#Novice/Beginner requirements. (negative rank points?)

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

merry lotus
#

Everyone has been noobslammed in the game at one point in time, and it sucks.
So, in order to (sorta) balance out the ranking system to prevent that from happening, I propose that we should change the requirements for novice and beginner ranks, and add NEGATIVE Rank Points into the system.

In order to do this, the beginner rank should start at 0 rank points, and anything below that would mean that you’re a novice.
In addition, a novice should ONLY play with novices UNTIL they get out of the negatives.

(FOR CLARIFICATION)
Beginner is 0-5999 rank points (6k is intermediate).
Novice is anything below that to a theoretical infinity.
Novices can only play with novices.
Beginners can play with beginners and up.

Now, why does matter, and how does this affect the ranked experience and gameplay?

#

Before I answer this, dear reader, do you believe that newer players should be able to play against some of the best players in the world?
If so, do you think it would be beneficial to both parties to be playing each other? If yes, why and how so?

While the tutorial DOES help players out a little bit, it only goes over the basics of the game.
Playing with GMs and Masters, in my honest opinion, does not help newer players learn how to play at all. How does a newer play learn how to play if a GM/Master snowballs a game?
It does not teach them how to play prog, it doesnt teach then how to cardblock, it doesnt teach them to slider, so all in all the learning curve in this game is super steep. Making newer players play with newer players allow them to learn alongside each other, and progressively expand their knowledge of the game as the continue to gain rank points and develop knowledge to combat the skill gap that there is between players.

How does this affect the beginner+ players?
Well, to start, it would prevent noobslamming from happening, since now you need to EARN the beginner rank to play with other players.
Additionally, it allows for more experienced players to sharpen their skills against better players, while simultaneously having fun at the same time.
Ask any GOOD player in the game, and they’ll tell you 10/10 that playing with better people is fun.

If you have any questions, comments or concerns about this post, please feel free to drop them in the chat and I will try my best to answer or handle your concerns. A friendly reminder that this is a suggestion, and it will always be open to add more onto it, if so needed. Thank you for your time.

glossy sedge
#

There's nothing to prevent players from creating a new account if they end up in negative rank points, it's why they started at 990 originally & why they couldn't drop below this.
If you're a new player, get slaughtered by a player who chained card kills in progressive, you may think it is bad luck (not a skill issue) - and decide that you'll just create a new account, being higher ranked again.

Implementing a negative points system / points below base - will only negatively impact genuine / good will players - while it will give angry/emotional/frustrated players an "easy fix" for their losses / any bad winstreaks

lusty wharf
#

I do think that there should be some form of skill based match making. Novice should only be able to play against a certain level of player. (Novice intermediate) (beginner expert) (Intermediate All) I think would be a good solution to this problem. There are enough intermediate plus players that GM's will still be able to get games and novices don't get steamrolled.

warm obsidian
# lusty wharf I do think that there should be some form of skill based match making. Novice sh...

Theres issues with skill based matchmaking. At the top of the leaderboard there's not many settings that work for high skill games without stalemating or being super luck based. Tournaments rely heavily on 70% and Prog and both of those come down to card luck and turn order almost every game. That's why there's such a variety in who wins tournaments and why we can't really say there is one best player in risk.

merry lotus
# glossy sedge There's nothing to prevent players from creating a new account if they end up in...

I disagree.

While there isnt a way to prevent newer players from creating a new account, I find it hard to believe that anybody would go out of their way to create a new account just because they’re in the negative.

Why?
Because its simply too time consuming to begin with.
Additionally, if anybody dropped down into the negatives, just like in any ranked game, its easier to learn or look up a YouTube video compared to simply rage quitting and learning nothing at all. If somebody has the time and patience to make a new account, they likely have the time to watch a youtube video to learn as well.

I can see to a point where one might consider it, but at that point, why play rank in the first place and not utilize the casual gamemode if you didnt want your rank to be in the negative? Besides that, rank resets frequently, so its not like they’d be stuck there forever.

Adding a negative ranking points system typically wouldn’t affect better players because they wouldn’t let themselves get to that point to begin with. Its super hard for a good player to drop from somewhere around 20k to below 0 points. Do you think someone like Pete would allow themself to go BELOW 0 points? No, and even if they did, they could easily get out of it because of their risk knowledge.

If anything, it protects better players by separating true novices from beginner players who have some knowledge of the game and a will to learn. It would allow for better games to be played, and every player to have something to learn. Not to mention, it would help utilize the casual gamemode, in my opinion, because of the surge of players taking their time to hone and practice their skills in a casual game, where they could then apply those skills in ranked.

#

Let me know if I interpreted anything wrong in your message. Like I said, this is merely a suggestion post, so take my words with a grain of salt. This is all theoretical, of course, so there is no real right or wrong. Only opinions. heart

warm obsidian
# merry lotus I disagree. While there isnt a way to prevent newer players from creating a ne...

I'm not sure the time point is valid. It takes ~5-10 minutes to make a new account. It takes around 45mins - 1hr to play a FFA game. So if you lose a couple games you would be saving yourself hours of time by just making a new account. Then just repeat the process until you are good enough to win?

The casual game mode has lots of problems and there's plenty of reasons not to play games there. I don't think much else has to be said about that.

I do think the skill point is valid, but only sorta. While a player who knows how to play would never let themselves get negative, they are also never getting anywhere near 0 either. And I would argue that there's a real skill in knowing how to manipulate novices who don't know how to play into hitting someone else and not you. The "better players" you mentioned do not need "protecting" from novices. They are going to win regardless. Also if you have really bad players playing really bad players, some of these really bad players will be forced to win by dumb luck so then they will be beginners facing better players and we are right back to where we started

merry lotus
# warm obsidian I'm not sure the time point is valid. It takes ~5-10 minutes to make a new accou...

Just because it takes a few minutes to make an account doesn't mean that people would do it. Much like certain chores, it can be bothersome taking the time to make a new account even if it takes, like you said, 5-10 minutes.

If you repeatedly create a new account simply for the purpose of getting out of the negative, only to continue playing the game regardless, why make a new account to begin with?

Let's say on the off chance that they'd happen to win by dumb luck, they won't stay above 0 points for long if they continued playing the same way as they did.

While casual has its flaws, it can still very much so be played to a similar quality of that to a ranked game. It's not the best, but its the best practice you can get without losing ranked points.

I find it hard to believe that in every game, you can successfully manipulate a player to that of a game winning extent and keep it consistent. It is just impossible to maintain that level of intensity and consistency in game full of inconsistencies.

Just because a player is better than the rest of them does not guarantee them #1. Let's say a novice gets fed up with them, or tries to slam their troops for a +2 or a +3. Their chances of winning have fallen drastically because now it'll take them longer to hold a bonus that'll allow them to generate the troops for a win.

If bad players face bad players, while they may win once in a while, like I said, if they continue to play as they did, then they would never be able to hold the beginner rank consistently.

#

Ya get what I mean? 🙂

warm obsidian
#

Casual play has huge flaws. Number one is the cheating. Probably 75% of games I join on there has blatant collaboration (most are suspended within a week of the game as well). There’s also rampant quitting early in the game because why keep playing if you aren’t in a bad position. You lose nothing to quit. So the experience can be quite bad and it needs some serious work. Nothing like actual ranked.

As far as really bad players winning in the novice games. One will win every single game. That’s how it works. A novice will win every game that’s played and chances are that will put them back at beginner because that’s how ELO works. Probably the same for the player that got 2nd. So you’re not getting rid of these players in this system. You are just slightly lowering their number by requiring them to win or get 2nd against other bad players.

In most settings getting noob slammed isn’t even a big deal. Almost all of ranked is caps now and that’s basically slam proof. So it’s basically just classic fixed that has this problem IMO. And yes a good player can get slammed but how often does Pete get lower than 3rd in his classic fixed videos? It basically doesn’t happen. And getting 3rd is good enough to not lose RP for every rank but GM. So what problem are we really solving here?

So regardless of whether or not players would crate new accounts or not, I just don’t see the benefit of this is. IMO anyone above Intermediate can avoid getting slammed by really bad players in the vast majority of their games. So you want a huge change to help beginners and intermediates avoid the bad players. And they still wouldn’t even be avoiding them as I pointed out, there would just be slightly less of them

vernal jackal
#

Agree the game should have match making. You should also be able to drop below the starting elo in a good working system. Wrote an idea about that before that tries to solve the “making a new account problem”. #risk_ideas message

merry lotus
# warm obsidian Casual play has huge flaws. Number one is the cheating. Probably 75% of games I ...

Exactly, you're playing against colluders and flaggers, both which are common in ranked as well.

Quitting early is something that happens often no matter the gamemode. One player gets unlucky a leaves. Another player gets weak later on and they leave as well.

One will win every single game, sure, but to those who got anywhere from 4rd to 6th? They'll continue to stay there even if they happen to win the game after that, whereas someone like 3rd might get out of the negatives.
Someone, although not likely, might win a game on their first try. Someone else might get 2nd their first game on, however, they'll dip back down into the negatives and the odds of them getting out are extremely low if they play the same. They will occasionally catch a breath of air, but for the majority they'll stay in the negatives. Very few people starters
will ever maintain the beginner rank once they achieve it.

Noob slamming in every setting is a big deal, especially in caps depending on your placement. On big maps like EU advanced or Spaceport Sigma, most players will start off with at least 5 troops, and some players might get more than that. In the beginning of a caps game, everyone will roughly have the same number of troops that everyone else has when they each start off. Except if the 1st player slams your cap with a 10 on your 5 cap, and you happen to be in the last position, good luck trying to live.

Contrary to your belief, I think that noob slamming is the best in something like classic fixed, because you can just take a card and skip and 9/10 you will never be worth the kill. Pete typically gets more than 3rd in his classic fixed videos because he either uses his skill to win, or he waits out the game for 2nd, 3rd, and maybe even 1st.
Keep in mind, he will usually never upload himself getting anything below 3rd.

The problem I'm trying to solve at hand is preventing noob slamming from happening that way every player can take something out of a game and build off of it

#

Whereas,
Oh, I got noob slammed so I got 4th. Nothing I could do about that.

Now, how helpful is that? Does that help improve anyone's skill?

It is always fun to play games against better people because of this fact. Nobody is happy being noob slammed/targeted by a noob the whole game. Negative rank and novice induced match-making sorta create a safety net to filter out the bad players that way people can play a better and more enjoyable game.

This is not a permanent solution, only a temporary solution for the underlying problem at hand which can never and will be fixed.

warm obsidian
warm obsidian
merry lotus
# warm obsidian Idk man. I’ve played a ton of EU advanced caps and I’ve never had my cap taken t...

Of course you can always just filter out novice players, but it's more so about refining the ranks and adding a sense of meaning and depth to a rank.

For example, if everybody was a grandmaster, then that would defeat the purpose of calling it grandmaster. That same principle should apply to every rank as well.

Not to mention, it would allow for higher quality games to be played, which are all in all more fun. It would reduce the skill gap that ranked risk has, while reaping in nothing but the benefits.

All it takes is one lucky game to become a beginner, and now the same novice that we were trying to filter out is in your beginner+ lobby.

#

I think a placement system is a great idea to add onto this one, and vice versa. It allows punishment for bad play, and room for growth.

warm obsidian
# merry lotus Of course you can always just filter out novice players, but it's more so about ...

So now it has nothing to do with noob slamming? If this is all about creating more depth for the ranks then all you would need to do is make the beginner benchmark a little higher I guess. And there would be no need for novices to only play novices.

I have no idea how your idea would change anything about the skill gap. You’re not changing people’s skill, you are just forcing people to filter out novices (which you can already do).

“All it takes is one lucky game to become a beginner” that’s literally what I have been trying to tell you. But at least in the current system it takes getting lucky against better players. In this proposed system you just have to beat other horrible players

alpine hollow
#

But let's be fair, how much would a novice learn from other novices that only face novices? Not much. If they can meet higher ranked players they can learn more skills more quickly.

#

That would kinda be like the current casual mode, which is almost exclusivly used by novices that are scared to play ranked.

merry lotus
# warm obsidian So now it has nothing to do with noob slamming? If this is all about creating mo...

Noob slamming is only one of the many problems the ranking system has, much like some of the other issues i addressed.

Even if you raised the benchmark a little higher, one, not everyone filters out novices, and two, even if you raised the bench mark a little higher, novices playing with super gms and other players that are better in general leaves little to no room for growth for skill and rank.

Novices playing novices is essentially like a training room in ranked. It allows them to better understand the principles of the game while developing strategy as well.

For example, in MMO RPG games, you start off fighting monsters beginner level monsters, and as you progressively work your way up and develop your skills and strategies, the monsters become progressively harder. This same logic can be applied to Risk. What is there to learn when you’re thrown out of the gate playing against someone like Pete who could easily steamroll the game in 20-30 minute?

”All it takes is one lucky game to become a beginner”
Sure, but adding a novice v novice and negative ranking systems filters that out because at this current point of the game, there is no negative, and at any point, ANY one could achieve beginner in one game. Whereas if you go below zero, you have to work twice as hard to achieve beginner than you did before.

For example, Novice just placed 6th on their first game and now they’re -1.5k. They place 4th on their second game and now they’re at -2.2k. Now, no matter if they win, they must play at least two games to reach beginner. Whereas in our current system, you will always be at 0 points, and all it takes is one game to reach beginner.

Just like pro players, once you develop a good idea and sense on how the game works, and you develop a successful strategy, you will never be novice or a beginner again.

merry lotus
merry lotus
warm obsidian
#

I don’t think I’m going to be able to change your mind so I will just leave it at this.

If you want to avoid noob slamming (what the original intent of this post appeared to be) you easily can by filtering out the level of players you want. Regardless of what you say each rank has very distinct skill marks and you get very specific types of games based on the minimum level you let join your lobbies. So that tells me the current rank lines are pretty well drawn.

I also don’t think a system where novices can only play novices is a good one. Bad players would be winning games and that’s just teaching players that they can slam players and play bad and still win.

Also idk if you have done the math but in a game where the opponents skill level is all about equal (novice vs novice) 1st-3rd gains you points. 4th you only lose a little. So essentially 50% of your bad players in every lobby would be promoting to beginner. And another would basically be staying the same. Only 5th and 6th really put u back. And even a 6th place doesn’t put you out of reach of getting back positive with a single first place win.

If this was about making it so top players get less points for beating the bottom players then sure I could get behind it, but I don’t think this solves that problem (Jacks idea does IMO). I think this idea is literally just to remove some players from ranked play for everyone else and I don’t think that’s a good idea. It doesn’t help players learn or improve, it just puts them in a place where it doesn’t matter to everyone who’s not a novice

merry lotus
#

Thank you for your contribution.

#

I dont think you fully understand what im trying to say, but thats ok. We all have our own opinions and thats alright. This is all theoretical so there is no true right or wrong.

#

I appreciate the feedback though

glossy sedge
# merry lotus Just because it takes a few minutes to make an account doesn't mean that people ...

Let me clarify, people do it already under the assumption that they are losing points - even though we already display them every time you open RISK - it's not so much what a rational person will do but what someone does in the heat of the moment.

It also is a similar mentality for players not wanting to negatively impact their win loss ratio, and rather do new things on new accounts - it just means high win ratio tends to more likely reflect multiple account use than better.

If the concern is explicitly novice being too close to other ranks, why not just increase the point threshold for other ranks instead?
+5k points to get there, adding anywhere between 10 and 20 games - without having the "restart to get a better starting rank again" issue?

hybrid canyon
tawdry yoke
#

If you dont want to get noobslammed you can use settings to decide which ranks can join your lobby.

merry lotus
merry lotus
warm obsidian