[GO] [Rules] Rank Restricted Games

[LFAW]

FARMER

Loves x

[MoB Deadly]

Support!

[Victor Sullivan]

Not happening, I'm afraid.

viewtopic.php?f=471&t=122108

-Sully

[Metsfanmax]

The rank filter suggestion has indeed been rejected numerous times due to the exclusionary atmosphere it might create for newer players. I'd like to hear some more comments about Pelo War in particular, though -- you might have a case for that map.

[Dibbun]

The Callouts forum is your friend. Make it private and post about it so you people have to request the pw to join.

Agree with Pelo going difficult, but any sort of rank filter is morally wrong.

[jammyjames]

The Callouts forum is your friend. Make it private and post about it so you people have to request the pw to join.

Agree with Pelo going difficult, but any sort of rank filter is morally wrong.

Care to elaborate as to why it is morally wrong? i would like to hear more reasoning for this.

And if you make games private then they seem to take a huge while longer for anyone to join them

[blakebowling]

The Callouts forum is your friend. Make it private and post about it so you people have to request the pw to join.

Agree with Pelo going difficult, but any sort of rank filter is morally wrong.

Care to elaborate as to why it is morally wrong? i would like to hear more reasoning for this.

And if you make games private then they seem to take a huge while longer for anyone to join them

People don't like the idea of a rank filter for the following (general) reasons:
They won't ever get games due to their rank
They won't be able to play with their friends because of their rank
They seem to have some strange emotion that makes them care about others than themselves (elaborate)
Everyone will become infatuated with their score, and become more pompous than ever imaginable. (This comment is not directed at any member in particular, I just don't like people that focus too much on score)

[ViperOverLord]

Not happening, I'm afraid.

viewtopic.php?f=471&t=122108

-Sully

My friend and potential future lover, squishyg pointed this out in that thread:

I think the concern with this suggestion is that new players would be frustrated by the lack of games they would be allowed to play if such a filter was put in place. If new players don't join, new premium accounts don't get purchased.

I would gladly concede this point if not for one factor. I believe that CC has the critical mass of low ranked players that there'd be plenty of games open/filled quickly. And its not like we would need to make a ton of restrictions that would be frustrating. Even if you just had a 1600 plus option then that'd be good. Or if you want to start at 1800 plus or 2000 plus. Heck start at 3000 plus for all I care. Right now most of the 3000 plus players are just battling themselves anyhow. At least eliminate that hassle of callouts and give us a fun option to shoot for.

[jammyjames]

Any thoughts on the Pelo war move suggestion?

[TheForgivenOne]

Any thoughts on the Pelo war move suggestion?

I could bring it up with the higher ups if people truly believe this map should be included in the "Non-joinable" list for New Recruits.

[greenoaks]

make the games Term instead of Standard and you won't get any NR's

[jammyjames]

make the games Term instead of Standard and you won't get any NR's

Then i get targeted by the lower ranks

[MoB Deadly]

You need a lot more support, spread the word around for people to voice their opinion here if you want to see this get implemented

[tkr4lf]

I'll throw my support in for the Pelo War map being made a "difficult" map. Most, if not all, NR's will not know what a conquer style map is or how to play it. They should be restricted to classic style maps for their first 5 games.

And I would also throw my support in for the rank filter option. I think the argument about the lower ranks not being able to find any games is bull. The majority of the players on this website are ranked below sergeant, so I'm sure they could all play together just fine. It sucks when a group of players who play together often set up a game, and in order for it to fill in a reasonable amount of time make it a public game, only to have a team of cooks who have never played together before join up. You don't get better at a map/setting by playing people who suck. You get better (generally) by playing people who are at least evenly matched with you, if not better than you.

I know the official response on this matter has been a resounding "We don't care what the community wants, you can go f*ck yourselves.", but maybe you guys should take a bigger look at this and realize that it would be a good idea. A lot of people want this, and who knows, you might retain some of those older players who have been not renewing their premiums, if only for the fact that you would be showing that you actually listen and care about what your customers want.

[Metsfanmax]

I know the official response on this matter has been a resounding "We don't care what the community wants, you can go f*ck yourselves."

This comment shows a deep misunderstanding of the official response. We do not reject rank filter because we don't care what the community wants -- we do it precisely because we care about the community. As you point out,

The majority of the players on this website are ranked below sergeant, so I'm sure they could all play together just fine.

If the majority of the players are low ranked, then whatever decision we make on the rank filter should be what makes the most sense for them, not for the comparatively small minority of players who have high ranks. If we can improve the experience for both at the same time, great; but if we have to choose between one or the other, and our goal is to help the community (as you describe it), then the obvious choice is to improve the experience for the majority: the lower ranked players. Your own comments should make it obvious why we feel this way:

You don't get better at a map/setting by playing people who suck. You get better (generally) by playing people who are at least evenly matched with you, if not better than you.

If we create the rank filter, it's going to be a lot harder for lower ranked players to get games with higher ranked players, precluding them from "getting better" and creating a rift between the two sides of the community. This is antithetical to the goal of the site -- we want to create an inclusive community for all, not a segregated community where there's a clique of players who only play each other and then everybody else.

You're right that if the rank filter doesn't exist, then not every game taken by a high-rank player will be against players of a similar caliber and will thus not advance toward the purpose of that player "getting better." And in fact this is fine as it is, given that this is intended to be a casual gaming site primarily. But more importantly, if the rank filter does exist, then the majority of lower ranked players will never get the opportunity to play those games against tougher opponents and get better. So you see, the official response comes at it from exactly the same point of view that you do -- we just apply the reasoning holistically towards the whole community instead of starting with the goal of protecting the high ranked players.

At any rate, if you have further support for the rank filter, you may post comments in the original thread: viewtopic.php?f=471&t=122108 I don't want to ruin this thread by getting into another debate about it when the Pelo War suggestion has a possibility of getting through.

[chapcrap]

The Callouts forum is your friend. Make it private and post about it so you people have to request the pw to join.

Agree with Pelo going difficult, but any sort of rank filter is morally wrong.

Morally wrong? I don't think so.

I agree with both of these ideas. Limit the new players' map choices more. Pelo War is a difficult map for a new person. No one should be playing a map like that right off the bat.

Rank Restrictions is also a good idea. I think it would benefit everyone. The lower ranks would be able to play themselves more and have a better experience because they wouldn't get completely creamed and the higher ranked players would hypothetically get a better game. I would rarely use the Rank Filter myself unless I was restricting it to 1400/1600 and above. Other than that, I would not use it often, but I think it's a very good idea. It makes everyone on a more equal playing field.

The one problem that I see with the Rank Restriction is that if new players end up only in games with other new players then they might get frustrated because of deadbeating/waiting for turns/etc. I wouldn't want brand new players to only be able to play with brand new players. But a little restriction is good I think.

[Qwert]

pelo map dificulty for new players? Ok,you create these sugestion because personal benefit, not comunity benefit.
Restriction,restriction, you only think to make more restriction,and these will not bring new players in CC.
Something wrong going in CC,because number of active players lost 5000 players, probably some changes whas bad,what i dont know, but if these not alarming for lack, i dont know what need to hepend so that he realised that something wrong its going here.

[jammyjames]

actually, qwert you will find that many people use that map for farming purposes, look at the 5 man games... so many new recruits with people farming them, i however requesting it to be changed am showing that i would like people not to be farming new recruits, therefore my intentions are for the community.. if i did not care i would continue to play this map with the settings i like continually abusing the NR's.. I for one feel that all sorts of conquest map should be removed until 5 games have been completed..

[emelar]

Pelo difficult? On my first game there Blitz wasn't able to kill me off until waaaaayyyy into the 2nd round. So, yeah, it's difficult, but in support of lower players having access to playing those higher players who will join a public game - I learned more in that one game from seeing what Blitz did than I have on any other map from a single game. My team won the next two games (against different players) using that. It makes the point exactly that playing higher level players can teach the lower levels well and more quickly than against equals who share the same less effective strategies.

Of course, I'm partial to the SoC attitude... "teach a cook today, lose to an officer tomorrow". If you want to play more challenging players, make them into challenging players.

If not, go for private games or join the last 1 or 2 spots on a public one after seeing who is in the game and send an invitation. You can even make your own game and keep an open invite, then cancel the invite if the mix turns undesirable in your eyes.

[rockfist]

I don't find the Pelo map to be particularly difficult. Never have. I'd say low rankers have a better chance at that map than they do on 2.1 for example.

[jammyjames]

Pelo difficult? On my first game there Blitz wasn't able to kill me off until waaaaayyyy into the 2nd round. So, yeah, it's difficult, but in support of lower players having access to playing those higher players who will join a public game - I learned more in that one game from seeing what Blitz did than I have on any other map from a single game. My team won the next two games (against different players) using that. It makes the point exactly that playing higher level players can teach the lower levels well and more quickly than against equals who share the same less effective strategies.

Of course, I'm partial to the SoC attitude... "teach a cook today, lose to an officer tomorrow". If you want to play more challenging players, make them into challenging players.

If not, go for private games or join the last 1 or 2 spots on a public one after seeing who is in the game and send an invitation. You can even make your own game and keep an open invite, then cancel the invite if the mix turns undesirable in your eyes.

In regards to this, i completely agree with what you are saying, however i do not feel pelo war should be available for 4, 5, 6 + player games.

[hmsps]

9793747 this is exactly why you should either be able to set rank restrictions or even rating restrictions to stop utter tools joining your teams.

[chapcrap]

Another way to combat this is to allow the foe list to be used to foe everyone under a certain rank. Or even over a certain rank (If you're low and don't want to go against Colonels, etc.) Can the foe list be altered to perform this?

If the foe list can be altered, it would nice to have separate foe categories. Foe people from chat, forums and for games.

[jammyjames]

You would get abuse of the system this way, people would foe players above a certain rank so they could farm the crap out of low rankers!

[chapcrap]

You would get abuse of the system this way, people would foe players above a certain rank so they could farm the crap out of low rankers!

Yes, if implemented I would have maximums and minimums. You can only block a certain number of ranks/points away from you.

If you want to block someone higher than you, you have to block someone who is 2 ranks above.

So, if you're a major, you can only block Brigs and above. If you a captain, you can only block Colonels and above. I don't really think that farming would be possible that way. It would just allow you to play with people who are more your own rank.