FreeFalling123

[betiko]

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.

therefore, you agree that his score is legit compared to his skills. therefore players with more skills that go up and down all the time because they are goofing around "hurt" other people's score when they are extremely under ranked?
Why would a player who is extremely careful with the games he joins, with a super top score and a very small amount of games played be better ranked that a much more talented player that goofs around and goes up and down all the time?
I'm just not following people's logic here..

[betiko]

I have been fastposted by Don, and I couldn't agree more with everything he says after reading it.
When I play speed games, I want to play fast. When I create games with settings/maps I like, it takes forever to fill and I end up dropping it. So I just join any stupid 1v1 just for the fun of it. Enven by winning 60-70% of them I lose hundreds of points per session or per week.

[iAmCaffeine]

Otherwise, please stop thinking that "unranked games" are only a request coming from high ranked that want to keep their rank.
It is of course the reason why I am proposing it, but several lower rank have proposed it in the past if you look at the suggestions.

Bear in mind that just because they're ranks are low if you look now, they may not have been when they created the suggestion.

Let me rephrase my earlier point. It's not just high ranks that want unranked games, it's anyone who cares too much about their rank and points.

[Mr Changsha]

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.

therefore, you agree that his score is legit compared to his skills. therefore players with more skills that go up and down all the time because they are goofing around "hurt" other people's score when they are extremely under ranked?
Why would a player who is extremely careful with the games he joins, with a super top score and a very small amount of games played be better ranked that a much more talented player that goofs around and goes up and down all the time?
I'm just not following people's logic here..

Well why shouldn't he be? Also, I fail to follow why the player that 'goofs around' is much more talented.

Rank and ease of holding it (as in the variety and quality of games a player can maintain while holding a rank) is the measure of how talented a player is. Now a player can go chasing medals, or 'goof around' on standard speed and withdraw from the main competition if they like, and they can always come back to it, but at any given time the scoreboard reflects the best performing players.

If I may say, your determination that we should have our best-ever score on our profile page, or that players should be free to play unranked games merely betrays your own insecurity.

And I say to you again..you can't have it all (high rank, chasing medals, speed games against the stripers) at the same time. That's not how CC works and thank god for that. CC reflects life in many intruiging ways and for those of us that understand these deeper currents, and respect them, your comments reflect an immaturity in CC-terms.

[betiko]

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.

therefore, you agree that his score is legit compared to his skills. therefore players with more skills that go up and down all the time because they are goofing around "hurt" other people's score when they are extremely under ranked?
Why would a player who is extremely careful with the games he joins, with a super top score and a very small amount of games played be better ranked that a much more talented player that goofs around and goes up and down all the time?
I'm just not following people's logic here..

Well why shouldn't he be? Also, I fail to follow why the player that 'goofs around' is much more talented.

Rank and ease of holding it (as in the variety and quality of games a player can maintain while holding a rank) is the measure of how talented a player is. Now a player can go chasing medals, or 'goof around' on standard speed and withdraw from the main competition if they like, and they can always come back to it, but at any given time the scoreboard reflects the best performing players.

If I may say, your determination that we should have our best-ever score on our profile page, or that players should be free to play unranked games merely betrays your own insecurity.

And I say to you again..you can't have it all (high rank, chasing medals, speed games against the stripers) at the same time. That's not how CC works and thank god for that. CC reflects life in many intruiging ways and for those of us that understand these deeper currents, and respect them, your comments reflect an immaturity in CC-terms.

how on earth would my method mean that you rank reflects your highest score ever?? playing ranked games just against people with similar ranks doesn't mean only going up. Or if it does, it means that you deserved it. Over time, each player's score would reflect his/her true level. This can be lower or higher than the score players currently have. I think people would need to meet a ratio of created/joined games of 50/50 as well. Also, I would find legit that your unique kills for medals could only be obtained through ranked games.
And there would be a flaw there I admit... finding new unique kills for super ranked players would be almost impossible.
Your assumptions are ridiculous. A player playing like a brig and ranked sargent because he plays goofer games makes sense to you pointwise then?

[betiko]

Otherwise, please stop thinking that "unranked games" are only a request coming from high ranked that want to keep their rank.
It is of course the reason why I am proposing it, but several lower rank have proposed it in the past if you look at the suggestions.

Bear in mind that just because they're ranks are low if you look now, they may not have been when they created the suggestion.

Let me rephrase my earlier point. It's not just high ranks that want unranked games, it's anyone who cares too much about their rank and points.

I am clearly a medal guy and not a score guy. Nevertheless, you do feel robbed when you play 5 luck based speed games vs the same guy just for fun, you win 4/5 games and yet you lose points.

[Donelladan]

I have been fastposted by Don, and I couldn't agree more with everything he says after reading it.

Too bad you don't say the same thing on french politic

Let me rephrase my earlier point. It's not just high ranks that want unranked games, it's anyone who cares too much about their rank and points.

If we should not care about rank and points, then let's get rid of it. Everyone who comes here and tell me I should or anyone else on CC should not care about points, I'll answer the same, if you really think it, please go in suggestion and ask to remove it. But if you want the scoreaboard to remain, then stop being hypocrite, you think scoreboard means something, and so you care about points, and you've got to accept some people care even more.

But, anyway, I really don't think the scoreboard of CC will disapear anytime soon, even if you and everyone else thinking I care too much about points go ask for it.
So I'll keep asking for unranked games

Well why shouldn't he be? Also, I fail to follow why the player that 'goofs around' is much more talented.

Rank and ease of holding it (as in the variety and quality of games a player can maintain while holding a rank) is the measure of how talented a player is. Now a player can go chasing medals, or 'goof around' on standard speed and withdraw from the main competition if they like, and they can always come back to it, but at any given time the scoreboard reflects the best performing players.

If I may say, your determination that we should have our best-ever score on our profile page, or that players should be free to play unranked games merely betrays your own insecurity.

And I say to you again..you can't have it all (high rank, chasing medals, speed games against the stripers) at the same time. That's not how CC works and thank god for that. CC reflects life in many intruiging ways and for those of us that understand these deeper currents, and respect them, your comments reflect an immaturity in CC-terms.

I'll admit I totally fail to see any logic in what you say.
Let's take 2 examples.
Player 1 only play one map. Player 2 plays the same map, and even better than player 1.
Player 1 never play any other map and reach and maintain a score around 4000 points.

Player 2 plays tons of differents maps against various opponents and has an average score of 3000.

If I read correctly your post, Mr Changsa, you are saying that player 1 is better than player 2 ? Am I right ?

[iAmCaffeine]

I'm not sure if you guys - betiko and Donelladan - simply don't get it or your arrogance is of such a level that there is no way of you ever coming to a point of realism. I can't be bothered any more. Changsha put it best.

[Donelladan]

If it's to answer smthg like that don't even bother posting it next time, that was really arrogant of you. Maybe you are the one that simply don't get it?

[demonfork]

The vast majority of you that are commenting here don't have a clue what it's like at the 4500 & up point range.

When you are at this level you need to win 90% of your games in order to maintain your score. This makes your game selection choices very tricky, you must select games that you know that you can win. You no longer have the option of playing "fun" games.

It's all part of what it takes to achieve perfection. Have you ever heard the saying "it's lonely at the top"?

The fact that FF went on a joyride with other accounts while protecting his own score is the real crime here and he deserves a point reset/reduction for this.

He basically put himself into a "cake and eat it" situation which isn't fair to the rest of the players that are making sacrifices to climb the scoreboard.

[Donelladan]

I am not sure for everyone else here, but I think we are not debatting wether FF deserves a punishment or not.
We were only debatting the scoreboard meaning and wether we should have unranked game or not

[Mr Changsha]

I have been fastposted by Don, and I couldn't agree more with everything he says after reading it.

Too bad you don't say the same thing on french politic

Let me rephrase my earlier point. It's not just high ranks that want unranked games, it's anyone who cares too much about their rank and points.

If we should not care about rank and points, then let's get rid of it. Everyone who comes here and tell me I should or anyone else on CC should not care about points, I'll answer the same, if you really think it, please go in suggestion and ask to remove it. But if you want the scoreaboard to remain, then stop being hypocrite, you think scoreboard means something, and so you care about points, and you've got to accept some people care even more.

But, anyway, I really don't think the scoreboard of CC will disapear anytime soon, even if you and everyone else thinking I care too much about points go ask for it.
So I'll keep asking for unranked games

Well why shouldn't he be? Also, I fail to follow why the player that 'goofs around' is much more talented.

Rank and ease of holding it (as in the variety and quality of games a player can maintain while holding a rank) is the measure of how talented a player is. Now a player can go chasing medals, or 'goof around' on standard speed and withdraw from the main competition if they like, and they can always come back to it, but at any given time the scoreboard reflects the best performing players.

If I may say, your determination that we should have our best-ever score on our profile page, or that players should be free to play unranked games merely betrays your own insecurity.

And I say to you again..you can't have it all (high rank, chasing medals, speed games against the stripers) at the same time. That's not how CC works and thank god for that. CC reflects life in many intruiging ways and for those of us that understand these deeper currents, and respect them, your comments reflect an immaturity in CC-terms.

I'll admit I totally fail to see any logic in what you say.
Let's take 2 examples.
Player 1 only play one map. Player 2 plays the same map, and even better than player 1.
Player 1 never play any other map and reach and maintain a score around 4000 points.

Player 2 plays tons of differents maps against various opponents and has an average score of 3000.

If I read correctly your post, Mr Changsa, you are saying that player 1 is better than player 2 ? Am I right ?

Nope, because I clearly wrote:

Rank and ease of holding it (as in the variety and quality of games a player can maintain while holding a rank) is the measure of how talented a player is.

However, I'm not going to say here that a player who reached 4000 playing on only one map and setting is definitively less talented than one who played a real range of maps and styles and reached 3000, because it would rather depend on the setting and map that was played on as well as the level of opposition. For instance, if a player managed to hit 4000 playing my settings on only classic trips that would be an incredible achievement..more so if the opposition was more often than not of decent quality. I don't think anyone has ever actually achieved that.

So it is too simplistic to choose one or the other in your question. However, my earlier comment (that I quoted again as you appear to have missed it) does show quite clearly that I rate not only the score, but also the manner in which it was achieved.

[betiko]

So chang; basically if you could only face 2500 to 3000 players on your settings, would you expect to only go up? Team games make it easy to go up because there is less luck involved; and you very rarely lose to a bunch of noobs like you do in 1v1. You are saying yourself that with the settings you play it's impossible to continue going up after some point vs quality opponents.

"Rank and ease of holding it (as in the variety and quality of games a player can maintain while holding a rank) is the measure of how talented a player is."

that is a statement that reflects your perspective, which I don't share. let's just say that I will respect your view, but that isn't the way I see a true ranking should look like. For me it should reflect the pure skills, not the way someone restrains from playing games on the site.

Same thing goes for DF. Even if I haven't ever been any close from those scores, I do understand the mechanics, and from my humble perspective of topping in the 3100s, I know how differently I select my games when I m there compared to when I'm in my 2100 bottoms where I absolutely don't care of losing vs cooks or so. So I can imagine what it means to be 1500pts higher than this. Nevertheless, why would players that high should restrain from playing other game types and not enjoy fully their account? Everyone being on the same boat... Respect for historical conquerors/ conqueror high scores? What exactly would be unfair?

[iAmCaffeine]

If you want to play for fun, do it. If you want to play for rank, do it. Personally if you don't enjoy playing for rank then you're doing something wrong.

[Donelladan]

I see you play speed game some times. Let me ask, how many time to you see a general playing speed? A brigadier? I know there is some colonel that play, but even those are not so many.

Don't you think, for the interest of CC, it would be better if the amount of people playing speed game was higher ?

Concerning your statement, I want to play for fun, and I do, and I also want to play for rank, but I can't combine both completely.
I enjoy playing for fun, and I enjoy playing for rank. For which reason do I have to chose? Why couldn't I have both ?

I agree with you that giving unlimited unranked game to people would transform a lot the things around here. I am not sure I'd like it. But it's not what I am thinking of.
Offering limited amount of unranked game - the same way freemium are limited to 4 active game, we could limite number of unranked game to 4 active game, or even 1 active game. That way unranked game would be a small amount. But it would still allow people like Betiko and me to play dozens of speed game a day ! Therefore increasing activity of CC and doing good to CC.

Of course unranked game would also allow people to learn quietly some maps, and could help I guess the SoC.
Speed game would probably also incite more people to try freestyle speed game.
I am sure we can find other advantages to unranked game. And with a very strong limitation on it, like, let's say, no more than 1 active unranked game at a time, I have very serious doubt those game could do anything bad to the scoreboard.

[Mr Changsha]

So chang; basically if you could only face 2500 to 3000 players on your settings, would you expect to only go up? Team games make it easy to go up because there is less luck involved; and you very rarely lose to a bunch of noobs like you do in 1v1. You are saying yourself that with the settings you play it's impossible to continue going up after some point vs quality opponents.

"Rank and ease of holding it (as in the variety and quality of games a player can maintain while holding a rank) is the measure of how talented a player is."

that is a statement that reflects your perspective, which I don't share. let's just say that I will respect your view, but that isn't the way I see a true ranking should look like. For me it should reflect the pure skills, not the way someone restrains from playing games on the site.

Same thing goes for DF. Even if I haven't ever been any close from those scores, I do understand the mechanics, and from my humble perspective of topping in the 3100s, I know how differently I select my games when I m there compared to when I'm in my 2100 bottoms where I absolutely don't care of losing vs cooks or so. So I can imagine what it means to be 1500pts higher than this. Nevertheless, why would players that high should restrain from playing other game types and not enjoy fully their account? Everyone being on the same boat... Respect for historical conquerors/ conqueror high scores? What exactly would be unfair?

Regarding your first point, in my experience players that play team games on my settings seem to, even the best ones, get stuck around 3300-3800. Adding fog seems to stretch that, as might adding escalating, or even unlimited forts. Frankly, one can see this in the sense that so few top players are playing even a majority of their games sunny...or notice the extent to which clan games are played in the fog.

So while I have not personally attempted to see how high I could go, I am completely certain that (judging by others experience) eventually I would reach an effective limit. While the combination of sunny, no cards, chained may not be the best way to reach a very high score, it happens to be the game I enjoy, and so I am quite comfortable with the knowledge that truly high scores are out of my reach.

I would further add that I am playing exactly as I like these days, I don't yearn to play other forms of the game at all..so I am quite lucky in that my score is rising nicely AND I am playing exactly what I want to play. It wasn't always the case, so I do have some sympathy for your views.

[NoSurvivors]

On the point of FF getting a point reduction? I might be biased because that could very well mean I'm at the top of a scoreboard for the month. So I can't say much as its biased

Freefalling is a good player no doubt. It's unfortunate that he made the decision he did. I don't know if he should get a point reduction or not but that's up to the mods... The only reason he might would be that he got the enjoyment of playing without risking his points. However he IS a good player. There were a few of us that shot up the board due to BRs but most are sliding back down :p so

[rhp 1]

On the point of FF getting a point reduction? I might be biased because that could very well mean I'm at the top of a scoreboard for the month. So I can't say much as its biased

Freefalling is a good player no doubt. It's unfortunate that he made the decision he did. I don't know if he should get a point reduction or not but that's up to the mods... The only reason he might would be that he got the enjoyment of playing without risking his points. However he IS a good player. There were a few of us that shot up the board due to BRs but most are sliding back down :p so

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.

[NoSurvivors]

On the point of FF getting a point reduction? I might be biased because that could very well mean I'm at the top of a scoreboard for the month. So I can't say much as its biased

Freefalling is a good player no doubt. It's unfortunate that he made the decision he did. I don't know if he should get a point reduction or not but that's up to the mods... The only reason he might would be that he got the enjoyment of playing without risking his points. However he IS a good player. There were a few of us that shot up the board due to BRs but most are sliding back down :p so

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.

Learn to read before posting I said the only reason I could see for that possibility is that he played without risking his own points. All I'm saying! I don't believe he deserves one.

[demonfork]

On the point of FF getting a point reduction? I might be biased because that could very well mean I'm at the top of a scoreboard for the month. So I can't say much as its biased

Freefalling is a good player no doubt. It's unfortunate that he made the decision he did. I don't know if he should get a point reduction or not but that's up to the mods... The only reason he might would be that he got the enjoyment of playing without risking his points. However he IS a good player. There were a few of us that shot up the board due to BRs but most are sliding back down :p so

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.

I'm not surprised that it makes no sense to you. I can pretty much tell by your picture that you are not very sharp.

[Metsfanmax]

Unranked games have a possibility of being implemented. Much of this discussion would be valuable to have over in Suggestions.

[TeeGee]

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

[owenshooter]

Unranked games have a possibility of being implemented. Much of this discussion would be valuable to have over in Suggestions.

why would they ever do that? it has been debated ad nauseam multiple times and the conclusion is always the same... HELL NO!!!! anyway, if it happens, i would be beyond shocked... and let's not forget, it takes a lot to shock me, i have risen from the dead before... the black jesus has spoken...-el Jesus negro

[Metsfanmax]

Unranked games have a possibility of being implemented. Much of this discussion would be valuable to have over in Suggestions.

why would they ever do that? it has been debated ad nauseam multiple times and the conclusion is always the same... HELL NO!!!! anyway, if it happens, i would be beyond shocked... and let's not forget, it takes a lot to shock me, i have risen from the dead before... the black jesus has spoken...-el Jesus negro

Ultimately this was a policy decision on the site's part more than anything else. In the past, there has been a philosophy that practice is simply not allowed on this site. That flies in the face of the gaming philosophy of basically every single gaming platform out there. We are on the wrong side of that. Bot games changed that, and maybe that's enough. But a case can be made for why we should extend that to player games as well, and rational discussion should win out over histrionics.