[GO] Unrated, Unranked, or No Points Games

[shoop76]

As a player who plays a lot of tournaments including many 1 v 1, I can see where friendly is coming from. I, for one, have come to the realization that my score will never get beyond a certain point with all the tourneys I play.

I would be more in favor of a separate score (scoreboard) for tourney games.

[NoSurvivors]

Concise description:

• Players being able to play games without fear of losing points

Specifics/Details:

• an option along with fog and trench (I forget what they were called) where a player can decide to play a game worth points or not to
• Unranked games will NOT count toward activity (players cant just play unranked games and stay on the scoreboard)

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

• High ranked players can play terminator games with the rest of the community without worry of being attacked for points
• Benefits everyone who wants to play high ranked players as well as the high rank players themselves
• Makes community more competitive

[degaston]

I'm all for it. Chess sites have both ranked and unranked games, and poker sites have play money and real money, why not unranked games on CC?

More reasons for doing it:

• Beta maps should not have to be played for points.
• People might be more willing to try maps they have not played before.
• It would reduce farming.

[spiesr]

MERGED: Unranked Games

[NoSurvivors]

To say this is rejected is kinda stupid.

Betiko made some really good points in the freefalling thread... Like making these limited,needing inventory conquer coins to play the unranked games.

[Metsfanmax]

It's something we've been tossing around behind closed doors. But for now this thread will stay in rejected until we're ready to deal with that issue.

[Megadeth666]

it would be great if I can play maps I dont understand(at first) and beta games without the fear of losing points.
one reason, with betas and difficult maps is obvious, the creators and friends know exactly how and when to play that map...so the advantage is over-whelming to players that want to just learn/understand the map.
It would be different if the bots can play EVERY map to practice...but i do realize that would be impossible.
I do hope this option becomes a reality, it would probably encourage more people to buy a membership as well

[Donelladan]

It's something we've been tossing around behind closed doors. But for now this thread will stay in rejected until we're ready to deal with that issue.

What does this mean? Is this being discussed ?

I have posted several times in the topic opened by betiko, limited points free game per month, opened in september, pages 48 to 53 of this thread, which have been merged to his one. Is anyone taking the recent discussion into account?
Can I know who decided on which base to move it to rejected ?

[Dukasaur]

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.

Chess is a bad analogy. When you play an unrated game of chess, the rules are essentially the same as when you play a rated game. On your way to the World Championship, you don't get to pick rule variations that will help you win.

CC allows byzantine settings that allow almost 100% win rates to the players that are good at them. The farmers who play rehearsed games on their favourite maps with Freestyle Foggy Quads know that nobody has any chance of beating them (except maybe another Freestyle Foggy Quads team) and just sits back waiting for victims to wander into their trap. It's not terribly bad, because those people also play more normal games, at which time non-farmers get a crack at their points. Thus, the points get recycled from time to time, and although there is some harm to the scoreboard, it's not overwhelming.

As I put it in another thread, farmers are human too, and every now and then their desire to have fun overcomes their greed, and they come play a normal game.

Allow unranked games, however, and the recycling of points stops. The farmers will only play their farming settings for points, and if they are hit by the desire to have some fun and play a game they might lose, they'll make it unranked. Thus, the transfer of points will become entirely one-way, and never will those farmed points return to the community at large. This, in a nutshell, is why this idea can never be allowed.

I'm all for it. Chess sites have both ranked and unranked games, and poker sites have play money and real money, why not unranked games on CC?

More reasons for doing it:

• Beta maps should not have to be played for points.
• People might be more willing to try maps they have not played before.
• It would reduce farming.

I don't see any reason underlying the assertion that it would reduce farming. The farmers will continue to play their farming games for points, but if they are struck by a desire to play something new and interesting, they will make it unrated, so that their farmed points never get returned to the community.

[betiko]

ok duka, isn't the real problem farming rather than unranked games?
you are afraid that unranked games "might" increase farming due to assumptions. but why not simply talk about measures to counter farmings as another subject?

As I was thinking of in the freefalling thread; being able to play ranked games just in a certain score range would probably reduce considerably farming.

[Dukasaur]

ok duka, isn't the real problem farming rather than unranked games?
you are afraid that unranked games "might" increase farming due to assumptions. but why not simply talk about measures to counter farmings as another subject?

We've already closed a lot of the loopholes that make farming easy (changes to Game Finder, banning invite abuse, banning systemeatic farming of NRs, etc.) There is no way to eliminate farming completely, without so ridiculously limiting people's game choice as to make "choice" meaningless. The level of farming we are at now is probably where we will stay.

As I was thinking of in the freefalling thread; being able to play ranked games just in a certain score range would probably reduce considerably farming.

I don't disagree with you on that one. However, THAT one IS another thread....

[betiko]

ok duka, isn't the real problem farming rather than unranked games?
you are afraid that unranked games "might" increase farming due to assumptions. but why not simply talk about measures to counter farmings as another subject?

We've already closed a lot of the loopholes that make farming easy (changes to Game Finder, banning invite abuse, banning systemeatic farming of NRs, etc.) There is no way to eliminate farming completely, without so ridiculously limiting people's game choice as to make "choice" meaningless. The level of farming we are at now is probably where we will stay.

As I was thinking of in the freefalling thread; being able to play ranked games just in a certain score range would probably reduce considerably farming.

I don't disagree with you on that one. However, THAT one IS another thread....

banning team fresstyle unlimited forts could be one too!

[spiesr]

One option that I think might be worth a think is a pretty big overhaul of the score system. Essentially my idea is that unranked games would become the norm. To counteract Dukasaur's concerns Ranked games would have some significant restrictions on which games could be played as Ranked games. The first restriction that comes to mind would be that the competitors would have to be within a certain score range. I imagine there would also need to be some limits on settings as well, but have no idea how that would need to work. (Different scores for different game types?) Essentially the idea with the restrictions would be to try to force Ranked games to be competitive.
This idea would probably require resetting (or gradually replacing) the existing scoreboard, so there would be a lot of resistance there. I think that there would also be some fringe benefits (unranked Battle Royals means they can all be standard without worry about people shooting up the scoreboard) and complications (would unranked Terminator games even be a thing?).

[degaston]

...It would reduce farming.

I don't see any reason underlying the assertion that it would reduce farming. The farmers will continue to play their farming games for points, but if they are struck by a desire to play something new and interesting, they will make it unrated, so that their farmed points never get returned to the community.

The basic problem is that the farmers have found situations where their [winning% * points_won] is much greater than their [losing% * points_lost], and they play these types of games over and over. If this equation could be balanced, then it would be much more difficult for them to farm. Changing the rating system would help, but I think that's a non-starter here, so that only leaves changing their winning%.

Having unrated games would help with this in two ways. By allowing inexperienced players to try out map and settings combinations for no points, they will either learn how to play that combination, reducing the farmers' chance of success, or they will learn not to play that combination, which would reduce the farmers' supply of "fresh meat".

If unrated games were implemented, the players would probably divide naturally into two groups. The higher skilled players would continue to play mostly rated games, but their ratings would become more stable because there would be fewer low ranked players in their games. Less skilled players would play mostly unrated games until they got better and wanted more of a challenge. This works with both poker (inexperienced players can use "play money") and chess sites, and I see no reason why it would not work here.

[Metsfanmax]

Chess is a bad analogy. When you play an unrated game of chess, the rules are essentially the same as when you play a rated game. On your way to the World Championship, you don't get to pick rule variations that will help you win.

CC allows byzantine settings that allow almost 100% win rates to the players that are good at them. The farmers who play rehearsed games on their favourite maps with Freestyle Foggy Quads know that nobody has any chance of beating them (except maybe another Freestyle Foggy Quads team) and just sits back waiting for victims to wander into their trap. It's not terribly bad, because those people also play more normal games, at which time non-farmers get a crack at their points. Thus, the points get recycled from time to time, and although there is some harm to the scoreboard, it's not overwhelming.

I side with degaston on this. The only reason those people get any traffic from that farming strategy is because unknowing victims come along wanting to try new things, and the only way they can do it is by playing someone who is far more experienced than they. If we implemented unranked games, then the traffic to those farming games would sharply drop. I would go so far as to hazard a guess that the lack of unranked games is the single largest factor behind the existence of farming.

[degaston]

Chess is a bad analogy. When you play an unrated game of chess, the rules are essentially the same as when you play a rated game. On your way to the World Championship, you don't get to pick rule variations that will help you win.

CC allows byzantine settings that allow almost 100% win rates to the players that are good at them. The farmers who play rehearsed games on their favourite maps with Freestyle Foggy Quads know that nobody has any chance of beating them (except maybe another Freestyle Foggy Quads team) and just sits back waiting for victims to wander into their trap. It's not terribly bad, because those people also play more normal games, at which time non-farmers get a crack at their points. Thus, the points get recycled from time to time, and although there is some harm to the scoreboard, it's not overwhelming.

The solution to this would be to keep separate stats for each setting and map, and then combine them into an overall score for each player. (I count 47 different settings, and however many maps there are.) That way, getting really good at one particular setting or map would not help your score as much as improving a little bit in a wide variety of settings and maps. If done right, the scores would better reflect a player's overall ability, they would be much more stable, and farming would become essentially impossible.

[Metsfanmax]

Chess is a bad analogy. When you play an unrated game of chess, the rules are essentially the same as when you play a rated game. On your way to the World Championship, you don't get to pick rule variations that will help you win.

CC allows byzantine settings that allow almost 100% win rates to the players that are good at them. The farmers who play rehearsed games on their favourite maps with Freestyle Foggy Quads know that nobody has any chance of beating them (except maybe another Freestyle Foggy Quads team) and just sits back waiting for victims to wander into their trap. It's not terribly bad, because those people also play more normal games, at which time non-farmers get a crack at their points. Thus, the points get recycled from time to time, and although there is some harm to the scoreboard, it's not overwhelming.

The solution to this would be to keep separate stats for each setting and map, and then combine them into an overall score for each player. (I count 47 different settings, and however many maps there are.) That way, getting really good at one particular setting or map would not help your score as much as improving a little bit in a wide variety of settings and maps. If done right, the scores would better reflect a player's overall ability, they would be much more stable, and farming would become essentially impossible.

That's a noble idea, but trying to work that out would be a mess. If you've got a clever idea for how we can do this without making the scoring system incredibly complicated, please post a topic about it.

[degaston]

That's a noble idea, but trying to work that out would be a mess. If you've got a clever idea for how we can do this without making the scoring system incredibly complicated, please post a topic about it.

I realize it would be very complex, but I don't see any other way to make it meaningful. Chess players can have separate ratings for Regular, Quick, Blitz and Postal games. CC players can be good at one map or setting, and terrible at another. What's a fair way to represent that?

[Donelladan]

That's a noble idea, but trying to work that out would be a mess. If you've got a clever idea for how we can do this without making the scoring system incredibly complicated, please post a topic about it.

How is it a problem that the scoring system becomes incredibly complicated ?
Can't CC site handle it ?

If we still have an overall score showing for everyone, I don't think anyone mind if the scoring system behind if complicated, as long as we are not confronted to it.

[Metsfanmax]

That's a noble idea, but trying to work that out would be a mess. If you've got a clever idea for how we can do this without making the scoring system incredibly complicated, please post a topic about it.

How is it a problem that the scoring system becomes incredibly complicated ?
Can't CC site handle it ?

If we still have an overall score showing for everyone, I don't think anyone mind if the scoring system behind if complicated, as long as we are not confronted to it.

The server can handle it, but can the players? I would mind if I had absolutely no idea how many points I was risking before joining a game.

[degaston]

The server can handle it, but can the players? I would mind if I had absolutely no idea how many points I was risking before joining a game.

Well, you don't know now unless you're the last one to join a game, so would this be that different? And even if you are the last one, your opponent's scores can sometimes change a lot over the course of a long game. (or do they base it on what their scores were when the game started?)

In any case, I'm sure BW would be happy to add a couple of columns to the "Join a Game" page to show you what your score would be if you defeated, or were defeated by each of the currently entered players.

[Megadeth666]

I'd like to know how long a beta game stays that way before it becomes a regular?

Only reason I ask is....If an option was to become in affect for a "No Points Game", the betas {in my opinion} would be the games that should be the ones, only because the creators and friends would have too much of an advantage.

[chapcrap]

I'd like to know how long a beta game stays that way before it becomes a regular?

Only reason I ask is....If an option was to become in affect for a "No Points Game", the betas {in my opinion} would be the games that should be the ones, only because the creators and friends would have too much of an advantage.

Maps are beta until the foundry decides they are ready to be released. That can happen in any kind of time frame, from a few weeks to many months.

[betiko]

One option that I think might be worth a think is a pretty big overhaul of the score system. Essentially my idea is that unranked games would become the norm. To counteract Dukasaur's concerns Ranked games would have some significant restrictions on which games could be played as Ranked games. The first restriction that comes to mind would be that the competitors would have to be within a certain score range. I imagine there would also need to be some limits on settings as well, but have no idea how that would need to work. (Different scores for different game types?) Essentially the idea with the restrictions would be to try to force Ranked games to be competitive.
This idea would probably require resetting (or gradually replacing) the existing scoreboard, so there would be a lot of resistance there. I think that there would also be some fringe benefits (unranked Battle Royals means they can all be standard without worry about people shooting up the scoreboard) and complications (would unranked Terminator games even be a thing?).

This is exactly what i was proposing in the freefalling thread.
Only that i think that playing a battle royale should always be ranked, and that I don t see any reason to reset scores.

[degaston]

Now that unrated games will be played via the Guide program, and de facto unrated games are played on the beta site, is there any chance that this courtesy will be extended to the general population?