[GO] [Rules] Rank Restricted Games

[nietzsche]

Concise description:
Option to select which Ranks can enter your Speed Game

Specifics/Details:
Select by Minimum rank and Maximum rank.

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

I believe one of the reasons for the decline in the number of speed games available at most times of the day is due to the fact that high ranked players who play mostly casual have been bitten in the ass in the past, losing to lowed ranked players.

I'm aware this has been discussed in the past, but imagine this: Lots of high ranked players wishing to play a 1vs1, waiting behind the fence to join a speed game, but no one wants to start a game because it will be joined by player that has skill but has a low rank at the moment.

If you could put those high ranks behind the fence to play together, whats the harm? The "shoutbox" suggestion was not implemented either, it could serve the purpose also.

This could also serve low ranks, who feel comfortable in games playing with guys with the same skill.


Before you reject and archive this, give it a little bit of thought, not everybody thinks like you you know.

And look at speed games, look at how many games high rank start and play, but discount the freestylers, they don't care about rank, they are all about the speed.

[rhp 1]

dumb....

back to the drawing board... though I think it's adorable people actually care about points...

[nietzsche]

dumb....

back to the drawing board... though I think it's adorable people actually care about points...

Hey asshole, you have me foed why you keep reading my posts?

Go back to your clan of teens, they actually buy your attempt of alpha male imitation, I'm not impressed at all.

I apologized 2 times for making marpesia make fun of you that day, as I said many times it was not my intention, how the f*ck would I have known you were a puppy using big words. So if you didn't accept my apology there's nothing else I can do, so I suggest you keep me foed and don't interact with me at all.

Now that marp is banned I really don't fucking care about being nice to you, grow up, nobody with self respect buys your bullshit.

[rhp 1]

dumb....

back to the drawing board... though I think it's adorable people actually care about points...

Hey asshole, you have me foed why you keep reading my posts?

Go back to your clan of teens, they actually buy your attempt of alpha male imitation, I'm not impressed at all.

I apologized 2 times for making marpesia make fun of you that day, as I said many times it was not my intention, how the f*ck would I have known you were a puppy using big words. So if you didn't accept my apology there's nothing else I can do, so I suggest you keep me foed and don't interact with me at all.

Now that marp is banned I really don't fucking care about being nice to you, grow up, nobody with self respect buys your bullshit.

LOL... you're so adorable (trying to) make this personal... your suggestion was lame in my opinion, get over it... if you think somehow it was a personal attack, that's your problem.... as far as the rest of your rhetoric? old news, and news I didn't really care about to begin with, your humor just isn't funny, sorry about that... and having you on foe doesn't mean I don't enjoy reading your posts... as a matter of fact, I like that I can have you foed and still click to see what you wrote...
and "clan of teens"? ahh... ok? and I'm sure you realize that "impressing" you is not on any agenda I have... take care... save the hostility for someone that might react to it in a way that would would satisfy you... if you don't like me, that's totally fine by me, I couldn't care less, but because I don't agree with a suggestion you make doesn't mean I'm attacking you... ego much? if you come up with something that makes sense, I'll be the first one in line to say "nice job"... I don't take on-line gaming site suggestions to heart...

[nietzsche]

dumb....

back to the drawing board... though I think it's adorable people actually care about points...

Hey asshole, you have me foed why you keep reading my posts?

Go back to your clan of teens, they actually buy your attempt of alpha male imitation, I'm not impressed at all.

I apologized 2 times for making marpesia make fun of you that day, as I said many times it was not my intention, how the f*ck would I have known you were a puppy using big words. So if you didn't accept my apology there's nothing else I can do, so I suggest you keep me foed and don't interact with me at all.

Now that marp is banned I really don't fucking care about being nice to you, grow up, nobody with self respect buys your bullshit.

LOL... you're so adorable (trying to) make this personal... your suggestion was lame in my opinion, get over it... if you think somehow it was a personal attack, that's your problem.... as far as the rest of your rhetoric? old news, and news I didn't really care about to begin with, your humor just isn't funny, sorry about that... and having you on foe doesn't mean I don't enjoy reading your posts... as a matter of fact, I like that I can have you foed and still click to see what you wrote...
and "clan of teens"? ahh... ok? and I'm sure you realize that "impressing" you is not on any agenda I have... take care... save the hostility for someone that might react to it in a way that would would satisfy you... if you don't like me, that's totally fine by me, I couldn't care less, but because I don't agree with a suggestion you make doesn't mean I'm attacking you... ego much? if you come up with something that makes sense, I'll be the first one in line to say "nice job"... I don't take on-line gaming site suggestions to heart...

WUT? Now you are making up stuff?

That's dumb even for you, at least you shouldn't have made me look that awesome with that post lol.

Ok, foed.

[Metsfanmax]

Locking this topic for a little while so you two can cool down.

[blakebowling]

Locking this topic for a little while so you two can cool down.

I've taken care of it.

Unlocked.

[codierose]

love it +1 for me.
but you might find 4+ player games will never fill but i might be wrong.

[georgizhukov]

I am for a rating restriction of some sort. Why should players who pay to play the game have to endure new recruits who are playing for free and don't even know the rules.

[betiko]

How many suggestions is it going to take to make the admin change his mind? Also we have a new admin, has it even been asked again?

[spiesr]

MERGED:

• Ratings Lock to Join Games?
• Setting to not allow low ratings to join

[xroads]

[how about having a button on the game start menu that limits joining players by score. It could be as simple as limiting them to 250 points higher or lower]
PLACE THE NAME OF THE SUGGESTION IN THE SUBJECT LINE!

Things to remember when posting a new suggestion are that the dice are random, and that lots of analysis has been done on them both internally and public by community members. Also, please take time to search for previous similar suggestions and, if possible, to check current and archived threads before posting something "new". Delete the xxxxxxx, and substitute your text.

Any questions, contact one of the Suggestions Moderators.
[/Delete Me]


Concise description:

• xxxxxxx

Specifics/Details:

• xxxxxxx

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

• xxxxxxx

[JamesKer1]

Already Suggested, Modified, and Rejected.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=704&t=274

[spiesr]

MERGED: Ability to limit joining players by score

[chapcrap]

This suggestion will no longer be considered rejected. I have updated the OP with a few words and MOVED this out of rejected.

[agentcom]

... very interesting

[ViperOverLord]

Allow point minimums on joining games

This needs to be done already. Do you know why you rarely see stars, birds, and colonels creating a 1v1 game and instead are constantly going through their multiplayer underground networks? Cos CC has not added this painfully obviously needed function that has been suggested countless times. But, with a new admin who is more open minded; hopefully this can get some real traction now.

Specifics/Details:

Players can create minimum points for players joining: Suggested mins for 1v1 games (Players have to have the min score to request a game with a player of the min score):

1600
1800
2000
2500
3000

Similar designs could be used for team games too.

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

* People will stop foe'ing players just because they're at a low score and are joining their games. Yes, the current system is not only encouraging a backward exclusivity; it is leading to undue animosities daily!
* Players will be able to more fluidly reach point destinations via the 1v1 games.
* Players who play 1v1 games can continue to play 1v1 games against qualified opponents and keep their rank moving higher without undue duress and then fairly sustain or build upon their rank. The way it is now, players rarely reach brig and general through 1v1 games and then they never sustain them though the same means for long.
* Building off the prior point, players can continue to play 1v1 games and won't have to switch to team games or multiplayer games (often through the underground system) as a means to keep their ranks.
* Lower rank players can have ladders to shoot for themselves. They will also have to earn their games with higher ranked players (generally speaking) and that is a satisfying experience; not an off-putting experience as has been alleged.
* No more point crashing! A colonel can lose about 60 points and then have to win three to five games in a row just to recover. Players who play players on the same plateau can more fluidly advance along the ranks.
* Much more 1v1 players in the brig/general/even conqueror ranks. Right now, due to the lack of point minimums; the top rankings are almost exclusively a function of multiplayer and team games.
* One will not have to go through the extraneous (even laborious) underground networks and can happily use the public gaming system while advancing his/her rank.

[spiesr]

MERGED: Point minimums for joining games

[betiko]

Sounds great if this moves forward!

[ViperOverLord]

MERGED: Ability to limit joining players by score

I'm not happy about having the idea merged with 'rank segregation.' (But, I reckon I'll get over it.) I had concise and cogent points that I would have preferred to have discussed with my OP starting point.

Furthermore, this thread is 60 pages long (and that's without a sticky). You'd think at some point CC would implement what the players are pressing for. This is done on other gaming sites and to the the satisfaction of the general population.

[spiesr]

I'm not happy about having the idea merged with 'rank segregation.' (But, I reckon I'll get over it.) I had concise and cogent points that I would have preferred to have discussed with my OP starting point.

Is your suggestion substantially different than the one in this thread? Suggestions Forum policy is that all discussion of the same idea should be in the same thread.

Furthermore, this thread is 60 pages long (and that's without a sticky). You'd think at some point CC would implement what the players are pressing for. This is done on other gaming sites and to the the satisfaction of the general population.

It was rejected by direct admin veto for years, until the new ownership indicated that they would be willing to potentially reconsider it.

[JamesKer1]

Speaking as a player who has been about as low as you can get (I think my lowest was like 500 points?) up to a captain (which still sadly isn't that good, but decently high), I personally don't agree with this. You can always go through the scoreboard if you want and find some nice opponents, and I know there are mailing lists and callouts available for certain games. There are alternate avenues available for this suggestion, they just require a little more work. And maybe that's part of the problem too, it takes more time/work than it should, and some people don't want to invest it (which is understandable). But, if you care about the points enough, then invest the time to take those avenues. I understand the frustration- I joined a game as a Corp 1st, and worked my way up to Capt before it ended- I lost 80 points that game, and it was miserable. Even then I still didn't think it was a good idea though.

Another thing about this that bothers me is the lack of games for new recruits and lower ranked players- they are part of the general population too right? It feels like a lot of games would disappear for their enjoyment and they would be stuck with just a few people still hanging at the bottom. A lot of this thread is mainly Captains and above supporting this, but what about the paying cooks and cadets? Keep in mind their $25 is worth as much as yours, so CC needs to keep them happy as well. I'm not saying to give them all the power, but do give them some, and remember that the majors and colonels are their way to come back up from the pit they are in.

I think that if implemented right this would work, but I also think it might be a bit of a waste of time if other things were improved on as alternatives, such as creating "Leagues" in the form of Usergroups and giving them Game Privileges (like TDs get).

[betiko]

New recruits don t have access to complicated maps and high ranked players, so moot point.
This is a game option, not something that would work all the time. If at a certain point i want to create public games and i don t want people bellow 2000 to join well that s my problem.
If you want to join games with higher ranked, well i see there a good motivation for you to increase your score.

[agentcom]

MERGED: Ability to limit joining players by score

I'm not happy about having the idea merged with 'rank segregation.' (But, I reckon I'll get over it.) I had concise and cogent points that I would have preferred to have discussed with my OP starting point.

Furthermore, this thread is 60 pages long (and that's without a sticky). You'd think at some point CC would implement what the players are pressing for. This is done on other gaming sites and to the the satisfaction of the general population.

You know what, VOL? I think that may be my bad. I think I changed the topic title to that a very long time ago because the word is just about spot on for descriptive purposes. But I do see the pejorativeness of the term as well. Perhaps the title should be set back to something like "Allow users to restrict games by points" or (I'm sure) something better than that.

As for the suggestion, I think I've drunk the CC Kool Aid on this one. I think I've posted in favor of this idea before, but I like the tradition of generally discouraging these sorts of limitations. I've got a decent rank now, but I got here by playing much better players pretty much from the start. For the same reasons that I dislike playing lower ranks now, I loved to play higher ranks when I first joined. In addition to meaning more points for me, I also got to play skilled opponents and sort of learn the "right way" to play.

[ViperOverLord]

I'm not happy about having the idea merged with 'rank segregation.' (But, I reckon I'll get over it.) I had concise and cogent points that I would have preferred to have discussed with my OP starting point.

Is your suggestion substantially different than the one in this thread? Suggestions Forum policy is that all discussion of the same idea should be in the same thread.

Furthermore, this thread is 60 pages long (and that's without a sticky). You'd think at some point CC would implement what the players are pressing for. This is done on other gaming sites and to the the satisfaction of the general population.

It was rejected by direct admin veto for years, until the new ownership indicated that they would be willing to potentially reconsider it.

I'm fairly knowledgeable about admin's past decisions regarding this matter. But, I don't think the majority of (stalwart) players agree with having to go underground to get the point ramifications they desire. Again, admin should go play yahoo hearts for two months and see just how beautifully this system works. Because it is absolutely marvelous.

You know what, VOL? I think that may be my bad. I think I changed the topic title to that a very long time ago because the word is just about spot on for descriptive purposes. But I do see the pejorativeness of the term as well. Perhaps the title should be set back to something like "Allow users to restrict games by points" or (I'm sure) something better than that.

As for the suggestion, I think I've drunk the CC Kool Aid on this one. I think I've posted in favor of this idea before, but I like the tradition of generally discouraging these sorts of limitations. I've got a decent rank now, but I got here by playing much better players pretty much from the start. For the same reasons that I dislike playing lower ranks now, I loved to play higher ranks when I first joined. In addition to meaning more points for me, I also got to play skilled opponents and sort of learn the "right way" to play.

Yes. Point minimums is not absolute point segregation. Many players still prefer a mix of players (especially players who want to keep their win percentage high).

And, the system I advocate allows players to reach ranks in a fairly quick manner too. One doesn't have to get the extra 10-20 points (or more) from a colonel to get to the rank. And how fair is it to the colonel to suddently take a 40-50 hit against a quality opponent? I know that when my rank has slipped (or even where I am now), I've tended to not play more than 200-300 points up against players as a courtesy. Unfortunately, not all skilled players grant that courtesy.

And to demonstrate my earlier point about silly foeing further; let me just show you this pm exchange I got tonight:

ya medal hunting? wanted to join your poly game arms race

Yea, you're not a foe. Frankly, you might be the salt of the earth. I was point hunting though and I agree that captain isn't that low. But, I don't like handicapping the 10 points or whatever it comes out to against an equal opponent. This is why I keep telling CC to allow point minimums.

dude look at my range and current score. at the bottom of my range, i'd cost you 2 points over 20? at the top you'd cost me a lot

if you wanna play the numbers that close, fine.

I haven't looked lately at the differentials. I know I was in the 2200s and you were in the 1800s last time and it was 24 point hit, and I probably would have gotten what 16 or 18 for a win? That means I have to win 6 of 10 and more like 7 of 10 to really be worth it? Just so you know, this is why I tend to not play more than 200-300 points up on a player. Sometimes, I take some liberties Major to Colonel though. Cos a Colonel playing a public game is just asking for whatever comes his way. But, Major is the middle space. And that's why when I'm captain or less, I go for 300 or less differential, like I said. You have indicated that you don't care about such things. If you don't care, then how am I not going to foe you?

This is what I'm talking about CC. Do the point mins and stop us having to do this lame foe'ing crap! Then foe'ing would mostly just be a function against suiciders of multi-player games.

^^^
BTW, does the above exchange seem slightly petty? It does. But, CC's system inherently makes us petty and fosters animosity! This is the thing that CC is allegedly against with their current system.