[GO] [Rules] Rank Restricted Games

[Thezzaruz]

I'm not sure why so many of you are assuming a rank option would be mandatory given how many other optional game settings CC has.

Oh I don't assume it would be mandatory, in fact I have stated that I can't ever imagine it being that. However AndrewB stated that he wanted it to be a mandatory barrier and hence I have discussed that view when responding to him.

[Woodruff]

I'm not sure why so many of you are assuming a rank option would be mandatory given how many other optional game settings CC has.

What you say is true, however...we're discussing the suggestion as presented (which was not that it would be optional).

[Vermont]

I'm not sure why so many of you are assuming a rank option would be mandatory given how many other optional game settings CC has.

What you say is true, however...we're discussing the suggestion as presented (which was not that it would be optional).

Ah, ok. Should I then post in a separate thread? I do not want to clutter this one up anymore than I already have.

[Woodruff]

I'm not sure why so many of you are assuming a rank option would be mandatory given how many other optional game settings CC has.

What you say is true, however...we're discussing the suggestion as presented (which was not that it would be optional).

Ah, ok. Should I then post in a separate thread? I do not want to clutter this one up anymore than I already have.

I don't think that's necessary (personally...I don't know what anyone else thinks). As long as you're clear about the aspect or difference that you're discussing (in this case, it being optional), I don't think it's "clutter" at all...perhaps it is focus.

[Thezzaruz]

What you say is true, however...we're discussing the suggestion as presented (which was not that it would be optional).

Actually the OP said "optional" but as he disappeared and AndrewB showed up saying "mandatory" the focus has somewhat changed. Either way I would keep both in the same thread as they are just small variations on the same suggestion. Just be clear and it should be no problem for us.

[Sun Su]

It would be nice to filter the players by their level...... this is so irrational, you've got suicid players, players that help others to win, they miss their turns, they win by pure irrational luck and you lose 100 pts........ I was 6pts away from the swords.... played a few newbies, had bad dice and played a few more newbies... I'm now Sergeant 1st Class..... it's like you kill 5 of'em, you lose twice and you're in for a good -150 pts !

I've got this feeling it's like the casino : the house always win.

We need to filter those suckers !

[Vermont]

I have suggested elsewhere that there should be two new features in Start a Game:
- Minimum Rank
- Maximum Rank

These would of course be optional, but would allow new players to play only other new players if they want, or higher ranked players to play each other without having to somehow learn to check the forum, learn a password, and hope that one of the the few other players that use this method is around. (Yes, it's that clunky currently.)

It would let more public games to be created and searched on and simplify the process.

[squishyg]

I think the concern with this suggestion is that new players would be frustrated by the lack of games they would be allowed to play if such a filter was put in place. If new players don't join, new premium accounts don't get purchased.

[Vermont]

At this point how often do high ranking players create public (non-team) games anyway? Many have to go through the clunky process I've mentioned already to find a game. This may not be a problem with slow games, but it definitely is for speed games. Try doing a search for speed games at different times of day for a few days and you'll see what I mean.

With a feature like this, you would still have games new players can't join, but at least now the high level players wouldn't have to jump through hoops (assuming they've even discovered in the forum that there's a secret (as in not part of the provided UI) way to play with other people your own rank.

[neanderpaul14]

It would be nice to filter the players by their level...... this is so irrational, you've got suicid players, players that help others to win, they miss their turns, they win by pure irrational luck and you lose 100 pts........ I was 6pts away from the swords.... played a few newbies, had bad dice and played a few more newbies... I'm now Sergeant 1st Class..... it's like you kill 5 of'em, you lose twice and you're in for a good -150 pts !

I've got this feeling it's like the casino : the house always win.

We need to filter those suckers !

You might wanna check out this thread in callouts section:
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=33055

It's for sergeants and up to create private games amongst each other, and as you climb in the ranks there are other similar threads for various ranks.

Simply go to thread and request the password, then play some private games.

[Rustovitch]

I am basically a newbie myself, but as I just lost a game due to a complete idiot of a sucidal cook who constantly attacked me over and above the main threat to him I can understand this.

[Artimis]

It would be nice to filter the players by their level...... this is so irrational, you've got suicid players, players that help others to win, they miss their turns, they win by pure irrational luck and you lose 100 pts........ I was 6pts away from the swords.... played a few newbies, had bad dice and played a few more newbies... I'm now Sergeant 1st Class..... it's like you kill 5 of'em, you lose twice and you're in for a good -150 pts !

I've got this feeling it's like the casino : the house always win.

We need to filter those suckers !

Four things you need to consider before posting:

• SEARCH! First off, search. Search! Search, search, search, SEARCH! This has been suggested so many times already, it's also been rejected because it would not improve the gaming experience of the majority, in fact it would improve the gaming experience of the minority at the expense of the majority. So this will never happen, ever! You would be aware of this if you had just searched the forum even once.
  
  
• Use the form, noob! Rather than just impatiently deleting the text that appeared in your post typing box, how about you read it and shape your suggestions or bug reports accordingly so that it's easier for the Sug & Bugs mod to process? I'm certain Sully800 would apprciate you making the effort also.
  
  
• Private games. Thirdly, as has already been mentioned, you can make private games and invite only those players that you deem skilled or otherwise qualified enough to join your games. No more irrational suiciders, problem solved.
  
  
• Even you were new once And finally, everyone's got to start somewhere, if you start to segregate users according to rank then you end up with a points aristocracy that imposes a glass ceiling on all new comers regardless of skill. This doesn't benefit the community in any way, shape or form

There you go, all the answers you could want and more, don't say I didn't give you anything.....

[redhawk92]

this has been suggested before

[Vermont]

Concise description:

• Add two additional options to the 'Start a Game' screen; one for minimum rank and one for maximum rank.

Specifics:

• Here is a screenshot:
  
• Values would be set to every so many hundred points. Maybe every 300 or 500, or bigger ranges as scores increase. This particular aspect is debatable for optimal settings.
• A player would not have the option to set a min rank higher than their own or a max rank lower than their own. (Those options would not be part of the drop down list).
• This is a reasonably easy code change.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Players of various levels could actually start games for each other. Currently, they need to somehow learn there is a specific forum thread, learn a secret password, and hope someone has started a game. They can start one themselves but then it is only open to other players who are aware of this artificial, clunky, non-obvious process. What compelling reason is there to make people jump through these hoops? They are in effect going through these manual steps to play games with people somewhat near their rank.
• This would reduce farming accusations for the higher ranked players that want to add a public game.
• New players would be able to play other games against only other new players, if they prefer.
• Players would meet more new players. As it is, many players only play against other players that are aware of the special process for playing people your own level.
• Both settings are optional so you still keep all existing games the way they are.
• Game finder actually becomes useful again for these types of games. I can't tell you how often speed games are searched on and there is nothing from players other than the lowest ranks, since all the others are being done privately (since an option like this does not exist.)

Note:

• I am aware that similar ideas have been proposed, but I don't believe one specifically like this has been. I believe it eliminates many of the negatives people responded with. I am against a "hard" rank barrier that prevents people from playing lower/higher ranked players always. I am against keeping rank exclusion secret and based on a password. I am against only players in certain ranges being able to play each other at all times.
  
• The bottom line is that people can still create games exactly the same way they do now, if they want to. It also lets people who are using this non-obvious process to play similar players to do so now easily, consistently, and far more openly.

[Thezzaruz]

I am aware that similar ideas have been proposed, but I don't believe one specifically like this has been.

Oh it has...

I believe it eliminates many of the negatives people responded with.

Possible but it still means that rank segregation would be officially condoned and that is the primary reason for it being rejected.

[Vermont]

But rank segregation is already going on. Just do the occasional search on speed games and that is obvious. Does it matter if it is condoned or not, if it is occurring 90% of the time anyway?

This solution would actually reduce the problem as people could control the range they want and lead to more games being opened up and being searched on.

And this wouldn't be strict segregation anyway. Players would be able to control the min/max ranges of the games they open. This is far different than the other rank segregation ideas that have been presented. I know that is the knee-jerk response, but I believe this to be a reasonable solution to an obscure, inconsistent, game creation/searching process.

[owenshooter]

you can get rank specific games in callouts... this has been suggested multiple times in multiple ways, and it just isn't going to happen. i suggest going to callouts and finding the types of games you want...-0

[Vermont]

you can get rank specific games in callouts... this has been suggested multiple times in multiple ways, and it just isn't going to happen. i suggest going to callouts and finding the types of games you want...-0

If people are using the forum for this purpose, then they are doing exactly what you don't want - segregating by rank.

I'll ask again, why are these inconsistent, clunky, methods preferable to actually adding it as a simple game option? You're splitting players into an additional two groups - those who know about and are willing to go through extra steps to play fewer games against a smaller pool of players, and those who don't know (or don't want to use) those methods and play fewer games against a smaller pool of players. You're segregating things into even more groups this way, and I thought that is what you are trying to avoid?

Segregation IS occurring already - do a few speed searches throughout the day to verify this. Adding these options actually adds MORE games back into game finder, and if the selectable ranges are set appropriately large enough, LESS segregation would occur. Let me repeat - LESS segregation would occur. This is in addition to the other benefits I listed.

If the goal is to reduce segregation, please think about how to end this secret password, search the forum, process that is currently segregating players.

Thanks for responding. I think this is a discussion worth having.

[ahunda]

Just know, that there are many players at the site, who support this suggestion. That is, why it is coming up again and again and again. I remember even a few cases, where lower ranks asked for it, because they wanted the option to create a game without fear of high ranks jumping them for easy points.

But the many people, who have argued the case before you (me included), simply got tired of the ever same "has been rejected before - go to Callouts" responses.

If I were to make a list of favourite suggestions, this would still make my top 3-5 though.

[HardAttack]

you can get rank specific games in callouts... this has been suggested multiple times in multiple ways, and it just isn't going to happen. i suggest going to callouts and finding the types of games you want...-0

Owen, sometimes i am believing on that you are automatically generated message from some computer or something like that.
Whenever some similar subject as above issued, your SAME message takes place as the 3rd or 4th post reply message.

Anyway, vermont, exprience is speaking, forget this, this is not going to ever take place. Leave this hope aside. You never will see a submarine to fly in sky

[Vermont]

I guess I am surprised that something isn't being done to deal with the artificial segregation that is currently occurring. It's not much fun to only be able to play the same small subset of people over and over again, and to have to jump through hoops to do it.

[HardAttack]

Like many, i am in your side on this subject, however what i am saying is that this will never happen.
Do not get exhausted yourself on defending this idea. That is the point.

[Vermont]

Never give up! Never surrender!

But seriously, is "avoiding rank segregation" the reason this idea is being ignored? Because rank segregation is already here; maybe some people just don't want to acknowledge that or play only team games so they have no exposure to it.

[obliterationX]

Great screenshots, unfortunately this will never happen.

[Artimis]

you can get rank specific games in callouts... this has been suggested multiple times in multiple ways, and it just isn't going to happen. i suggest going to callouts and finding the types of games you want...-0

If people are using the forum for this purpose, then they are doing exactly what you don't want - segregating by rank.

I'll ask again, why are these inconsistent, clunky, methods preferable to actually adding it as a simple game option? You're splitting players into an additional two groups - those who know about and are willing to go through extra steps to play fewer games against a smaller pool of players, and those who don't know (or don't want to use) those methods and play fewer games against a smaller pool of players. You're segregating things into even more groups this way, and I thought that is what you are trying to avoid?

Segregation IS occurring already - do a few speed searches throughout the day to verify this. Adding these options actually adds MORE games back into game finder, and if the selectable ranges are set appropriately large enough, LESS segregation would occur. Let me repeat - LESS segregation would occur. This is in addition to the other benefits I listed.

If the goal is to reduce segregation, please think about how to end this secret password, search the forum, process that is currently segregating players.

Thanks for responding. I think this is a discussion worth having.

OP is using flawed logic

By making it easy to set rank limits MORE rank segregation will result. The inherent laziness of human nature insures that the create private games option(premiums only) is used by few people. This helps to ward off rank segregation for the most part.