[GO] Unrated, Unranked, or No Points Games

[QoH]

Forumers!

Concise description:

• Some games, when selected to be not ranked, do not count towards the rank.

Specifics/Details:

• So even if you win, you wont gain any points.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• This will help players interested in more complex maps experiment without fear of losing rank for stupid mistakes.

[Victor Sullivan]

Um, I believe this was already suggested (and I think rejected, too). TFO, you wanna merge this with the original? I'll try to find it if I can...

-Sully

[greenoaks]

Um, I believe this was already suggested (and I think rejected, too). TFO, you wanna merge this with the original? I'll try to find it if I can...

-Sully

as this gets suggested every few months and rejected just as often, i reckon the suggestion mods have the original thread bookmarked

[TheForgivenOne]

Moved.

[QoH]

Sorry!

CAn someone please tell me the reason why though?

Thanks

[greenoaks]

Sorry!

CAn someone please tell me the reason why though?

Thanks

this site is about skill

if it allows players to practice on a map then their rank will not reflect the skill they have on the maps or settings they have played

your suggestion is open for abuse as it will allow higher ups to practice, becaome skilled and then play the inexperienced players for points

whereas now, if you don't know a map or the settings, your score lowers, which is a truer indication of your ability and experience across all the maps, settings, games that you have played

[Mr_Adams]

I think this is a great idea. They don't even have to be cataloged, or given a game number, as they don't effect the points system. They wouldn't be much use on the system at all that way. and if they were to be ended automatically when you log off, then new recruits who leave won't effect it either.

[ender516]

Mostly good points showing how little they would cost the site, but I suspect the system would likely need to use a game number in its database just to organize things. But I think you're right, they wouldn't need to be archived in any way, and the idea of ending them when the player logs off is a good one.

[Woodruff]

Concise description:

• Add a solitaire mode to Conquer Club.

Specifics/Details:

• Add a solitaire mode to Conquer Club, whereby a user could set up a game with any of the settings used otherwise (number of players, game type, map, initial troops, play order, spoils, reinforcements, fog of war, and round length) and then play as all of the players in the game.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• The ability to practice is essential to the development and maintenance of any skill set, for novice and experienced alike.
• The ability to explore the mechanics of a game without delay could help in the retention of new recruits, especially those with familiar with the copyrighted, real-world versions of global domination games, who wish to compare and contrast the way Conquer Club is played.

What is the significant difference between this suggestion and "unrated games"...a suggestion which has been rejected several times? It seems to me that the purpose would be the same. Here are some of those suggestions (got sick of looking after these five, only one of which is rejected):

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=71035&hilit=unrated (not yet rejected, but VERY OLD and not moved)

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=70858&p=1721567&hilit=unrated#p1721567 (same as above)

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=471&t=50789&p=1314303&hilit=unrated#p1314303 (rejected, this time)

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=48797&p=1264022&hilit=unrated#p1264022 (not yet rejected)

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=47210&p=1224109&hilit=unrated#p1224109 (not yet rejected)

[greenoaks]

i don't like this idea at all

this site is about playing other people

[Queen_Herpes]

Concise description:

• Add a solitaire mode to Conquer Club.

Specifics/Details:

• Add a solitaire mode to Conquer Club, whereby a user could set up a game with any of the settings used otherwise (number of players, game type, map, initial troops, play order, spoils, reinforcements, fog of war, and round length) and then play as all of the players in the game.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• The ability to practice is essential to the development and maintenance of any skill set, for novice and experienced alike.
• The ability to explore the mechanics of a game without delay could help in the retention of new recruits, especially those with familiar with the copyrighted, real-world versions of global domination games, who wish to compare and contrast the way Conquer Club is played.

What is the significant difference between this suggestion and "unrated games"...a suggestion which has been rejected several times? It seems to me that the purpose would be the same. Here are some of those suggestions (got sick of looking after these five, only one of which is rejected):

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=71035&hilit=unrated (not yet rejected, but VERY OLD and not moved)

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=70858&p=1721567&hilit=unrated#p1721567 (same as above)

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=471&t=50789&p=1314303&hilit=unrated#p1314303 (rejected, this time)

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=48797&p=1264022&hilit=unrated#p1264022 (not yet rejected)

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=47210&p=1224109&hilit=unrated#p1224109 (not yet rejected)

If a suggestion is rejected, then a new member joins, couldn't that new member make the same suggestion? If so, even if the new member checked the forums to find the rejected suggestions, couldn't the new member still add his/her opinion by opening a new suggestion? If a veteran player, who has been around for a long time comes up with an idea that is the same as a rejected suggestion, wouldn't the site be interested to know how many people support the notion or the whole suggestion?

I guess I'm not understanding why it is wrong to have ideas and to come up with new iterations of previously rejected suggestions. Even if the suggestion is exactly the same as a rejected suggestion, I would think management would be interested in knowing how many people are interested in seeing a particular change.

[Woodruff]

If a suggestion is rejected, then a new member joins, couldn't that new member make the same suggestion? If so, even if the new member checked the forums to find the rejected suggestions, couldn't the new member still add his/her opinion by opening a new suggestion? If a veteran player, who has been around for a long time comes up with an idea that is the same as a rejected suggestion, wouldn't the site be interested to know how many people support the notion or the whole suggestion?

I guess I'm not understanding why it is wrong to have ideas and to come up with new iterations of previously rejected suggestions. Even if the suggestion is exactly the same as a rejected suggestion, I would think management would be interested in knowing how many people are interested in seeing a particular change.

Wouldn't the same be accomplished by the "additional member" (if you will) posting in one of the MANY, MANY threads that already exist on the subject? In fact, I would strongly suggest it would be more efficient to do so, as management is just as likely as I am to get sick of pulling up all the damn threads on the same subject and just stop at some point.

[TheForgivenOne]

Merged.

[ender516]

If a suggestion is rejected, then a new member joins, couldn't that new member make the same suggestion? If so, even if the new member checked the forums to find the rejected suggestions, couldn't the new member still add his/her opinion by opening a new suggestion? If a veteran player, who has been around for a long time comes up with an idea that is the same as a rejected suggestion, wouldn't the site be interested to know how many people support the notion or the whole suggestion?

I guess I'm not understanding why it is wrong to have ideas and to come up with new iterations of previously rejected suggestions. Even if the suggestion is exactly the same as a rejected suggestion, I would think management would be interested in knowing how many people are interested in seeing a particular change.

Wouldn't the same be accomplished by the "additional member" (if you will) posting in one of the MANY, MANY threads that already exist on the subject? In fact, I would strongly suggest it would be more efficient to do so, as management is just as likely as I am to get sick of pulling up all the damn threads on the same subject and just stop at some point.

I completely agree that posting to an existing topic is the right way to express support for an existing idea, and management is already insulated from the vast majority of suggestions by the organization of the Suggestions forum with its Submitted Suggestions subforum. However, I believe my post did not fall under an existing topic. I proposed a Solitaire mode. It was intended as a way for a new player to become familiar with the mechanics of the game as played on this site without waiting for another player, and possibly as a way to explore the idiosyncracies of a particular map. It was not intended to be a game between players with no points at stake, nor was it intended to involve any AI. Lacking any real competitive aspect, I felt that it would not detract in any significant way from regular games. Because of these distinctions, after searching the fora unsuccessfully for any mention of "solitaire", I started a new topic. Regrettably, it did not draw as much discussion as I had hoped and never came close to being submitted (perhaps because it was mistaken for another "no points game" suggestion). Unfortunately, now it has been merged into a topic which hides its distinctive qualities. Could the topic title at least be modified to "Unrated Games/No Points Games/Solitaire Games"?

Also, despite the claims in many posts that the "no-points games" suggestion has been rejected in the past, no search of mine has yielded any post by lackattack to that effect, nor has anyone else come forward with a relevant quote. Had I wanted to support the "no-points games" suggestion, this would have encouraged me to post, but since my idea was similar but distinct, I felt perfectly justified in proposing it.

[Queen_Herpes]

I think the reasoning was he wanted people to have to risk points to see how a map is. It would make it too easy for people to become experts at maps. Now I can see how it could be good for new players. They could develop the nack of the game, but I could still see High ranks using this to become better at the harder maps without risking points to learn it.

Why would anyone have a problem with a player who gets better at a map without risking points? How could that possibly be cause an issue with this site?

[greenoaks]

Why would anyone have a problem with a player who gets better at a map without risking points? How could that possibly be cause an issue with this site?

then your points and rank to not reflect your overall ability

[Queen_Herpes]

Why would anyone have a problem with a player who gets better at a map without risking points? How could that possibly be cause an issue with this site?

then your points and rank to not reflect your overall ability

Exactly! Thank you for falling into my trap. The points and rank in the current ranking system do not reflect overall ability. In fact, the system is so full of holes, we should eliminate ranking and just play casually, no points. It is, after all, "A casual gaming site."

[greenoaks]

Why would anyone have a problem with a player who gets better at a map without risking points? How could that possibly be cause an issue with this site?

then your points and rank to not reflect your overall ability

Exactly! Thank you for falling into my trap. The points and rank in the current ranking system do not reflect overall ability. In fact, the system is so full of holes, we should eliminate ranking and just play casually, no points. It is, after all, "A casual gaming site."

the points and rank do reflect overall ability

[macbone]

Why would anyone have a problem with a player who gets better at a map without risking points? How could that possibly be cause an issue with this site?

then your points and rank to not reflect your overall ability

Greenoaks is using a conditional statement, QH. IF players can play unrated games, THEN their rank will not reveal their overall ability.

Still, I don't see a problem with having unrated games. Chess sites allow unrated games, and so do sites offering games like Settlers of Cataan and Carcassonne. You'd still have the option to check out a player's performance via Map Rank or by searching for their games via Game Finder.

[Woodruff]

If a suggestion is rejected, then a new member joins, couldn't that new member make the same suggestion? If so, even if the new member checked the forums to find the rejected suggestions, couldn't the new member still add his/her opinion by opening a new suggestion? If a veteran player, who has been around for a long time comes up with an idea that is the same as a rejected suggestion, wouldn't the site be interested to know how many people support the notion or the whole suggestion?

I guess I'm not understanding why it is wrong to have ideas and to come up with new iterations of previously rejected suggestions. Even if the suggestion is exactly the same as a rejected suggestion, I would think management would be interested in knowing how many people are interested in seeing a particular change.

Wouldn't the same be accomplished by the "additional member" (if you will) posting in one of the MANY, MANY threads that already exist on the subject? In fact, I would strongly suggest it would be more efficient to do so, as management is just as likely as I am to get sick of pulling up all the damn threads on the same subject and just stop at some point.

I completely agree that posting to an existing topic is the right way to express support for an existing idea, and management is already insulated from the vast majority of suggestions by the organization of the Suggestions forum with its Submitted Suggestions subforum. However, I believe my post did not fall under an existing topic. I proposed a Solitaire mode. It was intended as a way for a new player to become familiar with the mechanics of the game as played on this site without waiting for another player, and possibly as a way to explore the idiosyncracies of a particular map. It was not intended to be a game between players with no points at stake, nor was it intended to involve any AI. Lacking any real competitive aspect, I felt that it would not detract in any significant way from regular games. Because of these distinctions, after searching the fora unsuccessfully for any mention of "solitaire", I started a new topic. Regrettably, it did not draw as much discussion as I had hoped and never came close to being submitted (perhaps because it was mistaken for another "no points game" suggestion). Unfortunately, now it has been merged into a topic which hides its distinctive qualities. Could the topic title at least be modified to "Unrated Games/No Points Games/Solitaire Games"?

I agree with you that your suggestion is different than previous similar suggestions. However, and I asked this previously, I'm not sure there is a real difference between your suggestion and the 'no points games' suggestions, as far as the impact to the site. The benefits and negatives of both seem to me to be precisely the same.

Don't misunderstand...I'm in favor of both, personally. In fact, I personally would dearly love to see Tournaments be excluded from points. In fact...now that I think about it, I'm going to suggest it.

[Queen_Herpes]

Why would anyone have a problem with a player who gets better at a map without risking points? How could that possibly be cause an issue with this site?

then your points and rank to not reflect your overall ability

Exactly! Thank you for falling into my trap. The points and rank in the current ranking system do not reflect overall ability. In fact, the system is so full of holes, we should eliminate ranking and just play casually, no points. It is, after all, "A casual gaming site."

the points and rank do reflect overall ability

Farmers? Multis?

[TheForgivenOne]

Why would anyone have a problem with a player who gets better at a map without risking points? How could that possibly be cause an issue with this site?

then your points and rank to not reflect your overall ability

Exactly! Thank you for falling into my trap. The points and rank in the current ranking system do not reflect overall ability. In fact, the system is so full of holes, we should eliminate ranking and just play casually, no points. It is, after all, "A casual gaming site."

the points and rank do reflect overall ability

Farmers? Multis?

How many true "farmers" are on the site? AND NO, I am not talking about users who play low ranks. THAT IS NOT FARMING, per the definition that lack came up with.

[Queen_Herpes]

There are plenty of farmers and plenty of multis. Since the games they played to "earn" their rank are never deleted, and the "point reset" is rarely (if ever) used, all ranks and ratings are suspect.

We have a "conqueror" who earns a title that is, at best, a little bit tarnished. There have been farmers at the top, multis at the top, etc. It would be nice if the system was a little bit cleaner, with the option to play games that didn't risk points. This might even hve the added effect of curbing some multi-ism and farming activities. Perhaps, even if new recruits' games automatically didn't count for points, it would detract the preceding activities (at least in the first five games) completely.

In addition, there is the obvious difficulty of dealing with the fact that there are multiple maps - so any points or ranking system should really focus on each map individually. Anywho...have fun! Great idea here to offer up games with no rating and no points. Could really help the system.

[PLAYER57832]

There are plenty of farmers and plenty of multis. Since the games they played to "earn" their rank are never deleted, and the "point reset" is rarely (if ever) used, all ranks and ratings are suspect.

This is LEAST of reasons why points don't mean much. The REAL reason they don't mean much is that our games here are so varied, one uniform point system really cannot possibly rate one's proficiency in them all.

Most of the people at the very top are "specialists" of one type or another (farming being one "type", actually). So what? If you consider your CC rank more than just a game, then you have a few other problems CC won't fix. Most of us come here for fun, to play and chat when we wish.

If you are going to make more suggestions, it would be nice if you actually paid attention to what happens here. It seems as if you just keep persisting with ideas that have nothing to do with how CC operates, but because you occasionally get a few new people to pull on, you keep up with the suggestions.

[PLAYER57832]

The "no point" option has been rejected again and again. Points are an inherent part of CC. If it is keeping some people from trying new maps, then ... well, they are probably the same ones who throw tantrums when the "dice don't work properly", when other people "make stupid moves"... etc, etc etc.

Play, have fun or don't play.