[GO] [Rules] Rank Restricted Games

[jefjef]

There is not a single viable reason to not keep ? & cooks from being locked out of playing games vs officers. Once someone has reached cadet or gotten a stripe they have shown some ability to play and It would be a reward of achievement. And it would eliminate "noob farming" for the most part.

[stahrgazer]

Concise description:

• Give the option for minimum score required to join game - this way officer mess games can be public and not risk being plagued by newbies, low rankers etc.

Specifics:

• just place a check box for under / over 1600 points, or even a specific rank number

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• No risk of newbies or deadbeats ruining a game
• Easier to implement the "turn the game to public" issue - if a few highrankers want to take on the newbs
• More diverse officer mess games, where evryone can rumble

Would also eliminate a recent problem, someone who created a bunch of public games with his preferred format - one still being recommended by most players as a way to avoid treuces - got warned for "farming" because a bunch of new recruits joined most of the games.

[Thezzaruz]

How is that not true? 99.9% of farming happens between the high ranks and low ranks. Remove the ability to play between those ranks - remove 99.9% of the source of farming...

Not that bright eh... The OP asked for an OPTION. No farmer would use that option and hence it wouldn't effect farming, not that hard to understand I would have thought.

I read them, not a single reason, just general words like: "I really dont like the idea"...

Ah I see you just refuse to read the post that does oppose you.

And in almost every other game has rank's separation:

CC isn't every other game.

[Teflon Kris]

To all the people who offer lettuce resistence to this idea:

Would YOU start an open speed assassin game?

Hoping to progress to assassin medals quickly I have tried - and discovered that in exactly 50% of those games there is a complete lunatic that helps someone else to win.

3-player Terminator is almost as bad.

I suggest an amendment to the suggestion - and try waving lettuce at this one - the 'complete f*c*w*t' tick-box.

How would it work - if a low ranked player plays rediculously then an opponent can label him/her. Once he/she has moved-up a couple of ranks then the label disappears.

When other players make games they can tick the tick-box which then ensures that a 'complete f*c*w*t' cant join and destroy the game.

[AndrewB]

How is that not true? 99.9% of farming happens between the high ranks and low ranks. Remove the ability to play between those ranks - remove 99.9% of the source of farming...

Not that bright eh... The OP asked for an OPTION. No farmer would use that option and hence it wouldn't effect farming, not that hard to understand I would have thought.

I read them, not a single reason, just general words like: "I really dont like the idea"...

Ah I see you just refuse to read the post that does oppose you.

And in almost every other game has rank's separation:

CC isn't every other game.

I am not sure why are u baiting me??? Stay on the topic and cut your insults.

My suggestion is to make the rank barrier MANDATORY. As it is in every other game type. I just didn't want to create another post about it. There are soo many already.

And last time I checked, the CC is indeed a GAME so the GAME rules and tendencies should apply here too.

And I didn't refuse to read them. I read them already and could not find anything. So, the BRIGHTEST ONE, who read all the topics, inlighten me, and do POST a valid reason to a question "why not" and/or post a link to the specific post.

[AndrewB]

I've just found the example of the flawed argument by none other then lack himself:

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

Lets check this argument step by step:

New recruits would have trouble finding games.

So lets assume the following grading scale, just for the kickers:

like <1100
1100-1300
1300-1600
1600-1900

You can only join a game within your particular scale.

So new recruit coming with 1000 rating.

I have just spent 15mins and went through the game finder + GM Game filter. As it stands right now there are 231 public games available for the joining with existing players rank between 0 and 1100. It might have been in problem in 2006, when just a handful of games were available at all.

Further more, when the rank barrier would be introduced, then the number of available games will increase significantly, because that would be the only thing they can play until the proceeding to the next barrier.

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

So, now I've spent another 30 mins to go through the list of the completed public games with only rank 0-1100 players present. (I had to modify the GM Game Filter Script to provide the filters for those players)

In the latest 100 games where there... hold your breath...

2! (two) games, with a deadbeater in it! Hardly a bad "first impression".

I would've thought that Lack could run the numbers FIRST before making a statement like this. Especially when he can run the query a way more easier then we can.

So a search for a valid argument is still on.

[Thezzaruz]

I am not sure why are u baiting me??? Stay on the topic and cut your insults.

Baiting??? I never baited you, and my post was very much on topic tbf.

My suggestion is to make the rank barrier MANDATORY. As it is in every other game type. I just didn't want to create another post about it. There are soo many already.

A mandatory barrier is quite a different idea to the OP so you really should make a separate thread (maybe shouldn't waste the time though as I can't ever see that being implemented tbh). Also you really can't expect us to know that you are making a separate suggestion unless you actually say that you are, my point about this not having any effect on farming is still very valid in relation to the OP.

[AndrewB]

Calling someone "not bright" is an insult at least to say.

And would you have any other comments to the several other reasons I have listed (pros or cons the idea)

[Thezzaruz]

Calling someone not bright is an insult at least.

Probably, still think it was a fitting observation of your argument.

And would you have any other comments to the several other reasons I have listed (pros or cons the idea)

So far I have seen you make 3 points. One about how this would stop farming and that I have already shown to be not true. One about how you would like to not have to play "loonies" (isn't that an insult btw?) and although I can feel your pain I don't think that this is a valid argument for rank segregation nor do I think that a barrier based upon rank would cut all "loonies" out of your games. And lastly you made some argument about increased competition but you failed to make it understandable, what I could understand looked to be a flawed argument though.

[PLAYER57832]

Now give me a ONE good reason why there should NOT be a barrier.

The main reason I saw was that they felt it would discriminate against noobs and thus reduce the chance they will pay for a premium membership. Everyone needs a chance to learn.

[AndrewB]

I see this as education is stages.

First you finish high school, then college, then university, then graduated studies.

Nobody complains about stages in the formal education...

[Vermont]

I came to this section of the forum to propose this exact idea. It is annoying (and takes additional time) to setup private games and recruit people just so you can play a game with people somewhat near your rank.

I don't think it's a coincidence that you can never or at best rarely find a speed game (and perhaps regular non-team - I don't play many) game with players above a certain rank.

Perhaps we should update the help page to read "up to rank so-and-so the game finder is a useful tool for public games. After that you have to go setup games yourself since there is no simple mechanism for doing so."

I don't mean to sound cranky; I love the game. I just wish there was an easier way to keep playing games with people somewhat near my own rank as I could when I first started.

[Thezzaruz]

Nobody complains about stages in the formal education...

That's because CC and formal education is two very different things...

[slowreactor]

Without rank barriers, a couple of things would happen:

1) It takes you forever to get your medals because the only thing you dare play are officers private games, and this ends up making you play the same people over and over again.
2) You get called a farmer because noobs and cooks consistently join your open games.
3) You lose 200 points in one day because suicidal cooks keep ending up in your speed games.

[AndrewB]

Nobody complains about stages in the formal education...

That's because CC and formal education is two very different things...

You are just refuse to see something else as an example, lol

It might be tough to re-invent the wheel for you every time...

[HardAttack]

I totally agree with you Andrew, i made similar suggestions a few times and saw some other ppl made such suggestions time to time.
Everytime the result is same. Simple, no.
As high rankers, you are low in number and the highest portion of customer base is less than 1600 points mate.
Say 2*2=4, your idea is as true and clear as this. But will not work.

Anyway, the above phrase to stay there, the reason i m writing, please, yes i beg you please DO NOT SAY PRIVATE GAMES to be option to rank bareer public games. Simple, they are not same thing. And even, they have got no slight difference. One of it is north pole, the other one is south pole. This much different two items. If you are giving me that i have got private game option to be an answer for this suggestion and demand, then sadly you do not know what private game is for.

[Mr_Adams]

I've personaly suggested this before, and now completely disagree. we have 4 majorly successful thread dedicated to this idea in callouts. sure, they all need to start rotating passwords because of the potential drop in ranks, but this is unfair and will cause extreme segregation and a much larger points gap between the top and the bottom.

[HardAttack]

I've personaly suggested this before, and now completely disagree. we have 4 majorly successful thread dedicated to this idea in callouts. sure, they all need to start rotating passwords because of the potential drop in ranks, but this is unfair and will cause extreme segregation and a much larger points gap between the top and the bottom.

The total point is almost a constant. Every new member adds +1000 point into the pool. If one goes to a very high rank, then he will get it hard to find opponents to play with. Simple, it will have no effect on point gap. Yours one is a common belief which is wrong mate.

[Mr_Adams]

I've personaly suggested this before, and now completely disagree. we have 4 majorly successful thread dedicated to this idea in callouts. sure, they all need to start rotating passwords because of the potential drop in ranks, but this is unfair and will cause extreme segregation and a much larger points gap between the top and the bottom.

The total point is almost a constant. Every new member adds +1000 point into the pool. If one goes to a very high rank, then he will get it hard to find opponents to play with. Simple, it will have no effect on point gap. Yours one is a common belief which is wrong mate.

think more into this though. As players get more and more used to this system, the players who stratle the borders will act as a drain for a the group. say the best of the cooks for example. all cooks are playing all cooks, and one manages to take enough of the other cooks' points to become a cadet, but then gets several losses, and pushed back down to a cook. now there are the same number of cooks with x fewer points, and same number of cadets with x more points. this will eventualy cause an upward drag of points. it may be small (conqueror of 6500 points or so) but will happen.

[Fruitcake]

This is a good idea. Quite frankly all the great unwashed should be kept in their place, in fact if I had my way we would stop educating them at age 4 and start them working in my factories, after all most of them will come to little more than vile smelling hooligans running about the place and are fit for little else but decent cannon fodder while we enjoy roasted stuffed pheasant with a fine bottle of the Vintage stuff in the Officers mess.

[Mr_Adams]

we enjoy roasted stuffed pheasant with a fine bottle of the Vintage stuff in the Officers mess.

That actualy sounds amazing right now...

[AndrewB]

think more into this though. As players get more and more used to this system, the players who stratle the borders will act as a drain for a the group. say the best of the cooks for example. all cooks are playing all cooks, and one manages to take enough of the other cooks' points to become a cadet, but then gets several losses, and pushed back down to a cook. now there are the same number of cooks with x fewer points, and same number of cadets with x more points. this will eventualy cause an upward drag of points. it may be small (conqueror of 6500 points or so) but will happen.

You are looking into one of the borders and see the point drainage.

But there is another border too, for the players who are going down in rank. That will happen and they will bring points back into the level.

Essentially as HardAttack has said - total point amount will remain the same as in the current system.

If you are referring to the pure fact that the points migrate from cook cadets, then essentially the same thing is happening now too. If the cook will play better then cadet, then the points will migrate back to cook, and cook becomes the cadet

[Lindax]

Mmmm.... The problem as I see it right now is that you either play for fun OR play for points. If you play for points, your options are very limited. If you play for fun, forget your points.

I mainly play for fun, but I also value my points. So, I play some carefully selected tournaments and some carefully selected games. Whenever I feel like having a few hours of fun, I turn to speed games. I'm no good at 1 v 1 freestyle, so I end up playing games with the majority of players lower in rank than I am. I win a few games, I lose a few games and at the end of my "fun session" I lost points, because when I win I get x points and when I lose I lose xxx points. I still do it because I like the "fun" part of it.

I would like to be able to do both. Play for fun AND play for points. Maybe a "rank barrier" would help achieve that....

Lx

[Vermont]

The reason this idea gets suggested so often is that when you first come here you can easily use 'Start a game' and 'Game finder' to find games with people within 300 (or pick another arbitrary number of your choosing) points of yourself easily. There are tons of games and you can always find a reasonable speed game.

However, after you climb a few ranks you realize that (almost) no one creates public games anymore. All of a sudden if you want to play games you need to happen to ask someone or search the forum, find a specific thread, get sent a password and maybe then you can join a game.

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.

Basically - we DO have a rank barrier currently, but it is artificial, clunky and non-obvious. Why not make it something more straightforward and consistent with the rest of the game setup?

[stahrgazer]

Now give me a ONE good reason why there should NOT be a barrier.

The main reason I saw was that they felt it would discriminate against noobs and thus reduce the chance they will pay for a premium membership. Everyone needs a chance to learn.

An optional barrier would enable the chance, plus allow those who've gained rank to continue to set whichever game settings they prefer without being labelled "farmer" based on who joins the bulk of their games.

A barrier does exist with the system currently in place, it's just hiding for political expedience, but forms a trap to those who want to leave their games open for anyone.
What do I mean!!!???

If someone of higher rank continues to create games that give new recruits that "chance to learn" he or she can be considered a farmer because that means nr's are joining their games alot.

So the system in place forces someone who gets a little rank to make his or her own barriers: under threat of "noted" "warned" "banned" for farming, the higher ranks must stop playing the games he or she might prefer, in order to create games that new recruits will not also prefer. Nor must the higher rank invite new recruits to join those non-preferred setting to give them that "chance to learn," because a higher rank actively inviting new recruits to games constitutes real proof of farming. This means, CC is set up to REQUIRE higher ranks to discriminate against lower ranks or face consequences of "farming;" this requirement fosters more antagonism when lower ranks or new recruits join their games and tends to isolate officers to "password only" games.

Since a barrier exists anyway, CC should program an option so that higher ranks can continue to enjoy their games of preference, to set up any games they happen to wish to play with a click button to indicate the minimum rank required to join the game. That way, they can play what they prefer 95% or whatever percent CC admin deems acceptable with "min rank enabled" but open 5% of their games to all comers - giving the new recruits a chance to play higher ranks to really gain experience.