Make games require minimum or maximum points/rank [REJECTED]

[Herbas]

If rank segregation really appears after introduction of such feature, wouldn't it confirm that such feature is in high demand? So why CC should reject implementing a feature which would be widely used? Shouldn't rank segregation be solved in other ways than simply rejecting rank restriction feature which would be supposedly in high demand?

[Dibbun]

My point is that it is already "segregated." Cooks really shouldn't be playing people who are ranked to high over them

Who the hell are you to say that? Not everyone is a point whore, some of us just want to play.

[TheForgivenOne]

If rank segregation really appears after introduction of such feature, wouldn't it confirm that such feature is in high demand? So why CC should reject implementing a feature which would be widely used? Shouldn't rank segregation be solved in other ways than simply rejecting rank restriction feature which would be supposedly in high demand?

Because this is lackattacks site, and he has already said he doesn't want this kind of Rank Segregation.

From the huge "Surrender" pile sitting in Rejected, should we implement it just based on people wanting it?

[mattattam]

If rank segregation really appears after introduction of such feature, wouldn't it confirm that such feature is in high demand? So why CC should reject implementing a feature which would be widely used? Shouldn't rank segregation be solved in other ways than simply rejecting rank restriction feature which would be supposedly in high demand?

Because this is lackattacks site, and he has already said he doesn't want this kind of Rank Segregation.

From the huge "Surrender" pile sitting in Rejected, should we implement it just based on people wanting it?

I understand the concern with excessively separating players so much by rank Forgiven. That makes sense. That's what made me think of the idea of limiting the games to 2 ranks above or bellow one's current rank, as opposed to say a colonol limiting a game to colonol's or above.

What do you think about this idea Forgiven? It could even be limited to 3 ranks above or bellow someones current rank.

[johncusac]

I like this idea! I think it would be a great option to add.

[greenoaks]

public games are open to the public. end of story.

if you want to decide who can join your games create private games. they allow you to restrict who joins your games to 1 rank above and below, or 2 or 3.

[mattattam]

public games are open to the public. end of story.

if you want to decide who can join your games create private games. they allow you to restrict who joins your games to 1 rank above and below, or 2 or 3.

Your thought is REJECTED!!! End of story

[mattattam]

I like this idea! I think it would be a great option to add.

I think so too!

[greenoaks]

public games are open to the public. end of story.

if you want to decide who can join your games create private games. they allow you to restrict who joins your games to 1 rank above and below, or 2 or 3.

Your thought is REJECTED!!! End of story

my thought has been implemented, probably before my thought existed, but hey, that is beside the point.

[mattattam]

It is besides the point. Stop trolling please!

[kabuki.mono]

I like this idea -but- as it has been said before that some lower ranked players play better and have better attitude than some high ranked players, and vice versa. So I'm kind of 50/50

[nvrijn]

I'm not a "point whore" (interesting term) but I agree with Herbas - "If rank segregation really appears after introduction of such feature, wouldn't it confirm that such feature is in high demand? So why CC should reject implementing a feature which would be widely used?"

I mean it's optional right? If it was mandatory, folks who disagree would be affected, and have valid objections. But how does giving a player who wants to start a game the option of limiting it to 2 ranks above and below him, dramatically change things for the worse for everyone else? Options are good.

In fact, this option is needed as a response to another option CC now offers, which did affect non-option users.

In my own case, I don't know too many other gamers, which restricts the use of private games for me, so the addition of "reserved" froze me out of many of the "all officer" games I had enjoyed before. For a casual gamer who enjoys competition but doesn't spend the time cultivating contacts, this new option would be a valuable addition ... allow me the same ability to somewhat restrict my opponents as the guys playing private games or reserving positions FOR THEIR OPPONENTS in public games have now.

And a range of 5 ranks is not exactly restrictive. - Thx

[TheForgivenOne]

I mean it's optional right? If it was mandatory, folks who disagree would be affected, and have valid objections. But how does giving a player who wants to start a game the option of limiting it to 2 ranks above and below him, dramatically change things for the worse for everyone else? Options are good.

Yes, but the admin's aren't going to start adding everything just because "Well hey, it's an option!" This site would be riddled with a ton of useless game settings and different things that don't get used, which take up space.

You seriously don't know how many times I have heard "Well, it's an option, you don't have to use it" as an excuse to implement something. It really get's annoying.

[stahrgazer]

Most people like the idea.

And yes, rank segregation exists; but it's not "sponsored" by the site. Because it "looks odd," for the site to sponsor it by coding to enable it more, they're not going to do it, even if it would make things easier for various ranks to avoid accusations of farming because they want to open 50 games on a given map and settings.

Politics, you see.

[nvrijn]

You seriously don't know how many times I have heard "Well, it's an option, you don't have to use it" as an excuse to implement something. It really get's annoying.

I can believe it. But that's how most new ideas get implemented right? I can't think of the last "mandatory" change in the rules I've seen.

I agree with you that if the excuse to implement something is primarily

I think it could be useful and you could make it optional

, then that is a good reason to just say no.

But if the idea has merit ... if it can be shown to add demonstrated value for a significant number of players, that's a rather different case. It's a high barrier ... I think this suggestion meets it for the reasons stated.

Thanks,
Nvrijn