"pointless" games

I too would love a rating-less game. I play with some friends occasionally and they only play when we all play together. If I lose to one of the 3 of them, I end up losing 40ish rating, where as if I win I only get 30-35. Even though they aren't that good (hence why I lose a lot rating), I tend to lose a lot in these games because they make a lot of bad moves. I still enjoy playing with them though, but would love the option to not have it worth anything. I appreciate the offer elysium, but for me, it doesn't bother me to the point where I'd go through the trouble of contacting you and having you take the time to return points every game that we play. Also, we dont play super often anymore anyway. Just want to throw out my support for a possible feature of rating-less games in the future.

I like it. Having the option of playing rating-less practice games would almost certainly lead to more games being played overall. You could then choose between "Rating" game and "Practice" game when creating a game, just like you currently choose between "Original" and "Balanced" dice. ("Rating" game being the default setting.)

I would like for the "ratingless" game to be more flexible. Default rating Fixed rating No rating Fixed rating would be a number between 1 and 50 (50 is the current max anyone can lose). I would much rather play a fixed rating game where we are all "wagering" the same rating.

How about: no. Might sound harsh, but this option would be again something to protect those with a very high rating. If you reached a higher rank, very good, but then don't complain about losing points playing to lower ranked players, or testing other set-ups. This is what the whole system is based on. This brings back the discussion about the maximum points to lose: 50. This only works for Generals, nobody else. Besides slack, I barely see any (Brigadier, Major, Lieutenant-) General around in normal games. They are only playing safe mode in teamgames, or the 1 set-up where they are very good at. Sorry to not support you Mdhaglund. I do understand what you mean, but in my opinion, winning is winning, losing is losing.

[quote=B4rny]How about: no. Might sound harsh, but this option would be again something to protect those with a very high rating. If you reached a higher rank, very good, but then don't complain about losing points playing to lower ranked players, or testing other set-ups. This is what the whole system is based on. This brings back the discussion about the maximum points to lose: 50. This only works for Generals, nobody else. Besides slack, I barely see any (Brigadier, Major, Lieutenant-) General around in normal games. They are only playing safe mode in teamgames, or the 1 set-up where they are very good at. Sorry to not support you Mdhaglund. I do understand what you mean, but in my opinion, winning is winning, losing is losing. [/quote] I agree with this to an extent. Pointless games shouldn't be an avenue for the high-ranks to hide from losses. But on the other hand, people with even only relatively high ranks are dissuaded from playing with people who don't fully understand the strategies of the game because in the extreme it adds a high degree of randomness to the game (which high-ranks don't want). Suggested solution: pointless games cost tokens, and the cost is a function of the player's rating. If your rating is very high, the token cost will be very high. If your rating is lower, the cost will be lower. That way high rank players 'hiding' in pointless games would never be able to do so for too long. Side note: high rankers would not be able to hide any more than they currently can. They would still need 5 rated games in the last 15 days to qualify for the D12 list... So actually nothing would fundamentally change.

[quote]If the introduction of unrated games leads to the removal of the disparity rule, then I fully support unrated games.[/quote] Good point. Then a possibility to play for tokens could work. For example: rating divided by 50 = tokencost. Winner takes it all.

Test games are relevant to everyone. So why even introduce test games if you're just gonna make them virtually inaccessible to everyone except new players and players who have hoarded tokens? It makes no sense. As for the "hiding" argument, it has absolutely zero merit. Why would anyone "hide" in a test game? What would the point of that be, exactly, when there's nothing at stake?... Test games are for learning and testing new strategies. So if they are made available, I'd expect to see a lot of unorthodox games, which could/should/would add a certain je-ne-sais-quoi to D12 overall. And make everyone a lot better at strategy, too, through trial and error. The only challenge of introducing test games, as I see it, is that formerly untested strategies could cost everyone except the winner(s) the game. But as long as everyone know what they're signing up for, then I don't see why not. It wouldn't be much different than playing a, say, monthly D12 tournament game where someone tries to eliminate someone else and fails miserably. This concept has everything to do with learning, testing strategies, and playing for fun, so I'm still in favour of it. I think test games could be a blast and supplement the rating games well. But without a price tag.

For as far as I'm concerned there will be a limit to pointless games (even for premium members!), but the limit won't be tokens. Not sure exactly what that limit would be. There has been much debate about that, but that was years ago, and probably a different topic. Either way, it'll have to be a bit of testing of what is a good limit. Maybe in practice ppl won't abuse it and still play mostly rating games. Oh, also, pointless games shouldn't count towards the d12 list qualification IMO.

Glad to hear that, Matty. How about a limit of one active test game at a time, per capita? Just like password protected games. Then it won't be abused. And yes, test games should be ratingless for sure. Maybe even tokenless. Then people will play them for all the right reasons.

I am absolutely against this. Your points and rank should express and resemble your game skill and strategic knowledge as close as possible.

What exactly are you against, Dima?

Against games with no points asaigned after its end

You do realise we already have test games for maps in beta mode, right? No rating are at stake there either. They seem to be quite popular, too.

[quote=Dima]I am absolutely against this. Your points and rank should express and resemble your game skill and strategic knowledge as close as possible. [/quote] Nearly every online game I know has the capability to play casual/unranked games in addition to ladder/ranked games. Are you saying that a 2000 rated chess player is not truly that skill level just because they also play casual games on the side? No. They still earned their rating in the ranked games they played. A limit of one unranked game at a time seems sensible to me. It cannot be allowed to replace the rating system, but should provide a way to play with friends in an inclusive setting (at least, this is how I would use it).

Test games do not count. A perfect overlay between skill and rank is ideal, but not always possible. So i think we should we should minimize the amount unranked games as much as possible.