Conquer Club

It's stupid to limit you games and discriminate against players just because they're lower ranks. If you care so much about your points, then start a private, passworded game. This is supposed to be a fun gaming site, and limiting who can play you because you're so worried about points takes the fun out of it.

Jeff Hardy wrote:the gap between say... colonel and sergeant fc is HUGE
the user should be able to choose

If you think the range I suggested is too wide, then that is definitely worth considering ... what gap would you like? But, I am regularly both and play many of each, which is why I don't think there is much differance.

Kotaro wrote:It's stupid to limit you games and discriminate against players just because they're lower ranks. If you care so much about your points, then start a private, passworded game. This is supposed to be a fun gaming site, and limiting who can play you because you're so worried about points takes the fun out of it.

How about reading before you comment?

I specifically am NOT "against lower ranks". (I am one!) I will play anyone. My issue is that if I start a team game, I will find myself facing a team of majors and brigadiers. Once in a while ... OK, I can learn. But, every time ... I just don't join unfilled team games any more.

Also, the point is that higher ranks already do avoid playing lower ranked players. They do it by having private games. This would be an option that would open up a few more games to those who like. The regular options would still exist.

PLAYER57832 wrote:... point is that higher ranks already do avoid playing lower ranked players. They do it by having private games. This would be an option that would open up a few more games to those who like. The regular options would still exist.

I think that point is worth emphasising; this 'rank filter' or 'slot limit' as PLAYER describes it would actually open up more games to public competition since, at present, the only way those players that want it have of limiting entry to a game is to use the private game option which is a very blunt tool. This suggestion provides a much more subtle too which will be optional after all.

Why not have a ranking selector as one of the game options? That way people of various ranks could designate the ranks they are willing to play with. It's like I'm a beer league slowpitch softball player, and in the game comes this major league baseball player. This should not be happening.

I don't see the point??
If you want to choose the ranks you play with just join a game that already has the ranks you want or get premium, create private games and invite the ranks you want to your private game

Duplicate suggestion ...

[searching for the last time it was suggested now ...]

Cicero

Premise - Im a bit of a noob to CC, but the general consensus i get from reading these forums is the scoring system seems to piss people off, big time.


People create private games so as to avoid the possibility of a cook joining and taking lots of points from them, so why not let us create public games with a rank restriction?

Nothing too drastic, couldnt ban everyone of lower rank, but say, exclude anyone more than 3 ranks below you.
For example a sergent could exclude anyone below private first class from joining his game.

3 would be the max, couldnt exclude people 1 or 2 below you or no one of lower rank would get the chance to play better players.


We're allowed private games, dont see why this wouldnt be a good idea.

This thread duplicates the suggestion already being discussed in Optional Rank Criteria in order to Join. Please continue discussion in that thread.

Duplicate locked.

Cicero

Ok i like to play 1v1 but i was a captain and this moron joins my game and wins after I had the game basically cause of a cash of 3 cards I think.He was like a cadet and took so many points(46 to be exact) from me.I think there should be a thing so you can block like guys of a certain rank or lower from joining your game....please do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No.

huh?

No. Terrible idea that's been suggested many, many times. I imagine Circero will be along any minute now to give you a thread to discuss this in and to lock this one.

well I think its an awsome idea.Sorry about to many threads or whatever I didnt have time to look for a place to suggest this

Deathwind wrote:well I think its an awsome idea.Sorry about to many threads or whatever I didnt have time to look for a place to suggest this

Foe everyone below sergeant. I did it once to all cooks, but then I decided against it to be nice.

ya I actually try but there are so many of these noobs its too hard to get half of em

Or.....you could suck it up cupcake.
Win some lose some. If you lost to a n00b because you didn't plan for the eventuality of them getting a 3-card set, then maybe you should be the cadet.

Deathwind wrote:Ok i like to play 1v1 but i was a captain and this moron joins my game and wins after I had the game basically cause of a cash of 3 cards I think.

An escalating game? Who'd have ever thought of it? What a cheap shot victory, I mean, it's not like you had the game basically by using card sets, which is a cheap and unethical way to play. You played the honest and fair way. Yes, by all means, there should be a way to avoid playing people like that.

Deathwind wrote:I didnt have time to look for a place to suggest this

But you expect us to take the time to listen to your whining???

blocked the noob, deathwind right?

Pretty sure this has been and will be rejected.



Try using search or checking the To-Do List next time, it saves everyone the hassle

Whilst many people will dismiss this out of hand, I think some careful thought should be given to this suggestion.

At the time of writing I'm a Sargeant, and on quite a few occasions I've played Majors and Captains and beaten them - all down to a great drop and the run of the dice, and probably not through my own incredibly snazzy skill.

By the same token I've lost plenty against cooks, cadets and newbies - again, not because they're better than me but because of the reasons above.

Wouldn't it be a sound idea to give players the option of 'ticking a box' when setting up a game whether they'll allow lower ranked players to join their game ?

In the past, if a player set up say 10 2 x player games, feasibly 10 cooks could join, beat you 10 times and decimate your rating, all through crap die and dodgy drops - very unfair I think.

As players learn through practice and move up the ranks, they can continue playing games against people of their own rank.

Of course, if your a Major and confident of trouncing a cadet then you wouldn't tick the box when setting up a game.

Seems like a win win situation for everyone.

If you don't like the idea, then when setting up a game you leave it open for any rank to join. If you want to protect your rank, then you make sure you 'tick the box' allowing only players of equal rank to join the game, in much the same way as the tick boxes for Fog Of War, Spoils/No Spoils, Assassin games, etc.

There's a option for Private games, which in my opinion is an exclusion option, allowing players to pick and choose who they want to play against, so why not extend that and allow this idea ?


PLACE A CONCISE DESCRIPTION OF THE SUGGESTION OR BUG IN THE SUBJECT LINE!!!

The dice ARE random, lots and lots of analysis has been done on them both internally and by community members.

Search for previous suggestion or bug reports and check stickies before posting something "new".

Delete or replace any xxxxxxx with the appropriate information.
Delete any entires which do not apply.
</DELETE ME>

Concise description:

• xxxxxxx

Specifics:

• xxxxxxx

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• xxxxxxx (you can obviously delete this for bug reports)
• xxxxxxx

this seems to be a good idea to me. of course, you could also go the other way and have a box to disallow higher ranked players (if you are scared ).

fyi, i suspect this wont get very far if you dont use the official form.

Change the settings you are playing and you'll win more probably, unlimited on those maps you are playing is a big luck factor.

White Moose wrote:Change the settings you are playing and you'll win more probably, unlimited on those maps you are playing is a big luck factor.

I have brought up similar suggestions (most particularly and option for "slot limits".

I don't think the issue is so much winning or losing per se... it is playing folks who have similar skills. Granted, sometimes you can learn a lot by specifically playing better players, particularly if that player is the type who will take the time to explain things.

HOWEVER, we all like to at least feel we have a reasonably shot at winning a fair amount of the time. I am not sure anyone really gains from games that were obviously won purely by luck. It is a part of the whole "random" thing, sure, but it is one thing to lose a game to a cook because you skrewed up, or they were actually better (yep, it happens!). It is something else to drop down three or four ranks you worked hard to achieve SOLELY because of luck. Allowing some limits in level might help everyone and open up more play public games.

Neptune1 wrote:Whilst many people will dismiss this out of hand, I think some careful thought should be given to this suggestion.

Wouldn't it be a sound idea to give players the option

No it wouldn't, careful thought has been put into that idea several times (there are other posts with the same point being discussed this week too) and every time it have ended in a "rejected" afaik.