[GO] [Rules] Rank Restricted Games

[Dibbun]

My point is that it is already "segregated." Cooks really shouldn't be playing people who are ranked to high over them

Who the hell are you to say that? Not everyone is a point whore, some of us just want to play.

[TheForgivenOne]

If rank segregation really appears after introduction of such feature, wouldn't it confirm that such feature is in high demand? So why CC should reject implementing a feature which would be widely used? Shouldn't rank segregation be solved in other ways than simply rejecting rank restriction feature which would be supposedly in high demand?

Because this is lackattacks site, and he has already said he doesn't want this kind of Rank Segregation.

From the huge "Surrender" pile sitting in Rejected, should we implement it just based on people wanting it?

[mattattam]

If rank segregation really appears after introduction of such feature, wouldn't it confirm that such feature is in high demand? So why CC should reject implementing a feature which would be widely used? Shouldn't rank segregation be solved in other ways than simply rejecting rank restriction feature which would be supposedly in high demand?

Because this is lackattacks site, and he has already said he doesn't want this kind of Rank Segregation.

From the huge "Surrender" pile sitting in Rejected, should we implement it just based on people wanting it?

I understand the concern with excessively separating players so much by rank Forgiven. That makes sense. That's what made me think of the idea of limiting the games to 2 ranks above or bellow one's current rank, as opposed to say a colonol limiting a game to colonol's or above.

What do you think about this idea Forgiven? It could even be limited to 3 ranks above or bellow someones current rank.

[johncusac]

I like this idea! I think it would be a great option to add.

[greenoaks]

public games are open to the public. end of story.

if you want to decide who can join your games create private games. they allow you to restrict who joins your games to 1 rank above and below, or 2 or 3.

[mattattam]

public games are open to the public. end of story.

if you want to decide who can join your games create private games. they allow you to restrict who joins your games to 1 rank above and below, or 2 or 3.

Your thought is REJECTED!!! End of story

[mattattam]

I like this idea! I think it would be a great option to add.

I think so too!

[greenoaks]

public games are open to the public. end of story.

if you want to decide who can join your games create private games. they allow you to restrict who joins your games to 1 rank above and below, or 2 or 3.

Your thought is REJECTED!!! End of story

my thought has been implemented, probably before my thought existed, but hey, that is beside the point.

[mattattam]

It is besides the point. Stop trolling please!

[kabuki.mono]

I like this idea -but- as it has been said before that some lower ranked players play better and have better attitude than some high ranked players, and vice versa. So I'm kind of 50/50

[nvrijn]

I'm not a "point whore" (interesting term) but I agree with Herbas - "If rank segregation really appears after introduction of such feature, wouldn't it confirm that such feature is in high demand? So why CC should reject implementing a feature which would be widely used?"

I mean it's optional right? If it was mandatory, folks who disagree would be affected, and have valid objections. But how does giving a player who wants to start a game the option of limiting it to 2 ranks above and below him, dramatically change things for the worse for everyone else? Options are good.

In fact, this option is needed as a response to another option CC now offers, which did affect non-option users.

In my own case, I don't know too many other gamers, which restricts the use of private games for me, so the addition of "reserved" froze me out of many of the "all officer" games I had enjoyed before. For a casual gamer who enjoys competition but doesn't spend the time cultivating contacts, this new option would be a valuable addition ... allow me the same ability to somewhat restrict my opponents as the guys playing private games or reserving positions FOR THEIR OPPONENTS in public games have now.

And a range of 5 ranks is not exactly restrictive. - Thx

[TheForgivenOne]

I mean it's optional right? If it was mandatory, folks who disagree would be affected, and have valid objections. But how does giving a player who wants to start a game the option of limiting it to 2 ranks above and below him, dramatically change things for the worse for everyone else? Options are good.

Yes, but the admin's aren't going to start adding everything just because "Well hey, it's an option!" This site would be riddled with a ton of useless game settings and different things that don't get used, which take up space.

You seriously don't know how many times I have heard "Well, it's an option, you don't have to use it" as an excuse to implement something. It really get's annoying.

[stahrgazer]

Most people like the idea.

And yes, rank segregation exists; but it's not "sponsored" by the site. Because it "looks odd," for the site to sponsor it by coding to enable it more, they're not going to do it, even if it would make things easier for various ranks to avoid accusations of farming because they want to open 50 games on a given map and settings.

Politics, you see.

[nvrijn]

You seriously don't know how many times I have heard "Well, it's an option, you don't have to use it" as an excuse to implement something. It really get's annoying.

I can believe it. But that's how most new ideas get implemented right? I can't think of the last "mandatory" change in the rules I've seen.

I agree with you that if the excuse to implement something is primarily

I think it could be useful and you could make it optional

, then that is a good reason to just say no.

But if the idea has merit ... if it can be shown to add demonstrated value for a significant number of players, that's a rather different case. It's a high barrier ... I think this suggestion meets it for the reasons stated.

Thanks,
Nvrijn

[Papaj]

I think this is a good idea for implementing it.
There should be the 3rd game type besides public and private.
That rank limited game type may be named just as rank limited.
The game is based not only on a strategy but also on a luck and there should be an option to avoid losing so many score points by high ranked players.

[SirSebstar]

This is a bad idea. Rank segregation is a nono in suggestions and rightly denied. If you want to pick your ranks, play password protected games.

[majorheadache876]

Perhaps adding a new sort of "ranking system" to the games (if you CC mods have enough time on your hands) will give the cooks an easier battle; thus giving them a chance to play against other cooks, and perhaps cadets if they so choose, as opposed to being slaughtered by majors who have played thousands of games, and understand maps like the back of their hands.

" www.pogo.com " allows chess players, risk players, and other gamers a chance to have a ranking system; similar to the points and ranking system on CC.
If players on pogo suggest "play rated game" they will start at, say, 1000 points: only players who have within 900 points (from losing so many games) or 1100 points (from winning x amount) will be able to play against the person with 1000.

I know. I am not yet an inventor yet, because I'm only 4 years old. But thanks for the compliments...

[Metsfanmax]

MERGING with similar suggestions.

[Woodruff]

Let's just make certain that we don't allow real discussion of the idea by trying to bury it in the rejected pile, because we cannot possibly allow a functionality that has widespread support to happen. One time a long time ago, lackattack decided he didn't want this, so we will simply continue to parrot that line unthinkingly, never mention it to him again, and not bother to try to get the poor unaware bastard to consider changing his mind. That is a brilliant piece of customer service right there, I'll tell you...brilliant! I can see why you guys are SUGGESTIONS MODERATORS. You must've passed the "sky is blue because lackattack said it was" test.

[JoshyBoy]

Let's just make certain that we don't allow real discussion of the idea by trying to bury it in the rejected pile, because we cannot possibly allow a functionality that has widespread support to happen. One time a long time ago, lackattack decided he didn't want this, so we will simply continue to parrot that line unthinkingly, never mention it to him again, and not bother to try to get the poor unaware bastard to consider changing his mind. That is a brilliant piece of customer service right there, I'll tell you...brilliant! I can see why you guys are SUGGESTIONS MODERATORS. You must've passed the "sky is blue because lackattack said it was" test.

Stop giving the Suggs mods a hard time Woody, there's a good chap.

[Metsfanmax]

Let's just make certain that we don't allow real discussion of the idea by trying to bury it in the rejected pile, because we cannot possibly allow a functionality that has widespread support to happen. One time a long time ago, lackattack decided he didn't want this, so we will simply continue to parrot that line unthinkingly, never mention it to him again, and not bother to try to get the poor unaware bastard to consider changing his mind. That is a brilliant piece of customer service right there, I'll tell you...brilliant! I can see why you guys are SUGGESTIONS MODERATORS. You must've passed the "sky is blue because lackattack said it was" test.

If you would like to spend your time trying to convince him to change his mind on this, you are welcome to, but as long as it is his position, we are going to spend our time focusing on the Suggestions which are likely to get implemented, if any. There's already like 40 things sitting in Suggested. It makes no sense to spend our time arguing for the one thing he specifically said no to.

[georgizhukov]

I am so sick of playing chefs, why has CC not put the option to only allow certain ranks into a game?

[Timminz]

Ratings and rank are two separate things.

[rdsrds2120]

CC has never liked the idea of restricting who others can play, or at least that's what I've concluded from the various rejected suggestions in the Suggs forum. However, you may want to look at our Calloutssection for threads with links to games that assume a standard rank (2000, 2500, and 3000+ points, for example). If you want, post in a applicable thread and find someone with games to join. Hopefully, this will help solve your problem.

-rd

[jammyjames]

Concise description:

• Allow restrictions on rank when starting a game
• Make Pelo war classified as a difficult map

Specifics/Details:

• Implement the addition for a minimum score to be established when creating a game, this will enable high ranked players such as myself not be listed as farmers as they can choose the level of competition they desire.
  
• Add peloponnesian war to the 'difficult' maps list. I enjoy playing 5 man freestyle games on that map and all i seem to get is a bunch of new recruits joining. The Rank restriction would allow me to continue playing this map and setting without the worry of the "farming" accusation that flies around.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• Create less farming NR's thread's in the C&A forum
• Enable NR's a better first game experience... (they won't know what a conquest map is)