Conquer Club

Concise description:

• Develop a site feature which do not allow public games to be playes vs opponents or teams who have more than double points than opponents

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

• This will protect low ranked players from being farmed/ranched by experienced players in order to get easy points

This is idea how to improve bugs in rules which have lead to this verdict:
viewtopic.php?f=239&t=174172&view=unread#p3813311

my opinion about this (copied from deathcomesrippin's wall):
"I do not think what GLG has done is ok, but giving him ban without explain what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in his doing is just not ok and does not serve to any improvements of the site. point system obviously have bugs, and we need clear rules what is ok wand what is not ok. He is not guilty that point system developed by CC has bugs, he is just using it, and job of CC team should be to fix bugs in rules, and not to punish players who use system bugs for their own point benefit. "

so, if this suggestion gets accepted, then someone with 5000 points would be able to play vs everyone above 2500 points, what is pretty fair level of competition. average player with about 1500 points would be able to play vs opponents from 750 to 3000 points, what is aswell pretty wide range of available opponents. this suggestion do NOT apply for clan or tournament games which works around invite system of opponents who are joined together by draw. This is suggestion only for public games, and may include only 1v1 but also may include team type of games.

josko.ri wrote:Concise description:

• Develop a site feature which do not allow public games to be playes vs opponents or teams who have more than double points than opponents

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

• This will protect low ranked players from being farmed/ranched by experienced players in order to get easy points

This is idea how to improve bugs in rules which have lead to this verdict:
viewtopic.php?f=239&t=174172&view=unread#p3813311

my opinion about this (copied from deathcomesrippin's wall):
"I do not think what GLG has done is ok, but giving him ban without explain what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in his doing is just not ok and does not serve to any improvements of the site. point system obviously have bugs, and we need clear rules what is ok wand what is not ok. He is not guilty that point system developed by CC has bugs, he is just using it, and job of CC team should be to fix bugs in rules, and not to punish players who use system bugs for their own point benefit. "

so, if this suggestion gets accepted, then someone with 5000 points would be able to play vs everyone above 2500 points, what is pretty fair level of competition. average player with about 1500 points would be able to play vs opponents from 750 to 3000 points, what is aswell pretty wide range of available opponents. this suggestion do NOT apply for clan or tournament games which works around invite system of opponents who are joined together by draw. This is suggestion only for public games, and may include only 1v1 but also may include team type of games.

I like this suggestion. Just as I have liked the previous ones of the same nature.

However, as to the idea that GLG did not understand what was acceptable and what was not acceptable, I have to say I don't believe there is any way that wasn't the case, based on the result from his previous bust. He knew...he just thought he could get away with it.

I am MANY others support rank segregation. I do NOT want cooks and cadets and privates and corporals in my games BUT CC does.

Good luck with this.

I am not very optimistic that CC will finally turn around and implement something like this, but maybe with the GLG decision they finally will.

100% support your suggestions.

Inb4 lack doesn't want a rank segregation!

I support the suggestion

I absolutly support this for 1vs 1 and team games!

Janomike wrote:I absolutly support this for 1vs 1 and team games!

I've always supported this as an option. I'm not sure about making it mandatory...

Same as chap (shocking, I know)

chapcrap wrote:

Janomike wrote:I absolutly support this for 1vs 1 and team games!

I've always supported this as an option. I'm not sure about making it mandatory...

I don't think it NEEDS to be mandatory, because in a situation that warrants C&A intervention, it would become clear that the individual were making a point of NOT having the appropriate type of games when they easily could have done so (in other words, the excuse of "I can't help who joins my games" becomes a lot less valid).

Agree with this idea 100%

Problem is this would kill speed games for high ranking players. Most speed players (notice I said most, not all) have an average rank or even a low rank. It could make finding games very difficult for people on the high end, or even people on the very low end.

The # of people playing speed games at any given time isn't necessarily that high. Then you go cut that group in half for people on either extreme which makes it worse. And it would be impossible to make an exception for speed games because that is how most of the farming/ranching takes place.

Chuuuuck wrote:It could make finding games very difficult for people on the high end

That might very well be true.

Chuuuuck wrote:or even people on the very low end.

That is probably not true.

chapcrap wrote:

Chuuuuck wrote:It could make finding games very difficult for people on the high end

That might very well be true.

Chuuuuck wrote:or even people on the very low end.

That is probably not true.

I think both are true. However, I do not think the OP would be opposed to this result as most of the types of games that are no longer be available will be the ones that he was critical of in the first place.

Chuuuuck wrote:Problem is this would kill speed games for high ranking players. Most speed players (notice I said most, not all) have an average rank or even a low rank. It could make finding games very difficult for people on the high end, or even people on the very low end.

The # of people playing speed games at any given time isn't necessarily that high. Then you go cut that group in half for people on either extreme which makes it worse. And it would be impossible to make an exception for speed games because that is how most of the farming/ranching takes place.

There are usually many players at least majors playing around the 2000 to 2500 mark playing speed games at least what I see and I don't see many players above 4000 playing speed games. Maybe if you said above 2000 can play any score?

Chuuuuck wrote:Problem is this would kill speed games for high ranking players. Most speed players (notice I said most, not all) have an average rank or even a low rank. It could make finding games very difficult for people on the high end, or even people on the very low end.

The # of people playing speed games at any given time isn't necessarily that high. Then you go cut that group in half for people on either extreme which makes it worse. And it would be impossible to make an exception for speed games because that is how most of the farming/ranching takes place.

I'd rather think it's gonna encourage a lot of high ranked players to play more speeders. A lot of them are not playing them now to avoid a cook joining with lucky rolls and taking like 80 points from them.

Pirlo wrote:

Chuuuuck wrote:Problem is this would kill speed games for high ranking players. Most speed players (notice I said most, not all) have an average rank or even a low rank. It could make finding games very difficult for people on the high end, or even people on the very low end.

The # of people playing speed games at any given time isn't necessarily that high. Then you go cut that group in half for people on either extreme which makes it worse. And it would be impossible to make an exception for speed games because that is how most of the farming/ranching takes place.

I'd rather think it's gonna encourage a lot of high ranked players to play more speeders. A lot of them are not playing them now to avoid a cook joining with lucky rolls and taking like 80 points from them.

I don't know seems as the real high ranks play settings and games they tend to win at a very high percent that is speed games. Maybe a major or above can win but most everyone looses.

I do NOT support making this mandatory. I like playing with my friends who can be of much lower rank than I am and would probably quit if that option was taken away from me.

Instead, I agree with there being a separate point segregation option when a player starts a game

I like the idea of having an option when starting a game I have almost stoped playing speed games because of the chance a low rank player joining.
Also I have started to play a lot less public games for the same reason if there was an option it would improve the site. I don't think it should be mandatory. Hope you get some support for this

I agree here. There have been many questionable rulings and statements based on the fact that NRs or low ranking players joining another players games. If you install this option , or one similar to this, then these issues would sort themselves out.


Thanks,

J

I have always wanted something like this even before any C&A ruling was made. With some of the recent rulings, I feel something like this is almost necessary.

for a variety of reasons i disagree with the OP. rank segregation is what private games are for. Callouts functions as a pickup for non buplic games. Public games should be open to all the public.