Suggestion: Challenger Rank Game Setting

by **gdeangel** on Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:54 am

I know this is just a variation on something that's been rejected before, but I think this would do a lot for cc. Thanks to Hector's helpful searches, I've concluded that my idea is far enough from the standard "set a minimum score" suggestion, that it warrants mention here in the official "suggestion" section.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 19#1218819

Poll in as well, and maybe we can get the higher-up's to reconsider their position on this.

by **Twill** on Fri Mar 21, 2008 1:00 pm

For most people's sanity, would you summarize what is in the linked thread for us lazy buggers

Thanks
Twill

by **gdeangel** on Fri Mar 21, 2008 1:59 pm

OK, sorry.

Idea is to have a "stop loss" setting for games, but rather than giving players the ability to actually chose a point minimum for people to join their games, it could be done as a check-box that would enable them to limit people who join to only those that are within, say +/- two rank levels (or, more to the point, -2 rank levels) from the rank of the game's initiator (as of the time the other player attempts to join).

by **laci_mae** on Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:20 pm

I don't claim to have any technical expertise. However, my first concern is whether the system would bug out if there were rank changes involved (i.e. how long are games typically in waiting, and is this long enough for rank changes to be a problem?). In particular, if the game-starter were a Sergeant when he/she began the game, and then a Corporal when players 2 and 3 joined, and then a Cadet by the time players 4 to 6 joined, and finally back to Private 1st Class for players 7 and 8, could this function hold up to all the rank changing?

If so, it's clear that it would be somewhat self-defeating in this type of extreme situation. Therefore, I would like to see some descriptive statistics regarding the mean wait time for games of each type, as well as the mean number of rank changes by game-makers while games are in waiting.

LMR

by **Ditocoaf** on Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:48 pm

Take risks, why don't you? All of you high-rankers who are so scared to lose your precious points that you don't want to play newbies, make it hard for anyone below you to increase rank, especially with only 1000 each to go around. If I'm cut off from playing against people with rank, then I'm stuck in a world with an average of 700 points per player (about). Its like everybody at the top of the ladder, holding all the gold, wants to build a wall to prevent people below them getting the gold.

Stop being so chicken already-- if you truly deserve your rank, then you can play a cadet and win.

so, NO.

by **jennifermarie** on Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:55 pm

gdeangel wrote:OK, sorry.

Idea is to have a "stop loss" setting for games, but rather than giving players the ability to actually chose a point minimum for people to join their games, it could be done as a check-box that would enable them to limit people who join to only those that are within, say +/- two rank levels (or, more to the point, -2 rank levels) from the rank of the game's initiator (as of the time the other player attempts to join).

This is the exact same thing as a "point minimum" setup.

Being such, it has been rejected in the past.

by **gdeangel** on Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:10 am

Very important distinction here seems to be missed...

Point minimum suggestion = Player controls it so only people with higher rank than me can join. Bad for cross-rank play.

Stop loss system = Rules control the extent to which player can limit others from joining based on points. Good for cross rank play as you wouldn't have to run to the officers club to set up private games.

Currently there is a rule. It is Min = 0.

My proposal... option to set Min = f(score). The powers that be can figure out what a democratic looking f() function should look like. But I don't think what we've got now is really democratic.

by **Herakilla** on Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:13 am

gdeangel wrote: But I don't think what we've got now is really democratic.

where in the HECK does democracy come in world domination?!

by **ahunda** on Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:47 am

I still think, it is a good idea to have the option of setting min/max score for players joining a game. The many times this has been requested as well as the many private games between higher ranked players clearly show, that many players would welcome/use such an option.

I really don´t see the problem with it either. Higher ranked players, who don´t want to play new/lower ranked players, don´t do it. In the moment they just don´t play public games. That´s the reality of it. Nothing would change, if you´d give those people the option to set up public games with score/rank limits. It would only make it easier to start/organise/fill those games and be more user-friendly than the currently used system of Callouts forum & PMs.