[GO] [Rules] Rank Restricted Games

by **Kotaro** on Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:53 am

Sully's right, but at the same time, TeamCC keeps accusing people who love Feudal War of being farmers, and yet refuses to recognize that Feudal War is too complicated for n00bs and needs to be on the block list.

Get off your ass lack.

by **jefjef** on Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:58 am

Kotaro wrote:Sully's right, but at the same time, TeamCC keeps accusing people who love Feudal War of being farmers, and yet refuses to recognize that Feudal War is too complicated for n00bs and needs to be on the block list.

Get off your ass lack.

Correct. Any non-standard play maps (I.E. those with bombards) should be noob blocked.

Simple as that.

CC is my master... etc... etc... etc...

by **72o** on Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:00 pm

I don't know about this... there are too many idiots that rate people stupidly. For instance, Mommy2Jesse. She rates you a 1 for attitude if you don't put anything in the game chat. That's stupid. My rating is barely over a 4.5 because of crap like this.

by **slowreactor** on Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:15 pm

Can we merge the at least 100 threads of noob-less feuds please?

by **obliterationX** on Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:05 pm

Just rape them anyway, regardless of rank.

by **Thezzaruz** on Wed Sep 23, 2009 6:09 pm

72o wrote:She rates you a 1 for attitude if you don't put anything in the game chat. That's stupid. My rating is barely over a 4.5 because of crap like this.

Hmmm.....

Attitude: Covers behaviour in chat, foul language, sore losers, gracious winners, "great chatters!", whining about luck, etc...

A "1" for not saying anything might be a bit harsh but it's not far off tbh, and it's a much more accurate rating than the "normal" "5" for sure.

by **Woodruff** on Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:34 pm

sully800 wrote: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.

See, I disagree...I think it's similar to the promotion system that European soccer uses...you play those at your level and you either graduate to a better level, lower to a worse level or stay put...but always playing those at your level.

sully800 wrote: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).

How, without it being painfully obvious (and thus easy for the ban-hammer to hit when reported)?

by **Thezzaruz** on Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:38 am

Woodruff wrote:
sully800 wrote: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).

How, without it being painfully obvious (and thus easy for the ban-hammer to hit when reported)?

Because sully has missed the obvious "any limit should be a +/- range from the game creators rank" part of this. Would be pretty stupid if you could set a limit that would enable yourself to not be allowed in your game. :roll:

Woodruff wrote:.

What, why, when??? Eeh, Hi and welcome back.

by **72o** on Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:21 am

If you think that 5 is not an accurate rating, you shouldn't assume that people with an average lower than 4.5 are people you shouldn't play.

by **KristenAmazon** on Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:23 am

Post below lol.

by **KristenAmazon** on Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:25 am

I feel like my 4.3 rating is somewhat influenced by the 1/1/1 that a "Darthvadar" left for me simply because I could not play realtime risk. What's funny is that he was online when I attacked him. He had time to deploy and everything, my stack then beat his stack after he deployed it (so that he couldn't deploy or reinforce anything else) while I had 8 men left. He called me a "cheap ass bitch" and left me all 1s :-(

I had asked if he was interested in playing realtime at a time where I would be available for a few minutes but I made it clear I understood that 24 hour play was 24 hour play. Idunno. I like to think I'm a relatively pleasant player.

by **jefjef** on Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:34 am

Do not put too much emphasis on ratings.

You have those out there giving 3 almost exclusively.

Those who believe that ratings are to be given in comparison to other players instead of as individual performance as it is intended to be.

You have those that revenge rate. Due to losing or just not liking you or your avi or cuz they take offense to you questioning why they made a stupid ass move & lost the game for both of you.

You have those that rate poorly cuz you attack them AFTER they attacked you.

CC wouldn't let us to put rank limits in to join games. Imagine this will not be allowed either.

by **Thezzaruz** on Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:27 am

72o wrote:If you think that 5 is not an accurate rating, you shouldn't assume that people with an average lower than 4.5 are people you shouldn't play.

Never said I do.

jefjef wrote: CC wouldn't let us to put rank limits in to join games. Imagine this will not be allowed either.

IMO a rank limit would be better in every way, the ratings are just so misused that it hardly gives us any info at all.

by **obliterationX** on Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:29 am

Absolutely no way.

The ratings system is already open to severe abuse, and making exclusive games based on your rating would only increase said abuse.

by **KraphtOne** on Sun Sep 27, 2009 10:12 am

Thezzaruz wrote:Because sully has missed the obvious "any limit should be a +/- range from the game creators rank" part of this. Would be pretty stupid if you could set a limit that would enable yourself to not be allowed in your game.

Ok that sentence is more brilliant than it seems...

In setting a rank limit for a game it would apply to everyone in the game...

So there would be no way to noob farm because if i have a rating of 4000 i would have to set the game to minimum rank X to maximum rank 4000 or else i couldnt play :0)

Great Idea and absolutely no reason not to be able to do this...

Cooks could open up games and not have to worry about majors joining them...

Send It In ...

by **jammyjames** on Sun Sep 27, 2009 10:43 am

no need for the maximum score krapht. just a setting saying ranks. i.e have to be ranked sarg...major. col etc etc

by **sully800** on Sun Sep 27, 2009 11:24 am

KraphtOne wrote:
Thezzaruz wrote:Because sully has missed the obvious "any limit should be a +/- range from the game creators rank" part of this. Would be pretty stupid if you could set a limit that would enable yourself to not be allowed in your game.

Ok that sentence is more brilliant than it seems...

In setting a rank limit for a game it would apply to everyone in the game...

So there would be no way to noob farm because if i have a rating of 4000 i would have to set the game to minimum rank X to maximum rank 4000 or else i couldnt play :0)

Great Idea and absolutely no reason not to be able to do this...

Cooks could open up games and not have to worry about majors joining them...

Send It In ...

I agree that it's a very good idea to say the minimum allowed rank is your own rank. That effectively prevents farming, and is a good solution.

But the other half of the problem still exists: New recruits would find themselves only with low ranking players and therefore would have a worse initial experience and be less likely to remain on the site. At least, that has been the prevailing opinion for the last 3 years and it's why this suggestion has never been implemented.

I understand the concept that you should be able to beat people at your own level before moving up and playing the next level - on many levels it makes sense. But it also segregates the score board and could prevent low ranks from joining a lot of games and that is something CC has been wary of from the get go.

by **Vermont** on Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:42 am

We have the inverse problem that many people will not create games to avoid the risk of lower ranks joining, either to avoid farming or to avoid the risk of losing additional points.

It's interesting that the rationale used against a solution like this is that new players wouldn't be able to join games against upper ranks, but how often are public games created by top players currently?* Many only create games that can only be joined once someone has found a specific forum and learned that particular secret password, etc.. Rather than making a system like this built into the game we have a clunky, non-obvious interface for playing people of a similar rank, that only a subset of the players know. This then causes there to be even fewer people available to play games against.

If you introduce a system such as I suggested in the following thread you would be able to find MORE games that are available to a wider subset of players, rather than private games that you need to know the secret method for joining that have a smaller pool of players:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=93624&hilit=vermont

Beginners would still create games for beginners and there would still be a similar number of games for them to play against higher level players. (Which would be as it is today - not many, since many upper ranks often use this artificial method of not having to play row ranked players since no proper method exists.)

* I am aware that certain combination of games high players will create for low players to join, team games for example, as their chance of losing is reduced. But try consistently using team finder to locate a non-team speed game against someone of even a moderate rank. You can't because nothing official exists to let people do so, rendering game finder far less useful than it should be.

by **mattattam** on Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:20 pm

It would be cool if there was an option to create a public game and limit the people who could join to a certain rank. So if you created a game you and are a Captain you don't have to play a game with privates and below or something like that. I know this would be a little harsh on cooks and in particular new recruits. But I think it would be a nice option.

Thoughts or variations?

by **Lindax** on Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:45 pm

mattattam wrote:It would be cool if there was an option to create a public game and limit the people who could join to a certain rank. So if you created a game you and are a Captain you don't have to play a game with privates and below or something like that. I know this would be a little harsh on cooks and in particular new recruits. But I think it would be a nice option.

Thoughts or variations?

Yep, check out "Callouts"

Lx

by **haggispittjr** on Mon Sep 28, 2009 8:27 pm

just so you know this has been sudgested 1000 times.

by **mattattam** on Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:53 am

haggispittjr wrote:just so you know this has been sudgested 1000 times.

Well I guess I'm 1001!!! : )

by **mattattam** on Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:54 am

Yep, check out "Callouts"

Lx[/quote]

Hey thanks I didn't see this before!

by **b00060** on Tue Sep 29, 2009 10:39 am

Should not be an idea anymore, but an actual option when creating games!

by **b00060** on Tue Sep 29, 2009 12:13 pm

Exactly. I think a lot of people do not create games because they know that a lower rank will join them. I am not sure that we should be protecting the playing experience of cooks. Shouldn't they be playing against other cooks and lower rank and once they get better their rank will get better and thus so with the amount of game that they have to be available for play? Perhaps you should only be able to limit the play to people of your rank or higher at the time.