Conquer Club

NR's not sticking around because they get beat by a high ranking player their first few go's is a false theory.

The main reason why NR's don't stick around is because they come to this site expecting to play some real time games and in most cases they are not even able to take a single turn and must wait hours or even days to take their first turn.

demonfork wrote:NR's not sticking around because they get beat by a high ranking player their first few go's is a false theory.

The main reason why NR's don't stick around is because they come to this site expecting to play some real time games and in most cases they are not even able to take a single turn and must wait hours or even days to take their first turn.

I agree with that.

chapcrap wrote:

demonfork wrote:NR's not sticking around because they get beat by a high ranking player their first few go's is a false theory.

The main reason why NR's don't stick around is because they come to this site expecting to play some real time games and in most cases they are not even able to take a single turn and must wait hours or even days to take their first turn.

I agree with that.

That's the exact reason I didn't stick around when I first came here. It was a year or two later when I rediscovered this site that I actually stuck with it.

The Point just above was very well taken. Too many times new players come into Callouts looking for a REAL TIME game and complain that they have to wait so long to play.

However the premise of this thread is off base, particularly when directed at this player (GLG). On the last C&A report I listed 20 (twenty) nice comments from recent opponents that THANKED me for:
-showing them an interesting map
-talking to them. one guy with 00's of games had NEVER been spoken to by anyone else on the site
-giving them a game against a very highly ranked player. Many High ranked players won't play -- or will only if teamed up.

So if low ranked players want a game, and GLG is one of the people offering games RT for them, wtF is nay-sayer's problem? You think you're talking for all new players but in many cases you haven't a clue.

so saith GLG

I think gen. raises a good point. As a new player it may well be fun to play against a field marshall, even if you loose. Even for a not so new player it would be an experience.
Ive never played against a field marshall, although i did get to play one game vs the current conqueror.

I remember in my first few games it was actually quite nice for me to be able to join games with Klobber. Of course Klobber was a shameless farmer, but from the point of view of many of those question mark players it was probably all good fun.

The issue that bothers me is not so much protecting new players. They will probably find their way into the games they like after a while anyway. The issue is the inflation of the rating of the higher ranking player. Rating manipulation by high rated players on this site is quite frankly scandalous.

I think there needs to be a change to the rating system before it can be regarded as meaningful. To be honest I would probably start by making a seperate points system for team games (which would not reward the highest ranked player on a team with points calculated using the team´s average ranking- that is wrong). Then look into the farming thing in 1 v 1 games. No idea what precise changes should be made, because im not very au fait with those settings.

can you tell me what these rankings mean? general, new recruit, whats next, conscript?
its just a count of the games? I think I'm a ? mark player.

If you click on the "Instructions" tab near the top, then click on the "Score, Ranking and Medals" tab, you can read about it there.

pickleofdoom wrote:The issue that bothers me is not so much protecting new players. They will probably find their way into the games they like after a while anyway. The issue is the inflation of the rating of the higher ranking player. Rating manipulation by high rated players on this site is quite frankly scandalous.

They're virtual points, man. They can't pay for your groceries.

That is quite an unfair comment, with an implied insult contained in it. If it boosts your self esteem at my expense fair enough but it isnt constructive.

Given that we have a points system, and it has quite a big effect on who plays who etc, it would be nice if it actually worked.

Isn't there always the risk that the new player can win and get a million points? I don't see anything wrong with good players playing with new players. Personally at this point I don't understand the effect. I play for fun, not for points.
I'm a ? mark player, I think im gonna win a game by tomorrow. or I'll lose.

pickleofdoom wrote:That is quite an unfair comment, with an implied insult contained in it. If it boosts your self esteem at my expense fair enough but it isnt constructive.

Oh no. I didn't hurt your feelings, did I? I'm sorry.

Given that we have a points system, and it has quite a big effect on who plays who etc, it would be nice if it actually worked.

Any scoring system like the one we have, that encompasses all the different maps and game types, is not going to be accurate no matter how you tweak it.

Your score mostly depends on what kind of games you play. Some people maybe get the most enjoyment out of this site by playing "easy" games with small risk and small but guaranteed point gain. What I don't get, is why lots of people seem to adopt this "holier-than-thou" attitude and feel like they have the right to say how other people should play the game? I mean, as long as they're not actually cheating, who cares if they want to play with weaker players? If no one plays against the weaker players, the weaker players will never learn.

pickleofdoom wrote:I think gen. raises a good point. As a new player it may well be fun to play against a field marshall, even if you loose. Even for a not so new player it would be an experience.
Ive never played against a field marshall, although i did get to play one game vs the current conqueror.

I remember in my first few games it was actually quite nice for me to be able to join games with Klobber. Of course Klobber was a shameless farmer, but from the point of view of many of those question mark players it was probably all good fun.

The issue that bothers me is not so much protecting new players. They will probably find their way into the games they like after a while anyway. The issue is the inflation of the rating of the higher ranking player. Rating manipulation by high rated players on this site is quite frankly scandalous.

I think there needs to be a change to the rating system before it can be regarded as meaningful. To be honest I would probably start by making a seperate points system for team games (which would not reward the highest ranked player on a team with points calculated using the team´s average ranking- that is wrong). Then look into the farming thing in 1 v 1 games. No idea what precise changes should be made, because im not very au fait with those settings.

I still maintain that having the flexibility to set up no-points-risked games (i.e. practice games) would be a massive plus for this site without seriously impacting the player rankings in any way. That's right...not in any way.

Woodruff wrote:

pickleofdoom wrote:I think gen. raises a good point. As a new player it may well be fun to play against a field marshall, even if you loose. Even for a not so new player it would be an experience.
Ive never played against a field marshall, although i did get to play one game vs the current conqueror.

I remember in my first few games it was actually quite nice for me to be able to join games with Klobber. Of course Klobber was a shameless farmer, but from the point of view of many of those question mark players it was probably all good fun.

The issue that bothers me is not so much protecting new players. They will probably find their way into the games they like after a while anyway. The issue is the inflation of the rating of the higher ranking player. Rating manipulation by high rated players on this site is quite frankly scandalous.

I think there needs to be a change to the rating system before it can be regarded as meaningful. To be honest I would probably start by making a seperate points system for team games (which would not reward the highest ranked player on a team with points calculated using the team´s average ranking- that is wrong). Then look into the farming thing in 1 v 1 games. No idea what precise changes should be made, because im not very au fait with those settings.

I still maintain that having the flexibility to set up no-points-risked games (i.e. practice games) would be a massive plus for this site without seriously impacting the player rankings in any way. That's right...not in any way.

No points games would be a really interesting option for a ton of reasons- getting new players used to the rules and new maps are two really big ones, but testing out strategies and all kinds of fun tournaments could be set up with that option.

I think that's a good idea.
But limited to 5 games on each map.

I like the idea of having the option for unrated games too. It would make sense in situations where the CC points system doesnt work so well, like tournaments with points for being last eliminated, teamgames where teammates are wildly different ranks and stuff like that.

pickleofdoom wrote:I like the idea of having the option for unrated games too. It would make sense in situations where the CC points system doesnt work so well, like tournaments with points for being last eliminated, teamgames where teammates are wildly different ranks and stuff like that.

It's definitely worth another thread in the suggestions forum. I'm happy for it be discussed here, as most people who think the farming rules need a rethink have already posted, and the general tone is that they should be. A poster more familiar with the possible benefits of no-points games would be better placed to make a new thread than me, though.

Symmetry wrote:

pickleofdoom wrote:I like the idea of having the option for unrated games too. It would make sense in situations where the CC points system doesnt work so well, like tournaments with points for being last eliminated, teamgames where teammates are wildly different ranks and stuff like that.

It's definitely worth another thread in the suggestions forum. I'm happy for it be discussed here, as most people who think the farming rules need a rethink have already posted, and the general tone is that they should be. A poster more familiar with the possible benefits of no-points games would be better placed to make a new thread than me, though.

Sadly, it's been suggested many times previously. Unfortunately, the site listens to people who have no real understanding of either how the point system is already being manipulated or who are doing exactly that manipulating and don't want to lose their advantage.

Ah woodruff I see you have returned and making good points,but you are correct the wrong people are choosing how the point system works.

Woodruff wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

pickleofdoom wrote:I like the idea of having the option for unrated games too. It would make sense in situations where the CC points system doesnt work so well, like tournaments with points for being last eliminated, teamgames where teammates are wildly different ranks and stuff like that.

It's definitely worth another thread in the suggestions forum. I'm happy for it be discussed here, as most people who think the farming rules need a rethink have already posted, and the general tone is that they should be. A poster more familiar with the possible benefits of no-points games would be better placed to make a new thread than me, though.

Sadly, it's been suggested many times previously. Unfortunately, the site listens to people who have no real understanding of either how the point system is already being manipulated or who are doing exactly that manipulating and don't want to lose their advantage.

I thought it might have been suggested to be honest. It was one that I hadn't thought of, but when mentioned seemed obvious as a basic fix.

Maybe this would be a solution:

"?" doesn't apply to 5 games played, but 5 games played on one peculiar map (in case of farming).

maxfaraday wrote:Maybe this would be a solution:

"?" doesn't apply to 5 games played, but 5 games played on one peculiar map (in case of farming).

That actually make a lot more sense than the current system. I like it.

s3xt0y wrote:

maxfaraday wrote:Maybe this would be a solution:

"?" doesn't apply to 5 games played, but 5 games played on one peculiar map (in case of farming).

That actually make a lot more sense than the current system. I like it.

So if a BETA map comes out and I play a lot immediately and then I play against some people who haven't played yet, does that make me a farmer? I'm not quite sure how that rule would work.

Then we can add in a number of total games aswell, so if a player has played the map 5 times its not farming or if the player has played a total of 50 games. Or something along those lines.

chapcrap wrote:

s3xt0y wrote:

maxfaraday wrote:Maybe this would be a solution:

"?" doesn't apply to 5 games played, but 5 games played on one peculiar map (in case of farming).

That actually make a lot more sense than the current system. I like it.

So if a BETA map comes out and I play a lot immediately and then I play against some people who haven't played yet, does that make me a farmer? I'm not quite sure how that rule would work.

It seems to me that the specific map used is generally irrelevant to the farming idea. Of much greater importance is the style of game being played. That being said, some few maps would fall into being different enough on their own as to apply in the way you're describing (Stalingrad or King's Court, for instance).