[GO] [Rules] Rank Restricted Games

[chapcrap]

I think this is open to being looked at VOL. I for one, would support and have supported this in the past.

So, moving forward with talking about an idea for this, what do you think a proposed idea would look like? The ability to create games with point minimums or maximums? The ability to create games saying that only people with a certain point range from the game creator are allowed? Should it be based on points or on rank, as the title suggests?

[Anarkistsdream]

Another example of High Players being "high and mighty" and snubbing their nose at lower players. If you are going to do it that way, the maximum any player will ever gain from a game is, what 5 points??? Maybe 10? If you do it that way, you might as well just say that EVERY game is only worth so many points, regardless of level.

[chapcrap]

Another example of High Players being "high and mighty" and snubbing their nose at lower players. If you are going to do it that way, the maximum any player will ever gain from a game is, what 5 points??? Maybe 10? If you do it that way, you might as well just say that EVERY game is only worth so many points, regardless of level.

I don't know what you mean by "that way"

If you play someone who is ranked the exact same as you, you would gain 20 points. If you play someone is ranked double what you are you would gain 40. If you play someone who is half what you are, you would gain 10. So, in order to gain 5 points, you have to have four times as many points as your opponent. That's like me playing someone with about 600 points.

[Metsfanmax]

I think this is open to being looked at VOL. I for one, would support and have supported this in the past.

So, moving forward with talking about an idea for this, what do you think a proposed idea would look like? The ability to create games with point minimums or maximums? The ability to create games saying that only people with a certain point range from the game creator are allowed? Should it be based on points or on rank, as the title suggests?

I will probably not approve a suggestion that allows you to specify the point range that is allowed for the games you create. Please come up with ideas that are more inclusive for the community at large. The favorite of the ones I have heard so far are something to the effect of, specifying the minimum points that are available, in increments of 1000 (and you can't start games that you wouldn't be eligible for).

[Groucho]

Forgive me if this has already been proposed. I've been playing a long time but I never visit the forums. I did a search and found this as a discussion but not in this "suggestion" area.

Concise description:

Allow someone creating a new game to limit the upper rank (and perhaps the lower rank too)


How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

It is frustrating to join a game with a bunch of privates and sergeants only to have a general join at the last minute and, almost invariably, beat us all into the ground. I mean, if I voluntarily join a game where I am outranked because I want the challenge, all fine and good, but it would be nice to have the option to create a game and open it to anyone who wants to join within a certain range.

I sometimes feel like a kid playing a little league game and then a professional baseball player says "Hey, I'll play too". I feel like saying "Hey, pick on someone your own size!"

[spiesr]

MERGED:

• Limiting ranks when creating a new game
• Minimum Score to join a game option
• Mimum Rank Level required for a player to join a game

[Groucho]

Ah, thanks. Don't know why I didn't see that before.

[mathonwy]

I think this is open to being looked at VOL. I for one, would support and have supported this in the past.

So, moving forward with talking about an idea for this, what do you think a proposed idea would look like? The ability to create games with point minimums or maximums? The ability to create games saying that only people with a certain point range from the game creator are allowed? Should it be based on points or on rank, as the title suggests?

I will probably not approve a suggestion that allows you to specify the point range that is allowed for the games you create. Please come up with ideas that are more inclusive for the community at large. The favorite of the ones I have heard so far are something to the effect of, specifying the minimum points that are available, in increments of 1000 (and you can't start games that you wouldn't be eligible for).

I started a suggestion but then I searched and found this thread. (Btw, I think threads that are greater than a certain length should be stickied)

Now that I've played well enough to earn the rank of Colonel, I found myself more than ever being choosy about the games that I play in. As there is no option to play games that are worth zero points (which is a different suggestion altogether), I find myself even hesitating to play games with my lesser ranked (and less addicted) friends. I'm not a farming the same map over and over again type of player. I like challenge and my points are hard earned ones.

I want to be able to join (and start) games that are for example, major and above. I feel that the amount of time and energy I put into playing well should be rewarded with the proper number of points. And on the flipside, if lady lucky decides that I need a beat down, I want a guarantee that the amount of points lost is not too horrid.

And being able to dictate the ranks of your opponents, lowers the probability of illogical / emotional decision making that can happen when playing with privates and cadets. It will never eliminate it altogether but its a heck of a lot better than nothing.

How this benefits everyone? Just like one of the previous posters mentioned, typically when playing any type of game, the general player populace would like to play against similar skilled players. A cadet getting beat down by a general? Who benefits in that exchange. The cadet is ho hum, i got smote by a god. Next. (absolutely nothing is learnt and enjoyment level is nil) And the general is, yay, 5 points... zzzzzzzz.....

[Vid_FISO]

I'm not going to read all 60+ pages.

Simple argument against rank having any bearing on anything - take away josko.ri's team games and he goes from Conqueror to Cook. I'm sure that there are Cooks out there that if they didn't play a particular map or game type frequently that would be Captains or above. It might make you feel good/ superior but rank means nothing.

[Gamera]

Does the new tournament feature fulfill enough of the desire for this? I am in favor of this proposal, but an expansion of restricted tournaments could be a compromise everyone can live with.

[chapcrap]

(Btw, I think threads that are greater than a certain length should be stickied)

STICKIED

[betiko]

I'm not going to read all 60+ pages.

Simple argument against rank having any bearing on anything - take away josko.ri's team games and he goes from Conqueror to Cook. I'm sure that there are Cooks out there that if they didn't play a particular map or game type frequently that would be Captains or above. It might make you feel good/ superior but rank means nothing.

Lol, you really think anyone reaching conqueror, and josko being one of the most legits, could be playing anything lower than colonel level on any given specific setting that are not their thing?

Anyone cook at 100+ games played without a huge history of missed turns is pretty hopeless. Well he s pretty hopeless with a huge history of missed turns too actually

And while ranks are not completely accurate, saying that they mean nothing is a pretty ridiculous statement. Just play a multiplayer game and tell me if there is no correlation between smart/stupid moves and ranks.

Back on topic.. The only problem here for me is to know if public games would fill or not. Other than this, i don t see the problem. Private games do exist, but you might want random people with a certain rank range to join and not have to cherry pick them.

[NoSurvivors]

I'm not going to read all 60+ pages.

Simple argument against rank having any bearing on anything - take away josko.ri's team games and he goes from Conqueror to Cook. I'm sure that there are Cooks out there that if they didn't play a particular map or game type frequently that would be Captains or above. It might make you feel good/ superior but rank means nothing.

Wrong. Josko's the only legit conqueror I've seen. Look at his games. He just kicked my arse in a 1v1 for example. He's inviting people like crazy and people are so scared of playing him they make up excuses to decline . Go at him. Garuntee you'll lose.

[Gamefreakguy]

I didn't read all 63 pages but just wanted to shout out into the void that I support this idea!

Perhaps it would be best implemented by having these rank-exclusive games searchable and visible only to those who are able to join them. It would greatly decrease the frustration of lower level players looking for games since there aren't any "Higher-than-you only" games showing up in their search. For example, just provide a check box in the Game Finder with 2500+ upon reaching the rank needed to use it and restrict it when the rank drops.

Hope it helped something! Would be cool to see this happen and I think it would increase competition among the elites, which is fun.

Simple argument against rank having any bearing on anything - take away josko.ri's team games and he goes from Conqueror to Cook. I'm sure that there are Cooks out there that if they didn't play a particular map or game type frequently that would be Captains or above. It might make you feel good/ superior but rank means nothing.

If you think the only difference between cooks and elites is the game types they play, what kind of strategy game do you think you're playing? Each choice matters, and wiser choices are made by wiser players. Over a long period of time, the wisest decisions will be honored on the field. Look at 1v1 consistency over time. (Actually, could someone MapRank my 1v1 history? I really enjoy the consistency-based approach of those and would like to see how it's gone for me but don't have it available. )

Peace all.

[mcshanester29]

I didn't read all 63 pages but just wanted to shout out into the void that I support this idea!

Perhaps it would be best implemented by having these rank-exclusive games searchable and visible only to those who are able to join them. It would greatly decrease the frustration of lower level players looking for games since there aren't any "Higher-than-you only" games showing up in their search. For example, just provide a check box in the Game Finder with 2500+ upon reaching the rank needed to use it and restrict it when the rank drops.

Hope it helped something! Would be cool to see this happen and I think it would increase competition among the elites, which is fun.

Simple argument against rank having any bearing on anything - take away josko.ri's team games and he goes from Conqueror to Cook. I'm sure that there are Cooks out there that if they didn't play a particular map or game type frequently that would be Captains or above. It might make you feel good/ superior but rank means nothing.

If you think the only difference between cooks and elites is the game types they play, what kind of strategy game do you think you're playing? Each choice matters, and wiser choices are made by wiser players. Over a long period of time, the wisest decisions will be honored on the field. Look at 1v1 consistency over time. (Actually, could someone MapRank my 1v1 history? I really enjoy the consistency-based approach of those and would like to see how it's gone for me but don't have it available. )

Peace all.

I am not in favor of this suggestion...if you want to have rank restricted games you can already make private games

[chapcrap]

OP updated.

[iAmCaffeine]

Not in favour. More ways for higher ranks not to risk their points.

[Bonogi]

As someone pretty new around here(played only a bit in 2010 and more seriously recently) I think it's silly that this isn't implemented. I've played all sorts of different games with various ranking methods and most have something similar and it is not a detriment to those games whatsoever. I am learning that most of the competitive CC games I'd like to be in are invite/private games which seems to be a stopgap solution to an interface lacking an easy, common-sense feature.

[Lord_Bremen]

I don't understand the hostility to this. There are plenty of low rank players making games and playing. There are many fewer higher ranked ones. It's nice to be able to play without idiots randomly suiciding or worrying about losing 50 points.

Perhaps a compromise: You can only limit games to up to the rank below yours. So if you're a Colonel, you can create 2000+ games. Major would be 1800+, etc.

[loutil]

Not having this ability makes absolutely no sense. I get PM's for rank limited private games all the time. The lack of this feature prevents people like me from starting public games except for team games on more complicated maps. I could never win enough games to justify the absurd point discrepancy. I win and I get 7 points. They win and they get 53 points. We play 10 games and I completely dominate them and win 8. I get 56 points for my wins they get 106 points for their 2 wins. CC claims that it wants more activity. Create a system that encourages it. The point system is out of whack and discourages me from playing public games, especially singles.

[owenshooter]

in 8 years, nobody has been able to talk sense to whomever owns the site at the time... 8 years, this has been a point of contention... i can not believe it is still going on... sure, you can set up games and invite people all you want or go to callouts... but you just seem to be limiting who you can play when you do those things... i'm not a high rank, but i do understand their concerns, etc... anyway, 8 years and the debate rages on!!!-el Jesus negro

[owenshooter]

in 8 years, nobody has been able to talk sense to whomever owns the site at the time... 8 years, this has been a point of contention... i can not believe it is still going on... sure, you can set up games and invite people all you want or go to callouts... but you just seem to be limiting who you can play when you do those things... i'm not a high rank, but i do understand their concerns, etc... anyway, 8 years and the debate rages on!!!-el Jesus negro

[agentcom]

Maybe it's just because I've drank the Cool-Aid, but I like the principle behind no rank restricted games.

[Foxglove]

All right, the original post in this thread is from 2006. Let's do something useful with it! I want to organize the original post into several different feasible rank restriction ideas and then submit the suggestion. bigWham is open to considering almost any type of suggestion, so let's lay out some clear ideas for him to consider if and when he's ready to develop them.

My personal preference is to implement straight point level restrictions, like we have had unofficially in the Callouts forum for years and years. 2000+, 2500+, 3000+, etc. There have been quite a few AutoTournaments with point restrictions - both floor and ceiling values - so there seems to be no reason why we can't make normal games with point restrictions as well.