Award a metal for games played against players with a score at least 1000 points less than your own.
Specifics/Details:
Medals may go something like the following:
Bronze: 50
Silver: 100
Gold: 250
Platinum: 500
How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
Encourages greater interactions between high and low ranked players, allowing them to have more games filled and learning from more experienced players.
A possible solution to the potential for farming abuse is to only count games where the high ranked player did not invite the low ranked player. But this may well be not be technologically feasible.
Metsfanmax wrote:A possible solution to the potential for farming abuse is to only count games where the high ranked player did not invite the low ranked player. But this may well be not be technologically feasible.
Eh, then you'd be handing out the medal to people that just go find games with low ranking players. No tutoring really involved. I think inviting a low ranker to a game is more likely that you're actually teaching them.
Basically, we already have this. It's a GC medal for working in SoC.
Maybe the suggestion should be to resurrect that old Mentor system in Q&A that occasionally gets posted in, but nobody can figure out if it works.
Metsfanmax wrote:A possible solution to the potential for farming abuse is to only count games where the high ranked player did not invite the low ranked player. But this may well be not be technologically feasible.
Eh, then you'd be handing out the medal to people that just go find games with low ranking players. No tutoring really involved. I think inviting a low ranker to a game is more likely that you're actually teaching them.
I know that tutor is the wrong word, I just couldn't come up with anything better on the spot. But the thing is, I want people to go find games with low ranking players. This was prompted by a GD thread I just saw with a low ranked player complaining how he couldn't get any games.
As usual, I'm drawing my analogy from chess. If I'm a newbie player and a grandmaster offers to play with me, no chance I'm going to turn that down just because I'll lose.
Metsfanmax wrote:As usual, I'm drawing my analogy from chess. If I'm a newbie player and a grandmaster offers to play with me, no chance I'm going to turn that down just because I'll lose.
In that example the Grandmaster is presumably benevolent or at least benign as he isn't going to be able to increase is rank by beating a punch of people like you.
Also as seen here not all lower ranking players share your sentiments enjoying the experience of being swiftly beaten by someone way out of their league.
Metsfanmax wrote:As usual, I'm drawing my analogy from chess. If I'm a newbie player and a grandmaster offers to play with me, no chance I'm going to turn that down just because I'll lose.
In that example the Grandmaster is presumably benevolent or at least benign as he isn't going to be able to increase is rank by beating a punch of people like you.
I think this will encourage people who are benevolent in joining the games. In chess, it's not like the grandmasters don't want to teach new players too, it's just that there's no real incentive to do so. This provides such an incentive, even if it's small.
Also as seen here not all lower ranking players share your sentiments enjoying the experience of being swiftly beaten by someone way out of their league.
Yes, that's correct. These options are not mutually exclusive and perhaps what we should do is hold this off until we implement the rank filter in question (which I think is inevitable in some form). That way people who don't want to get beaten easily don't have to, but it's at the expense of having the game be filled more slowly.
Metsfanmax wrote:... I want people to go find games with low ranking players. This was prompted by a GD thread I just saw with a low ranked player complaining how he couldn't get any games.
As usual, I'm drawing my analogy from chess. If I'm a newbie player and a grandmaster offers to play with me, no chance I'm going to turn that down just because I'll lose.
Tutoring and games between a wide range of skill levels are great goals, but they will never happen until the site allows unrated games. Would you tutor someone in chess while you're playing a rated game against them?
If I could propose an alternative... what about a medal for TEAMING (and winning?) with a player ranked 1000 points lower than you? In that situation, I would believe there was actually tutoring involved.
Only downside to this that I see is that maybe it's too similiar to the unique teammates medal.
It doesn't encourage farming, it encourages ranching. Let us not forget that we have specific terms for these behaviors.
Swifte's suggestion isn't really that great either, as a lot of clans already keep cooks around for the point balance.
The chess analogy doesn't work either. Any new player can go and read how the grandmasters play. More importantly, they can solve chess algorithmically. The only reason to want to play a grandmaster is for the prestige of it.
DoomYoshi wrote:Swifte's suggestion isn't really that great either, as a lot of clans already keep cooks around for the point balance.
Having a few lower rankers in your clan to play with wouldn't get you close.. I was imagining you'd still need to team with unique lower ranks for each credit (which is why i said it would start to closely resemble the unique teammate medal). So while you may have even as many as 5 or 10 in your clan, that still leaves you 490 partners short of platinum...
I'll admit, it's still not an idea that particularly excites me.. just wanted to clarify that.
Swifte wrote:If I could propose an alternative... what about a medal for TEAMING (and winning?) with a player ranked 1000 points lower than you? In that situation, I would believe there was actually tutoring involved.
Only downside to this that I see is that maybe it's too similiar to the unique teammates medal.
this is totally the same thing as the teammate medal. don't tell me that if a low ranked asked you to team with you you've never thought of the following: -yay! a potential new unique teammate! -yay! a lower team score, better for points! -yay! i can teach the kid a few tricks!
basically.... we already have something to encourage tutoring that has no downside. maybe all you need to do is promote those perks.
Right on, we do award SoC medals for teaching students. If you're interested in helping new or less experienced players get more out of CC, drop Dhallmeyer, me, or any of the SoC folks a PM. =)
About the original idea: it's not bad - but you should make it happen only in dubs, trips & quads. If you play with (NOT against!) a player who has 1000 or more points lower than you, and win the game, you'd get a medal... that sounds more fun and no farming can be done.
edit, lol, skipped to last post, seeing now Swifte already gave that idea
Obviously (to me), with recent developments, this should be changed to a suggestion about awarding the medal for the "coaching" games, which are for no points.
agentcom wrote:Obviously (to me), with recent developments, this should be changed to a suggestion about awarding the medal for the "coaching" games, which are for no points.
Agreed.
In any light against the players encourages farming, in all ways that idea just looks bad to me. With them in a teamgame, doable but that could also mean a Blitz style of farming points, inviting low rankers or getting them to play with you in a teamgame, telling them exactly what to do and get mad if they don't, collect more points since the average of your team is lower. There were even topics on C&A forum about that and stuff going on, was like ~3 years ago I think.
agentcom wrote:Obviously (to me), with recent developments, this should be changed to a suggestion about awarding the medal for the "coaching" games, which are for no points.
Agreed.
In any light against the players encourages farming, in all ways that idea just looks bad to me. With them in a teamgame, doable but that could also mean a Blitz style of farming points, inviting low rankers or getting them to play with you in a teamgame, telling them exactly what to do and get mad if they don't, collect more points since the average of your team is lower. There were even topics on C&A forum about that and stuff going on, was like ~3 years ago I think.
Urs
Koganosi
I see no prob in the "blitz farming". You can often have a high ranked teammate that is just a tool and is just there to follow orders without bringing any input. If you take a noob for teammate, it s at your own risk so it is definitely worth the point boost. You are actually teaching stuff to noobs teaming with them. And as said before, the teammate medal encourages to try out new teammates, and you don t always go for first choice if you re medal hunting..
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall")
Would you tutor someone in chess while you're playing a rated game against them?
