FreeFalling123

by **owenshooter** on Mon Jan 20, 2014 10:38 am

Metsfanmax wrote: rational discussion should win out over histrionics.

*speechless*... been here long?!! ha!!! thanks for making my morning!!! the black jesus is amused...-el Jesus negro

by **betiko** on Mon Jan 20, 2014 10:42 am

owenshooter wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:and rational discussion should win out over histrionics.

this may be the funniest thing i have ever seen written on this site.. anyone that has been here for longer than a week knows this is not the place for rational or civilized discourse... wow... you just made my morning@!!! the black jesus is amused!!!-el Jesus negro

it can actually stay constructive and rational as long as you don't bring your 2 troller cents in any discussion owen.

by **owenshooter** on Mon Jan 20, 2014 10:59 am

betiko wrote:
owenshooter wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:and rational discussion should win out over histrionics.

this may be the funniest thing i have ever seen written on this site.. anyone that has been here for longer than a week knows this is not the place for rational or civilized discourse... wow... you just made my morning@!!! the black jesus is amused!!!-el Jesus negro

it can actually stay constructive and rational as long as you don't bring your 2 troller cents in any discussion owen.

aaand, thank you for proving my point so quickly!!! when members of team CC pop in and start throwing about flames without any repercussions for their actions, as we just witnessed, how can there ever be any hope for a high level of discourse on this site? thank you for proving my point... within this thread, i have remained on topic and actually added valid points... now, my points may disagree with your beliefs on this topic, so to you that makes me a troll... again, thank you for proving my point... the black jesus has spoken...-el Jesus negro

by **betiko** on Mon Jan 20, 2014 11:15 am

owenshooter wrote:
betiko wrote:
owenshooter wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:and rational discussion should win out over histrionics.

this may be the funniest thing i have ever seen written on this site.. anyone that has been here for longer than a week knows this is not the place for rational or civilized discourse... wow... you just made my morning@!!! the black jesus is amused!!!-el Jesus negro

it can actually stay constructive and rational as long as you don't bring your 2 troller cents in any discussion owen.

aaand, thank you for proving my point so quickly!!! when members of team CC pop in and start throwing about flames without any repercussions for their actions, as we just witnessed, how can there ever be any hope for a high level of discourse on this site? thank you for proving my point... within this thread, i have remained on topic and actually added valid points... now, my points may disagree with your beliefs on this topic, so to you that makes me a troll... again, thank you for proving my point... the black jesus has spoken...-el Jesus negro

Anyway back on topic, what constructive thoughts have you brought concerning none ranked games, cause as always I just see you have a big mouth but not adding anything tangible appart from easy and useless criticizm.

by **iAmCaffeine** on Mon Jan 20, 2014 12:38 pm

TeeGee wrote:And please keep personal attacks off this site.. thanks Constructive criticism is acceptable, but blatant personal attacks have no place here.

You smell.

by **owenshooter** on Mon Jan 20, 2014 12:45 pm

betiko wrote:blah, blah, blah, and some more name calling

see, you just keep flaming and lowering the discourse simply because i disagree with you. go back over the thread, i added a very valid view point on the issue and of course, because it differs from yours, you hurl flames and insults. again, thank you for showing how a civil and level headed conversation on this site is a very difficult proposition to even imagine with the likes of you running around threads... the black jesus has spoken...-el Jesus negro

by **MrPinky** on Mon Jan 20, 2014 12:52 pm

Allowing unranked games doesn't really make any sense.

How do you think new players on this site feels if they win a game against a good player and then gets zero rating because "that player decided to play unranked"....

Rank is a value that tells something about your strength (and luck) in the kind of games you choose to play.

If you are a nit and only play complicated maps, against other nits...well...then a high ranking means you are a good at playing complicated maps against other nits. And if you get to be Conquerer you may be the best of the nits. Congratulations. It does not mean you are the best overall player on the site. It means you are the best player at the maps and settings you yourself choose to play.

I know some of the high rated say "we wish we could play speed games...please let them be unrated or we can not play.." No, its not true. Everyone can play speedgames ...if they wish to. But you can not first choose to play complicated maps in an attempt try to get a higher rating than all the players that play all kinds of games, and then come running afterwards and complain that now you can not play all the funny games. Come on. Just play the funny games, and then see how it goes. Maybe having fun is better than having a superficial high rating?

CC has a huge variety of maps and settings. Some will always be more complicated than others. And someone will always try to find the map and setting that allows them to get the biggest advantage.

If someone only plays Hive for one year and get a high rating....and then they come and complain and say "Buuhhuuu...now I can not play all the other funny more simple maps. I'm destined to only play on Hive the rest of my life or I will lose my precious rating"....hey, guess what...thats your own choice...but why would you want to ruin the experience for everyone else?

For the rest of us...ranking is a measurement of how we are doing overall in our games. Why should we suddenly not get any rating when we beat the high ranked people anymore...that will distort OUR rating experience.

So... go ahead...whore points if thats your thing. I understand how that can be fun. But then you must accept that while you are doing a climb in rating, there are other things you can't do.

by **MrPinky** on Mon Jan 20, 2014 1:01 pm

One thing that COULD be interesting to look at ....is the upper limit on points you can lose in one game. If there were no fixed limit, in theory you can lose 1000 points in one game. Back in the days a fixed limit of 100 was introduced. So if you play against someone way lower than yourself you will loose 100 or win maybe 2 points. That means you have to be a HUUUUGE favorite, and there are very few maps where that can be done.

It may make more sense to lower the max loss to maybe 50 points. You still have to be a very huge favorite against most players if you are a high ranking general, and you still can not play lots of speed doodle maps without losing rating over time. But at least you can join a tournament or a few funny games now and then with risking losing several hundred points in just a few games. Maybe even a battle royal without feeling like you are that main target of all players.

IMO that is a relatively simple fix and should allow a bit more risk willingness from the top players. Easy to "program".... solve some problems....opens up for more fun games for everyone...and does not skew the entire rating system too much.... Win win for everyone.

by **Vid_FISO** on Mon Jan 20, 2014 1:24 pm

Or simply make rank only count over a wide range of maps and settings so that being an "expert" on one map/setting alone does not give anyone a high overall rank, just the one that is actually deserved from avoidance (and foeing) of those willing to play a greater range of maps and settings with a higher degree of luck/ competence? A shame that map rank is no longer supported as that really does show the all round players with ability from those that have found a very small niche very clearly.

by **betiko** on Mon Jan 20, 2014 1:53 pm

well mr pinky;
what's this thing about a new player or an old timer's feeling? (regarding your first sentence). If a new player decides to play a none ranked game vs a top player and wins... well why would he not be happy about it? you can't say rank is not worth it and then get all fuzzy about this. I don't know; if you decide to play unranked how stupid is it to whore about not getting points when you win? You chose the games you join and you surely aren't going to whore about if you lose and lose no points... new player or old timer is irrelevant regarding this matter.

I get your point for the rest. And yes, I would agree with your second post; mostly adding vid fiso's input. basically... you can't be considered such huge favorite (lose 100 win 2) playing an ass doodle game... the points won/loss should depend on the game setting compared to your opponent (maybe just to a certain extent). Let's say you are facing a guy that is 1000 points bellow you in cc score, but is actually an expert on a given map setting and has a much better score than you on a given map setting. why should you lose 40 win 10 when you are actually the underdog??

and fiso; go check map rank, it was fixed a few weeks ago! (there might be some games missing... if I compare my stats on map rank and on my page there is a few games that disapeared on map rank, all being poly)

by **Vid_FISO** on Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:09 pm

betiko wrote:
and fiso; go check map rank, it was fixed a few weeks ago! (there might be some games missing... if I compare my stats on map rank and on my page there is a few games that disapeared on map rank, all being poly)

Yeah, I'm using the best fix we have too, map rank yourself from the menu on the left, all games will be included just the percentages will be off, it would be handy if both ways actually gave all the games and correct percentages too, maybe someone with the know how will find the time.

by **MrPinky** on Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:16 pm

yeah betiko....if you consider the "not ranked" as a setting and the game is marked as unranked before it is started....sure.... I was just thinking it like you want to flag some games as not ranked - just for you...so like normal games with for instance 6 players and only one has chosen rank not to count....

Or that you could join a battle royal with 50 players and mark yourself as "not playing for rating". That was what I had in mind when I wrote the post, as people seems to want to join the fun everyone else has.

Of course your way of seeing the idea, is much better, IF it has to be implemented. I still don't like the idea though. Rating is supposed to be a mix of all your games. And not just some specially chosen games with preferred settings.

by **betiko** on Tue Jan 21, 2014 6:05 am

MrPinky wrote:yeah betiko....if you consider the "not ranked" as a setting and the game is marked as unranked before it is started....sure.... I was just thinking it like you want to flag some games as not ranked - just for you...so like normal games with for instance 6 players and only one has chosen rank not to count....

Or that you could join a battle royal with 50 players and mark yourself as "not playing for rating". That was what I had in mind when I wrote the post, as people seems to want to join the fun everyone else has.

Of course your way of seeing the idea, is much better, IF it has to be implemented. I still don't like the idea though. Rating is supposed to be a mix of all your games. And not just some specially chosen games with preferred settings.

oh no definitely! the idea was to make a setting like let's say... fog/sunny. It's not going to be fog for some players and sunny for some others!

Having players in your ranked game that decided that for them it's not counting would be an absolute terrible idea and I would be strongly against that too.
A person would go into game finder/create a game and check or uncheck this setting for a given game only. And if people feel like there should be a limited amount of them per month,I don't really care. I really don't see where the harm is there, and it's a system that exists in a large variety of gaming communities.
Games such as tourneys, special events, battle royales ect should remain ranked; but a few unranked per month to try a new released setting, a new map, goof around on speed games or whatever... I really don't see how it hurts. Everybody would play more games and i don't see how that is a bad thing.

by **owenshooter** on Tue Jan 21, 2014 8:58 am

again, freefalling joined 25+ games shooting a lower ranked player up the scoreboard and earning a 1 month ban. that's what this thread was originally about, let's not forget this. as we have moved the conversation to unranked games and such, i think i'll give the link to the 54 page thread rejecting this idea. yes, a 54 page thread of combined suggestions forum threads about unranked games, rejecting the idea. i bet everyone in here suggesting this has already done a search for this and read the thread and i'm probably just wasting everyone's time:

Subject: Unrated, Unranked, or No Points Games [REJECTED]

HT-Johnao wrote:
Mod Edit: The option to create games for no points has been suggested dozens of times under numerous monikers including: Unrated games, Unranked games, No Points games, Sparring games, Friendly games and Recreational games. Each time it has been REJECTED. The simple reason for this is that it undermines the scoring system. If people were allowed to play all the games that they weren't very good at "for fun" or "for practice" and only play games that they could likely win points on "for realsies" or "for keeps" then all of a sudden everybody would be a farmer of sorts. Perhaps you think this would be a good thing. However, as it stands now, there appears to be almost zero chance that Conquer Club will engage in this experiment anytime in the foreseeable future.

This thread is related to the separate suggestion of allowing players to "stake" or set the amount of points that a game is worth. That idea, too, has been rejected countless times as you can see here: https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 471&t=9694. Other related topics that I found, but felt they were distinct enough not to warrant a merge were for Anonymous, no points games and not allowing (as in not a user option) points to be collected for certain game types, e.g. freestyle games. However, this thread does include discussion of allowing "pointless" games within the Society of Cooks.

If, however, you would like to lend your support to the idea of unrated games, please do so here rather than creating yet another thread, which the moderators will have to merge with this one. If you see another thread that should be merged here, please inform a moderator. Thank you. --agentcom

Per agentcom's request- This suggestion is partially filled by the bots update, allowing for players to compete against a "computer" player with no loss of points -James K

I think it would be great if you had the option to select ranked or unranked when creating a game. That way you can play a friendly games against your friends without tempers running high. Some people take ranks and points way too seriously.

the black jesus has spoken...-el Jesus negro

by **betiko** on Tue Jan 21, 2014 9:29 am

owenshooter wrote:again, freefalling joined 25+ games shooting a lower ranked player up the scoreboard and earning a 1 month ban. that's what this thread was originally about, let's not forget this. as we have moved the conversation to unranked games and such, i think i'll give the link to the 54 page thread rejecting this idea. yes, a 54 page thread of combined suggestions forum threads about unranked games, rejecting the idea. i bet everyone in here suggesting this has already done a search for this and read the thread and i'm probably just wasting everyone's time:

Subject: Unrated, Unranked, or No Points Games [REJECTED]
HT-Johnao wrote:
Mod Edit: The option to create games for no points has been suggested dozens of times under numerous monikers including: Unrated games, Unranked games, No Points games, Sparring games, Friendly games and Recreational games. Each time it has been REJECTED. The simple reason for this is that it undermines the scoring system. If people were allowed to play all the games that they weren't very good at "for fun" or "for practice" and only play games that they could likely win points on "for realsies" or "for keeps" then all of a sudden everybody would be a farmer of sorts. Perhaps you think this would be a good thing. However, as it stands now, there appears to be almost zero chance that Conquer Club will engage in this experiment anytime in the foreseeable future.

This thread is related to the separate suggestion of allowing players to "stake" or set the amount of points that a game is worth. That idea, too, has been rejected countless times as you can see here: https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 471&t=9694. Other related topics that I found, but felt they were distinct enough not to warrant a merge were for Anonymous, no points games and not allowing (as in not a user option) points to be collected for certain game types, e.g. freestyle games. However, this thread does include discussion of allowing "pointless" games within the Society of Cooks.

If, however, you would like to lend your support to the idea of unrated games, please do so here rather than creating yet another thread, which the moderators will have to merge with this one. If you see another thread that should be merged here, please inform a moderator. Thank you. --agentcom

Per agentcom's request- This suggestion is partially filled by the bots update, allowing for players to compete against a "computer" player with no loss of points -James K

I think it would be great if you had the option to select ranked or unranked when creating a game. That way you can play a friendly games against your friends without tempers running high. Some people take ranks and points way too seriously.

the black jesus has spoken...-el Jesus negro

it has been rejected many times indeed and we know it. Nevertheless, this is like a hydra, cut a head and another will grow back. Bigwham has always been opened to reopen discussions; and things that were definitely no with lack can be considered by the new management.

owen; don't expect these questions not to be asked again and again by random people:
-resign button
-unranked games
-rank restricted games

those 3 will always be brought back on the table and will always generate lots of controversy.

This thread was originally a question regarding what freefalling got busted for. We all agreed that he deserved a punishment for highjacking an account, so if we all agreed on this it's normal the conversation moved on; and we questionned the motives and how to make things better.

by **owenshooter** on Tue Jan 21, 2014 9:47 am

betiko wrote:owen; don't expect these questions not to be asked again and again by random people:
-resign button
-unranked games
-rank restricted games

i think the resign button was rejected due to potential abuse, which is obvious... unranked games has been rejected countless times... rank restricted games is kind of handled with the invite system... ask away all you want, the only way to get any of this changed is in the suggestions forum and i really can't see any of these three things ever being changed, as they have been debated/discussed so many times and never implemented... i do agree i would LOVE to play some games against clan mates/friends without losing points... i am pretty sure i would venture onto maps i have never played and settings that i have wholly ignored due to the loss of points involved in learning them, etc... maybe it's time for a new suggestion thread on this topic? if you feel that passionate about it, i would suggest doing it. i know i would support playing a limited number of games per month that did not involve rank, if it were possible... the black jesus has spoken...-el Jesus negro

by **betiko** on Tue Jan 21, 2014 10:36 am

owenshooter wrote:
betiko wrote:owen; don't expect these questions not to be asked again and again by random people:
-resign button
-unranked games
-rank restricted games

i think the resign button was rejected due to potential abuse, which is obvious... unranked games has been rejected countless times... rank restricted games is kind of handled with the invite system... ask away all you want, the only way to get any of this changed is in the suggestions forum and i really can't see any of these three things ever being changed, as they have been debated/discussed so many times and never implemented... i do agree i would LOVE to play some games against clan mates/friends without losing points... i am pretty sure i would venture onto maps i have never played and settings that i have wholly ignored due to the loss of points involved in learning them, etc... maybe it's time for a new suggestion thread on this topic? if you feel that passionate about it, i would suggest doing it. i know i would support playing a limited number of games per month that did not involve rank, if it were possible... the black jesus has spoken...-el Jesus negro

not saying i"m in favour of all 3, just that they are the most popular ones to come back over and over.
for the resign button, i totally get the potential abuse. Too bad cause many games, mostly trench have no turning back at some point and are a waste of time to finish.
unranked game, the only potential problem I see here is that some people seem to think that the points should partly show your ability to restrain yourself from playing games with terrible win potential. Or maybe people missunderstood the concept and thought of it the way pinky did.
rank restricted games.... well the only problem I see here is the potential wait for games to fill

I already revived the old unranked games thread a few month ago, and it was really like 50/50 on opinions (did a poll). not too long later bots games were created and it stopped the conversation a little.

by **Amateil** on Wed Jan 22, 2014 9:17 am

[quote="rhp 1"Im not biased at all here... I think you all are fuckin tools...
point reduction? For what? He played on someone else's account... reduce to what? Makes no sense at all... he should be punished with a ban or what have you, but adjusting the points on his account? Silly...he gained no points on his account.[/quote]

haha love how you put it!! and FF look a whole thread for you

it's like the CC version of the Paparazzi!! People hating and lovin on ya, just needs some mug shots now

by **betiko** on Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:38 am

Amateil wrote:[quote="rhp 1"Im not biased at all here... I think you all are fuckin tools...
point reduction? For what? He played on someone else's account... reduce to what? Makes no sense at all... he should be punished with a ban or what have you, but adjusting the points on his account? Silly...he gained no points on his account.

haha love how you put it!! and FF look a whole thread for you

it's like the CC version of the Paparazzi!! People hating and lovin on ya, just needs some mug shots now

[/quote]

over 90% of the thread isn't about him actually

by **HardAttack** on Wed Jan 22, 2014 11:15 am

he needs a free fallin

by **BigBallinStalin** on Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:44 am

TheForgivenOne wrote:
owenshooter wrote:
jetsetwilly wrote:FF's abuse was not to benefit his own account.

how is it not a benefit to any of our accounts to play as many games as we like without risking any points? i would say that is a HUGE benefit to an account. it isn't as egregious as say what Blitzaholic did, but it is an abuse. have you not seen all the higher ranked guys roll in here and say how much they would love to play a small amount of games per month without risking any point loss? i know that every time i have hit major i significantly change who i play, maps i play, etc... why? one loss while playing a "fun" game can just kill your score... what he did was an abuse and they should have done a full reset, not the BS reset to where they could track the abuse from. again, forum violations where less than 1% of CC'ers even visit, are treated more harshly than cheating and abuse that affect the scoreboard. you can't say his actions didn't affect the scoreboard, because they did... the black jesus has called cheating, cheating...-el Jesus negro

The main reasoning we chose his score when it all started, was because if he was reset to 1000, or as you suggested (I think) 0, then we would be harming every other account that he beats as he makes his way up the scoreboard, winning more points then he should be, and losing less.

I roundly reject your reason! In a fit of fury, we demand the most justice!

by **Leehar** on Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:30 pm

betiko wrote:
owenshooter wrote:
betiko wrote:owen; don't expect these questions not to be asked again and again by random people:

-rank restricted games

i think the resign button was rejected due to potential abuse, which is obvious... unranked games has been rejected countless times... rank restricted games is kind of handled with the invite system... ask away all you want, the only way to get any of this changed is in the suggestions forum and i really can't see any of these three things ever being changed, as they have been debated/discussed so many times and never implemented... i do agree i would LOVE to play some games against clan mates/friends without losing points... i am pretty sure i would venture onto maps i have never played and settings that i have wholly ignored due to the loss of points involved in learning them, etc... maybe it's time for a new suggestion thread on this topic? if you feel that passionate about it, i would suggest doing it. i know i would support playing a limited number of games per month that did not involve rank, if it were possible... the black jesus has spoken...-el Jesus negro

rank restricted games.... well the only problem I see here is the potential wait for games to fill

I already revived the old unranked games thread a few month ago, and it was really like 50/50 on opinions (did a poll). not too long later bots games were created and it stopped the conversation a little.

From my understanding, we're already halfway to unranked games with Bot games. And now we're half-way to rank-restricted games with some rank-restricted Tourneys.
Doesn't seem like much of a leap to go all the way!

And I also think the suggestion of limiting such games is a viable one, if indeed the reason the suggestion was rejected so often was the concern that it would undermine the scoring system with people only playing their farming games. Hopefully that will still allow Point games to be paramount while expanding the overall Options dynamic once more