[GO] [Rules] Rank Restricted Games

[sully800]

I don't think the concern is specifically with cooks, but rather new recruits (and yes, we should be protecting the new recruits since they are the future members of this site).

A lot of the concerns revolve around this: Most people (save the society of cooks) generally don't like the play with new recruits because of the fear that they deadbeat more often and therefore make the game less enjoyable. The logic then goes that if all new recruits are put together in a game then a potential new player might get stuck with all deadbeats in the first game or two and be less likely to join the site.

On the other hand, if a new recruit gets stuck with extremely high ranking players in their first few games they will probably get clobbered. If that makes them feel like they aren't good at the game then maybe, once again, they abandon. So there are problems on both ends of the spectrum, that is clear. I think the general wish is that new recruits (and really, everyone) will play with all ranks and therefore get players of all types in their games, thus creating a well rounded CC experience. I don't know how effectively it plays out, but this suggestion hasn't offered anything new from the original suggestion that was rejected in 2006 so I don't think anything has changed.

Response from 2006:

I don't like this idea. What if it became popular? New recruits would have trouble finding games. They would be stuck in games with other new recruits and their first CC experience would be full of deadbeating.

You only get one chance to make a first impression

[jammyjames]

Question:

what if i have some real life mates and i want to play a game with them, but they are ranked say luitennant or something. i take it i would just not select the minimum rank option or would this effect my entire game?

[sully800]

Question:

what if i have some real life mates and i want to play a game with them, but they are ranked say luitennant or something. i take it i would just not select the minimum rank option or would this effect my entire game?

If this was ever implemented, I'm assuming the rank limits would be an option and not default. Otherwise tournaments and friends and clans would be severely impacted in a negative way.

[Vermont]

A lot of the concerns revolve around this: Most people (save the society of cooks) generally don't like the play with new recruits because of the fear that they deadbeat more often and therefore make the game less enjoyable. The logic then goes that if all new recruits are put together in a game then a potential new player might get stuck with all deadbeats in the first game or two and be less likely to join the site.

I believe two more significant reasons are that a lost game against a cook due to a bad start results in a significant point loss, and that they are trying to avoid accusations of farming. (Deadbeating may be of more of a concern in non-speed games, but that is not what I primarily play.)

To get back to the main point of this thread, let me try to state my concerns another way, and hopefully get to what I feel is the crux of these changes being rejected, and why I feel strongly that it should be given a second look.

I've been told that the primary reason ideas like this have been rejected is that there is a fear that newer players would not be able to play with high ranking members because the high ranking members would only create games for themselves.

My response to this would be - how does this differ from what is occurring now? High ranking players go and create private games requiring a secret high level password so they can play other players of their same rank. Only this is worse than having an optional rank setting on games, because you can't use gamefinder effectively to find these games, it's non-obvious, requires a trip to the forums to find out how to do this, and isn't used consistently by everyone.

If you setup the rank limitations how I suggest in this post (viewtopic.php?f=4&t=93624) then rank limits are optional on both the low and high end. Here are the benefits I posted before (in my humble opinion):

* Players of various levels could actually start games for each other. Currently, they need to somehow learn there is a specific forum thread, learn a secret password, and hope someone has started a game. They can start one themselves but then it is only open to other players who are aware of this artificial, clunky, non-obvious process. What compelling reason is there to make people jump through these hoops? They are in effect going through these manual steps to play games with people somewhat near their rank.
* This would reduce farming accusations for the higher ranked players that want to add a public game.
* New players would be able to play other games against only other new players, if they prefer.
* Players would meet more new players. As it is, many players only play against other players that are aware of the special process for playing people your own level.
* Both settings are optional so you still keep all existing games the way they are.
* Game finder actually becomes useful again for these types of games. I can't tell you how often speed games are searched on and there is nothing from players other than the lowest ranks, since all the others are being done privately (since an option like this does not exist.)

Perhaps there is a good reason for not implementing a solution like this, but I have yet to hear one. The primary reason presented is to avoid an issue that is occurring already. Please let me know know what I am missing here, as I may just be misunderstanding something.

Thanks for taking the time to read this!

[sully800]

Merging

[KraphtOne]

I agree that it's a very good idea to say the minimum allowed rank is your own rank. That effectively prevents farming, and is a good solution.

But the other half of the problem still exists: New recruits would find themselves only with low ranking players and therefore would have a worse initial experience and be less likely to remain on the site. At least, that has been the prevailing opinion for the last 3 years and it's why this suggestion has never been implemented.

I understand the concept that you should be able to beat people at your own level before moving up and playing the next level - on many levels it makes sense. But it also segregates the score board and could prevent low ranks from joining a lot of games and that is something CC has been wary of from the get go.

It Wouldn't Affect New Recruits As Much As You Think, Most People Don't Care Who Joins Games And Actually Would Prefer Playing New Recruits, But With This You Would Have An Option At Game Start Menu Kinda Like On The Plug-In For Game Finder Where You Can Set Game To Only Allow Certain Scores... For Example If My Score Is 2500 And I Want To Set Up A Feudal Game I Can Set It Up As (Min Rank-1500, Max Rank-Unlimited)... It Would Also Prevent Farming Because Cooks/New Recruits/Privates Could Start Games With Lower Limits To Prevent Farmers From Joining... If I'm A Privite I could Set A Game Up As (Min Rank-Unlimited, Max rank- 1600)

~k1

[OliverFA]

There is a small modification tat would avoid this becoming a segregation option. Limit the rank thresholds the player can place in that way

Lower limit: From 0 to Player Score/2
Upper limit: From Player Score*2

That way a 2000 score player could prevent 900 score players from joining his game, but not 1000 score players.

[OliverFA]

There is a small modification tat would avoid this becoming a segregation option. Limit the rank thresholds the player can place in that way

Lower limit: From 0 to Player Score/2
Upper limit: From Player Score*2

That way a 2000 score player could prevent 900 score players from joining his game, but not 1000 score players.

[Thezzaruz]

Lower limit: From 0 to Player Score/2
Upper limit: From Player Score*2

Far to narrow limits IMO as that would mean that the only ones to really be excluded from games would be < 750 players.

[OliverFA]

Lower limit: From 0 to Player Score/2
Upper limit: From Player Score*2

Far to narrow limits IMO as that would mean that the only ones to really be excluded from games would be < 750 players.

Of course it is a suggestion. limits should be tweaked to real working limits. But what I mean is that those limits would overlap. Any player would always be forced to accept playing with players that would be at least a percentage of his score. In my example it was 50%-200%. Maybe more reasonable limits would be 75%-150%.

The improtant thing is that all ranges would overlap. On one hand it would provide enough players and on the other hand it would work as difficulty ladder.

And by the way, with those suggestions everybody always forget that low ranked players might want to prevent high ranked players from joining their games in order to have a chance of winning it.

[Vermont]

I'd really appreciate a cogent response to my question above. The lack of a reply indicates my assessment may be accurate.

[pmchugh]

I've been told that the primary reason ideas like this have been rejected is that there is a fear that newer players would not be able to play with high ranking members because the high ranking members would only create games for themselves.

My response to this would be - how does this differ from what is occurring now? High ranking players go and create private games requiring a secret high level password so they can play other players of their same rank. Only this is worse than having an optional rank setting on games, because you can't use gamefinder effectively to find these games, it's non-obvious, requires a trip to the forums to find out how to do this, and isn't used consistently by everyone.

Your forgetting that it is not only the very top players that would use this but also possibly those in the 1200-1800 range.

[lord voldemort]

rank segregation is bad simple as that...
As an option or as a site feature. If you dont want to play lower ranks join one of the many tournaments of usergroup that only has high ranks. Or create private games and post them in callouts

[Woodruff]

rank segregation is bad simple as that...
As an option or as a site feature. If you dont want to play lower ranks join one of the many tournaments of usergroup that only has high ranks. Or create private games and post them in callouts

So what you're ACTUALLY saying is that rank segregation is ok (i.e. posting in callouts, the various rank threads, etc...).

[lord voldemort]

no im saying that implementing it as a feature is bad. It only encourages further segregation, there is already things in place that if you really dont want to play lower ranks then do this...xyz

[Vermont]

no im saying that implementing it as a feature is bad. It only encourages further segregation, there is already things in place that if you really dont want to play lower ranks then do this...xyz

You are missing the point. Rank segregation is ALREADY occurring. If you use pre-set ranges via a drop-down like I suggest, you would actually find MORE people posting public games and have more people able to find games to play. GameFinder would become far more useful.

As it is now, segregation is actually worse because we have the added separation of those who have found the forum thread & learned the secret password(s) and those who haven't and try to pick up the occasional game where they can.

Having clunky, non-obvious, artificial rank segregation is not a good way to avoid rank segregation!

Suggesting people segregate manually because you think segregation is wrong is rather inconsistent, no?

[KraphtOne]

rank segregation is bad simple as that...
As an option or as a site feature. If you dont want to play lower ranks join one of the many tournaments of usergroup that only has high ranks. Or create private games and post them in callouts

Its This Kind Of Comment From Mods That Just Blows My Mind...

"It's Bad, Simple As That"

Obviously Its Not As Simple As That Kiddo Or You Wouldnt Have Megabytes Worth Of Forum Posts Arguing That We Should Have A System To Allow Certain Ranks In Games W/Out Having To Do The Pain In The Ass Callout Forum That Takes A Month To Get A Game Full...

There Is No Point In A Cook Joining An Assassin Game With 3 Generals... It's As Simple As That...

The Mods Saw Fit To Adding Manual Placement Of Troops, (The Worst Idea EVER) Yet Don't See The Bonus Of This? This Should Have Been Looked At, And 2 Days Later Implemented Into Gameplay With A Post In Forum Of "Great Idea Guys"

[slash17]

lol ure complaining ..buuut u are winning them all wich makes u win some EASY points

[Joedimag]

It would be nice to be able to be able to place minimum and maximum levels of opponents when starting public games. Other sites permit this, particularly chess websites. I believe it would encourage less forum shopping (lots of players confess to only entering games with higher/much higher ranked opponents in a unabashed attempt to climb ranks).

It somewhat discourages folks from starting public games when, as a major, you need to beat 4 lietuenants in 1-1 play on New World to get 50 points, but lose just 1 game against a private, and you lose 50. One bad drop and going second, and you lose 50 whereas you might play wonderfully, winngin 4 games against better opponents, including going second and with poor drops, and yet remain flat.

This seems perverse.

I am surely not the first to make this comment, so reiterate the calls of my brethren and sestren!

[owenshooter]

I am surely not the first to make this comment, so reiterate the calls of my brethren and sestren!

nope, you aren't... you should have done a search... and if you want ranked games, go to callouts or send out private invites... good luck, this has been suggested and turned down numerous times...-0

[Vermont]

I'd really appreciate a cogent response to my question above. The lack of a reply containing a consistent answer indicates my assessment may be accurate.

[danoprey]

Or install BOB, a Greasemonkey addon script for Firefox.

[GazduRam]

In Game Finder one wants search for games whose players are similar to him in strength.
(If rank does not measure play strength [I do not know well yet], a strength meter would be necessary. (As in chess.))
Fighting with much much weaker opponents has less sense than with similar strength.
The optimal is when I have (real) chance to win, but my victory is not certain.

[frankiebee]

You may want to check out the 'callouts' forum. Where you can challange people who have a certain point level.

For the idea, I think it's pretty good to have a rank option in the game finder, so you can filter out the low/high ranks you don't want to play with..

[Vermont]

It has been a week. Should I assume there is no rational explanation?