[GO] [Rules] Rank Restricted Games

[Dangerous-Die]

I have researched this on the forum and under Lacks notes on the subject there is no comment from him.

As stated in several posts that have been started on this topic, people state that 'people ask this all the time'. Surely this would imply there could and should be a serious debate on the topic.

I would describe my life cycle with CC as typical.

I started and played completely for the fun. Didnt care about points, played silly, and lost alot.

I am more considered now. However my game numbers have gone from 40 or so to 20 tops and i find that boring. Whats more, i am happy to start a speed game to play. Problem with that so far is that with one or two exceptions i get cooks with 700 points joining. Therefore i have pretty much stopped starting games. In turn this reduces my enjoyment, in turn it reduces your desire to log on etc etc.

Now in relation to lower pointed people objecting, - well - i would say that in many ways this wouldnt really happen. In the same way that someone with 3000 points playing like pointed players they would win/lose about 15 points per player. The high rankers are actually LIVING with the problem you associate with lower rankers, who are NOT infact suffering so rigidly.

In regards to paying members - maybe as an incentive you could only give the option of putting a minimum rank to join button on PREMIUM members start game option. This would mean the high ranking freemiums would probably upgrade, with little to no impact on the lower echelons.

Also, lets be frank, most people would be reasonable. For example, i happily join games with people who have 1400 or 1600 points - i have 2000. Its the muppets with no points i object to!! -

PLEASE can we have a new and community encompassing, long overdue debate on this topic.

Regards

DD

[trapyoung]

i doubt they'll institute this, which i feel they should.. maybe make the option tier selection - ie, 1000, 1250, 1500, something larger that would not necessarily rule out that many people. i think a more likely alternative is a point floor that would help buffer some of the impact of playing "cook" games where you stand to lose 60+ points and only win 6. i think no matter how low a players' score is below cadet (1000) the formula for point calculation should use that as the lowest denominator when factoring scores in a loss. that would soften the blow slightly to a 40-50 point loss but trust me, any bit helps after you take a few 75+ hits. i wish a slightly higher score would be used if a point floor would be instituted but anything besides now seems fair where there's no option to prevent cooks from joining a speed 1v1 and you are playing for 6 points but putting up 60+ yourself - i find that ridiculous.

link for thread on my proposal.... viewtopic.php?f=4&p=1421126#p1421126

[Dangerous-Die]

A debate might end the debate - - if you know what i mean.

I have only just hit major, and i am protective.

More interestingly, look at the games that the top 100 players are in. THE VAST percentage are played WITHIN the top 100 players. This MUST be frustrating for them and also most importantly means that they are not playing lower rankers at all ANYWAY......

[ballenus]

what's heppening indeed when you have reached a certain level is that you are "invited" to games through PM. The option suggested by DD would only make it easier and more transparent than the current way...

[Dangerous-Die]

bump to prioritise

[Thezzaruz]

Also, lets be frank, most people would be reasonable.

Well that is one of the problems with this. People aren't even close to reasonable (if they where we'd still be able to surrender ) and every rule is used and abused.

lack seemed to have the idea of doing a restriction based on avg rating but that was before the rating system meant all 5's.

[Scott-Land]

A debate might end the debate - - if you know what i mean.

I have only just hit major, and i am protective.

More interestingly, look at the games that the top 100 players are in. THE VAST percentage are played WITHIN the top 100 players. This MUST be frustrating for them and also most importantly means that they are not playing lower rankers at all ANYWAY......

I recall you were in my games as a striper not too long ago-- now you're isolating low ranks because you're a major ?
Ohh how quickly we forget.....

[RashidJelzin]

The price we pay for power, is our very soul...
Or something along that line. Anyhow-- just to remind you DD-- a Major used to be Captain, not too long ago. And as prestigous as the swords may look like-- they only stand for 2000 points- you lose, you average at losing less than 20 points.
For what it's worth- check the Callouts section... lots of Private Games being offered only for certain ranks and up.

I had a hard time refraining from responding to your self- jubilation in the GD section, though.

[Joodoo]

I'm simply not a supporter of rank segregation...
So I say NO to this idea

[wenny]

i like the idea, as i hate losing to low rankers who dont understand and decide to play silly. We all have to learn somewhere i know but there is enough low rankers to play. i dont think you should be able to choose what level u will or wont let into a game, it should be half or your score either way and should be an option when creating a game, this would work as if u stop low rankers coming into the game u also stop higher ranking players aswell, lowering risk but also lowering the potential points won.

[FabledIntegral]

I agree with this suggestion - if you don't want to play with someone, you don't want to play with them. Simple as that. You're hosting the game, the specifications should be made towards YOUR likings, not everyone else's. Otherwise, they can host their own games. Ridiculous that a host should be forced to play with people they don't like, especially because people currently ALREADY get around this by dropping games and rehosting when people they don't want join.

CC has just made it a more tedious task than necessary, which is one of my largest complaints about this site.

[cicero]

I, the same as many of you, can see where the OP is coming from.
Equally, as others have said, this basic idea has been rejected before ... [link someone?]

To make this basic idea into a lack-attention-grabbing suggestion we need to refine it ...

[themxz]

I strongly support this idea.

If we're worried about less experienced players not being able to level up I could support limiting it to premium members (as a first choice option) and second choice option being only allowing a certain percentage of games to be played under the minimum rank flag.

The other similar option to minimum rank that would be nice is a rank range option so you don't get David vs. Goliath type matchups.

[sensfan]

i say NO

[wicked]

Concise description:

• On the Game Finder page, add options to select rank(s) for searches. This was previously brought up by Loudawg here, but he didn't use the form, so it didn't go anywhere.

Specifics:

• Add checkboxes with the rank insignia, with the allowance for multiple selections as the rest of the page is. Make sure to include the ? rank. This would pair nicely with the proposed Game Finder page redesigns, suggested by others in this forum.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Note this would not be used to exclude ranks from joining games, it's simply a means to find the ranks you want to play with more easily than scanning pages of search results.
• Would help those who prefer to play around their own rank, would also help those looking to improve their play by finding games with higher ranks.

[t-o-m]

if wicked says it it must be good.

[Androidz]

I love it:D

[porkenbeans]

Concise description:

• On the Game Finder page, add options to select rank(s) for searches. This was previously brought up by Loudawg here, but he didn't use the form, so it didn't go anywhere.

Specifics:

• Add checkboxes with the rank insignia, with the allowance for multiple selections as the rest of the page is. Make sure to include the ? rank. This would pair nicely with the proposed Game Finder page redesigns, suggested by others in this forum.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Note this would not be used to exclude ranks from joining games, it's simply a means to find the ranks you want to play with more easily than scanning pages of search results.
• Would help those who prefer to play around their own rank, would also help those looking to improve their play by finding games with higher ranks.

[FabledIntegral]

I agreee with this suggestion. If you're the host of the game you should be able to decide who you want to play with.

[scottp]

ABSOLUTELY! I'm surprised this isn't already an option in the game finder... or some plug-in...

[PLAYER57832]

I suspect someone is going to ask that this be expanded to a "not" option. (I am playing devil's advocate here, not an option I would use .. but I think its best to deal with both sides "up front").

That is, you can look for folks who are luietenant OR you can look for a game without any cooks (yet). Since this is just a search, it would not exclude anyone, would just make it easier.

The plus side is it might stem some of the complaints about playing with cooks.

The down side is it might give "legitimacy" to those who think cooks should be excluded.

Again, I am not sure that I would use either (the postive or negative search) option here. For one thing, unless the game is a 2 player (and there are rarely more than 1 page of those anyway) OR already filled, it won't tell you who is actually going to be in the game.

I think a better way to get this information is to allow a search based on the number of open spaces left in a game. If you find games with only 1 or 2 openings, then you do have a decent idea of how the ranks, etc. will "shake out". Since there are rarely that many games with just 1 opening, it will already be easy to search. This was already suggested in another thread, though.

[stlcard1521]

itd be nice but dont they usually shoot stuff like this down?

[wicked]

No, only stuff that promotes excluding certain ranks from joining games would be shot down, which is why I clarified this doesn't. lack just doesn't really go through this forum anymore to actually approve things, so it'll just sit like a lot of other good suggestions.

[Timminz]

This is a suggestion that pops up fairly regularly here. It has been rejected every previous time. I can't see Lack changing his mind about it now. As others have mentioned, there are threads in the Callouts forum for private games involving only people above certain scores. If you'd like to play against only people of similar rank, you should go check out that forum.

[gdeangel]

There was only one post by Lack on this... and it was pretty general at best. I quoted it once, but I can't find it now. The concern seemed to be that this would make it too difficult to gain points for new players, who may be skilled but simply start at 1000, which is somewhat below the median score I think. Anyway, its a fair concern; if done wrong, this could kill the ability to attract new players.

Imagine that you can limit that only Briggadiers can join your games. That would mean you would be cut off from challenge by most of the site, and even though people do that a bit now with PM's and private games, making that phenomenon public would not be good for morale. Every search would bring back tons of games that were "rank blocked" if you tried to play someone with a higher rank.

In order to preserve the "climb the ladder" model, I say staunchly that the way this needs to be implemented is in a tier system. And the cutoff point for any tier that someone can select has to be BELOW, but not too much below, their own current rank. i.e., colonels should not be able to limit to colonels, but only perhaps captains and higher. Captains should not be able to limit to captains, but perhaps sergeants and higher. anyone 1000 and below would not have the option to limit games for obvious reasons.

Perhaps since lack's original post was a while back, and now the site shows that it is creaking at the seams, maybe growing the player base should no longer be a top priority. I'd like to think it's still important though. I'll try to find lack's old post ...

Here we go... check the last one. It's from back in 2006.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=44446
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=41910
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=45203
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3119
There's a few. Learn how to search.