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

[chapcrap]

Another person looking for a way to have an even, fun game.

lack, do you hear all of these requests?

Except rank does not really give you that information. Besides, too many higher ranked people will just refuse to play the lower ranks, meaning it will be even harder to climb the ladder.

I disagree. WIth rank segregation, it would be easier to climb the ladder.

If you have a pool of 100 players all ranked the same, the better players will rise to top and increase in rank, thus getting to play with the next group up. This would happen with all of the groups.

This isn't just speculation. This is from years of playing Yahoo! games like Spades and that's how it works there. If they didn't have a point cap at 3500 on Yahoo, people would have a ridiculous amount of points.

[PLAYER57832]

Another person looking for a way to have an even, fun game.

lack, do you hear all of these requests?

Except rank does not really give you that information. Besides, too many higher ranked people will just refuse to play the lower ranks, meaning it will be even harder to climb the ladder.

I disagree. WIth rank segregation, it would be easier to climb the ladder.

If you have a pool of 100 players all ranked the same, the better players will rise to top and increase in rank, thus getting to play with the next group up. This would happen with all of the groups.

This isn't just speculation. This is from years of playing Yahoo! games like Spades and that's how it works there. If they didn't have a point cap at 3500 on Yahoo, people would have a ridiculous amount of points.

I have played those other games, also for years.. and I have played CC for several years. Spades has nothing to do with CC.

The reason rank matters little here is not the scoring, its the fact that we have so many different maps. Only if you play the same maps, styles with people who play those same maps, styles consistantly AND you play enough to overshadow the natural luck factor, only then does it really matter.

To compare a team, esc spoils on classic map with a 6 player assassin, no spoils on Fuedal or a 1 vs 1 with Nuke spoils on Waterloo, etc. ... they just don't compare.

Even if you have the exact same settings, you only get a real skill difference once you have played quite a few games. 100 with the same person, sure. !00 with different people on different maps.. no way!

[betiko]

i think it s a very good idea.

[anonymus]

I will say that an option for low ranked, new players to exclude established players probably has few drawbacks -- if you want to play your first few games against low rankers until you get the hang of it, you should be able to do so. We just won't implement an option where it's available to everyone for any game.

perfect compromise!
lowranks/newbies are protected from evil predators and the paying customers of this site still don't get what they want/have been suggesting for years.. everyone happy!

implement ASAP!

/

[gordon1975]

just join games last,then you play whatever rank you want,problem solved. TRA DA!!

[qwert]

you have option called >private games<, there you can create game,and invite all low ranks for you.

[PLAYER57832]

Concise description:
How nice, do you think, is it when you see a game that looks like this? The cadet is crossed out and the field marshal has won the game. Fair? I don't think so. The field marshal has no business fighting cadets and the cadet has no business losing points. I propose that, as part of the "Start a Game" form, a range of ranks can be put in to help cadets fight cadets, and field marshals fight field marshals.

You assume rank equals skill. It doesn't unless you stick to the same types of maps, the same style. (same spoils option, same game type, etc.)

Beyond that, poorer players playing good players is a way to learn. If you only play people who are your equal or worse, how will you ever improve?

That said, I have advocated some kind of very broad limits, optional, in suggestions. So have other people. These suggestions have always been turned down. I suggest you go back and look at those threads for the reasons.

[perchorin]

Concise description:
How nice, do you think, is it when you see a game that looks like this? The cadet is crossed out and the field marshal has won the game. Fair? I don't think so. The field marshal has no business fighting cadets and the cadet has no business losing points. I propose that, as part of the "Start a Game" form, a range of ranks can be put in to help cadets fight cadets, and field marshals fight field marshals.

You assume rank equals skill. It doesn't unless you stick to the same types of maps, the same style. (same spoils option, same game type, etc.)

Beyond that, poorer players playing good players is a way to learn. If you only play people who are your equal or worse, how will you ever improve?

That said, I have advocated some kind of very broad limits, optional, in suggestions. So have other people. These suggestions have always been turned down. I suggest you go back and look at those threads for the reasons.

well said!

[natty dread]

Rank restrictions are pointless precisely because rank does not reflect skill accurately.

That said, if it's something a majority of players want, it should be implemented. I mean, you can already create private games, and you can already choose who you play against, so giving people the option to create rank-restricted games probably wouldn't mean that all the games would suddenly become rank-restricted. There would still be people who would create games that are open to everyone, just like there are still public games even though you can create private ones.

Hm, maybe the rank-restriction option should be restricted to premium players, like private games are now.

[rhp 1]

i can't take this crap anymore... start a game someone joins... If they suck, beat em down... if you can't then you have no reason to complain in the first place....

[wildwilliam]

You could use the callouts forum. Create a private game and only give the password to people you want to play.

[westbo]

rule 2 10145881 happends often what to do

[demonfork]

So when I dropped to cadet after being Conqueror I wouldn't have been able to play a Field Marshal if this proposed rule would have been in effect?

[demonfork]

So when I dropped to cadet after being Conqueror I wouldn't have been able to play a Field Marshal if this proposed rule would have been in effect?

Thought that would shut this lame idea down...guess I was right.

[chapcrap]

So when I dropped to cadet after being Conqueror I wouldn't have been able to play a Field Marshal if this proposed rule would have been in effect?

Thought that would shut this lame idea down...guess I was right.

I just got so confused because I can't envision you being a cadet. You are just far too talented.