Improvements to Qualifying for the Dominator Game

I have a new suggestion to qualify for that monthly d12 game. Currently, you need to have a minimum of 5 games to play in the current monthly dominator game. In those 5 games, they should also include no password games and no rating restrictions for those 5 games to qualify. Why for this change? Well, there is an elephant in the room here that I want to address, which is called rating point farming. These are highly ranked players (much higher in rating points than me which is ok if it is well earned.) These few players like to put a password on their games and only invite players that are typically noobs or with poor attendance ratings to get their current rating/rank. In addition to these password games/locked games, they avoid good players like me from giving them a challenge. Also, there are players that put rating restrictions (such as higher than 3000+) to increase their rating points when they win....and of course, exclusively playing in the monthly d12 game also helps gain points. Why it is important to implement these two additional restrictions when qualifying for the monthly dominator game? To be at the top, you shouldn't be afraid to play anyone. A dominator should be able to navigate and win against players of all ranks. I find it disappointing when I send out a message to challenge them to a game and they don't respond. It's almost as if they are afraid of that challenge and lose points. The only way to improve your game is to play many different players. Hence why I feel that all dominators should be able to play against anyone. How many players here actually play against the players ranked higher than me? I know I've sent out mulitple invitations to everyone to all my games. We should not coddle these players. I am advocating for the game and I want this site to encourage new players. When these players are taken advantage of they will not become addicted like the rest of us. We want and need new blood to stay. Just my 2 cents.

I completely agree, I wasn't really aware of the rule as it doesn't apply to me :D I try and play whatever game looks fun, not just ones that will get me rating.

100% agree. should be players that [b]dominate[/b] ridiculous activity (locking games, inviting noobs/new sign ups) from @@AlexCheckMate @@JoeySe7en in particular. no issue with them doing what they wanna do, but i don't agree with them qualifying for the Dominator game. @@vikingo1337 does the same sort of activity. but from what i remember he usually excludes himself from being part of the dominator game, so cool with that. (i don't follow the dominator game) i'd would probably watch and follow the dominator games, but currently it bugs me to think some of these players might win it, when they wouldn't represent our dominator. also, it is a reason why i ran with a tournament set up of different modes when i ran the dominator tournament a few times. at least it meant you dominated those considered dominators, instead of a 1 off game..where a few just did 'enuff' to qualify, by keeping to the current minimum qualifying game activity.

I'm all for revisiting this. I've never qualified but I do watch the games.

All a high score means is you know how to gather more points than you lose. I am knocking on the door of top 12. But I have only played teams games and 368 out of 370 have been played with Peri. That doesnt make the best at Risk. It does mean Peri and I make a hell of a doubles team and we are decent with Clark on 3v3v3. Esp on caps. I used to think medals (supported at old risk site) meant you were awesome. Once i got into medal hunting I figured out ways to farm that as well. So what to do? What does the dominator12 title mean? Does it really matter? I dont believe point farmers are top players. But is there a system to be set up that people can't play to maximize their results? And if the sole point of d12 is to maximize points, then who cares?

[quote=bluebonnet]All a high score means is you know how to gather more points than you lose. I am knocking on the door of top 12. But I have only played teams games and 368 out of 370 have been played with Peri. That doesnt make the best at Risk. It does mean Peri and I make a hell of a doubles team and we are decent with Clark on 3v3v3. Esp on caps. I used to think medals (supported at old risk site) meant you were awesome. Once i got into medal hunting I figured out ways to farm that as well. So what to do? What does the dominator12 title mean? Does it really matter? I dont believe point farmers are top players. But is there a system to be set up that people can't play to maximize their results? And if the sole point of d12 is to maximize points, then who cares? [/quote] Anything can be manipulated. That has been the arguments in the past for not changing the criteria. Someone could be really good at any game settings so I agree with you. I would like to see if there is some give though when it comes to making exclusions, like maybe agreed upon point farmers and what qualifies it as a non skill exclusion. There would have to be considerable discussion on whether or not it is something the membership would like to see done and how it would be implemented if considered.

If this gets any traction, then my thoughts 1. Start over with the concept 2. Develop a clear definition of what the Dominator is 3. List attributes of the dominator based on the definition 4. Develop metrics/scoring/selection process of the key attributes.

I agree with @@periwinkle, @@pygmyhippo277 and @@Hoodlum. So let's te redefine how many games and what kind of games must be played in order to enter the D12 list. Nice suggestion also from @@bluebonnet on the process of development of the "new Dominator". I agree that [b]vikingo1337[/b] and [b]AlexCheckMate[/b] shouldn't qualify for the Dominator title because the way they farm points on noobs is too much unsporty. I don't understand what is wrong with @@JoeySe7en, he is chat-banned, forum-banned and message-banned, so he cannot even defend himself from the accusations. He gains rating on noobs thanks to the new rule, but this is not his fault. Still sometimes wins sometimes loses on a normal ratio, while [b]Viki[/b] and [b]Alex[/b] only grow up without any brakes and they asked/supported that rule change for their personal benefit (assuming the rating is a benefit :D ahaaha Lol). Who only plays same-time games even if he is a honest player shouldn't qualify either, because the Dominator title is established on a consecutive game, there's too much difference, we risk to have someone unable to play properly, so ruining the game... [i]Just my 2 Canadian dollars.[/i] ;)