Jdsizzleslice wrote:ATLBravosfan wrote:Concise description:- A new option when creating a game - you can set a minimum score requirement to join
Specifics/Details:- The concise description is pretty self-explanatory. When you decide to create a game, there will be an option to set a minimum score requirement. You can have no limit or you can set a limit if you wish.
How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:- This will allow players with higher scores to play against opponents that they are more likely to want to play against. For example, we all know that there is an element of luck involved in this game - from the rolls to the initial deployment. I do not like playing against very low ranked players 1v1 because I stand to lose a lot of points and only gain a few. I don't mind playing with lower ranked players in a large player map if there are other high ranks in there because the potential for points to be gained outweighs the possibility of losing a lot of points.
The main reason why I don't think this will get implemented is because there is an option to create private games.
In private games, you control who plays your games. I think this is the main idea of what you are trying to get across.
EDIT: I'm not trying to suggest that your idea is a bad idea, it's just that it has already been somewhat implemented in a different way.
I've heard this a couple times and to me it falls flat, if that was the purpose of private games and it covered the user case of our users, why would it be brought up so often? Note this isn't directed at you just at the general arguments against it. The arguments against it usually tend to kind of pivot around the fact that other things are in place, use them.
In the case of using private to achieve this. That has been done by some, and abused by others. 1) Its annoying to spam all people in the rank you want asking for someone to play you. 2) If this was a simple way to do it, I think a lot of people (including me) would do so.
The point of some games being chance driven: whether op plays 10 maps in the positive doesn't really apply here if he has played other maps. I remember map ranking myself, I was something like 5000+ positive at one point on antarctica and negative on the rest. Why? Because I enjoy playing 1v1 on somewhat standard maps. And we all know that winning a standard map doesn't give very wide ability to have high win ratios, so when you happen to get dice screwed against a cook, it takes as many as 3, 4 and sometimes 5 wins to compensate for that against somewhat competent opponents which makes dice luck an even larger factor.
I don't generally mind getting dice blasted in a 1v1 if the player is within 500 points or so, but when you get dice blasted by a private for 40+ points thats aggravating enough to stop playing 1v1 at all. (In fact I've abused this in the past by finding high rank players when I was in the 1200 area, just to quickly boost based on dice luck).
I think if you polled high rankers about 1v1, a good number of them would play if they didn't get point hammered just for trying to have some quick fun. A two rank limit or something as a checkbox seems to make sense. Heck it could even be an option in the section for making a game private. Private by password or by rank.
On the flipside, this would allow low ranking players to be exposed to higher complexity maps against a pool of players that are generally their own skill level and then they couldn't be point sniped as they try to learn City Mogul, Hive, Das Schloss, or any other general farming style map. And if people want the possibility of lower opponents or higher opponents they don't have to check it.
I've just really never understood how this detracts from the site.
