Divide ranks

[PLAYER57832]

Concise description:

Offer 2 new point options
Mentor games -- where a set number of points are given as a "thank you" to higher ranked players.

Compete for Conquerer -- a special setting for the very high ranked players who are legitimately in competition for highest ranks, including Conquerer.

Halve the points for 1 v 1 games.


Specifics:
Offer 2 new point options:

1. Mentor games. These would be games offered by moderate to high ranked players with good ratings. Off hand, I would say major and above with at least a 4.5 rating might qualify. These games would be open to lower ranked players who want to learn. They could be 1 v 1 or mutliple player games. If mentor wins, mentor would gain 5 points (set) if mentor loses, they woud lose only 10 points (set). Only one mentor would be allowed in each game. The rest of players would have to be at least 2 ranks lower than the mentor.

2. "Compete for Conquer" These would be highly competetive games begun by those of Brigadier or higher rank. They would be public games, BUT open only to those who are major or above. To gain rank of conquerer, you would HAVE to play at least one of these games each month.

3. Halve points for 1 v 1 Cut the points awarded/lost in 1 v 1 games in half.



This will improve the following aspects of the site:
I fully realize that CC has a long-standing policy that ALL games should be scored and either you have straight private OR straight public. However, when I try to join games and find fewer than 10, often fewer than 5 (not counting the 30 identical ones some people start) public games open, compared to over 200 private , it suggests a problem.

I understand that many people just plain like to play their friends. There is nothing wrong with that. I also fully recognize that seeing even 100 complaints here in the forum does not necessarily reflect real CC community opinion. HOWEVER, when you put it all together, I think a problem is evident.

The short of it is that higher ranked people don't want to play lower ranked people for 2 reasons. Some just don't have the patience and don't want to teach poorer players. Others are afraid of losing points. I absolutely believe that skill overrides luck in the long run, but we all know that any one given game can be lost do to pure, dumb luck. Combine this with what I see as a tendency for those who are more competetive in general to be at the top, and the short of it is that you almost never see open public games with higher ranked players.

This is a problem for the community as a whole for a couple of reasons. First, we miss out on seeing their skills. Granted, you can observe their games, but it just is not the same. Second, there seem to be some genuine legitimate complaints by a few people who have been excluded from games simply because other people feared they would lose. That just does not seem to be reasonable competition.



So, I offer 3 compromises, as described above.

The mentor program will encourage higher ranked players to play with and against lower ranks, for those who have the patience. (but the terms are not so sweet as to be attractive to the "farmers")

The Conquerer games would open up competition, but only to those who actually have a prayer of gaining the rank. I think setting a requirement of 1 open game a month is few enough that it won't greatly impinge upon anyone (at least any premium's) games, but having the option will allow those who aspire to the higher ranks a real and true chance. It still won't solve issues of specialization and such, but I think those who go for Conquerer tend to be more or less "like minded" when it comes to those issues...they all tend to like the same styles and game type.

My 1 v 1 suggestion is based on my experience in 1 v 1, my favorite game type because they are quick and offer me a better chance to get to "know" my opponent. ALL risk games are partially luck, but this is particularly true for the 1 v 1. I myself like this game type, but a lot of people who would play it don't because they know that they will, inevitably, lose points to a cook purely because their oponent got 3 continents on the drop or some such. Although the points you can gain in a 1 v 1 are much fewer, you actually end up risking the same number of points as in an 8 player game. This would be an easy to implement compromise. I limit it to 1 v 1 because all other game types (even 3 player) have far less pure luck involved.

[Jeff Hardy]

i like the point system the way it it

and btw, high rankers to play each other (private games)

[blakebowling]

1. Are you suggesting this as a game setting, or to be determined if someone is 2 ranks higher than their opponent? You do realize that most of the time, the gain isn't more than 5 points, sometimes even less.

2. I don't really like this either, no game should be mandatory, all CC requires is that you play one turn per month to stay on the scoreboard. I would, however, like to see "Rank Caps" on games, where the starter could specify a certain, High and Low rank.

3. I'm assuming you mean half? I agree that 1v1 games aren't fair, but there are other ways to even them out than to change the scoring (although a good method would be to track how long the player that went second survived )

Actually, I would like to see more of a "Roadblock" strategy with the neutrals, instead of giving them the leftover territories. (ex. Each player gets 1/4 of the territs, and the neutral gets the other half)

The short of it is that higher ranked people don't want to play lower ranked people for 2 reasons. Some just don't have the patience and don't want to teach poorer players. Others are afraid of losing points.

No, higher ranked players don't want to play lower ranked players that can beat them.

[PLAYER57832]

1. Are you suggesting this as a game setting, or to be determined if someone is 2 ranks higher than their opponent? You do realize that most of the time, the gain isn't more than 5 points, sometimes even less.

This would be a new game type, and only available to the better and nice players. If few majors were interested, maybe it could be lowered to Leiutenant. The idea is that you want someone good enough to actually teach, but also who has the patience. It would be a "perk" for high rankers and a benefit for lower ranks.

2. I don't really like this either, no game should be mandatory, all CC requires is that you play one turn per month to stay on the scoreboard. I would, however, like to see "Rank Caps" on games, where the starter could specify a certain, High and Low rank.

These would only be mandatory if you wanted to get Conquerer. The idea is that if you want to be called champion of all CC, you should have to play legitimate competition in all CC. The CC title changes frequently, so requiring one a month does not seem too burdensome.

3. I'm assuming you mean half?

"halve" is the verb, "half" is the noun form.

I agree that 1v1 games aren't fair, but there are other ways to even them out than to change the scoring (although a good method would be to track how long the player that went second survived )

Actually, I would like to see more of a "Roadblock" strategy with the neutrals, instead of giving them the leftover territories. (ex. Each player gets 1/4 of the territs, and the neutral gets the other half)

That would change the fundamental game play. I don't consider a 1 v 1 game particularly "unfair", its just more luck-based. The points, however, do seem unfair. Also, because the point cost/benefit ratio is so high, I think even many moderate ranked players avoid this game type. I find that unfortunate. I like to play 1 v 1 for a lot of reasons. (time involved, ability to know players better, etc.)

The short of it is that higher ranked people don't want to play lower ranked people for 2 reasons. Some just don't have the patience and don't want to teach poorer players. Others are afraid of losing points.

No, higher ranked players don't want to play lower ranked players that can beat them.

If they beat them through better skill, that is one thing, but a percentage of losses are ALWAYS due to luck in CC.

If a high ranked player plays a cook, they gain just a few points. Say 5 for expediency. If they lose, they can lose 100 points or more. For a high ranked player to gain, they would have to beat that cook over 20 times. Pure luck will, however, cause someone to lose more than 1 oiut of 20 times. Granted, good skill will circumvent that often, but not enough to make it worth the while of higher ranked players to play cooks... or other low ranked players.