[GO] [Rules] Rank Restricted Games

[Vermont]

But rank segregation is already going on. Just do the occasional search on speed games and that is obvious. Does it matter if it is condoned or not, if it is occurring 90% of the time anyway?

This solution would actually reduce the problem as people could control the range they want and lead to more games being opened up and being searched on.

And this wouldn't be strict segregation anyway. Players would be able to control the min/max ranges of the games they open. This is far different than the other rank segregation ideas that have been presented. I know that is the knee-jerk response, but I believe this to be a reasonable solution to an obscure, inconsistent, game creation/searching process.

[owenshooter]

you can get rank specific games in callouts... this has been suggested multiple times in multiple ways, and it just isn't going to happen. i suggest going to callouts and finding the types of games you want...-0

[Vermont]

you can get rank specific games in callouts... this has been suggested multiple times in multiple ways, and it just isn't going to happen. i suggest going to callouts and finding the types of games you want...-0

If people are using the forum for this purpose, then they are doing exactly what you don't want - segregating by rank.

I'll ask again, why are these inconsistent, clunky, methods preferable to actually adding it as a simple game option? You're splitting players into an additional two groups - those who know about and are willing to go through extra steps to play fewer games against a smaller pool of players, and those who don't know (or don't want to use) those methods and play fewer games against a smaller pool of players. You're segregating things into even more groups this way, and I thought that is what you are trying to avoid?

Segregation IS occurring already - do a few speed searches throughout the day to verify this. Adding these options actually adds MORE games back into game finder, and if the selectable ranges are set appropriately large enough, LESS segregation would occur. Let me repeat - LESS segregation would occur. This is in addition to the other benefits I listed.

If the goal is to reduce segregation, please think about how to end this secret password, search the forum, process that is currently segregating players.

Thanks for responding. I think this is a discussion worth having.

[ahunda]

Just know, that there are many players at the site, who support this suggestion. That is, why it is coming up again and again and again. I remember even a few cases, where lower ranks asked for it, because they wanted the option to create a game without fear of high ranks jumping them for easy points.

But the many people, who have argued the case before you (me included), simply got tired of the ever same "has been rejected before - go to Callouts" responses.

If I were to make a list of favourite suggestions, this would still make my top 3-5 though.

[HardAttack]

you can get rank specific games in callouts... this has been suggested multiple times in multiple ways, and it just isn't going to happen. i suggest going to callouts and finding the types of games you want...-0

Owen, sometimes i am believing on that you are automatically generated message from some computer or something like that.
Whenever some similar subject as above issued, your SAME message takes place as the 3rd or 4th post reply message.

Anyway, vermont, exprience is speaking, forget this, this is not going to ever take place. Leave this hope aside. You never will see a submarine to fly in sky

[Vermont]

I guess I am surprised that something isn't being done to deal with the artificial segregation that is currently occurring. It's not much fun to only be able to play the same small subset of people over and over again, and to have to jump through hoops to do it.

[HardAttack]

Like many, i am in your side on this subject, however what i am saying is that this will never happen.
Do not get exhausted yourself on defending this idea. That is the point.

[Vermont]

Never give up! Never surrender!

But seriously, is "avoiding rank segregation" the reason this idea is being ignored? Because rank segregation is already here; maybe some people just don't want to acknowledge that or play only team games so they have no exposure to it.

[obliterationX]

Great screenshots, unfortunately this will never happen.

[Artimis]

you can get rank specific games in callouts... this has been suggested multiple times in multiple ways, and it just isn't going to happen. i suggest going to callouts and finding the types of games you want...-0

If people are using the forum for this purpose, then they are doing exactly what you don't want - segregating by rank.

I'll ask again, why are these inconsistent, clunky, methods preferable to actually adding it as a simple game option? You're splitting players into an additional two groups - those who know about and are willing to go through extra steps to play fewer games against a smaller pool of players, and those who don't know (or don't want to use) those methods and play fewer games against a smaller pool of players. You're segregating things into even more groups this way, and I thought that is what you are trying to avoid?

Segregation IS occurring already - do a few speed searches throughout the day to verify this. Adding these options actually adds MORE games back into game finder, and if the selectable ranges are set appropriately large enough, LESS segregation would occur. Let me repeat - LESS segregation would occur. This is in addition to the other benefits I listed.

If the goal is to reduce segregation, please think about how to end this secret password, search the forum, process that is currently segregating players.

Thanks for responding. I think this is a discussion worth having.

OP is using flawed logic

By making it easy to set rank limits MORE rank segregation will result. The inherent laziness of human nature insures that the create private games option(premiums only) is used by few people. This helps to ward off rank segregation for the most part.

[Vermont]

OP is using flawed logic

By making it easy to set rank limits MORE rank segregation will result. The inherent laziness of human nature insures that the create private games option(premiums only) is used by few people. This helps to ward off rank segregation for the most part.

Actually, I'm not. Do a search on non-team speed games at different times for a few days. Tell me how many you see that have any sort of upper rank. It doesn't happen but rarely - players are already self-segregating. Sure occassionaly a high ranking player starts a speed game, but it is definitely the exception rather than the norm. (Yes, I am aware there are fewer high ranking players, but the gap is exponentially higher than that.)

Rather than attempt to attack my logic, perhaps you should check out the facts for yourself first?

The point (which I'll state again) is that segregation is ALREADY occurring, but it's done in a clunky, non-obvious way, using private games and semi-secret passwords. If you use min and max rank options that are sufficiently big, this would allow players to create more public games (I sure would!), that more people would be allowed to play in, without requiring players to jump through extra hoops.

Edit: fixed typo.

[Supermarioluigi]

This has been suggested many times, and always rejected.

So, it's not taking place.

[Vermont]

This has been suggested many times, and always rejected.

So, it's not taking place.

If it's been rejected to prevent segregation then the fact that segregation is now actively, consistently, occurring should at least revive the discussion. Or was there another rationale for rejecting it?

[Supermarioluigi]

This has been suggested many times, and always rejected.

So, it's not taking place.

If it's been rejected to prevent segregation then the fact that segregation is now actively, consistently, occurring should at least revive the discussion. Or was there another rationale for rejecting it?

Lack himself basically said no.
And when lack says no, you listen.
Once it's been rejected once, even more so several times, it's rarely looked at again.


"Segregation" has been occuring since this site started, and this "idea" has been brought up ever few months or so and rejected each time.


As much as I would love some sort of max/min rank option, it most likely won't.

[BrutalBob]

Concise description:

When creating a game you can specify a minimum rating (not rank) of players that can join.

Specifics:

When joining an existing game I can avoid games with those whom others have rated poorly, which is the intention of the rating system.

When you create a game you cant stop these twits from joining it.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

This will provide some incentive to behave in a civil manner if they cannot join games because people dont want to play with them

[alster]

Concise description:

When creating a game you can specify a minimum rating (not rank) of players that can join.

Specifics:

When joining an existing game I can avoid games with those whom others have rated poorly, which is the intention of the rating system.

When you create a game you cant stop these twits from joining it.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

This will provide some incentive to behave in a civil manner if they cannot join games because people dont want to play with them

Dunno. IMO - if you create a public game, well, you get what you get. You can always play private games or foe people.

If this suggestion would be eventually implemented - it would be beneficial with a default setting (general default if not changed, 0.0) that applies to all games (instead of having to specify for each game set up, the game setting up process is cumbersome as it is already).

[Thezzaruz]

Concise description:

When creating a game you can specify a minimum rating (not rank) of players that can join.

Considering how poor the rating system is and how different people use it I don't think making a block based upon it is a good idea at all. Would also need to start moderating the ratings to prevent abuse and that I can't see happening.

[BrutalBob]

Most of the people i have seen with low ratings of 3 or less generally deserve them

[MeDeFe]

Concise description:

When creating a game you can specify a minimum rating (not rank) of players that can join.

Considering how poor the rating system is and how different people use it I don't think making a block based upon it is a good idea at all. Would also need to start moderating the ratings to prevent abuse and that I can't see happening.

Word. The ratings system is broken, hardly anyone uses it the way it's intended to be used and those who do face hostility and are reported in C&A. And then warned for using the rating system as it was intended to be used.

Most of the people i have seen with low ratings of 3 or less generally deserve them

Considering that 3 is average, 3 is (or should) not be bad at all.

[PLAYER57832]

I would agree with this suggestion if the ratings had any merit. Currently, most people either rate just to get their trophy, rate all 5's or don't rate at all.

Let's FIX the rating system before we use it this way.

[Halmir]

Aha the rating system works perfectly - for the moderators! By making it largely pointless (for reasons mentioned above) it cuts out thousands of vindictive whinges about "he said that" or "he made us lose the game" and subsequent flaming. And cos of that extra workload on the Mods u have very little chance of such a thing happening.

If you want to meet some fun players, your best bet is to be chatty during the game, and add anyone who seems fun to your Friends list. U can then invite them to a bunch of private games, and/or tell them to bring their friends also. This cuts out any potential disruption from random noobs. I'd suggest you balance about half your games with your posse, against half in general publics looking for fun opponents. Works for me!

[HighlanderAttack]

Not sure if it could be done, but it seems to me every time I have someone that has a rating of lower than 4.5 join a game I have issues with them being and a-hole. It sure would be nice to add something to your profile that automatically foes or does not allow low rated people to join.

The rating system basically is easy enough that when you see someone with less than 4.5 they probably have major issues. Anyone under a 4.0 is a true loser to society in most cases.

[owenshooter]

go to Suggestion... however, this has been suggested multiple times... I would suggest you go to call outs to look for or crate the type of games you want... good luck...-0

[KraphtOne]

Game 5630044
Game 5630048
Game 5630052
Game 5634142
Game 5634144
Game 5634146
Game 5630053
Game 5634147
Game 5634145


Apparently 4 man feudal freestyle is cat nip for noobs... needs to be a way to only allow a certain rank to join your game... w/out having to make it private

~k1

[sully800]

This suggestion has existed since the start of the site and has been consistently rejected. If you set rank limits to enter games then generally there wouldn't be any games available to new recruits other than games already filled with new recruits. This creates a much harder learning process for new players and is not a good way to initiate them to the site.

On a darker side, setting rank limits could enable farmers to specifically target new recruits with much less effort (and much less chance that a high ranking player sneaks in anyway).

So the point is, there won't be any rank discrimination as a site option. You are free to invite specific ranks to your private games, but you already know that I can see.