[GO] Unrated, Unranked, or No Points Games

[greenoaks]

what a surprise. someone has achieved a high rank and now wants to change the rules so he can play without risking any points.

move this to rejected, again.

[Janomike]

Basically i find this is a good idea although i can understand the objections mentioned. Personally i do care about my points
although i play alot of different maps and settings, but i would play more speed and beta map games for example if i could play them without rating.
This could be seen as some kind of training.

What about allowing at least to play beta maps without rating? Would help with map creation as
more people would dare to try them out.

[IcePack]

IMHO the only game that should go unrated is battle royales (which should be medals).

[greenoaks]

Basically i find this is a good idea although i can understand the objections mentioned. Personally i do care about my points
although i play alot of different maps and settings, but i would play more speed and beta map games for example if i could play them without rating.
This could be seen as some kind of training.

What about allowing at least to play beta maps without rating? Would help with map creation as
more people would dare to try them out.

playing betas for no points would mean a bunch of players would be experienced on the map when it is quenched but there rank would not reflect that.

all games count.

[nicestash]

I am torn between 2 opinions here.

1) I would also like to play unrated games. I have school friends/friends from other games/family members that I like to play with in real time, but don't play very much other than that. Unfortunately, they aren't too interested in risk other than the occasional pick up game with me and so they have a very low rank and so it makes it nearly impossible for us to play. If I play and win a lot, I could easily get a ban for farming. If I play and I lose-well I'm down a lot of points. I've just decided to play the safe route and not play them anymore. Without the games against them in the early days of my CC risk playing, I certainly would've quit

2) If a rule is set in place like Kaskavel asked, CC would go WAY downhill. Players would ONLY play games on settings that they are guaranteed to win which would result in a dramatic decrease in the integrity of the scoreboard: it would turn into a contest by the best players to see who could get more people to join their specialized settings and lose points.

I can think of 2 compromises that could work.
1) Significantly limit the number of unscored games a person could play. Perhaps it could be 1 unscored game for every 10 scored games someone finishes, or a limit of 10 a month.
2) Only allow speed games to be unscored. I dislike this second option though because I love playing doodle games and making them unscored would ruin the fun.

P.S. Kaskavel: Because there are 6 players in a doodle game, you don't have to win a very large percentage to stay even with points. Most of the players that play them (and even have a chance at winning) are majors/colonels. Winning a game would like give you around 75 points, while losing one would lost you probably 30-35 points so you could win 1/3 of the games and be up.

[nicestash]

Better yet, make like 1 day a month where you can play unrated speed games. You could call it Broaden Your Horizons Day or something

[Kaskavel]

Better yet, make like 1 day a month where you can play unrated speed games. You could call it Broaden Your Horizons Day or something

+1

[Arama86n]

Better yet, make like 1 day a month where you can play unrated speed games. You could call it Broaden Your Horizons Day or something

Now that is definately an improvement on the original suggestion. Still going to be rejected though.

[Chewie1]

[
Many top players do not dare play unknown settings.

Not really Top Players then are they!

[DiM]

Many top players do not dare play unknown settings.

Not really Top Players then are they!

you've hit the nail in the head.

if a player is good then he'll play anybody on any map and any setting and win.


i'd love to see unrated games BUT they should only be available to mapmakers for private testing of map gameplay ideas. due to the nature of testing many screwups could happen so there would be no point in having points on the table.
this would be the only situation where i'd agree with unrated games

[chapcrap]

I am torn between 2 opinions here.

1) I would also like to play unrated games. I have school friends/friends from other games/family members that I like to play with in real time, but don't play very much other than that. Unfortunately, they aren't too interested in risk other than the occasional pick up game with me and so they have a very low rank and so it makes it nearly impossible for us to play. If I play and win a lot, I could easily get a ban for farming.

I guess it's hard to get banned for farming if you aren't farming. And what you are describing is not farming. It's not even the invitation abuse that GLG was found guilty of.

If I play and I lose-well I'm down a lot of points. I've just decided to play the safe route and not play them anymore.

And that makes it impossible how?

2) If a rule is set in place like Kaskavel asked, CC would go WAY downhill. Players would ONLY play games on settings that they are guaranteed to win which would result in a dramatic decrease in the integrity of the scoreboard: it would turn into a contest by the best players to see who could get more people to join their specialized settings and lose points.

Duh.

I can think of 2 compromises that could work.
1) Significantly limit the number of unscored games a person could play. Perhaps it could be 1 unscored game for every 10 scored games someone finishes, or a limit of 10 a month.
2) Only allow speed games to be unscored. I dislike this second option though because I love playing doodle games and making them unscored would ruin the fun.

I don't understand. Do you play for fun or points? Earlier you said you could lose against your friends and that's why you don't play them. If that's the case, do you not have fun playing your friends? I'd look for new friends...

[nicestash]

I can think of 2 compromises that could work.
1) Significantly limit the number of unscored games a person could play. Perhaps it could be 1 unscored game for every 10 scored games someone finishes, or a limit of 10 a month.
2) Only allow speed games to be unscored. I dislike this second option though because I love playing doodle games and making them unscored would ruin the fun.

I don't understand. Do you play for fun or points? Earlier you said you could lose against your friends and that's why you don't play them. If that's the case, do you not have fun playing your friends? I'd look for new friends...

I play for fun, but gaining points is part of that. If you play soccer on a team that always loses, it's just not as fun. Despite the fact that you might play soccer because it's fun, the single act of losing ruins it for you. People are innately competitive; we strive to succeed.

I would compare a Broaden Your Horizons day to playing a friendly, unscored game of soccer. Your team might not be as good as the other one, but as long as it is fairly competitive, no one cares. There's no feeling of despair as the clock winds down and no need to get upset over an unlucky break. It's simply cool, laid-back, and relaxed.

[agentcom]

Identical topics MERGED and thread STICKIED for moderator and user ease. Explanatory Introduction added to OP.

[c c]

there should be a option to place your self on a map by your self so that you can practice on it prior to play with other players . I believe that this would eliminate players dropping out due to there lack of understanding a map and enhance the joy of a game rather than the frustration of not understanding the moves,play or concept to a map .

[sempaispellcheck]

This seems to me to be a really good idea.
The problem is, it would probably be very hard to implement for at least a couple of reasons:

1) Not having opponents would probably require some kind of AI player.
2) These practice games would, ideally, involve no loss or gain of points.

Both of these seem to me like they would not be very easy to code.

That said, this is a really good idea. It would, if done right, reduce the number of players who leave after short periods of time and also reduce players' ability to "farm" new recruits.

Then again, multis who might otherwise be busted as having "knowledge beyond their experience," so to speak, might be written off as having played a lot of practice games - and players who play a lot of practice games before playing real games might be reported for being multis.

So, I'm for it, overall, but curious to know what others think.

[greenoaks]

your score reflects the games you have played, all of them.

practice games allow you to greatly increase your skill on a map and then gain far more points then you would have because now you will win more games than a beginner yet receive the points as though you were still one.

[sempaispellcheck]

your score reflects the games you have played, all of them.

So maybe the AI player (if that's how it's done) could be assigned some arbitrary score, say 1000?

practice games allow you to greatly increase your skill on a map and then gain far more points then you would have because now you will win more games than a beginner yet receive the points as though you were still one.

Yes, but if you replace "you" with "everyone" it's a lot fairer than that.

[greenoaks]

practice games allow you to greatly increase your skill on a map and then gain far more points then you would have because now you will win more games than a beginner yet receive the points as though you were still one.

Yes, but if you replace "you" with "everyone" it's a lot fairer than that.

but that's just it, not everyone will practice and those that do wont to the same extent.

it will allow those that care to become really good at a map without the natural loss of points. perfect for high ranks to never play a lower ranked again until they have completely mastered the map and can be assured victory every game ie. farming GLG style.

[sempaispellcheck]

What if we limit it to, say, 5 practice games per player per map? Do you think that might work?

[Metsfanmax]

your score reflects the games you have played, all of them.

practice games allow you to greatly increase your skill on a map and then gain far more points then you would have because now you will win more games than a beginner yet receive the points as though you were still one.

Yes, and practicing chess with a friend at home allows you to greatly increase your chess skill and then go to a tournament and gain far more points than you would have. Is this unfair? Should people be banned from practicing competitive games?

Of course not. That extra point gain would only happen once, at which point you would equilibrate to a rating reflecting your actual skill level.

it will allow those that care to become really good at a map without the natural loss of points. perfect for high ranks to never play a lower ranked again until they have completely mastered the map and can be assured victory every game ie. farming GLG style.

People who put in that much dedication to learning a map should be the ones who have the high ranks. Why would we want to punish people who try really hard to perfect their skill?

[greenoaks]

this has been suggested and rejected numerous times.

[Metsfanmax]

this has been suggested and rejected numerous times.

It has been suggested and let die numerous times. This is one of those suggestions that has fallen into the feedback loop where, because it was already sent to rejected, people just say "it's been rejected" and let it die without talking about why. If you look at the collated topic in Rejected, something like the first 10 pages goes by without even a single coherent argument against the suggestion.

[chapcrap]

The difference between practicing chess at home and CC at home is that chess is universal and the same everywhere. These maps are not.

People CAN practice Risk at home on the Classic style map (and a few other Hasbro specialty maps), but they can't practice Stalingrad and Das Schloss and things like that at home because they only exist here.

In my opinion, I would not have a problem with this if it were done from the beginning, but changing it in the middle takes away from all the players that have already had to risk points on unknown maps because they were not able to practice it first. If I were going to get behind this suggestion, I would need to see some kind of limitations. Like only available on Classic or only available 1 time per map. Unlimited usage on unlimited maps would be a no from me.

[Metsfanmax]

In my opinion, I would not have a problem with this if it were done from the beginning, but changing it in the middle takes away from all the players that have already had to risk points on unknown maps because they were not able to practice it first. If I were going to get behind this suggestion, I would need to see some kind of limitations. Like only available on Classic or only available 1 time per map. Unlimited usage on unlimited maps would be a no from me.

Nobody forced them to risk points on unknown maps. If they wanted to be protective of their points, they could have stuck to maps that they knew. We shouldn't continue to make a bad decision because of bad decisions that were made in the past.

[chapcrap]

What makes it a bad decision?