[GO] [Rules] Rank Restricted Games

[gimil]

This would stop the pros waiting to jump into games with a bunch of privates. personally that just wastes it for me.

[RobinJ]

It has been suggested before. And i like it...

QFT

[The Return Ilo]

This would stop the pros waiting to jump into games with a bunch of privates. personally that just wastes it for me.

Yeah, pretty much the reason i suggested it. it's good to know one another's rank but not being able to choose who you play against is a little annoying.

[nagerous]

when you create a game if you could impose limits i.e for sargeants up, it would prevent noob chefs and cadets entering and screwing the demographics of the game by attacking one person constantly or deadbeating.

I'm guessing this has already been suggested, I couldn't find it under rejected or pending so I'm not sure what response to this is.

[max is gr8]

Or you could tick a button no new recruits

[RobinJ]

Or you could tick a button no new recruits

That might be a bit harsh on them though - they would be able to join hardly any games

[plysprtz]

This would stop the pros waiting to jump into games with a bunch of privates. personally that just wastes it for me.

not really because then couldnt they set it to only allow cooks to join or only privats

[GreecePwns]

How about a check box next to each rank? You could decide exacly which ranks you want by checking the ones that you want to be allowed to join.

[Herakilla]

how about nothing? you cant keep putting up anti new player rules...

if this is implemented i would bet that just about anyone who plays regularly will abuse it

[max is gr8]

Or set minimum requirements

Like:

Minimum 20 games played
Or
minimum positive feedback = 20 = Positive-Negative
Maximum negative feedback = cannot have 5+ negative feedback

[The Return Ilo]

Maybe set it so that people of let's say the "Cook" rank can not decline people of the same rank to join but any other! I guess you could make it so that newbie's are able to access any games up to a certain level. or set a threshold option, when a player set's up a game with that option only people that are within 1 rank (higher the same or lower) can join, if a cook does that newbies could still join those games without risking of getting beaten badly!

[Cmd Popenfresh]

I know it's kinda intemidating to see someone move in on your game with 1000 more points than you, but it's really an advantage for the person with the lower score. They're risking fewer points while gaining the oprotunity to gain a ton more.

[greywolf 313]

it would be nice to have a way limit what rank you will exept in your game . the new rules for scoring are great unless you are capt. lets say and 5 cooks join your game , they have little to lose . on the outher hand you lose big or win small . do you know what i mean .

[Bouncer]

they do that on other "risk" sites and it stinks

1) it drastically reduces the number of games open to all members - dont forget, as a captain you'll be liable to be excluded from games set up by ranks above you.
2) it breeds an atmosphere of elitism - 'them and us'
3) it narrows the choice of opposition - you end up repeatedly playing
against the same old players
4) it would greatly impede the possibility of 'quickly rising up the ranks' -
its fun to beat an officer every now and then

you can always join a public game with captains, majors, recruits - whoever
you like - thats the beauty of it

Keep Conquer Club (mostly) Democratic

[Phobia]

they do that on other "risk" sites and it stinks

1) it drastically reduces the number of games open to all members - dont forget, as a captain you'll be liable to be excluded from games set up by ranks above you.
2) it breeds an atmosphere of elitism - 'them and us'
3) it narrows the choice of opposition - you end up repeatedly playing
against the same old players
4) it would greatly impede the possibility of 'quickly rising up the ranks' -
its fun to beat an officer every now and then

you can always join a public game with captains, majors, recruits - whoever
you like - thats the beauty of it

Keep Conquer Club (mostly) Democratic

Well said I think, I can see a separation of players here, like all the top players with points above 2000 only playing against each other so they don't lose a lot of points, and the rest struggling to get above 2000, because they can't play any high ranking players.

[Bouncer]

(as previously posted in the 'new score rules' forum)

they do that on other "risk" sites and it stinks

1) it drastically reduces the number of games open to all members - dont forget, as a captain you'll be liable to be excluded from games set up by ranks above you.
2) it breeds an atmosphere of elitism - 'them and us'
3) it narrows the choice of opposition - you end up repeatedly playing
against the same old players
4) it would greatly impede the possibility of 'quickly rising up the ranks' -
its fun to beat an officer every now and then

you can always join a public game with captains, majors, recruits - whoever you like - thats the beauty of it

Keep Conquer Club (mostly) Democratic

[Ruben Cassar]

I would like to see a feature that enables you to select the minimum rank for a player to join a specific game when you are setting it up. (for example only captains and above can join a specific game)

Would that be feasible?

[AK_iceman]

Been suggested before several times and was Rejected. Please check the to-do list.

[ken_hutchinson]

search games by minimum points. Ex. I want to find a game with 2000 points or higher.(The result would show players 2000+ open games, and no one's open games below 2000

[Great Pretender]

Love the idea. Perfect for hunting down newbies

[Forefall]

It is well known that higher level players can't gain rank by playing with low level players. In addition, a lot of "cooks" and "privates" do moves that a lot of higher level players find annoying and may consider these moves "game ruiners".

As such, higher level players are often forced to use private games or go on the forums to set up matches. This is a tedious process.

I'd like to suggest that you can make a game a certain rank requirement, and if you're below it, you cannot see it. Much like new players cannot view team games.

To prevent exclusion, you could allow players to make "rank required" games that allow any player 2 ranks below the creator or above to see and join.

[AK_iceman]

This has already been rejected. Please check the to-do list before making a new suggestion. Thanks

[masondixon]

You should let premium members specify either a password OR a minimum point level in the "Start A Game" screen.

Many (if not most) of the Private games are made private because higher ranked players want to play only other players near their rank. So why not add a minimum point level option as a benefit for being premium? Not only would it ease the horror that is the call out forum, but it would entice more of the higher point level free players to upgrade to premium in order to take advantage of this feature.

[masondixon]

I see that it has been rejected, but I offer three arguments for reopening the thread:

1) The original suggestion was a year and a half ago. It deserves revisiting

2) My suggestion was specifically targeted at PREMIUM players. One thing this site is missing is any kind of REAL incentive to upgrade. In the never ending effort to not scare away new recruits, you are disenfranchising free players who might actually PAY if there were some benefits to doing so.

3) Lack's reason for rejecting the original post is moot. He was afraid that new recruits would be locked out of games except from other new recruits. From a practical standpoint, this suggestion is already in effect. High point players simply do not play new recruits. The issue that this suggestion would address is the fact that the current solution involves a bunch of PM'ing back and forth rather than a straightforward solution.

[alex_white101]

nah if u want a minimum point level set up a thread in callouts or pm some friends, this upgrade is unneccesary and would most probably end up locking out new recruits. i dont think lack will change his mind on this one so its probs not worth arguing for