Rank Causing Segregation

[Forefall]

For some reason, in this game, it is more advantageous to play higher ranked opponents, and less so to play lower ranked opponents. Don't oversimplify this be responding with "Duh, higher ranks give more points!" The point is that such a reward system is disproportionate to how likley a high ranked player is to win.

High ranks know this best, as they avoid lower ranked players and even have "high ranks only" games.

As a used-to-be lower rank, there was nothing better than fighting higher ranks, because the value of winning was so great.


My question is, "Is this imbalance purposeful?" Are lower ranked players supposed to be avoided and higher ranked opponents sought after? Or is this system flawed?

[alex_white101]

there was nothing better than fighting higher ranks, because the value of winning was so great.

that there is the problem u see low ranks can enjoy that, nothing to lose all to gain, whereas high ranks have not alot to gain and alot to lose playing low ranks. so that is y high rank only games are set up. also it is very frustrating to play public games which are ruined by deadbeats and missed turns and quite often just not a very good game because u r playing newbs.

[hwhrhett]

this is biased, there are ALOT of high ranked players that play games that are open to ppl of all rank, i play noobs all the time, sometimes i win, sometimes they kick my ass. maybe you should look closer at the available games, there are always a few games with higher ranked players. yeah of course there will be segregation, nobody at the top of the list wants to play ONLY noobs, its too much fun to have a game with 6 very good players.

[MR. Nate]

I hate playing with deadbeats, so I try to jump into games without noobs, but other than that, I don't care too much. It's worth more points to play higher ranks, but it's easier to win against lower ranks. But everybody has the right to play, or not play, whoever they want.

[Optimus Prime]

I just play and get points. 5 or 50 makes no difference to me.

[Forefall]

Um, I think you guys missed my point. Perhaps I wasn't clear.

It's not that games are not available.
It's not that high ranked players don't play with lower ranked players.
It's nothing to do with deadbeats.

The actual ranking system provides an advantage to players who play against high rank opponents and a disadvantage to those who play against low ranking opponents.

Now, this difference is not substantial if you're low level, but if you're high level you take big hits from playing lower level players.

My question is why is it designed this way? Shouldn't high level players be able to join any game without having to realize that they will lose points by playing it? Or is the system fine, but it has been twisted by players artificially attaining a high rank by playing in team triples and the like?

[hwhrhett]

well thats just dumb, there would be a bigger segregation if it wasnt this way. and the most that a player can lose is 100 points anyway. but lemme save you some trouble. STOP CARING ABOUT YOUR RATING!! youll do much better, youll learn more, and youll have more fun.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

For some reason, in this game, it is more advantageous to play higher ranked opponents, and less so to play lower ranked opponents. Don't oversimplify this be responding with "Duh, higher ranks give more points!" The point is that such a reward system is disproportionate to how likley a high ranked player is to win.

High ranks know this best, as they avoid lower ranked players and even have "high ranks only" games.

As a used-to-be lower rank, there was nothing better than fighting higher ranks, because the value of winning was so great.


My question is, "Is this imbalance purposeful?" Are lower ranked players supposed to be avoided and higher ranked opponents sought after? Or is this system flawed?

really?

I think I just read a post about me the other day because in 1 vs 1 contest, I played 30 out 300 games against new recruits. than I got low rank players complaining because I joined there game. I just got done moving in a game where a rank of cook is on my team.

yo-yos. back and forth. up and down. nobody can make up their minds. Lets bitch because I cant join his games. Lets bitch because he joined my games. post complaint. repeat process.

Personally, I keep 50 games on the public games everyday for players to join. I dont care who joins. You will see all different ranks on my team. Nothing is prearranged. first come, first served.

[sully800]

Forefall- you have a valid and well thought out point, and I'm sorry that no one has given you an appropriate response yet.

Everything you have said seems to be true (yes there are SOME high rankers who play mostly open games, but thats the exception not the rule). So if you have a low rank getting games with people at the top is possible once in a while, but the segregation certainly exists.

Anyway, to answer your question, the score system wasn't designed to create such a division. In fact, lack and the mods have done there best to prevent such segregation from becoming defacto (many have suggested game types where you can limit which ranks can enter....all such suggestions have been denied to prevent segregation by score). The segregation still occurs but not as easily or completely as it would if the mods wanted to design the system that way.

The score system exists in its current state to make it harder and harder to earn points as you progress upward. The easiest way around that is to always play people who are equal or above you, and therefore many do just that to save points. One solution is, as hwhrhett said, to simply not care about points and play anyone and everyone. But many don't like to play low rankers because the probability of cheating or deadbeats is much higher as well, so that doesn't solve the whole problem.

My favorite solution is battleground area of the site where players can play one another without putting points at stake. That would be very good for retaining the current point system and allowing everyone on the site to play together without artificial point limits.

[sully800]

really?
.
.
first come, first served.

^^A clear example of the exception I spoke of. Of course Johnny knows that Forefall's point is valid for most top players, he would just rather focus on his own philanthropy.

[maniacmath17]

My favorite solution is battleground area of the site where players can play one another without putting points at stake. That would be very good for retaining the current point system and allowing everyone on the site to play together without artificial point limits.

Yep, can't wait till there's the option of non-rated games.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

really?
.
.
first come, first served.

^^A clear example of the exception I spoke of. Of course Johnny knows that Forefall's point is valid for most top players, he would just rather focus on his on phalanthropy.

i posted before you

and what other point of view would I look with?

[sully800]

I know you did, but you are still a perfect example of someone who plays plenty of open games

[eyeofdeath]

well thats just dumb, there would be a bigger segregation if it wasnt this way. and the most that a player can lose is 100 points anyway. but lemme save you some trouble. STOP CARING ABOUT YOUR RATING!! youll do much better, youll learn more, and youll have more fun.

psh.

I think you just want my points.

[wcaclimbing]

My favorite solution is battleground area of the site where players can play one another without putting points at stake. That would be very good for retaining the current point system and allowing everyone on the site to play together without artificial point limits.

I really like that idea, but i didnt see it on Lack's To-Do list... Did it get rejected? or did i just miss it when i read the list?

[Robinette]

I am sure no points games will add another fun element to the game, but to answer your question more directly the current point system is akin to tractor pulls... ever been to or watched one on the red-neck channel? (call your cable provider today) Anyway, that sport is clearly designed to make it more and more difficult to keep gaining ground until the point where 2000 horsepower just can't go another inch forward... of course, this really is not the same thing, but hey... it's kinda similar (only different)

[Forefall]

Johnny, I looked at your recent games. In almost every triples match you are with a captain or higher as your partner.

I'm not sure why you have such high ranking teammates in all your matches, but it definetly does not seem like your partners are a random assortment of CC players. However, your opponents do seem to be lower ranked and more typical CC fare.

To Sully, thanks for the response. And I think your battlegrounds idea would be a nice addition.

[alex_white101]

Johnny, I looked at your recent games. In almost every triples match you are with a captain or higher as your partner.

I'm not sure why you have such high ranking teammates in all your matches, but it definetly does not seem like your partners are a random assortment of CC players. However, your opponents do seem to be lower ranked and more typical CC fare.

To Sully, thanks for the response. And I think your battlegrounds idea would be a nice addition.

we created a few teams to take on some of his triples and they actually worked out quite well, (i have 2 triples against JR coming up where im about to win) and i cannot believe its first come first served. i can garuntee of 2 chefs joined his team he would drop the game and forget about it however if 2 caprains join the team its fine. i remember wen i first joined and the first triples i ever played was with JR, i wasnt very experienced and amde one move (took one of JR's armies) which he then blamed the loss on me. he then said this in the team chat

2007-03-14 17:30:41 - JOHNNYROCKET24 [team]: all this BS because I fell asleep and did not drop the game after I saw him join our team. now you know why I drop all those games with you dupa. I dont want a partner under 1800 points on our team. they have no idea how to play or whats going on
2007-03-14 17:31:13 - JOHNNYROCKET24 [team]: also- banned alex

that dosent seem very first come first serve to me.......

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

Johnny, I looked at your recent games. In almost every triples match you are with a captain or higher as your partner.

I'm not sure why you have such high ranking teammates in all your matches, but it definetly does not seem like your partners are a random assortment of CC players. However, your opponents do seem to be lower ranked and more typical CC fare.

To Sully, thanks for the response. And I think your battlegrounds idea would be a nice addition.

we created a few teams to take on some of his triples and they actually worked out quite well, (i have 2 triples against JR coming up where im about to win) and i cannot believe its first come first served. i can garuntee of 2 chefs joined his team he would drop the game and forget about it however if 2 caprains join the team its fine. i remember wen i first joined and the first triples i ever played was with JR, i wasnt very experienced and amde one move (took one of JR's armies) which he then blamed the loss on me. he then said this in the team chat

2007-03-14 17:30:41 - JOHNNYROCKET24 [team]: all this BS because I fell asleep and did not drop the game after I saw him join our team. now you know why I drop all those games with you dupa. I dont want a partner under 1800 points on our team. they have no idea how to play or whats going on
2007-03-14 17:31:13 - JOHNNYROCKET24 [team]: also- banned alex

that dosent seem very first come first serve to me.......

post the whole conversation. not what you want everyone to read. twice I asked you to stop attacking our own team and you continued.

whats even more amazing is, I added you to my ignore list after that game and you cried on PM's and the forum to have it lifted and I did. And now you post more gay shit about the exact reason why you were on the ignore list. So how do you think im going to react now?

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

Johnny, I looked at your recent games. In almost every triples match you are with a captain or higher as your partner.

I'm not sure why you have such high ranking teammates in all your matches, but it definetly does not seem like your partners are a random assortment of CC players.

the exact totals are

games with me playing with players less than captain=69 ( thats 1 or 2 players below captain )

games with me playing with players atleast a captain= 40 ( thats both players atleast a captain )

so I was correct

[chessplaya]

ummmm , why didnt i understand this guy yet

[alex_white101]

post the whole conversation. not what you want everyone to read. twice I asked you to stop attacking our own team and you continued.

whats even more amazing is, I added you to my ignore list after that game and you cried on PM's and the forum to have it lifted and I did. And now you post more gay shit about the exact reason why you were on the ignore list. So how do you think im going to react now?

the fact i attacked u mad eno difference to the game outcome, i attacked u and took 1 army from u, next go the other guy cashed and went thru all of ur armies and had a load to spare, u were going out no matter whether i did wat i did or not. it simply was not my fault we lost.

and u may have noticed i asked to be taken off ur ignore list so i can play games AGAINST you. which i was then added back to as i have beaten you in several triples games. u just cant handle losing, u also added my partners to ur ignore list after we beat you. thats very sad. oh well im not here for much longer and im in 3 trips against u, 2 of which we are dead certs to win and another which it is most likely we will win, it seems when u play organised teams you struggle, until of course u add them to ur ignore list to make sure they cant play any more of ur games.

[robbart]

Well, there certainly are not a plethora of public games with higher ranked players. I look for them, and unless you are interested in doubles or trips, you won't see them. Apparently, they got their points in private games?

Anyways, I mostly do play public games. I play games with all ranks, and do not discriminate.

HOWEVER, noobs have been deadbeating more than ever recently, so I can certainly say that I there have been times when I wished I didn't HAVE to play public games against anyone who hasn't played at LEAST 5 games.

Personally, I think that they join their 4 games, and when they don't fill up right away, get bored waiting and simply leave.

But as to the segregation, obviously, while it is beneficial for a cook to play a captain, it's not in reverse. The captain doesn't gain as many points, but will certainly lose more if he were to lose. The captain may certainly feel he is only willing to play in games where he has a potential big payday.

[AAFitz]

Well, there certainly are not a plethora of public games with higher ranked players. I look for them, and unless you are interested in doubles or trips, you won't see them. Apparently, they got their points in private games?

Anyways, I mostly do play public games. I play games with all ranks, and do not discriminate.

HOWEVER, noobs have been deadbeating more than ever recently, so I can certainly say that I there have been times when I wished I didn't HAVE to play public games against anyone who hasn't played at LEAST 5 games.

Personally, I think that they join their 4 games, and when they don't fill up right away, get bored waiting and simply leave.

they got them the same way everyone did...playing players at thier level and rising....the difference is most of the high ranks dont complain about it...they win and move on....the main reason they stick to the same ranks in singles, is because they avoid cheaters, deadbeaters, neg feedbacks for nothing, abusive players, inexperienced players, and other conflicts and are therefore able to have much more fun

I know this, because i only played colonels games for a while....now that my score has dropped, i can play far more open games, but do not really enjoy them one tenth as much as playing with the experienced players...

obviously there will obviously be segregation...some players will always like to play other players...and the best will always want to play with and against the best...it is a game after all...you dont often see the major league players showing up to little league to play some ball...why would they...every sport or game has divisions, and certainly one with 100000 players needs them....

[robbart]

Well, there certainly are not a plethora of public games with higher ranked players. I look for them, and unless you are interested in doubles or trips, you won't see them. Apparently, they got their points in private games?

Anyways, I mostly do play public games. I play games with all ranks, and do not discriminate.

HOWEVER, noobs have been deadbeating more than ever recently, so I can certainly say that I there have been times when I wished I didn't HAVE to play public games against anyone who hasn't played at LEAST 5 games.

Personally, I think that they join their 4 games, and when they don't fill up right away, get bored waiting and simply leave.

they got them the same way everyone did...playing players at thier level and rising....the difference is most of the high ranks dont complain about it...they win and move on....the main reason they stick to the same ranks in singles, is because they avoid cheaters, deadbeaters, neg feedbacks for nothing, abusive players, inexperienced players, and other conflicts and are therefore able to have much more fun

I know this, because i only played colonels games for a while....now that my score has dropped, i can play far more open games, but do not really enjoy them one tenth as much as playing with the experienced players...

just win some games, get some points, and play the higher ranked players all you want....

or if you feel charitable, give your points to all the multis and lower ranked players you want....but I bet you dont join games with all the lowest ranking players on the scoreboard....i bet if you start losing 50 or 60 points per game, and then win 6 or 7...you wont play them anymore....give it a try though, and let me know how it works out...

Until then, improve your game, gain some points, and play all the players you want....but complaining about what games others decide to play is kind of silly

Well, I may not be a general or anything, but I have been playing a fair share... I win a few too.

So Fitz, you are agreeing with the allegation that you use your rank to determine who you play to the exclusivity of the lower ranked players?

I guess it just depends on the person. Some people play for points and rank, while others just want to play. I simply play to play. I really am not so concerned about rank. It's nice, but it's not the reason I play.