Change team game joining procedures/criteria

[PLAYER57832]

Concise description:
1. Allow folks to join as a team/allow more narrow criteria for who can join their team.
2. Allow a "not on my team" specific ignore list. (already suggested)
3. Allow folks to set rank criteria for team games, but with restrictions to its use.
4. Modify point structure to encourage folks to have at least one lower ranked or newer person on their teams

Specifics:
1. Allow people to EITHER specify specific people for a team. That is, I could say I want to start a game with player A, B and C ... and those slots will be held until they join, but in the mean time, the game can be filled (notice will be given to anyone clicking "join game" that I will be joining a game with a preset team opponent).

OR set minimum/maximum criteria -- rank, perhaps rating level for folks to join these team games.

2. Allow someone to specify folks who can join regular games (as opponents), but who either cannot join team games with you (at all) OR who simply cannot be on your team.

3. Allow people to start team games that do not have set teammates, but that has an overall lower OR UPPOER limit to who can join based on rank or rating level. If this is abused, some limitations could be placed. For example, maybe these games would earn fewer points or a limit placed on the number of such games someone can have. (tweak) In particular, I think it is important that lower ranked people be allowed to exclude much higher ranked people to allow for a better learning forum. as well as allowing higher ranked people to just play each other in this team format.

4. Offer some kind of bonus if you have someone much lower in rank on your team. I would like this bonus applied "win or lose". This would be most important after the above restrictions are implemented. It would encourage people to play with those less skilled, while allowing those who plain don't want to do so to have open games..




[/list]
NOTE: this thread was inspired by the following thread: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=60208&st=0&sk=t&sd=a#p1528920
This will improve the following aspects of the site:
Team games are not like other games.

I put them into several groups:
First, you have some relatively higher ranked people who play almost exclusively together, who like to set up games, wait for unknowing new people to join and then "pounce". These cause a lot of folks to give up on teams.

Next, you have people who like to play as a team regularly with other specific people. They tend to play private games, but might be willing to play more open games IF they could have certain "safegaurds" regarding ranks, etc.

Then you have people who want to play teams, who don't have a set group of friends with which to play, but who also don't necessarily want to be teamed with a cook. These people often end up skipping teams or just playing private games in frustration.

Yet another group are those who ARE lower ranked, but who want to join teams as a way to learn. Most folks are OK with these on their team, as long as they work with the other players.


The problem right now is that you either play a fully private game with people you know and invite OR you leave the game completely open. This changes the structure of team games significantly. I believe it leads many more people who like to play teams to keep them private AND makes it much more difficult for new people to gain team experience. It is plain hard to find a game that is open, but without a pre-set high-ranked team already in place.

I know that the argument is placing rank exclusions penalizes new people. I have 2 arguments. First, team games are just plain different. They DO require more experience. It actually goes both ways. With my suggestion, lesser players could join a team game confident they would not be overpowered by a dominant team AND other players could gain experience with folks of similar rank. To balance, folks who DO play games with much lower ranked players would get a bonus. That would encourage them a bit to open games up.

Bottom line -- without allowing these options, you are just forcing more people into the private forum. Since joining, I see more and more games going private. This hurts the CC community as a whole. This is PARTICULARLY true for team games. I recently tried to work for a new team medal. BUT, I did not want to join one of these games where I would be facing a team of majors for my opponents. That pretty much limited my choices to 1 or 2 games .. in sequential. I believe if I played freestyle, the situation would be even more pronounced.

This would not really take away anything. Those who play open games now still would. BUT, I think these changes would encourage more people who now play exclusively (or primarily) private games to play more public games ... and that would benefit everyone

[lancehoch]

Concise description:
4. Modify point structure to encourage folks to have at least one lower ranked or newer person on their teams

Specifics:
4. Offer some kind of bonus if you have someone much lower in rank on your team. I would like this bonus applied "win or lose". This would be most important after the above restrictions are implemented. It would encourage people to play with those less skilled, while allowing those who plain don't want to do so to have open games..

Just wanted to point out that this is already in place with how team points are calculated. If you are a general, and your teammate is a cook and you are playing against two majors, you would gain about the same as you would lose, whereas if you are two generals playing two majors you would lose about two to three times as much as you would win.

[PLAYER57832]

Concise description:
4. Modify point structure to encourage folks to have at least one lower ranked or newer person on their teams

Specifics:
4. Offer some kind of bonus if you have someone much lower in rank on your team. I would like this bonus applied "win or lose". This would be most important after the above restrictions are implemented. It would encourage people to play with those less skilled, while allowing those who plain don't want to do so to have open games..

Just wanted to point out that this is already in place with how team points are calculated. If you are a general, and your teammate is a cook and you are playing against two majors, you would gain about the same as you would lose, whereas if you are two generals playing two majors you would lose about two to three times as much as you would win.

I realize that, but in team play you incur more risk than in a normal game and have less control over the result because it depend upon the whole team, not just you. This would be an EXTRA bonus. Basically, this would reward those who use this as a mentoring opportunity, encourage folks to use it as such.

Lack/Twill, etc have stated that one goal is to encourage more cross-rank play. I also believe helping people to be better players is a goal. This would encourage that to happen in the team format.

[ctgottapee]

it is not about the points, it is about having an enjoyable game for everyone

the site head cheeses are so adamant against point/rank limitations for changing games which is just silly
private games are the same thing, except only a limited amount of people can benefit from private games as you have to know enough people and manage the mess

point/rank limitations are just convenient private games for everyone, allowing people to play more competitive and enjoyable games against similarly qualified opponents. there are plenty of cooks and privates to play one another, then don't need to be destroying more competitive games.

other sites have point/rank limitations available as options and have no problems