[GO] [Rules] Rank Restricted Games

[Skiman]

I like this idea. Here's an idea I like even more: be able to set a threshold rating for players. Say, only players with a rating over 4.5 can join your game, or 4.8 - or whatever. That would be great

[InsomniaRed]

If you are going to continue to talk about it at least do a search first to find existing threads

[Fruitcake]

Just do what Greatwhite does and stick anyone on foe who has the remotest chance of beating you. Then slither and slime into their team games without telling them you have them on foe. play alongside them, yes I said alongside them, while you have them on foe, pick up the points and slither and slime back off.

This way you only ever lose to those who get really lucky. Otherwise you just go round farming.

See it's easy, just follow that great player's way of doing things and you too can gain the reputation to die for across the ranks high and low. You also solve the problem mentioned in this thread.

[aspalm]

Funny you mention it, Fruitcake. Greatwhite also put me on his foe list for no apparent reason. Oh wait, maybe it's because I beat him 8 out of the 8 games we played.

[cicero]

I await your first intelligent post to be made in these forums.

And I await your first remotely civil one.

[Inhuman14]

Concise description:

• My proposal would add a feature to the Game Finder - Average Rank.

Specifics:

• This feature will allow users to find games with an average player rank and rating within the parameters that they specify.
• Let's face it - Most people who don't join games that are too high or too low for them in rank are just going to waste their time searching manually for a game that seems challenging enough for them. I know I get ticked when my search results turn out a zillion Feudal War games that were created by cooks. (no offense cooks, but a large portion of you are indeed poor players).

Oh, I also had an idea for a search based on rating level. Any takers?

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• User-friendliness
• Game Finder power/flexibility

[Inhuman14]

Bump. Yes/no, peeps.

[denominator]

It's a good idea in the sense that you can join games against players that are of rank that you'd like to play, but I see a glaring issue.

You have no control over who joins after you. Which means if you are joining games against equal ranked players, some high ranked player could jump in after you and dominate the game, or a low ranked player could jump in and possibly cost you more points.

For this to be effective, you'd also have to add restrictions on who can join your games after you. Which means that the Join A Game option is no longer open to everybody, and would actually complicate the game finder more than simplify it.

[Thezzaruz]

For this to be effective, you'd also have to add restrictions on who can join your games after you. Which means that the Join A Game option is no longer open to everybody, and would actually complicate the game finder more than simplify it.

I don't see that being an issue at all. If you want games with only your own rank then go to call outs, if you want help on finding games that seems suitable to you then this suggestion would help.


That said, even if I can see this suggestion being a helpful one I don't see the need for it. IMO there are many other suggestions, both on the to-do list and being discussed in the forum, that should hold higher priority.

[Inhuman14]

Yeah, priority on this is a little low. And it's instead of being able to specify what ranks can join your games. Since that was rejected, I figured this would be an acceptable and time-saving alternative.

[nick11]

I wish we had the ability to block a specific rank and all ranks below. It gets aggravating to play a noob and get a one star ranking across the board for no reason. Even though 3 stars are suppose to be average, everyone looks at 5 stars as being acceptable. It makes it nice to play equal ranks so that when you lose, you don't lose 70 points and if you win all you get is 7. I know, I know, private games. that gets old after awhile.

come on, give me the option to block the ranks i want to avoid.

[owenshooter]

I wish we had the ability to block a specific rank and all ranks below. It get aggravating to play a noob and get a one star ranking across the board for no reason. Even though 3 stars are suppose to be average, everyone looks at 5 stars as being acceptable. It makes it nice to play equal ranks so that when you lose, you don't lose 70 points and if you win all you get is 7. I know, I know, private games. that gets old after awhile.

come on, give me the option to block the ranks i want to avoid.

discussed several times, search is your friend... go to suggestions and fill out a form, if you are serious about it... GOOD LUCK!!!..-6cd

[White Moose]

Won't ever happen.

lackattack don't want to discreminate players because of rank. Which is very understandable. If you want to play with people of a particular rank. Then play private games.

[Edit]Dang, owen, you beat me to it [/Edit]

[Dancing Mustard]

lackattack don't want to discreminate players because of rank.

Meh,

He once said he wanted to 'keep rank out of the forums', but now we're all wreathed with clouds of medals and have ranks displayed next to our usernames.

If enough high-rankers make enough noise about the absence of a 'class-filter', then it'll get done (or at least get put onto the to-do-list of things that don't get done).

[The Neon Peon]

I suggest you click on every single person's profile, and foe them each individually.

I would tell you how to foe pretty much all cooks and cadets in under 5 minutes (unless you have a really crappy computer... this does work owen, since I have done it... takes a whole lot longer to undo though, so no "just not true" comments this time), but I agree with the other posters, not going to happen, and there is no use for it.

[Stephan Wayne]

even i know this has been done a million times

[Rekatan]

I host a lot of speed games and rarely have a 4.4> player that sticks out the game. It either ends with a suicide or a deadbeat. If not that then the player is simply unpleasant to play with.

It'd be very helpful if we could set some parameters as hosts for who is and isn't allowed to play in a game based on rating.

This would not only provide more enjoyable games but also would give more weight to the rating system as a whole, and consequently improve many player's attitude towards the game as they strive to avoid a low rating.

[letitrock]

Request to Add game finder (search) option with the average scores of the players in the game

Specifics:
I saw the recent changes (updates) in game finder that now you can search the games with the participant user. That is very good but what I would like to suggest is

Some kind of search functionality that find the average score of the users currently in the game.

So for example, it is a 4 player game and there are currently 2 players with scores 1000 and 500, the average score will be ( 1000 + 500) / 2 = 750 points.

And, if I put the search criteria to search the games with average points between 700 and 1000 points (for example), that particular game will show up ( because it point is 750 ).

What do you guys think?

[gundiesalvo]

This would be nice.

[The Neon Peon]

I personally just look through the games by hand and do not join if the average rank is under captain at least. But it would be helpful.

Still leads to too much rank segregation.

[Fireside Poet]

I second this.

[The Neon Peon]

I think this is a good idea, but what about the people with only a few ratings? Isn't it kind of unfair if you run into one of those people who leaves all 1s and maybe a couple of them to have a 4.4 rating?

[Fireside Poet]

There could be a base number built in, such as ratings with players who have played 50 games or something like that - not sure where the boundary would be, but this would be a great way to have the ratings actually have some sort of cause and effect... I have a 3.8 cook in a speed game right now that has already deadbeated out and if there was a way to weed out someone like that, I'd be all for it.

[Artimis]

I like it, I also second this suggestion.

Perhaps it will also encourage good players with bad attitudes to mend their ways if they thought their lack of manners and etiquette would have consequences for their eligibility to join ratings restricted games........

[aliakber1001]

i agree. when is this shit going to take place?
every time i join a game. some retard with a 4.1 or 4 rating joins on my team and then acts like a retard.
i am sick of this shit. fix this crappy sytem
oh and limiting games by rank wouldnt be a bad idea also. i am sick of cooks and privates joining on my team