rutty wrote:I would like to suggest that it would be great to have optional upper & optional lower limits for players to enter a game. Can you please respond with a good reason why this idea has been rejected a milion times.
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
72o wrote:rutty wrote:I would like to suggest that it would be great to have optional upper & optional lower limits for players to enter a game. Can you please respond with a good reason why this idea has been rejected a milion times.
I think a lot of people, including myself, would agree with you, but lack is concerned that this would create too many issues, and lower ranks and noobs would be excluded too often. So, you have private games as your option to avoid low ranks.
72o wrote:I think a lot of people, including myself, would agree with you, but lack is concerned that this would create too many issues, and lower ranks and noobs would be excluded too often.
jefjef wrote:This absolutely ends farming. many have attempted to push this suggestion thru.
I support blocking ?? from joining games officers are in but the 5 games of being non-ranked are just too much segregation in the eyes of CC . They have no real interest inhibiting or preventing what they classify as farming.
gdeangel wrote:This is a good idea. I suggested something like this too... all that is needed to make it fair is to make is so you shouldn't be able to set it higher than the rank that is a few ranks below you. Then there is no reason you can't still have a site with good quality inter-rank play.
Vermont wrote:Artimis wrote:
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.
Actually, I'm not. Do a search on non-team speed games at different times for a few days. Tell me how many you see that have any sort of upper rank. It doesn't happen but rarely - players are already self-segregating. Sure occassionaly a high ranking player starts a speed game, but it is definitely the exception rather than the norm. (Yes, I am aware there are fewer high ranking players, but the gap is exponentially higher than that.)
Rather than attempt to attack my logic, perhaps you should check out the facts for yourself first?
The point (which I'll state again) is that segregation is ALREADY occurring, but it's done in a clunky, non-obvious way, using private games and semi-secret passwords. If you use min and max rank options that are sufficiently big, this would allow players to create more public games (I sure would!), that more people would be allowed to play in, without requiring players to jump through extra hoops.
Edit: fixed typo.
Vermont wrote: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.
Supermarioluigi wrote:Vermont wrote:Supermarioluigi wrote:This has been suggested many times, and always rejected.
So, it's not taking place.
If it's been rejected to prevent segregation then the fact that segregation is now actively, consistently, occurring should at least revive the discussion. Or was there another rationale for rejecting it?
Lack himself basically said no.
And when lack says no, you listen.
Once it's been rejected once, even more so several times, it's rarely looked at again.
"Segregation" has been occuring since this site started, and this "idea" has been brought up ever few months or so and rejected each time.
As much as I would love some sort of max/min rank option, it most likely won't.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest