[GO] [Rules] Rank Restricted Games

[masondixon]

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

The problem is that the callout section SUCKS. It is the worst possible solution to the challenge of finding appropriate opponents.

As to the segregation, what do you think happens today? How many 1800+ players are playing new recruits? This feature doesn't introduce a problem or in any real way change the way new recruits are treated today. Saying that it would change their user experience is pure denial.

You want to look at a real problem, compare the number of premium members ranked above cook to the number of free members. At least a third of the players on this site in the sergeant and lieutenant ranks are NOT PREMIUM players. Why? Because there is no real incentive to upgrade. There are no features beyond playing more concurrent games to entice anyone to spend their money. There are even people on PAGE 1 of the scoreboard who are not premium members. If Lack wants to make any money from this site, he needs to think a little bit beyond "don't scare away new recruits" and start thinking about getting money from the people who have already been hooked into playing on the site.

It is basic marketing strategy. Your easiest sales are up-sells to your current customer base. They have already seen the value of your product, you just need to make it worthwhile to take the next step.

[johnnyringo]

i want to put everyone below a certain score on my ignore list or actually put them on another list since i havent played with them, put them on a your score is too low list, otherwise i have to add thousands of peolple one at a time to my ignore list.

[hecter]

I find it funny that you're not that high yourself…

I believe that minimum rank games are currently being talked about. Whether or not they'll be implemented is another story…

[robbart]

i want to put everyone below a certain score on my ignore list or actually put them on another list since i havent played with them, put them on a your score is too low list, otherwise i have to add thousands of peolple one at a time to my ignore list.

Sorry, I hadn't seen you in any games. Must be because I automatically put people below a certain rank on my ignore list.

[wicked]

otherwise i have to add thousands of peolple one at a time to my ignore list.

have fun with that.

Just think if everyone did that. There wouldn't be anyone for you to play with to get better.

[shackkat]

Has anyone discussed setting up a minimum rank feature? I think creating a higher level for more advanced players could be fun.

Also does anyone else laugh at the "generals" who achieved there rank only through team games? what fun it is to win games from a bunch of newbies who jump into doubles" and triples" games without ever playing before! LOL.

[alex_white101]

yes there are many threads about the antics of top players only playing team games, however that is neither here nor there for this suggestion also i think it would be awful to add a minimum rank feature and a terrible step backwards for the site. hell if a cook joins ur game and beats u, u either do not deserve ur rank or they deserve to be much higher ranked, either way something is wrog with the 2 ranks and only playing against each other can sort it out........

[firth4eva]

what if everyone did this.
you could only play people with exactly the same score as you.

[shackkat]

I currently only seek out games with a my rank or higher already in it. My suggestion would be a viable option, not a set rule for every game.

I've been cooked by a cook before! LOL, and I don't mind being taken out by a lower rank. But it is nice to get into games where everyone is around the safe level.

[alex_white101]

i personally think this is what callouts and private games are for, i certainly dont think it would be good for something to be able to be set on public games, as those who have had the misfortune of becoming cooks would most likely be blocked out of 90% of games, and only being able to play cooks they will miss important chances to learn from more experienced players as well as struggle to climb out of their low rank. this will effectively keep the low ranks low and the high ranks high. i can see why it would be suggested but im not sure it would be a great development for the site......

[Rocketry]

Has anyone discussed setting up a minimum rank feature? I think creating a higher level for more advanced players could be fun.

Also does anyone else laugh at the "generals" who achieved there rank only through team games? what fun it is to win games from a bunch of newbies who jump into doubles" and triples" games without ever playing before! LOL.

cant you just set up a private game, then advertie on callouts?

[wicked]

Discussed and Rejected.

[Rocketry]

Discussed and Rejected.

rare good call

[robbart]

* Suggestion Idea: I suggest that a new game option be employed, "Rank Maximums".
* Specifics: When the new game is created, only players of a certain rank and BELOW can join that game.
* Why it is needed: This allows players who are lower ranked to play with lower ranked players, without worrying about getting their game filled with players much higher ranked than they are. This is the exact opposite of the "Rank Minimums" suggestions. The benefit here is not that the players are being left out, so that only games with higher ranked players are played. But it insures that noobs can play them on their own terms. Once a noob is ready to play higher ranked players, they simply stop using the option. It allows them to put their toe in the water and test the temperature, so to speak, without being burned. This option is available in the Start a Game screen, not as an option on the profile or anything like that.
* Priority** (1-5): 3

[gimil]

has been rejected. It would discriminate against lower ranks.

[robbart]

has been rejected. It would discriminate against lower ranks.

Huh?? How can employing a "rank maximum" be discriminating towards ranks below? It sets a CEILING, not a FLOOR for ranks allowed to play.

Please re-read the post.

[gimil]

has been rejected. It would discriminate against lower ranks.

Huh?? How can employing a "rank maximum" be discriminating towards ranks below? It sets a CEILING, not a FLOOR for ranks allowed to play.

Please re-read the post.

sorry misread the post. Sounds ok but if you wanted to climb teh ranks its better to paly the pros

[robbart]

has been rejected. It would discriminate against lower ranks.

Huh?? How can employing a "rank maximum" be discriminating towards ranks below? It sets a CEILING, not a FLOOR for ranks allowed to play.

Please re-read the post.

sorry misread the post. Sounds ok but if you wanted to climb teh ranks its better to paly the pros

Of course, but in the early days of a CC members career, it's intimidating. This allows them to play with training wheels on, and take them off when they are ready.

Of course, rank isn't everything. There are people who have played hundreds of games, and go through a terrible losing streak, and have a low rank. So rank isn't everything. But it's a start.

Of course, you could allow the noob to pick "maximum games played" too, like 20 or 30, to take rank out of the equation.

[AK_iceman]

What happens if the lowest ranked player starts a game?

[Gilligan]

What happens if the lowest ranked player starts a game?

Then lower ranked players join the game.

[AK_iceman]

What happens if the lowest ranked player starts a game?

Then lower ranked players join the game.

But there is nobody lower ranked than him. So nobody could join.

[wicked]

Restricting games by rank has been rejected. Doesn't matter how the games are restricted, whether a min or a max, they're still restricted. If you want to set up a certain "level" of game, go to Callouts and find like-minded and -ranked players.

[robbart]

Restricting games by rank has been rejected. Doesn't matter how the games are restricted, whether a min or a max, they're still restricted. If you want to set up a certain "level" of game, go to Callouts and find like-minded and -ranked players.

Wicked,

I know there is an obvious good reason to prevent the upper level players from discriminating against players LOWER than them, but why not allow lower ranked players to keep the games within their skill level, if they want to? It's not discriminating, I don't think. It's about choosing the level of your opposition. Some players don't feel up to playing Majors, but in public games, they have little choice. I believe that allowing lower ranked players to choose the absolute maximum level of their opposition, it allows for them to choose when they play the higher ranked players.

You could never exclude your own rank from Maximums. The lowest level you can choose is your own. So any game you initiate, that includes a "max" would only allow players that level and below to join.

Lower ranked players are choosing to sacrifice high point players in favor of playing players of their level. Seems like a fair trade off to me.

Have Rank Max's been discussed before? I only saw references to minimums, which I agree, have no place in CC.

[Gilligan]

What happens if the lowest ranked player starts a game?

Then lower ranked players join the game.

Oh, I thought you said "lower".

But, the lowest ranked player would be a cook. He can join games started by a cook, and a cook can join his games since they are the same rank.

[Jones888]

I have not seen this suggested or talked about in Lack's To-Do-List, so I will mention it.

What I would like to see is some sort of game setup or game search option in regards to rank. Example: if I wanted to create a game in which I wanted Captains only, I could select that in the game creation page. Or if I wanted to search for a game that had a general in it, I could select that in the game finder section.

I obviously havent worked out all the details, but I wanted to mention it as a suggestion. The way the game/site is configured now, this may not be feasible. But I think it would be a option that would get used by quite a few players.