[GO] Unrated, Unranked, or No Points Games

[Metsfanmax]

What makes it a bad decision?

Mainly that it excludes a whole host of opportunities to play games without the pressure of points. For some reason, a number of people in the old threads enforced this mentality that you either play for points, or you don't care about points. But that's not true. Sometimes I want to play for points (if I'm playing on maps that I'm experienced at, and I want to test my mettle against other people who are experienced) and sometimes I don't (if I'm playing on unfamiliar maps). I want to have the fun of playing these other maps, without risking my reputation on the maps that I care about. I have avoided a whole lot of maps for this reason, but I would try out a whole lot more of the maps we have if I weren't risking points to do so.

[Funkyterrance]

While I too have my reservations about this idea, they are self-interested and therefore shouldn't count. Of course it would be hard to take if a cook beats me badly on a map but hey, if he's better at the game than me, so be it. I think the rating system is somewhat bunk anyway so something like this could be quite refreshing. Point hoarders would cry bloody murder but I think the overall effect of this would be a more accurate reflection of the skill level of every player and who can object to that? I am in favor of this one.

P.S.- OP, please correct the spelling of the title?

[Funkyterrance]

I've been thinking about this suggestion and I really want it. These old crusty players with their "favorite" maps and setting are getting tiresome. Would be nice to practice some cryptic map a little instead of having to learn against a point hoarder, making him/her just a little bit fatter. Besides, I don't think that people would practice until they completely mastered a map, just until they were comfortable enough to not make completely noobish moves on it. The people who were really good at a map would still reign superior.
Also, this would make it more fun to play against a friend to prevent bad blood due to loss of points. Did I mention I like this suggestion?
In a war situation everyone is trained/briefed before they head out to battle. Why should here be any different?

[agentcom]

I agree that this particular suggestion would be pretty difficult because it would either require AI or maybe an option to allow you to fill up all the game slots yourself. I think it's a better suggestion than the one to allow no-points practice games against others even though I think that suggestion would be easier to implement. But to briefly rehash the argument against no points games and to respond to metsfan, I think there is a good reason not to allow practice games:

The system is currently set up so that you have to choose between hoarding points and playing lots of different maps and settings--what a lot of people would refer to as having fun on this site. I like that. I wouldn't want the Conqueror who plays nothing buy City Mogul against noobs to also be able to play whatever maps they want for free. This is totally a matter of personal preference, but I like that those that are high on the scoreboard have to be dedicated to the pursuit of points. I respect the guys who have been able to do that even if it was by gaining a handful of points at a time in exchange for winning 90% of their games. That takes effort.

For those of you that want to discuss the no points option further, that topic is here.

[Funkyterrance]

I agree that this particular suggestion would be pretty difficult because it would either require AI or maybe an option to allow you to fill up all the game slots yourself. I think it's a better suggestion than the one to allow no-points practice games against others even though I think that suggestion would be easier to implement. But to briefly rehash the argument against no points games and to respond to metsfan, I think there is a good reason not to allow practice games:

The system is currently set up so that you have to choose between hoarding points and playing lots of different maps and settings--what a lot of people would refer to as having fun on this site. I like that. I wouldn't want the Conqueror who plays nothing buy City Mogul against noobs to also be able to play whatever maps they want for free. This is totally a matter of personal preference, but I like that those that are high on the scoreboard have to be dedicated to the pursuit of points. I respect the guys who have been able to do that even if it was by gaining a handful of points at a time in exchange for winning 90% of their games. That takes effort.

For those of you that want to discuss the no points option further, that topic is here.

The no-points thread is in rejected, nobody is going to see it.

I like this Idea of no points games I think more for the option of playing your friends without either of you losing points. I don't like to take points from my friends but I will never just let someone win. It would be nice to have guilt-free games against my m8s.
As far as making people choose between points vs. variety of maps, I don't think this is good for membership. People want more options and that is pretty much universal so if your priorities are making the site more successful you will go this route.

[greenoaks]

but you can have guilt free games against your m8s. we are not stopping you.

[Funkyterrance]

but you can have guilt free games against your m8s. we are not stopping you.

Talk to the hand, greenoaks.

[chapcrap]

MERGED a few.

[nicestash]

POINTless Training games]
-Ability to have games where no points are gained/lost


Details
-THESE GAMES CAN ONLY BE MADE THROUGH THE SoC (and as such can only be used for training purposes)

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
There are quite a few players on CC who are obsessed with their ranking to the point where they refuse to play any map against any players where they have the possibility of losing. About a year ago, blitzkrieg was banned for farming after inviting inexperienced games onto his custom map/settings. His defense was that he was trying to teach those players how to play. It held up until someone asked him why he hadn't trained players in SoC. The answer? He didn't want to lose a boatload of points playing on a team with people who were just as likely to deadbeat. If it was possible to play pointless games through the SoC, I'm guessing a lot of the top players on the scoreboard would be more than willing to teach these players lessons-if only to finally have some fun.

Before you blast me, check out my game load. I'm playing numerous 1v1s and could care less about my points; I'm not trying to "finally have fun again without losing my precious rank", indeed I doubt if I would become an SoC trainer myself. And once again, these games should be limited to SoC training games.

[DoomYoshi]

This has been suggested a million times and I used to vehemently disagree with it. However, for allowing teams to learn complex maps like Das Schloss, I am starting to see a good argument for this option.

[nicestash]

This has been suggested a million times and I used to vehemently disagree with it. However, for allowing teams to learn complex maps like Das Schloss, I am starting to see a good argument for this option.

I too am against normal pointless games, but in the interest of teaching people how to play, I see it as reasonable.

[greenoaks]

people coming out of the SoC will be better at maps than their score indicates, taking more points from me than they should.

All games count.

[nicestash]

people coming out of the SoC will be better at maps than their score indicates, taking more points from me than they should.

All games count.

Not really... I may be mistaken, but aren't most/all of SoC games played against other SoC players? Because in that case, the average SoC player loses the same amount of points as they gain so for them it will be no different.

[jsnyder748]

I would love to play pointless escalating games vs low rankers/people willing to learn. or pointless team games.

It takes time to teach team games, and the other players have to be fully immersed and willing to learn them. There is more pressure on new players who join to take it upon themselves to learn from people who already have gone through trial and error than there is for the teacher. I like teaching people who consistently take turns, listen and learn from what I tell them. BUT most people new to team games want to take it as casual as they would random flat rate games. these pointless games would serve a very good purpose to teach basics through trial and error. It is one thing to tell someone how to play through text but it is a whole other way to actually experience it yourself.

[greenoaks]

people coming out of the SoC will be better at maps than their score indicates, taking more points from me than they should.

All games count.

Not really... I may be mistaken, but aren't most/all of SoC games played against other SoC players? Because in that case, the average SoC player loses the same amount of points as they gain so for them it will be no different.

actually it will be different.

the concept of these point less games is to encourage higher ranks to play them. SoC members wont have won any points against those players but will have picked up a lot of skill. skill they will put to use against me. i don't have a problem with losing, it is losing to someone who's score is artificially lower than it should be causing me to lose many more points than i should that is the problem.

[koontz1973]

Never understood the reason for a pointless game.

You win some, you lose some. If you want to learn a new map, you can either play against others who have never played it (via invites) or you can learn faster by playing someone who knows the map. Either way, you may win some, you may lose some.

Agree with greenoaks as well. Why should someone who plays a lot of these games as a cook or private, get really good at a map, only to play for points and win a shit load.

[nicestash]

Never understood the reason for a pointless game.

You win some, you lose some. If you want to learn a new map, you can either play against others who have never played it (via invites) or you can learn faster by playing someone who knows the map. Either way, you may win some, you may lose some.

Agree with greenoaks as well. Why should someone who plays a lot of these games as a cook or private, get really good at a map, only to play for points and win a shit load.

Koontz, I understand where you're coming from; I don't understand the necessity for pointless games either. I could care less about it, but the fact of the matter is that a lot of top players do care-whether or not they should. I also don't think you'll have to worry about people playing lots of games on a single map and getting super good, I don't think the academy allows that for the simple reason that they want to produce all around good players.

And greenoaks, with that type of logic, we shouldn't even train new guys. It'd be a lot better for my points if no one else had a clue what they were doing.

[DoomYoshi]

Never understood the reason for a pointless game.

You win some, you lose some. If you want to learn a new map, you can either play against others who have never played it (via invites) or you can learn faster by playing someone who knows the map. Either way, you may win some, you may lose some.

Agree with greenoaks as well. Why should someone who plays a lot of these games as a cook or private, get really good at a map, only to play for points and win a shit load.

90% of the players don't use PMs, wall posts, forums, etc. How are people who are trying to learn a map supposed to a) co-ordinate a team together and b) find another team that is specifically trying to learn the same map with the same amount of skill.

If I start a City Mogul game, I know I will be stomped on by people who are sitting around waiting for me to start that game. Likewise for Das Schloss, Stalingrad (which I can beat them at), various other maps.

I learned Stalingrad by playing it 1v1. City Mogul 1v1 is totally different than team City Mogul, so that option doesn't exist.

[Fazeem]

I swore I saw this idea in the rejected pile.

[greenoaks]

I swore I saw this idea in the rejected pile.

it has been rejected many times and will be again, as it should be.

come on mods, merge this.

[DoomYoshi]

Free speed games was rejected many times. We have a new leadership, one that may be willing to take more chances.

This isn't about people not wanting to lose points. It's about games that have no incentive for ranchers to join. It's so people can learn in a non-threatening environment.

As an alternative, would you support a setting that doesn't allow players who have played more than x times into your game?

[nicestash]

These games are not supposed to be for normal players- only the Society of Cooks.

And so, no, I would be against that setting DoomYoshi

[DoomYoshi]

These games are not supposed to be for normal players- only the Society of Cooks.

And so, no, I would be against that setting DoomYoshi

Anyone can join Society of Cooks, right?

[nicestash]

Yes, but I don't think they start their own games.

[GoranZ]

This has been suggested a million times and I used to vehemently disagree with it. However, for allowing teams to learn complex maps like Das Schloss, I am starting to see a good argument for this option.

I found DS quite easy for learning, and win it from my first game... but I "wasted" some time looking at already finished games.

BTW Which Conqueror in human history knew everything about the opponent that he was about to face? Simple answer NONE. This is the reason why I will never support pointless games.