Icon color & Games for players with "cc cred"

[gdeangel]

When I look at the leader board, I always have a lot more respect for freemium players who can make it high in the ranks than for the other "factory" players who play private set trips all day. That's why I'm still a freemium player.

BUT, now that I've stepped up to Seargeant, I find I'm setting up games very conservatively (like no cards, adjacent fort) because losing on the drop to a cook or cadet would really bum me out. I want to be able to set up games where you need a certain rank to join, but I still want it to be "public" (i.e., not by invitation to a few of the same guys so we all trade around points like and inbred three headed dog).

Why doesn't CC implement something like "credentialed" games so when you set it up, you simply check a box, and it sets set up with a minimum score to join, which would be set at one full rank break point below your current score (e.g., a CFC would be playing cadets and up)? I'd probably even pay for that ability (but only if I can keep my silver icon and my four game limit to show I'm a skills player .

Just an idea...

[hecter]

Why don't you check out suggs and bugs to find out why it's been rejected so many times?

[gdeangel]

Funny guy hector... why don't you post me a link?

If the problem is the IT difficults, I suspect lots of people would pay for that ability.

If the problem is the "culture" of cc, its time to wake up and realize that the pick-up games are already being largely being limited, the "officers" are using the officer halls, the clans and cherry-picking games offerred on the pick-up list to limit who they play. They do this because they are premium, and it means, again, preselecting the opponent rather than the rank, which, IMHO is less in keeping with the spirit of conquest and domination than letting people limit their games to a rank threshhold (which, as a boon to cc's stated culture, you'll note I would have be at least a rank or two BELOW the rank of the person who sets up the game, so that you can't just shut out the "new blood").

If this was not a problem, would you really see lots of people posting several threads a day (not all by me) criticizing the high ranked players for not mixing it up??? The point is that even in the middle ranks, you can't mix it up effectively because putting a game out for some cook to join and get a luck drop means you've got to plod along in very slow game configurations, or else sit there and become a freestyle wiz.

[hecter]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=44446
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=41910
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=45203
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3119
There's a few. Learn how to search.

[gdeangel]

Thanks - yeah, I don't have much success with that search thing.

I'm still looking for that "eloquent and thoughtful response by Lack" someone mentioned in the many poo-poo threads. Here's what I found:

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.

I think the answer is that you don't get the ability to acually set a minimum score. It could be set up like a switch that is either on or off, and at the time someone attempted to join games where it was set, a comparison would be made to some set formula for a low-score limit based on the score of the game organizer. If the formula were, for example, LL=breakpoint(Current Rank-3), then anyone with Cook, Cadets and Cadet 1st Class could NOT exclude new recruits, which is where a new recruit is going to get plenty of good experience and also not get cherry picked by oportunistic captains beating on them when they don't even know how to deploy.

So for another example using a Captain, they'd be able to set games at a limit that would only exclude Seargeant's and below (i.e., anyone who is SFC and up would be able to join.) If you allowed this, you'd see more "fair" games started by higher ranks that would allow climbing the ladder, but not necessarily "windfall" gains by the cook who happens to play the captain and take away 100 points.

By the way, I've started an thread in suggestions now... Hector, I put in the last poll option especially for you

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 70#1218870

[MeDeFe]

If you're proposing something like that, at least do it properly and set the barrier as a percentage of the creator's score, say, no less than 2/3rds or whatever.

[gdeangel]

Who wants to have to do math with FRACTIONS, god help us... , and who knows what their exact score is to the point (and for that matter what the game's initiator's score is). Using a rank cutoff threshold is much more user-friendly, although your right, it will mean that the maximum point exposure will vary, and will increase as you get to the higher ranks (like ... ahem... major).