Why not option of games where players only lose 20 points?

[wacicha]

Last Time I offered my opinion. My sorry butt was handed to me and the topic was moved to flame wars where I STAY OUT OF.

But Here goes. What I like to do in the society is let the students Play in my games. But they know if another student is in the game then STAY OUT.

In games I am in with 1 student then I do not offer any suggestions. The other staff handles this. I call it "In game training" For the Students with the patience this works.

Would it be better If no points were at stake - No, Not really. They would be able to screw up and not be held accountable. That is not the TEACHING I am trying for. They learn by MY mistakes and by my methods. So many people of all ranks enter my games. And they all know a lower rank may be joining also. We play him fairly with no Truces or agreements. Any points they get they EARN. I give nothing away but if they eliminate me they deserve the points.

[Timminz]

how about adjusting terminator games so that all the players have the option of being anonymous, so there's no way to tell who they are or what rank they are? they could be known simply by their color until the end of the game, when their identities would then be revealed, or maybe when they're eliminated

That right there, is an AMAZING idea. Go post it in Suggs & Bugs.

[Ray Rider]

I really like the idea of no-point games. I've had the same problems here that some other people have mentioned--wanting to play with some of my low-rank friends, but not wanting to worry about losing a ton of points; wanting to join a tournament, but not doing it because most of the players are so low ranking; etc.

[MeDeFe]

how about adjusting terminator games so that all the players have the option of being anonymous, so there's no way to tell who they are or what rank they are? they could be known simply by their color until the end of the game, when their identities would then be revealed, or maybe when they're eliminated

I love the idea as well, but how about the addition of hiding how many points a player gets when they eliminate someone? Because if someone is eliminated for 7 points the others will know that there's a big fish in the game with them which would make for some juicy gains, even if they suicide to kill him, and then we're practically back to square one.

[owenshooter]

wanting to join a tournament, but not doing it because most of the players are so low ranking; etc.

that would never work, it would have to be a small number of friends or your clan... and also, as i'm sure optimus will gladly point out, the ranks in tournaments may seem low, but they are extremely good players. it is tough to keep your points up when you are active in competitive tournaments. soooo, i don't think this is a good idea for tournaments. some players lose pts, some don't? riiiiiiight. keep it small, limited number of friends and clans...-0

[bbqpenguin]

how about adjusting terminator games so that all the players have the option of being anonymous, so there's no way to tell who they are or what rank they are? they could be known simply by their color until the end of the game, when their identities would then be revealed, or maybe when they're eliminated

That right there, is an AMAZING idea. Go post it in Suggs & Bugs.

done. i'd like to encourage everyone who's been keeping up with this thread and is interested in my idea to go here http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=49707 and leave your input

[Plutoman]

I've always thought of it as ideal to have no point, or unranked, games. You could make two separate categories of games, an unranked game, or ranked game, and when you go to join a game, and search, you can search through the two separate categories. Many online games make use of this, and it would be a welcome feature, in my honest opinion, on this site.

The other option is making an unranked game for friends only, but as this is similar to private games, it would be more of a premium feature than anything else. Which might also be a possibility, adding in, as a premium feature, the ability to make no-point games.

I personally prefer the first, but anything is welcome. My friends don't particularly like to play me, as one of my friends is a few ranks higher, and I usually win against him (Seems odd, yes, but I do play mostly friends myself, and tournament games, which are more competitive). Which means, when he plays me, he typically loses 30+ points.

Thoughts?

[ahunda]

Maybe all this problems could simply be solved by a new point system, that is not so heavily based on the difference in points between winner & loser.

I understand, that the system makes sense in a way, e.g. preventing higher ranked players mining noobs for points. But it creates a lot of problems at the same time, e.g. higher ranked players not playing public games anymore at all.

The last time I won against a cook, I got 7 points. The last time I lost against a cook, I lost 55 points. So if I would play 1v1 against cooks, I would lose points, even if I won 7 out of 8. That´s just ridiculous.

[greenoaks]

Maybe all this problems could simply be solved by a new point system, that is not so heavily based on the difference in points between winner & loser.

I understand, that the system makes sense in a way, e.g. preventing higher ranked players mining noobs for points. But it creates a lot of problems at the same time, e.g. higher ranked players not playing public games anymore at all.

The last time I won against a cook, I got 7 points. The last time I lost against a cook, I lost 55 points. So if I would play 1v1 against cooks, I would lose points, even if I won 7 out of 8. That´s just ridiculous.

no you wouldn't.
your score would drop so you get more from a win, the cooks score would rise so hed get less from a win.

[ahunda]

Well. If we need to start the nit-picking, here is the maths:

Setting my current 2250 points against 750 points of a cook and assuming, that I lose the 1st game and win the rest.

Using the (loser's score / winner's score) * 20 formula from the Instructions.

2250 - 750 (-60 for me)
2190 - 810 (+7 for me)
2197 - 803 (+7 for me)
2204 - 796 (+7 for me)
2211 - 789 (+7 for me)
2218 - 782 (+7 for me)
2225 - 775 (+7 for me)
2232 - 768 (+7 for me)
2239 - 761 (+7 for me)
2246 - 754

Result: Even winning 8 out of 9, I lose 4 points in total.

But hey: I don´t want to get into a real discussion about the point system here. I haven´t spent much thought on the issue and possible alternatives. I only recognise some of the consequences (e.g. high-ranked players being preferred targets in Terminator games, or high-ranked players not wanting to play with/against low-ranked players, even friends).

[greenoaks]

so you win 9 out of 10 and you're in front. easy.

[MrBenn]

so you win 8 out of 9 and you're in front. easy

Actually, ahunda said that even if he wins 8 out of 9, he's still behind...

[Dapper Tom]

so you win 8 out of 9 and you're in front. easy

Actually, ahunda said that even if he wins 8 out of 9, he's still behind...

Then he should learn to win more than 8 out of 9 games... duh.

[Scott-Land]

Not to be out of line but-- how often does a Lieutenant lose 30-40 points? You get 55+ when you beat a Brig.... so where's the problem?