Rank Restricted Games

Have any bright ideas? Share and discuss them with the community

Moderators: Suggestions Team, Global Moderators

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

And don't forget to search for previously suggested ideas first!

Re: Re-Think the rank restriction rejection.

Postby Mr_Adams on Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:07 pm

besides that, they aren't going to make a major change to the site to satisfy the top 10% or so. I like the idea, I don't think we ever will/should see it.
I am voting Republican now. The Democrats left a bad taste in my mouth -Monica Lewinski
User avatar
Lieutenant Mr_Adams
 
Posts: 1932
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:33 pm
Medals: 49
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (4) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (8) Tournament Contribution (5)

Re: Re-Think the rank restriction rejection.

Postby The Neon Peon on Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:29 pm

Wellspring wrote:
The Neon Peon wrote:I don't think you are going to find many people to back your belief that playing lower ranks and getting a high score is harder than playing those your own rank.


If gaining points by playing against low ranks is so much easier, then why do you want to change it?

Take an 8 player terminator game for instance. It would certainly be much easier to gain / keep your rank if it was against everyone from your own ranking or higher who know how to play. But fill it with 7 cooks / privates and chances are they'll all go for you first just because you're the highest, and you're out 40 pts instead of 20. That sounds harder to me.


Don't get me wrong, I think it's annoying when low levels join my games and and all I get out of it is 8 or 9 pts, but I don't think the that justifies changing it.

Quite the opposite...

The reason it is that way for you is because you play mostly 1v1s, where luck determines the game to a much greater extent than in most other game types. Take a look through your team games. Find how many times a team of sergeant's down has beaten you.

In most game types, having 7 players who don't know what they are doing in a game is a great advantage to you. Especially in freestyle speed games of all sorts. It is much easier to gain points by playing low ranks, except in 1v1s, where the drop kills you in half of the games, the dice kill you in half of the games that the drop did not kill you in, and your skill only shows in a small portion of them.
User avatar
Lieutenant The Neon Peon
 
Posts: 2342
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:49 pm
Medals: 31
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (3) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (3)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (1) Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (3)

Re: Re-Think the rank restriction rejection.

Postby Wellspring on Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:49 pm

I agree with you on the team games. Playing low ranked opponents is often easier b/c they are new and don't know what they're doing yet. But on occasion, they do win, and it hurts pretty bad points wise, therefore offsetting all the points you've gathered from the multiple wins.

On the other hand though, playing multiplayer games, such as when you're trying to get your assassin / terminator medals, having a rank restriction would make these games much easier imho. Using one of my games as an example: Game 5455215. Those are the types of games that would never happen if you were able to set it to only allow players of the same rank or higher to join.

You're bound to get a bad drop / screwed over by the dice in a fair amount of your games, and if 20pts is all that's ever on the line, that kind of defeats the way that the point system currently works. It's those times where you're finally starting to get on a roll and become high rank, then you have a bad game or two and lose 50pts. That's what keeps things competitive & interesting.
User avatar
Major Wellspring
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:10 pm
Location: South Carolina
Medals: 31
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (3)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (2) Tournament Contribution (3)

Re: Re-Think the rank restriction rejection.

Postby The Neon Peon on Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:23 pm

You have just stated that when playing low ranks, luck will cause you to have a net loss of points, correct?
If that is the case, then score is being determined by luck rather than skill.

When a cook wins a game with a bunch of colonels/brigs/generals in it, how many times is it because he outplayed his opponents, and how many times is it based on luck? I think the answer is fairly obvious, that most of the time that happens, it is luck that determines the score.

In a scenario, I play ten games, I win 8 of them:
- If I beat 8 cooks, what does that say about my skill? A: nothing, so why should my score change?
- If I beat 8 colonel, what does that say about my skill? A: something, it is almost impossible to win 8 out of 10 games against someone better than you based on luck, doesn't that say more about my score than beating 10 cooks?

Take a look at people like obliterationX, he was a low rank... Then he foed all the high ranks/people who were good at the game. He became Brig pretty quickly... same thing with KLOBBER... same thing with sjnap... same thing with a whole bunch of other high ranked players.

Why? Because, that's the easiest way to get points. If it wasn't, then why are so many people on the site only managing to get to a very high rank after doing it, and then dropping out whenever they stop? (sjnap and KLOBBER are great examples of people who stopped noob farming and lost several thousand points)
User avatar
Lieutenant The Neon Peon
 
Posts: 2342
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:49 pm
Medals: 31
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (3) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (3)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (1) Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (3)

Re: Re-Think the rank restriction rejection.

Postby Wellspring on Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:03 pm

You have just stated that when playing low ranks, luck will cause you to have a net loss of points, correct?
If that is the case, then score is being determined by luck rather than skill.

When a cook wins a game with a bunch of colonels/brigs/generals in it, how many times is it because he outplayed his opponents, and how many times is it based on luck? I think the answer is fairly obvious, that most of the time that happens, it is luck that determines the score.


Agreed. But that is also what keeps people's scores from getting out of hand, which is what I like most about the current point system. If you were able to set it so that only people of the same rank joined your games, the point system would be more of a flat rate of always 20pts per game. There's not much risk in that. The higher you get the more you have to lose, which makes it more challenging in itself.

lol, I've been wondering why obliterationX foed me. This is the first I've heard of the foeing all the good players thing so that you can farm noobs in freestyle, but it makes sense.

I think it all depends on the game-type which one is easier, restricted ranking or open. The restricted ranking system would make sequential games easier to gain/keep pts imo. Freestyle on the other hand it would be more difficult obviously. But even with the set ranking system, high ranked players could choose not to use it in their freestyle games and farm low levels, and then use it in their sequential games to only allow high ranked players to join. So it would seem you'd be getting the best of both worlds?
User avatar
Major Wellspring
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:10 pm
Location: South Carolina
Medals: 31
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (3)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (2) Tournament Contribution (3)

Re: Re-Think the rank restriction rejection.

Postby PLAYER57832 on Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:22 pm

I suggested something similar -- rather than an open ended restriction (which might be more difficult both from a programming perspective and would be more likely to result in heavy game limitations), to have optional "slots" -- you can have a game limited to 2 ranks above and below your starting rank.

It was rejected for a lot of reasons, most pertinent being that people could artificially lower their rank just to farm. I am not sure how much that really would happen. Also, people intent on breaking the system will -- and will be dealt with through other means, eventually.

The most recent partially (or fully?) accepted solution was to have a divided scoreboard. I fundamentally dislike that idea, because unlike your and my suggestion, it would set too much of a "set" artificial barrier. This one will flux with someone's rank.. and it will be optional. I see it as a compromise between the "private/play only those I know" and "public/take whomever comes" games.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2568
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: Re-Think the rank restriction rejection.

Postby jammyjames on Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:53 pm

i dont see why people are against this feature, it does no harm at all... any farming will be sorted easily.. and the people who only target low ranks will get shat on..
Image
Captain jammyjames
 
Posts: 1392
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 3:17 am
Medals: 52
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (4) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (4)

Re: Re-Think the rank restriction rejection.

Postby anonymus on Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:52 pm

if people are afraid of this becoming a noob-farming feature why not put in the code that a player cant choose to set the highest rank in the limit lower than 2 ranks under your own.. if your a major you can set the limit between Lt. and up if you are a capt. between Sgt. 1st and up and so on..
Eliminates the noob-farming aspects..

well it doesn't really matter to me since I do read forums and can find games, but it wouldn't hurt me either..
Click image to enlarge.
image

show: BoganGod speaks the truth
User avatar
Lieutenant anonymus
 
Posts: 1424
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 10:09 am
Location: Former DDR
Medals: 110
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (4) Triples Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (4) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (3) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (3)
Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (17) General Achievement (11)
Clan Achievement (18) Training Achievement (1) Challenge Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (6)

Re: Re-Think the rank restriction rejection.

Postby jefjef on Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:59 pm

Personally since officers are the premier "farmers" there should be restrictions to block ? - cooks & cadets from joining a game that includes an officer.

Make em earn their stripes 1st.
This post was made by jefjef who should be on your ignore list.
Image
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
User avatar
Colonel jefjef
 
Posts: 5985
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:41 pm
Location: on my ass
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (4) General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (10)
Tournament Contribution (3)

Re: Re-Think the rank restriction rejection.

Postby jammyjames on Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:22 pm

jefjef wrote:Personally since officers are the premier "farmers" there should be restrictions to block ? - cooks & cadets from joining a game that includes an officer.

Make em earn their stripes 1st.


i beleive that to be a good idea. however only on the maps that are deemed hard maps... all of this argument in these forums because one webmaster cant have his moderation team kick themselves in the f*cking arses and do something about the fuedal argument...
Image
Captain jammyjames
 
Posts: 1392
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 3:17 am
Medals: 52
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (4) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (4)

Re: Re-Think the rank restriction rejection.

Postby The Neon Peon on Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:55 pm

The Neon Peon wrote:[*]This will NOT make farming easier. Simply make a restriction that your rank must be within the limits. In that case, a major trying to farm lets every captain, lieutenant, sergeant etc. on the scoreboard join. Not exactly farming... especially hard to farm premium members either way.

Congratulations to everyone reading this in the first post.
User avatar
Lieutenant The Neon Peon
 
Posts: 2342
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:49 pm
Medals: 31
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (3) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (3)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (1) Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (3)

Re: Suggestion: "Start a Game" with a specific rating range

Postby Queen_Herpes on Sun Nov 08, 2009 11:07 pm

Bruceswar wrote:Your best way to do this is start a game private and invite someone close to your rank or post the password in callouts looking for a player within 200 points of you either way.


Or, his suggestion could be considered for implementation. He did post it in the suggestion report forum.

Sounds like cjbpulp wants to avoid getting hammered (essentially make his experience on the site much better), which is what I am trying to help with my suggestion about limiting new players to specific maps.

I like this suggestion from cjbpulp very much because it allows new players to limit who can play against them. Similarly, it allows higher ranks to limit their points being spirited away by preventing low ranks from joining.

Great suggestion CJBPULP, please keep them coming.
User avatar
Lieutenant Queen_Herpes
 
Posts: 1339
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:50 pm
Location: Right Here. Look into my eyes.
Medals: 29
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Assassin Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (3)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (3) General Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (1)

Re: Suggestion: "Start a Game" with a specific rating range

Postby AAFitz on Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:43 am

Queen_Herpes wrote:
Bruceswar wrote:Your best way to do this is start a game private and invite someone close to your rank or post the password in callouts looking for a player within 200 points of you either way.


Or, his suggestion could be considered for implementation. He did post it in the suggestion report forum.

Sounds like cjbpulp wants to avoid getting hammered (essentially make his experience on the site much better), which is what I am trying to help with my suggestion about limiting new players to specific maps.

I like this suggestion from cjbpulp very much because it allows new players to limit who can play against them. Similarly, it allows higher ranks to limit their points being spirited away by preventing low ranks from joining.

Great suggestion CJBPULP, please keep them coming.


His suggestion HAS been considered. It was considered in the first 50 threads suggesting the same thing, and denied for the same reason and explanation as they always have and will be. CC will not discriminate against rank. There are many options available to play against any given rank, and to play against ones own rank, or always a lower rank, or always a higher rank.

Between the invites, foe list, the wall, the pms, live chat, and the callouts forum, it is simply easy to play against whatever ranks you choose for any given game. What you CANNOT do, is discriminate against players in open games, simply BECAUSE of their rank unilaterally.
john9blue wrote:"honestly i think martin might be better off dead"

sekretar: "i go to russia and then, without comp, i hoppe, i forgot this shit who kill my nerves long time!"

http://i.imgur.com/zU8yLiU.gif
User avatar
Lieutenant AAFitz
 
Posts: 7237
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1
Medals: 84
Monthly Leader Bronze (1) Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (4) Triples Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (3)
Terminator Achievement (2) Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (4) Polymorphic Achievement (2)
Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (3)
Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (8) General Achievement (2)
Clan Achievement (8) Tournament Contribution (8) General Contribution (2)

Re: Suggestion: "Start a Game" with a specific rating range

Postby Queen_Herpes on Mon Nov 09, 2009 11:26 am

Queen_Herpes wrote:
Bruceswar wrote:Your best way to do this is start a game private and invite someone close to your rank or post the password in callouts looking for a player within 200 points of you either way.


Or, his suggestion could be considered for implementation. He did post it in the suggestion report forum.

Sounds like cjbpulp wants to avoid getting hammered (essentially make his experience on the site much better), which is what I am trying to help with my suggestion about limiting new players to specific maps.

I like this suggestion from cjbpulp very much because it allows new players to limit who can play against them. Similarly, it allows higher ranks to limit their points being spirited away by preventing low ranks from joining.

Great suggestion CJBPULP, please keep them coming.



CJBPULP, As mentioned, just want to give you kudos for posting on the suggestion and bugs forum. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. It seems like you and a lot of other players have concerns about playing players of certain ranks. Perhaps you can come up with a suggestion (or comment on other suggestions) that speak to your basic concerns. From my perspective, you are interested in making your playing experience on this site better. If you enjoy it, you'll probably stick around, and I'm all for that. CJBPULP, do you have another idea, aside from the solution you offered here, that can help make you experience ont he site better?
User avatar
Lieutenant Queen_Herpes
 
Posts: 1339
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:50 pm
Location: Right Here. Look into my eyes.
Medals: 29
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Assassin Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (3)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (3) General Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (1)

Min/max rank

Postby vodean on Sat Dec 05, 2009 7:55 am

Concise description:
  • I know this has been rejected several times because it is 'unfair' or whatever
  • maybe if there was min+max, it would be more liked

Specifics:
  • Low rankers would not have to be crushed by unwanted generals
  • high rankers would not have to be bored by unwanted cooks.
  • In the same category, an option for min/max games completed
  • or even min % turns taken

This will improve the following aspects of the site:
  • freemies will not have time wasted by turn missers
  • high rankers would not have to be bored by unwanted cooks.
  • People could get rid of newbies who dont know how to play.
  • might help prevent farming
  • Low rankers would not have to be crushed by unwanted generals
Image
<NoSurvivors› then vote chuck for being an info whore
User avatar
Sergeant vodean
 
Posts: 978
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:37 pm
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (3)
General Achievement (2) Tournament Contribution (2) General Contribution (1)

Re: Min/max rank

Postby darth emperor on Sun Dec 06, 2009 1:18 pm

vodean wrote:.
[*]People could get rid of newbies who dont know how to play.

And how they'll learn??? Like that no one who is new (even if he knows how to play) could play (except with another newbs) then only will be the old members playing.


For example in the begining I didnt know how to play,exactly how to change the cards,I remeber myself trying combinations and never succeed the combination and losing my turn because i couldnt change cards...loosing games that i had chances of wining lol, but then after trying (and reading the instruccions of that game who looks like CC I continued playing and Im here but with this "thing" I wouldnt have the chance to play more and I wouldnt be here
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class darth emperor
 
Posts: 2545
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:45 pm
Medals: 80
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (3) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Battle Royale Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (8) General Achievement (14) Clan Achievement (8)
Tournament Contribution (8) General Contribution (2)

Re: Min/max rank

Postby jammyjames on Sun Dec 06, 2009 1:34 pm

in fairness to vodean.. with some of the points he has raised it does make this seem a more substancial update..
Image
Captain jammyjames
 
Posts: 1392
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 3:17 am
Medals: 52
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (4) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (4)

Re: Min/max rank

Postby vodean on Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:40 am

maybe a max difference in rank of 3 ranks.
Image
<NoSurvivors› then vote chuck for being an info whore
User avatar
Sergeant vodean
 
Posts: 978
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:37 pm
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (3)
General Achievement (2) Tournament Contribution (2) General Contribution (1)

Rank Restricted Games

Postby Hamtrigger on Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:44 am

Everyone knows that a good risk game consist of good play from all players across the board. While I'm not trying to discriminate against those less competetive players. Somthing needs to be done about them joinig high ranking games. I always host my games, always. And I always get at least one VERY LOW level player. And 80% of the time he results in the obvious and preventable win for one certain player. Normally this is by attacking a wweaker player while the stronger one takes the game winning position. My suggestion is game option.

Lowest Rank Allowed to Join this game

and maybe another for

Highest Rank Allowed to join this game (must be at least the same rank as host)

This would allow for hosts to get a competitive game without two things: Higher ranked players farming lower ranked games, and lower ranked players screwing up higher ranked games.
Major Hamtrigger
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 6:35 pm
Medals: 10
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (1)

Re: Rank Restricted Games

Postby jpcloet on Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:49 am

This idea has been rejected probably a 100 times over. There are alternatives being the informal rank restrictions in the callouts area.....

viewforum.php?f=31
Image
User avatar
Captain jpcloet
 
Posts: 4421
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:18 am
Medals: 69
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Battle Royale Achievement (1)
Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (7) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (5) Tournament Contribution (8)
General Contribution (8)

choice of minimum ranks to join games

Postby eddie2 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:43 am

just another idea. would it be possible to have somthing in set up games that will allow us the choice of minimum rank requirement for joining the games.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class eddie2
 
Posts: 3831
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 10:56 am
Location: jersey channel islands
Medals: 73
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (3)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (2) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (4) General Achievement (5) Clan Achievement (10)
Tournament Contribution (5) General Contribution (3)

Re: choice of minimum ranks to join games

Postby ljex on Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:52 am

suggested and denied a million times.
User avatar
Captain ljex
 
Posts: 2943
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 12:12 am
Medals: 115
Conqueror Achievement (1) Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (4) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (4)
Terminator Achievement (3) Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (4) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (3) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (22) General Achievement (5)
Clan Achievement (12) Tournament Contribution (18) General Contribution (3)

Re: choice of minimum ranks to join games

Postby rutty on Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:41 pm

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.

Regards,

Rutty
User avatar
Brigadier rutty
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:03 pm
Medals: 10
Conquer Cup Gold Achievement (1) Standard Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (4)

Re: Rank Requirement *rejected*

Postby rutty on Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:17 pm

Upper and lower limits as entry requirement option

There are clearly a lot of players interested in this option. Can you tell me what percentage of premium players would have to show an interest in this option for it to be implemented?
Could we have a questionaire circulated to gauge interest?
'Just quid suggesting this' as a reply, would give me the impression that so many players are interested in this option, that its getting annoying.

Also i've not seen any posts on upper limits, just lower limits. Have i not looked properly or has nobody mentioned this yet?

Regards,

Rutger
User avatar
Brigadier rutty
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:03 pm
Medals: 10
Conquer Cup Gold Achievement (1) Standard Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (4)

Re: choice of minimum ranks to join games

Postby eddie2 on Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:27 pm

also would this not take the farming out of the game. because if lower ranks can stop high ranks from playing they then will not be able to put this accusation up.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class eddie2
 
Posts: 3831
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 10:56 am
Location: jersey channel islands
Medals: 73
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (3)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (2) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (4) General Achievement (5) Clan Achievement (10)
Tournament Contribution (5) General Contribution (3)

PreviousNext

Return to Suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Login