Moderator: Community Team
qwert wrote:these sound like discrimination sugestion.
Natewolfman wrote:I think this (or similar to) has been suggested multiple times
PLAYER57832 wrote:Natewolfman wrote:I think this (or similar to) has been suggested multiple times
Similar, yes ... and I said so.
Mostly, people want to be able to set their own limits. That, however, can be far too exclusive.
The primary legitimate reasons for limiting who joins are behavior (foe list deals with this) and the fear of losing too many points or playing someone way outside one's skill level. I set the range at 3 above and 5 below because I felt that is a good rough range for skill.
blakebowling wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Natewolfman wrote:I think this (or similar to) has been suggested multiple times
Similar, yes ... and I said so.
Mostly, people want to be able to set their own limits. That, however, can be far too exclusive.
The primary legitimate reasons for limiting who joins are behavior (foe list deals with this) and the fear of losing too many points or playing someone way outside one's skill level. I set the range at 3 above and 5 below because I felt that is a good rough range for skill.
what ab out having a range requirement (eg. at least 5 ranks would have to be included.)
PLAYER57832 wrote:Natewolfman wrote:I think this (or similar to) has been suggested multiple times
Similar, yes ... and I said so.
Mostly, people want to be able to set their own limits. That, however, can be far too exclusive.
The primary legitimate reasons for limiting who joins are behavior (foe list deals with this) and the fear of losing too many points or playing someone way outside one's skill level. I set the range at 3 above and 5 below because I felt that is a good rough range for skill.
Jeff Hardy wrote:the gap between say... colonel and sergeant fc is HUGE
the user should be able to choose
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.
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.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.
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
Users browsing this forum: No registered users