[GO] [Rules] Rank Restricted Games

[Stephan Wayne]

even i know this has been done a million times

[Rekatan]

I host a lot of speed games and rarely have a 4.4> player that sticks out the game. It either ends with a suicide or a deadbeat. If not that then the player is simply unpleasant to play with.

It'd be very helpful if we could set some parameters as hosts for who is and isn't allowed to play in a game based on rating.

This would not only provide more enjoyable games but also would give more weight to the rating system as a whole, and consequently improve many player's attitude towards the game as they strive to avoid a low rating.

[letitrock]

Request to Add game finder (search) option with the average scores of the players in the game

Specifics:
I saw the recent changes (updates) in game finder that now you can search the games with the participant user. That is very good but what I would like to suggest is

Some kind of search functionality that find the average score of the users currently in the game.

So for example, it is a 4 player game and there are currently 2 players with scores 1000 and 500, the average score will be ( 1000 + 500) / 2 = 750 points.

And, if I put the search criteria to search the games with average points between 700 and 1000 points (for example), that particular game will show up ( because it point is 750 ).

What do you guys think?

[gundiesalvo]

This would be nice.

[The Neon Peon]

I personally just look through the games by hand and do not join if the average rank is under captain at least. But it would be helpful.

Still leads to too much rank segregation.

[Fireside Poet]

I second this.

[The Neon Peon]

I think this is a good idea, but what about the people with only a few ratings? Isn't it kind of unfair if you run into one of those people who leaves all 1s and maybe a couple of them to have a 4.4 rating?

[Fireside Poet]

There could be a base number built in, such as ratings with players who have played 50 games or something like that - not sure where the boundary would be, but this would be a great way to have the ratings actually have some sort of cause and effect... I have a 3.8 cook in a speed game right now that has already deadbeated out and if there was a way to weed out someone like that, I'd be all for it.

[Artimis]

I like it, I also second this suggestion.

Perhaps it will also encourage good players with bad attitudes to mend their ways if they thought their lack of manners and etiquette would have consequences for their eligibility to join ratings restricted games........

[aliakber1001]

i agree. when is this shit going to take place?
every time i join a game. some retard with a 4.1 or 4 rating joins on my team and then acts like a retard.
i am sick of this shit. fix this crappy sytem
oh and limiting games by rank wouldnt be a bad idea also. i am sick of cooks and privates joining on my team

[Jeff Hardy]

Concise description:

• a way of adding everyone of a certain rank to foe list, or at least making them unable to join

Specifics:

• you can type in the rank that should be foed rather than the names of the players

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• people like porkenbeans and farang demon cant bitch at innocent high ranks for having a low relative rank
• low ranks can choose to play other low ranks by adding high ranks to the list

[Kotaro]

Terrible idea.

I lost to a cook a few weeks ago. Played him again yesterday; he was almost above a Captain.

Rank doesn't mean squat.

[Jeff Hardy]

Terrible idea.

I lost to a cook a few weeks ago. Played him again yesterday; he was almost above a Captain.

Rank doesn't mean squat.

so why do i get bitched at dayly because i set up games where anyone can join?

[Kotaro]

Because you have people that think this site should be more "fair". Where the dice should play no part and it should be 100% skill. Which is not ConquerClub (almost typed in RISK )

Ignore their bitching. The Foe list is your friend.

[jackin_u_up]

Another option would be to open up ready rooms a.k.a. game lounges based on ranks of the players.
It would be a safe place for players of their own rank to organize and join games.
Access to the games would only be allowed by those who fit into the ranking parameters.Much like the officers club or sgt.'s club etc..
All newbies would be allowed to only join games in these rooms til they either gain a certain rank thus keeping safe from the farmers.
Higher ranked players don't have to worry about who joins their games.
Not all games would have to be made in these ready rooms but it could assure that higher ranked players could not join them because they would not have access to these rooms.

[para]

Because you have people that think this site should be more "fair". Where the dice should play no part and it should be 100% skill. Which is not ConquerClub (almost typed in RISK )

Ignore their bitching. The Foe list is your friend.

are you saying you dont care for skill?


and i think everyone realizes 100% skill is unrealistic.

[jtrydz]

Why not let players creating games determine a minimum level (Number or rank) to join the game? As a 2400 point major, I am sick of creating games and seeing them fill up with cooks, cadets, and privates. These players have little grasp of appropriate strategy and often times ruin the game blindly attacking for no apparent reason. Additionally, many lower level players have admitted to a strategy whereby they specifically target the higher ranked players, irrelevant of the current game status. The theory goes that if they lose to a player of similar stature, they don't lose a ton of points... but if they win, they gain a lot more points by having beaten the higher ranked player - so all low ranked players should immediately try and take out the higher ranked players. This strategy is unfair to the higher ranked players, yet I see it employed often.

Why can't I setup a game that you need to be a Sergeant or above to join? Surely this additional modification would not require intense code changes and it would offer encouragement for players to reach higher skill levels while allowing those at the higher skill levels to compete with players of like ability. Certainly you could add criteria that the highest rank you can specify is at, or just below your own level...

[killmanic]

Just make private games and invite the people you want to join. In addition in the callouts forum there are threads for games for people with 1800+, 2000+, 2500+ and perhaps a few others also, if you want games with people your rank this is one way to get them.

[Artimis]

Why can't I setup a game that you need to be a Sergeant or above to join? Surely this additional modification would not require intense code changes and it would offer encouragement for players to reach higher skill levels while allowing those at the higher skill levels to compete with players of like ability. Certainly you could add criteria that the highest rank you can specify is at, or just below your own level...

...and encourage even more elitist points snobbery than we already have, no thank you. As per killmanics reply, private games are the way to go if you want to restrict who joins your games.

[owenshooter]

Why can't I setup a game that you need to be a Sergeant or above to join? Surely this additional modification would not require intense code changes and it would offer encouragement for players to reach higher skill levels while allowing those at the higher skill levels to compete with players of like ability. Certainly you could add criteria that the highest rank you can specify is at, or just below your own level...

...and encourage even more elitist points snobbery than we already have, no thank you. As per killmanics reply, private games are the way to go if you want to restrict who joins your games.

private games and/or games in callouts that have rank and/or point requirements...-0

[mccallan25]

Great idea! Once again posted. Look at my games over the last 3 months. After having pissed off someone two weeks ago I get noobs that join one game, never take a turn and ruin the speed of the game. Of course they always join with in secs/minutes of each other. They get foed but still doesn't keep him from doing in every game I have going.

It needs to be an option. If you don't like the option don't join the game.

[obliterationX]

Would be great for me (and I'm sure many others), but then again I doubt it would be implemented since cooks would find themselves unable to join any games!

[Artimis]

Nice in theory, crap in practice. It'll just make it oh so much easier for the hardcore farmers if they could mass foe everyone above Private. At least with the current arrangement they can only foe by typing in names in the manage foes page or by clicking the Add Foe link on a profile. It's labour intensive for them to foe the first 40 or so pages of the scoreboard at current, lets not make it any easier for them, ok?

[jtrydz]

...and encourage even more elitist points snobbery than we already have, no thank you.

What are you talking about? It's not elitist, it's that some people know how to play the game, others are idiots. Most of the lower ranking players who have played hundreds of games yet remain cooks and cadets simply don't "get it" and as such, ruin a lot of the fun for the rest of us. Do you think it's luck that the high ranking players get that high?

[killmanic]

...and encourage even more elitist points snobbery than we already have, no thank you.

What are you talking about? It's not elitist, it's that some people know how to play the game, others are idiots. Most of the lower ranking players who have played hundreds of games yet remain cooks and cadets simply don't "get it" and as such, ruin a lot of the fun for the rest of us. Do you think it's luck that the high ranking players get that high?

Wow that is very elitist answer. I know some people who are low ranked and great players, and know higher ranked players who really suck at the game. Rank means nothing, I have seen people be brigs one day and cooks the next, so are they really bad at the game or did they want to lower their rank? Also i have seen a someone who plays with less skill then 99.9% of the people on the site, and yet they learned how to play 1 type of map with certain settings and got up to brig, and yet now that they need to play new settings their score has been in a freefall. So is the one player who really isnt a good player better then the person with a low score who is normally very good?