 1 are demoted to division 2
  • top 1500* players in division 2 are promoted to division 1 and bottom 3500* players are demoted to division 3
  • top 3500* players in division 3 are promoted to division 2
• important demotion note - when deciding which players to demote, ie which players are bottom, all players who have not taken a turn within the last 30 days (and hence don't appear on the scoreboard) are automatically below all those who have taken a turn within the last 30 days
• important season end note - at the end of a season there is no change to a player's score or rank. Whether that player is promoted, stays in the same division or is demoted their score and rank remain unchanged.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• it will give those players who are currently resigned to mid-scoreboard oblivion goals to aim and compete for
• division 1 and division 2 players - ie the top players - will have no opportunity to farm noobs
• because of this the division 1 and division 2 players will (more) genuinely be the top players
• division 1 and division 2 players cannot be targeted by newly created multis, but at the same time - due to the number of players in division 3 - there will still be good players in division 3 and healthy and educational competition in that division for genuine new members

__________

FAQ

Will I lose my points and rank if I get demoted?

No. Promotion and demotion are based purely on the position in the division. Rank and points are unaffected by promotion or demotion.

What if you are in say division 2, you have a game going with other division 2 players and then you get demoted to 3?

No problem. The game completes as usual. Divisions only limit who you can join public games with and who can join any public games you start.
[Clan, tournament and private games are all exempt from even this limitation.]

At the end of a season, if a player due to be promoted from the top of division 3 has a lower score than a player due to be demoted from the bottom of division 2, would the player with the lower score end up in the higher division?

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

What if I take an extended break from Conquer Club: When I return will I have lost my points and rank?

No. A player taking an extended break may well return after a couple of seasons to find themselves in division 3, but even this is not such a catastrophe since rank and points are unaffected by promotion or demotion their rank and points will be unchanged. Therefore a player who was in division 1 before the break will most likely be in a strong position in division 3 and immediately ready to mount a challenge for promotion.
__________

Other possibilities to consider:

• there will be an opportunity to create promotion medals
• there will be an opportunity to create a conqueror in each division
• it might be appropriate to make certain maps division specific

ORIGINAL POST

Concise description:

• Divide the existing scoreboard into divisions.

Specifics:
This post is in part inspired by THE ARMY's Divisions for the Scoreboard post. After reading that thread for a while it is clear that the idea being discussed there is not what I first thought it was. Hence this thread.

Note that all the numbers in this first post are asterisked to show that they are not absolutely set in stone; certainly there is room for discussion. However in choosing these numbers I have given some consideration and have not just plucked numbers out of the air ...

• in advance of implementation a date will be selected as first season start - eg 1 January 2009
• at first season start divide all users into 3* divisions as follows:
  • division 1 - top 4000* players on scoreboard
  • division 2 - next 8000* players on scoreboard
  • division 3 - all other players
• a season lasts 4* months
• during the season all conquer club features work exactly as they do now except that games are division specific - ie if I start a game and I'm in division 3 then only other players in division 3 may join. This applies equally to team games.
• at season end the following promotions/demotions occur:
  • bottom 1000* players in division 1 are demoted to division 2
  • top 1000* players in division 2 are promoted to division 1 and bottom 4000* players are demoted to division 3
  • top 4000* players in division 3 are promoted to division 2
• important demotion note - when deciding which players to demote, ie which players are bottom, all players who have not taken a turn within the last 30 days (and hence don't appear on the scoreboard) are automatically below all those who have taken a turn within the last 30 days
• important season end note - at the end of a season there is no change to a player's score or rank. Whether that player is promoted, stays in the same division or is demoted their score and rank remain unchanged.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• it will give those players who are currently resigned to mid-scoreboard oblivion goals to aim and compete for
• division 1 and division 2 players - ie the top players - will have no opportunity to farm noobs
• because of this the division 1 and division 2 players will (more) genuinely be the top players
• division 1 and division 2 players cannot be targeted by newly created multis, but at the same time - due to the number of players in division 3 - there will still be good players in division 3 and healthy and educational competition in that division for genuine new members

Other possibilities to consider:

• there will be an opportunity to create promotion medals
• there will be an opportunity to create a conqueror in each division
• it might be appropriate to make certain maps division specific

[PLAYER57832]

I think you are on the track to a decent idea, but I see the following problems:

IF you offer seperate conquerer type awards for each group, then there will most definitely be people who intentionally manipulate the system so they can get that "badge"/"crown"/"award". (that is, intentionally lose so they end up in the lower bracket)

By dropping anyone who has not played in 30 days, a brigadeer could go on vacation and come back to find themselves ranked with cooks who play a lot of games. That someone does not play won't change their skill.

The real truth is that points at any given moment (and even with the guidelines above, it still amounts to points at the time) often say more about the particular games a person happened to join and luck than skill. Understand, I DO believe that skill is the overriding factor, but only in the VERY LONG run. For this to work, you would really need to look at the range of someone's ranks over a long period. (I range from a private to leiutenant, for example, but am really probably a straight sergeant in skill).

Again, I know you have put a lot of thought into this (as have I, I know you are aware). I think you are close, but just not quite there.

In either case, there is still the long-standing objection to any limits because it will make it harder for newer folks and lower ranked folks to find games. That said, when I see less than 10 open public games (sequential, other types varying), but over 200 private games , it means that the public forum is already limited severely.

[LFAW]

This is an awful idea, I like the divisions thing but not if you can't play eachother, that ruins clans and everything else.

[cicero]

I like the divisions thing but not if you can't play each other, that ruins clans and everything else.

By "not play each other" I assume you mean that you can't play other players in a different division. I see that this is something of a limitation. However I'm not sure how it "ruins clans and everything else"? Out of curiosity how many members are there in your clan? And how many would there be in each of the the divisions as outlined in my original post?

[e_i_pi]

Dammit my last reply just went into the ether.

I wholeheartedly support this idea. In my opinion, this is what it solves, permanently:

• Point farming of noobs
• Lack of available competition between players of similar rank
• Inflation of points
• Lack of goals for mid-ranked and low-ranked players

As for clan games as LFAW suggested, I am putting up a suggestion in a moment that we have a new game type called "Clan", alongside "Public", "Private", and "Tournament". It's long overdue, and opens up possibilities to allow inter-divison players in Clan or Tournament games. (Private won't do, as we'll still have the problem of one unnamed cheat luring ?s into private games)

[PLAYER57832]

I like the divisions thing but not if you can't play each other, that ruins clans and everything else.

By "not play each other" I assume you mean that you can't play other players in a different division. I see that this is something of a limitation. However I'm not sure how it "ruins clans and everything else"? Out of curiosity how many members are there in your clan? And how many would there be in each of the the divisions as outlined in my original post?

I don't know about the clan issue, but I want to be able to play better players do learn. Granted, I pretty well know I am going to lose when I play a major (with one game type exception, perhaps lol), but I learn every time I play. If you do place such a limit, it should be optional, not set.

[blakebowling]

I don't like this, I want to be able to play whoever I want.

[cicero]

I see the following problems:

Thanks for your thoughtful post PLAYER#####. I'm not defending "my idea" here, but genuinely think that the things that seem to be significant problems initially aren't actually so serious when given further thought ...

IF you offer seperate conquerer type awards for each group, then there will most definitely be people who intentionally manipulate the system so they can get that "badge"/"crown"/"award". (that is, intentionally lose so they end up in the lower bracket)

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.

By dropping anyone who has not played in 30 days, a brigadeer could go on vacation and come back to find themselves ranked with cooks who play a lot of games. That someone does not play won't change their skill.

First of all note that, even though a player is demoted at the end of a season, they do not lose their rank or points and so, if the player returns, it will be relatively simple for them to be re-promoted since they will start the new season in a high position in the lower division. However whilst it is possible that a high skill player will be demoted in this way it is not necessarily likely since, with this seasonal structure in place, all players will know when the seasons end since they will be fixed. Therefore it will be relatively simple to ensure a turn is taken within 30 days of any given season end. And while any player unable to arrange that will quite likely risk a de-motion remember that there are only 3 divisions so even if our current absolute conqueror were to suffer two demotions by not taking any turns in the last 30 days of 2 consecutive seasons he/she would still be in a very strong position to recover and get re-promoted twice in succession.

In either case, there is still the long-standing objection to any limits because it will make it harder for newer folks and lower ranked folks to find games.

I'm, personally, unconvinced that it's hard to find games; since the 'start a game' button is so easy to use. However, even accepting that it is currently so, it will be no harder in the new divisions and in fact, because of the renewed motivation to achieve promotion / avoid demotion, I would argue that more games will be created - particularly leading up to the end of season period.

[The Neon Peon]

Finally, a really good idea that solves so many problems!!! I love this. Although none of my friends will be in my division with me, but I do not think that will be much of a problem for me. Last time a friend beat me was 2 months ago.

The only way people can farm noobs is kill themselves in one season, then farm in the next, then kill themselves again. You will need to start busting people more for that, point dumping... ah, what a crappy way to live.

By the way, very well written first post. You should give some people lessons.

[PLAYER57832]

In either case, there is still the long-standing objection to any limits because it will make it harder for newer folks and lower ranked folks to find games.

I'm, personally, unconvinced that it's hard to find games; since the 'start a game' button is so easy to use. However, even accepting that it is currently so, it will be no harder in the new divisions and in fact, because of the renewed motivation to achieve promotion / avoid demotion, I would argue that more games will be created - particularly leading up to the end of season period.

I bit about limiting games was the explanation Lack/Twill/Etc's have given in the past. (that limiting who can play who will discriminate against new players) Maybe their position has change or this is differant enough for them.


BUT, as for being able to find games ... this has nothing to do with searching, it has to do with the number of open games. Try seeking 2 player /sequential / public, any day. OR sequential/public of any number. I used to regularly find 20-30 open games. Now I am lucky to find a dozen if you don't count those who make 40 of the same type. (and I LIKE playing most of those folks ... I just don't really count them as "different" games).

Now type in the same criteria, only check "private" instead of "public". Usually there are ove 200 open games.

THAT is what I mean when I say it is harder to find games. Apparently (not my game type, so just going on what others say) it is even worse for freestyle games.

The biggest real limitation would be for folks in the "borders". I still say if you have a set limit like this, you will inevitably have folks who don't really belong in either group, who really want to play the middle folks (bottom/top from each group). This is why I suggested a "slot" option.

Personally, I could care less about points. I just want to play games with folks who will give me a good game. This would make that more difficult because I would not have as large a pool of people to play.

[sully800]

I can't imagine CC will ever pass a limitation to say we can't play with our friends who are a lower or higher rank.

I do like the general concept of seasons, and advancement and such...but to limit people from playing friends of a different skill level? That's nonsensical to me. For example, I used to play many games with glide and koolbak and friends. They were fun and I enjoyed the company even though I was ranked higher. Under this system I wouldn't be able to play with them.

Similarly, the mods and staff often have games to keep things fun. There is a very large range of scores among staff members, but it would basically mean that I can't play with most of the people I worked with. I know clans often hold inter-clan games which would largely be ruined by these restrictions.

Finally, I think tournaments would be particularly hard hit. By instating this system, you would be saying that in the future only one division can play in any particular tournament. This would be a big limitation to tourney organizers who want to have an open competition that anyone can win.

Overall: Keep the idea of divisions and somehow get rid of the limitation between ranks. I know its pretty central to your current idea, but with that limitation included I don't think this idea would ever be passed. If two people want to play each other they should always be able to, regardless of rank.

[sully800]

In either case, there is still the long-standing objection to any limits because it will make it harder for newer folks and lower ranked folks to find games.

I'm, personally, unconvinced that it's hard to find games; since the 'start a game' button is so easy to use. However, even accepting that it is currently so, it will be no harder in the new divisions and in fact, because of the renewed motivation to achieve promotion / avoid demotion, I would argue that more games will be created - particularly leading up to the end of season period.

I bit about limiting games was the explanation Lack/Twill/Etc's have given in the past. (that limiting who can play who will discriminate against new players) Maybe their position has change or this is differant enough for them.


BUT, as for being able to find games ... this has nothing to do with searching, it has to do with the number of open games. Try seeking 2 player /sequential / public, any day. OR sequential/public of any number. I used to regularly find 20-30 open games. Now I am lucky to find a dozen if you don't count those who make 40 of the same type. (and I LIKE playing most of those folks ... I just don't really count them as "different" games).

Now type in the same criteria, only check "private" instead of "public". Usually there are ove 200 open games.

THAT is what I mean when I say it is harder to find games. Apparently (not my game type, so just going on what others say) it is even worse for freestyle games.

The biggest real limitation would be for folks in the "borders". I still say if you have a set limit like this, you will inevitably have folks who don't really belong in either group, who really want to play the middle folks (bottom/top from each group). This is why I suggested a "slot" option.

Personally, I could care less about points. I just want to play games with folks who will give me a good game. This would make that more difficult because I would not have as large a pool of people to play.

That doesn't mean that there are currently less public games than private games. It just means that public games fill up much faster, which has always been true. It always will be true because the amount of people who can join a public game is many times larger than those who can join the private ones.

Search for total active public games and you get 16,755 results. Active private games only yields 1,392. I think that shows public games are still much more common, they just don't sit on the open games page very long.

One reason for the decreased number of open public games is the new feature that pops up when you create a game. Many people try to create a game and then find one already exists and they join that one instead. This means fewer games are created and the existing games fill faster. Hence, less public games waiting to be filled at any given time.

[The Neon Peon]

In either case, there is still the long-standing objection to any limits because it will make it harder for newer folks and lower ranked folks to find games.

I'm, personally, unconvinced that it's hard to find games; since the 'start a game' button is so easy to use. However, even accepting that it is currently so, it will be no harder in the new divisions and in fact, because of the renewed motivation to achieve promotion / avoid demotion, I would argue that more games will be created - particularly leading up to the end of season period.

I am simply quoting Lack/Twill/Etc's past explanation here.


BUT, as for being able to find games ... this has nothing to do with searching, it has to do with the number of open games. try seeking 2 player /sequential / public, any day. OR sequential/public of any number. I used to regularly find 20-30 open games. Now I am lucky to find a dozen if you don't count those who make 40 of the same type. (and I LIKE playing most of those folks ... I just don't really count them as "different" games).

Now type in the same criteria, only check "private" instead of "public". Usually there are ove 200 open games.

THAT is what I mean when I say it is harder to find games. Apparently (not my game type, so just going on what others say) it is even worse for freestyle games.

2 player sequential had 0 games for over 20 minutes when I first logged on today. Took me a while before I finally managed to get some results for that exact search, plus another while until someone with high rank started a game.

This will help out a lot for member that prefer to play higher ranked players. Anyone know what the ranks that the divisions will be split at are currently? I know that 1000 would be captains. I will go look it up now.

I really think that the people not active on the scoreboard should not go down for whichever division holds new recruits, which should be made third if it is not. I think that a much better solution would be to make it that if anyone is not active, they are moved to third, then the actual movement of the people occurs. Let's face it.... someone quits cc, then he gives everyone in that division a break, not so good. If they start up in the 3rd, then it will no longer matter that they are still not active.

Well, Sully, was hitting submit while you posted so I will answer that too...

I would think that you should make the games played with a different rank not matter to the score of either group. Let's face it, I would occasionally play with my friends, and this will not affect noob farming because they do not get points or a higher win rate.

I disagree with the rank thing. People should be able to play who they want, yes, but why should they get points for farming? They should not. I really think this helps out a lot because of the rank divisions. Tourneys can be made as they are now, tourney games, private games do not have to be affected by this. However, no points will be gained or lost in those tourneys and private games and public games that are open to all.

I really would like the main core of games to be between people of my own rank, and I currently just go to the game finder and click "reload" a lot until a major (occasionally will play captains and possibly lieutenants) starts one.

[PLAYER57832]

That doesn't mean that there are currently less public games than private games. It just means that public games fill up much faster, which has always been true. It always will be true because the amount of people who can join a public game is many times larger than those who can join the private ones.

Search for total active public games and you get 16,755 results. Active private games only yields 1,392. I think that shows public games are still much more common, they just don't sit on the open games page very long.

This seems to be a good point on the surface. The problem is you have no way of knowing how many people wanted to play, but could not find a game. This is probably most evident in 2 player games, because they disappear as soon as they fill up.

Also, I would suggest that the public games are more likely to last longer, since people are less familiar with each other's play, strategies and even timing. I could be way off base on that, but it does seem to ring true to me. You may have a way to find that out, but I don't.

One reason for the decreased number of open public games is the new feature that pops up when you create a game. Many people try to create a game and then find one already exists and they join that one instead. This means fewer games are created and the existing games fill faster. Hence, less public games waiting to be filled at any given time.

I noticed no change cooincident with that change. The decrease in games came well before that change.

[sully800]

This seems to be a good point on the surface. The problem is you have no way of knowing how many people wanted to play, but could not find a game. This is probably most evident in 2 player games, because they disappear as soon as they fill up.

Also, I would suggest that the public games are more likely to last longer, since people are less familiar with each other's play, strategies and even timing. I could be way off base on that, but it does seem to ring true to me. You may have a way to find that out, but I don't.

If the problem is not being able to find an open game, what is stopping that player from creating the game? If they are filling up so quickly that none are available then the newly created game will fill up quickly as well. I don't think a high demand for public games is an indication that there are not enough, since there is no limitation on how many can be created. If people want to play more they can create more.

[yeti_c]

I love the idea - although I propose the following tweaks.

a) Tournie games must be open to any and all divisions (The FA Cup is played by all teams of the league)

b) Private games should be open to any division too (Going with the football analogy consider them "showcase" games (or friendlies))

SOOOoooooooooo - points etc still calculated in the same way etc regardless of who you play...

Therefore Public games have the league restrictions - and this will still solve the problems that your suggestion solves.

C.

[cicero]

a) Tournie games must be open to any and all divisions (The FA Cup is played by all teams of the league)

b) Private games should be open to any division too (Going with the football analogy consider them "showcase" games (or friendlies))

SOOOoooooooooo - points etc still calculated in the same way etc regardless of who you play...

lol

Having slept on Sully's posts I'd come up with exactly the same thoughts and had just arrived to post them ...

a) Agreed 100%. Tournaments by their nature are competitive and already have motivation built in. And the main scoreboard being in divisions will actually add an incentive for people to enter tournaments - as 'cup competitions' - which is a positive side effect of the scoreboard structure.

b) Agreed though I'm not sure if it's a "clean" enough solution on its own. It can be argued that it could be "abused" by posting games with passwords in Callouts or wherever effectively making such games public and circumventing the divisions. For a totally "clean" solution Private games would have to be "no points" games (which is in keeping with your "showcase" or "friendly" games) which I personally favour anyway independently of this suggestion since if you want meaningful points I believe you should have to fight openly for them. However I believe is unlikely to ever get the approval of the site owner? Perhaps in this context it could/would/should ?

Re Clan games as raised by Sully if e_i_pi's suggestion for a separate 'Clan' game type were implemented these would effectively another kind of 'private' game in which points will still be scored. This allows the restriction of entry that clan matches need, the points scoring that clan matches need and - much like tournaments - since clan matches are also by their nature competitive and have motivation built in - their is no detrimental effect to the main scoreboard divisions.

Oh and finally a quick on topic plea, can we keep this thread to discussion of the suggestion rather than pursuing the argument further about how hard it is/isn't to find an open public game of a particular type and what this does/doesn't mean. Thanks!

[yeti_c]

b) Agreed though I'm not sure if it's a "clean" enough solution on its own. It can be argued that it could be "abused" by posting games with passwords in Callouts or wherever effectively making such games public and circumventing the divisions. For a totally "clean" solution Private games would have to be "no points" games (which is in keeping with your "showcase" or "friendly" games) which I personally favour anyway independently of this suggestion since if you want meaningful points I believe you should have to fight openly for them. However I believe is unlikely to ever get the approval of the site owner? Perhaps in this context it could/would/should ?

I don't think that Private games should be no-points - as then you have the problem of people getting to the top - and only playing one "meaningful" game per month - and a load of private games to keep their score static...

I don't think that abusing private games by posting them in callouts etc is too much of an issue - as I dont think it would really be a way of farming etc - (most "newbs" don't even know where the forum is let alone the callouts?!)

So in summary I agree that the "cleanest" solution would equal no points - but the safest (And therefore more likely to be implemented) solution wouldn't...

C.

[PLAYER57832]

I suggested something similar, but only for the upper bounds.

That is, everything would stay as they are for lower ranks. BUT, to get to the conquerer, you would have to play a certain number of open, public games. Personally, I could care less about rank, but it does seem that if you want to call yourself "conquerer" of all CC ... you should be open to actually playing all CC, within reason. (that 'within reason" part is where there is a lot of debate)

Maybe something similar to get to the Field Marshall/Brigadier status or some such???? It seems those are the ones who really have the biggest issue with losing points in public games ...and the biggest legitimate gripe. (that gripe being that they stand to gain very few points but will lose a LOT ... and that this will inevitably happen due to pure dumb luck if they play public games).

However, the one we have to convince of ANY "no points" option is Lack. So far, he has been completely against any such option.

[sully800]

I agree with yeti's suggestion as well. If the divisions only apply to public games then noob farming is effectively resolved and you can still play whoever you please on the private side. It would still be able to farm cooks through callouts, because there are some long time players who know about callouts and are not excellent strategists. However it would not work well for most new recruits because they would find their games through join-a-game and not callouts.

Cicero: Why was your initial suggestion 3 divisions? I like the idea as I said before, but that number was arbitrarily chosen, correct? I'm wondering how even more divisions might change the dynamic of this system, for better or worse.

Clan games (if approved) would still be scored like private and tourney games?

[cicero]

I agree with yeti's suggestion as well. If the divisions only apply to public games then noob farming is effectively resolved and you can still play whoever you please on the private side.

Agreed. A positive compromise.

It would still be able to farm cooks through callouts, because there are some long time players who know about callouts and are not excellent strategists. However it would not work well for most new recruits because they would find their games through join-a-game and not callouts.

Exactly so the truly vulnerable are protected.

Cicero: Why was your initial suggestion 3 divisions? I like the idea as I said before, but that number was arbitrarily chosen, correct? I'm wondering how even more divisions might change the dynamic of this system, for better or worse.

It wasn't entirely arbitrary . Obviously there needs to be more than 1 division or there'd be no suggestion . My original thinking was that higher numbers of divisions would magnify the effect of reducing the number of available opponents/games hence the variety of your experience in a way that wouldn't be offset by the positive effects already described. Also I felt that, applying Lack's preference for KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid), this was the simplest solution that generated all the desired positive effects and also would be the minimum "culture shock" to the majority who are naturally resistant to change.

I agree though that it's worth reflecting further on the potential effect of higher numbers of divisions. Equally I think there is some benefit in reflecting on what would actually happen over time in each of the divisions ... At first, as set out in the original post, the divisions would be set up by simply slicing up the current scoreboard appropriately ... I suspect that, rolling the model forward, to subsequent seasons wouldn't necessarily be so clear cut ...

Clan games (if approved) would still be scored like private and tourney games?

Yep.

[OliverFA]

Dammit my last reply just went into the ether.

I wholeheartedly support this idea. In my opinion, this is what it solves, permanently:

• Point farming of noobs
• Lack of available competition between players of similar rank
• Inflation of points
• Lack of goals for mid-ranked and low-ranked players

As for clan games as LFAW suggested, I am putting up a suggestion in a moment that we have a new game type called "Clan", alongside "Public", "Private", and "Tournament". It's long overdue, and opens up possibilities to allow inter-divison players in Clan or Tournament games. (Private won't do, as we'll still have the problem of one unnamed cheat luring ?s into private games)

I dislike the idea. If you are going to implement limitations on who you can play, I would use a different criteria. Something like a threshold. Something like "a player cannot join a game with players with more than 2X or less than 0.5X points, where X is player current score".

[OliverFA]

I suggested something similar, but only for the upper bounds.

That is, everything would stay as they are for lower ranks. BUT, to get to the conquerer, you would have to play a certain number of open, public games. Personally, I could care less about rank, but it does seem that if you want to call yourself "conquerer" of all CC ... you should be open to actually playing all CC, within reason. (that 'within reason" part is where there is a lot of debate)

Maybe something similar to get to the Field Marshall/Brigadier status or some such???? It seems those are the ones who really have the biggest issue with losing points in public games ...and the biggest legitimate gripe. (that gripe being that they stand to gain very few points but will lose a LOT ... and that this will inevitably happen due to pure dumb luck if they play public games).

However, the one we have to convince of ANY "no points" option is Lack. So far, he has been completely against any such option.

I agree with you. A Conqueror (and maybe also some higher ranks) must be ready to defend their score against anyone, and not choose their oponents privately.

[jnd94]

What if you are in Div. 2, you get a gmae going with otehr div 2 'ers, then demote to 3?

[cicero]

What if you are in Div. 2, you get a gmae going with otehr div 2 'ers, then demote to 3?

No problem. The game completes as usual.
Divisions only limit who you can join games with and who can join any games you start. [Tournament, Clan and Private games are all exempt from this limitation as previously noted.]