Forum
Time for a social (no points awarded) table?
|
clorox wrote
at 4:40 PM, Tuesday October 23, 2007 EDT
its getting harder to even get on a 10 pt table. And the last one I got on had two players whose rankings were over 1900 and two others with rankings over 700. It seems some players are avoiding the 200 and 1000 pt tables because they don't like to risk their ratings or they want to pick on the newer players. (Given that the 1900+ guys dont attack each other much and prolong the end, its seems like they are padding their stats too.)
For those who have rating over a 100 (so we can't play on the 0 pt tables) and have no aspirations of climbing into the top 1000 rankings, how about creating a 'just for fun' table with no ratings and no points awarded? You could have beginner, average, and expert levels. Some experts might still pick on the beginners, but I'm guessing that without the incentive of racking up rating points that there would be fewer bullies. Given that these guys aren't using the 200 point rooms, it seems like they could be sacrificed for the cause. |
|
3.14159 wrote
at 11:56 PM, Tuesday October 23, 2007 EDT I just thought of this:
Add a "Games Played This Month" component to the "For Points" table. Leave the social table alone--anyone can play. But on the "For Points" table, you can't play unless you are below a certain score AND you have played fewer than X number of games. Or not. |
|
Too Gay wrote
at 4:52 AM, Wednesday October 24, 2007 EDT Great idea.
|
|
_o/_ wrote
at 7:50 AM, Wednesday October 24, 2007 EDT i believe gay porn is also against the "NO PORN." rule.
|
|
XCRobin wrote
at 8:56 AM, Wednesday October 24, 2007 EDT Seconded.
|
|
§ilverfox wrote
at 12:33 PM, Wednesday October 24, 2007 EDT I would actually like to see a NON-social, no points table.
Pure all-against-all the way the game was meant to be played. No PGA's possible because no one would know who's who. No point to circumventing that with a phone call or anything because no points are on the line. I watched a 1000 table game the other day and just laughed. Not a one of them showed any real degree of tactical skill. They simply are where they are because of the "I'll rub your back you rub mine" nature of the way they play. They would bypass cuts that were advantageous to them simply because “that was their friendâ€. Whatever. I would dearly love to play a nice cut-throat game of dice wars with live human opponents. |
|
dasfury wrote
at 1:41 PM, Wednesday October 24, 2007 EDT This is a great idea.
|
|
|
clorox wrote
at 5:03 PM, Wednesday October 24, 2007 EDT So i improved my score so I could play on the 200 tables. Interestingly enough the higher scores there were much lower than those at the 10 pt table (700-800 vs 1500-1900). The ratings were closer to my own and the game was more balanced and entertaining.
Alas the potential for high negative scores are higher, (which is why the 1000+ ratings probably still troll the 10 pt table) and I'm probably wont be able to last here long. I fear I wont be able to play at the 200 tables and will be relegated back to the 10 pt tbales where the 1000+ bullies hang out. I like the max games played limit. I'm guessing the 1000+ players who got the scores at the 200 and 1000 tables are more impressive than the ones who racked them up at the 10 pt tables. Now if only I could still play on the 0 pt tables and inflate my rating against the really really new players. ;) |
|
JKD wrote
at 6:36 PM, Wednesday October 24, 2007 EDT Hi fox. In your cut throat league is it acceptable for players to help each other via:
1) unspoken truce? 2) 1-2 truce? 3) permanent truce? 4) temporary truce? Just making sure that you're not overlooking how hard it is to win if you have a reputation for not being able to work with *anyone*, the counter truce is more important than the truce but I never see it get correctly used (possibly because I don't pay attention to the right games) |
|
Dora Exploradora wrote
at 7:05 PM, Wednesday October 24, 2007 EDT An anonymous, no-points table would be fun! Make it 4-player, and I might start playing again!! ;-)
|
|
lesplaydices wrote
at 8:21 PM, Wednesday October 24, 2007 EDT Why does it have to be anonymous?
|
