Conquer Club

The1exile wrote:http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1218

but even in that post no reason is given for it being rejected

and the mods, well wicked at least, has a thread for mentors and metorees well that option would make it easier for the mentor to play a teaching game with their mentoree and show them different situations in the game and how to react to them this shouldnt have been rejected its an excellent idea

Suggestion Idea: Sparring Mode

Specifics: Sparring Mode would be an option you could select when creating a game. It would allow you to make a no points game, so the winner gains no points and the loser losses no points.

Why it is needed: This way somebody with lesser points could challenge a higher ranked player to see what it is like to "play with the big dogs". It would also allow for friends to play eachother for fun without having to worry about stealing eachother's points. It's not really needed, it would just add another fun aspect to the game imho.

Edit: There could be a 1 or 2 game limit of this type at a time, so a person cannot only play "Sparring" games.

This sort of thing has been suggested many times and always rejected.

The Fuzzy Pengui wrote:Suggestion Idea: Sparring Mode

Specifics: Sparring Mode would be an option you could select when creating a game. It would allow you to make a no points game, so the winner gains no points and the loser losses no points.

Why it is needed: This way somebody with lesser points could challenge a higher ranked player to see what it is like to "play with the big dogs". It would also allow for friends to play eachother for fun without having to worry about stealing eachother's points. It's not really needed, it would just add another fun aspect to the game imho.

could be good in some cases but i imagine some people would only ever play no-points games to not risk their points. I guess competition would breakdown too.

Rocketry

Rocketry wrote:could be good in some cases but i imagine some people would only ever play no-points games to not risk their points. I guess competition would breakdown too.Rocketry

True..editing the first post to help keep this to a minimum

The Fuzzy Pengui wrote:

Rocketry wrote:could be good in some cases but i imagine some people would only ever play no-points games to not risk their points. I guess competition would breakdown too.Rocketry

True..editing the first post to help keep this to a minimum

All the same - i voted yes. I t would mean i could play 1 v 1s and not worry about being shit at them

Rocketry

The1exile wrote:http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1218

Was looking at another thread and I suggested this. Someone said it was a good idea so I posted it

I'm tired of not being able to play against my family, or being allowed to only if "we don't play in the same games", which is the entire point. A Nonpoints mode without multi-hunters trying to burn you at the stake would be fun.

It wouldn't have to just extend to 2p games, though? It could be an entirely new set of options when starting a game, "Ranked" and "Unranked".

I would like to play against some of my friends, but we don't want to take points from each other. I think in private games you should have the option to play for points or without points. I would really like to see this implemented. Thank you!

sugarbear

I like this idea. I have several friends on the site and enjoy playing doubles and triples games, but I also would like to be able to compete against them. However I want to keep it friendly, and a no-points private game would enable me to do so.

The idea has already been suggested but im not sure whats happening with it

It has been regected. Lack is afraid that someone would get a really high score and then play only no point games so that He cant lose any points.

dominationnation wrote:It has been regected. Lack is afraid that someone would get a really high score and then play only no point games so that He cant lose any points.

Without a meaningful ladder system, that happens anyway by de facto.

seems kinda pointless to me

it would work if the games didnt count toward your being on the scoreboard

Rocketry wrote:seems kinda pointless to me

I agree,
who cares about points anyways, just play for fun, and stop whining, "wa wa wa i will lose so many points if i lose"

two choices, dont play, or Win

I think these games should NOT count towards your winning percentage or towards your points. they would essentially be "friendly" games. You can't have multiple accounts. You want to win games and move up the global ladder. You want to play against your friends, but not lose points to them. the answer is simple: allow private games to choose if points will be wagered or not so friends can play against each other rather than just with each other. It is a good way to keep people from multiple accounts.

SUGARBEAR

It makes sense to reject this as an ongoing option (too easy to maintain one's rank on the scoreboard), but why not allocate one or two "free" games per map? People might be more willing to try out new, more complex maps if there was nothing to lose. There should certainly be a limit (as I was saying, a few per map) to discourage abuse, but it would be good for the site if you could experiment with new maps with no risk.

then you take the whole piont of the system away if it was approved. that would be like saying in baseball that interleage game dont count. no one would really try hard if it didnt matter. I want everyone A game when they play me

...not if it's only for the sake of trying out a map or gameplay type.

markme wrote:then you take the whole piont of the system away if it was approved. that would be like saying in baseball that interleage game dont count. no one would really try hard if it didnt matter. I want everyone A game when they play me

I think you miss the point of an "option".

I'm not sure if anyone ever brought this up, but I think it would be really nice to have unrated games, so people would have an opportunity to try some crazy maps that they would otherwise avoid because of the fear of losing. What does everyone think?