[GO] [Rules] Rank Restricted Games

[Woodruff]

Without rank barriers, a couple of things would happen:
1) It takes you forever to get your medals because the only thing you dare play are officers private games, and this ends up making you play the same people over and over again.

I've never had this problem, even when I was an officer.

[slowreactor]

Without rank barriers, a couple of things would happen:
1) It takes you forever to get your medals because the only thing you dare play are officers private games, and this ends up making you play the same people over and over again.

I've never had this problem, even when I was an officer.

Considering that if I were to play an open game, it is very possible (and likely) for the point average of all the other players who join to be around 1000, which results in only about 50-70 points for me per win (I play 6-8 player games). That, combined with the fact that a suicidal player can easily give a cook a win (50-70 points gone right there) makes it so that I almost have to win half my games just to keep my rank, even though mine's closer to 1/4.

With private officers games, I can have only a 23% win rate and still maintain my rank. However, only a certain amount of actual officers frequent the callouts forum and the officers private games threads, which makes me end up playing the same people over and over again (Half of the private officers games I finish, I don't even have any ratings that I need to leave, and that's surprising, considering I only have about 350 finished games).

[Mr_Adams]

I've personaly suggested this before, and now completely disagree. we have 4 majorly successful thread dedicated to this idea in callouts. sure, they all need to start rotating passwords because of the potential drop in ranks, but this is unfair and will cause extreme segregation and a much larger points gap between the top and the bottom.

The total point is almost a constant. Every new member adds +1000 point into the pool. If one goes to a very high rank, then he will get it hard to find opponents to play with. Simple, it will have no effect on point gap. Yours one is a common belief which is wrong mate.

This will only happen when people join games with players of lower rank, or somebody drops in rank while in a game with higher ranks, then joins low rank games and loses them only after winning in the previous games with higher ranks, thereby bypassing the one way points barrier. In the end, there WILL be an upward flow of points. Not saying there isn't already, but as Lindax says, every once in a while you play a bunch of 1v1 for fun. lose points. that's the only way points go down to the bottom of the score board, is when hogh ranks lose to low ranks. otherwise, points are just recycled through the same group of low ranks, and when a low rank accumulated enough to move up a rank, they then lose points, sending them back down a rank, only now with fewer points. the problem your not seeing is that when somebody moves down in rank with a points barrier system, they are LEAVEING POINBTS BEHIND in the next higher up group, not taking points down into the next lower group.

[Woodruff]

Without rank barriers, a couple of things would happen:
1) It takes you forever to get your medals because the only thing you dare play are officers private games, and this ends up making you play the same people over and over again.

I've never had this problem, even when I was an officer.

Considering that if I were to play an open game, it is very possible (and likely) for the point average of all the other players who join to be around 1000, which results in only about 50-70 points for me per win (I play 6-8 player games).

I believe I see the difference in our perspectives right here. I don't care about the points in the slightest (if I did, I sure wouldn't be playing 60+ games pretty much at all times).

So having said that, it seems to me that it is your concern over the points which is limiting your ability to get the medals quickly, rather than the lack of a rank barrier.

[HardAttack]

The reason this idea gets suggested so often is that when you first come here you can easily use 'Start a game' and 'Game finder' to find games with people within 300 (or pick another arbitrary number of your choosing) points of yourself easily. There are tons of games and you can always find a reasonable speed game.

However, after you climb a few ranks you realize that (almost) no one creates public games anymore. All of a sudden if you want to play games you need to happen to ask someone or search the forum, find a specific thread, get sent a password and maybe then you can join a game.

What compelling reason is there to make people jump through these hoops? They are in effect going through these manual steps to play games with people somewhat near their rank.

Basically - we DO have a rank barrier currently, but it is artificial, clunky and non-obvious. Why not make it something more straightforward and consistent with the rest of the game setup?

Very well said.

[Mr_Adams]

I still see a widening points gap. we're going to create a deficit bigger than Obama's...

[slowreactor]

Without rank barriers, a couple of things would happen:
1) It takes you forever to get your medals because the only thing you dare play are officers private games, and this ends up making you play the same people over and over again.

I've never had this problem, even when I was an officer.

Considering that if I were to play an open game, it is very possible (and likely) for the point average of all the other players who join to be around 1000, which results in only about 50-70 points for me per win (I play 6-8 player games).

I believe I see the difference in our perspectives right here. I don't care about the points in the slightest (if I did, I sure wouldn't be playing 60+ games pretty much at all times).

So having said that, it seems to me that it is your concern over the points which is limiting your ability to get the medals quickly, rather than the lack of a rank barrier.

That being said, if a rank barrier (even an optional one) were to be implemented, I would not have to worry about playing low-level players, yet still allow me to get medals quickly.

[AndrewB]

I've personaly suggested this before, and now completely disagree. we have 4 majorly successful thread dedicated to this idea in callouts. sure, they all need to start rotating passwords because of the potential drop in ranks, but this is unfair and will cause extreme segregation and a much larger points gap between the top and the bottom.

The total point is almost a constant. Every new member adds +1000 point into the pool. If one goes to a very high rank, then he will get it hard to find opponents to play with. Simple, it will have no effect on point gap. Yours one is a common belief which is wrong mate.

This will only happen when people join games with players of lower rank, or somebody drops in rank while in a game with higher ranks, then joins low rank games and loses them only after winning in the previous games with higher ranks, thereby bypassing the one way points barrier. In the end, there WILL be an upward flow of points. Not saying there isn't already, but as Lindax says, every once in a while you play a bunch of 1v1 for fun. lose points. that's the only way points go down to the bottom of the score board, is when hogh ranks lose to low ranks. otherwise, points are just recycled through the same group of low ranks, and when a low rank accumulated enough to move up a rank, they then lose points, sending them back down a rank, only now with fewer points. the problem your not seeing is that when somebody moves down in rank with a points barrier system, they are LEAVEING POINBTS BEHIND in the next higher up group, not taking points down into the next lower group.

As I said before, u see the points lost going up the rank, but you are failing to acknowledge that there are points gained when you go down the rank...

Points do not disappear anywhere, and they are not created from the air.

The points inflation will be exactly the same as currently (by new player bringing in 1000 points).

[Mr_Adams]

I said NOTHING about inflation. read the post. when you go up in rank, you will be transfering more points in to the group directly above. points which you will not take back down, because to move back down, they would have to be taken by somebody in one of your own games, therefore, in the same group as you., namely the group directly above your own, therefore and UPWARD flow of points.the points would therefor be suspended one group up. Those points will, inturn, be moved to the next group up. Do I need to make a visual diagram for you? I WILL! the rank barriers WILL DISRUPT POINTS FLOW if they are instated.

[Mr_Adams]

k, paint shop will make my point. so, we have players (dots: Blue, red, orange, lime and brown) and points (green dots)

Blue red lime and orange all start out with 6 points (below the 10 point barrier) and brown is the high rank with 15 points. He stands alone in my diagram as the minority "officer" if you will. Orange wins a couple of games, and moves up to Browns bracket, and gets his butt handed to him. now he loses the points he took from blue red and lime, and moves back down.

Before, blue red lime and orange shared 24 points between themselves, while brown had 15 points to himself. in the end, blue red orange and lime share 21 points between themselves, and brown has 18 to himself.

Blue, red, orange, lime represent the lower bracket. orange wins a game, taking blue red and limes' points. Then goes and plays against brown. loses a few games, and moves back down. but he leaves his points in the next bracket up, therefore, he reduces the total number of points and the points to player ratio in the first group, while increase the total points and points to player ratio in the next bracket up. Now, until you can explain how they move DOWN in a bracket based system, I tell you that they will NOT move down in a bracket based system, causeing an upward flow in points, and a middle no mans land of striped ranks.

[Vermont]

The reason this idea gets suggested so often is that when you first come here you can easily use 'Start a game' and 'Game finder' to find games with people within 300 (or pick another arbitrary number of your choosing) points of yourself easily. There are tons of games and you can always find a reasonable speed game.

However, after you climb a few ranks you realize that (almost) no one creates public games anymore. All of a sudden if you want to play games you need to happen to ask someone or search the forum, find a specific thread, get sent a password and maybe then you can join a game.

What compelling reason is there to make people jump through these hoops? They are in effect going through these manual steps to play games with people somewhat near their rank.

Basically - we DO have a rank barrier currently, but it is artificial, clunky and non-obvious. Why not make it something more straightforward and consistent with the rest of the game setup?

Very well said.

We seem to be on a few different tracks on this thread. I'd be curious to have someone respond to my quoted post here as to why they believe the current method for finding similar rank games is preferable to having an additional game option. If this thread is more about point transfer, I can go post it elsewhere.

Thanks!

[PLAYER57832]

Concise description:
Allow LOW ranked individuals to start games that cannot be joined by anyone above Lieutenant (possibly Master Sergeant?)


Specifics:
Those who are below Sergeant level would have the option of starting a game that could only be joined by other low-ranked individuals.

If someone gets too high before the game starts, then they will be dropped.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:
Most of the "limit rank" suggestions are high rankers not wanting low rankers to play in their games, either because they play poorly or might actually win and take "too many" points. The suggestions are turned down because it is said to be discriminatory, particularly for newer players. High rankers are advised to play private games, tournaments and clans.

This is much more difficult for newer players an low ranked players. Most lower ranked people are far less "serious" about playing than the high rankers. Many are freemium, so cannot begin private games and have to wait to be invited. This is hard when you are new and relatively unknown, in particular. It can also be hard if you just are not that great a player. People tend to remember people who play well, but less often those who do poorly.

I have seen a general reduction in open games in the almost 2 years I have been here. I find it takes longer to fill game slots. I am a bit unusual in that I mostly play 1 vs 1, but I see similar types of things in other game styles when I do "venture out". I flat out avoid many game types, such as teams, because I don't want to face a bunch of briagiers. Its not that I mind losing per se, but I like to feel I at least have a chance. There is little to be learned from an absolute slaughter.

The main issue would be "what if someone goes up in rank". I would suggest at that point, the game would be automatically deleted. Moving it to a regular game might lead to abuse (point dropping, starting a bunch of games .. them moving them to regular). Asking people if they wish to continue the game would take too much time and probably be a programming hassle. So, deleting seems the best option.

A rule could be added about point droppers -- something to the effect of farming also includes people who take advantage of temporary point drops to join more than a few beginner games on maps and styles where they are obviously proficient.

Also, it would mean that high rankers who do start unusual games would be less open to farming charges, because there would be an option for low rankers

[Blinkadyblink]

If someone gets too high before the game starts, then they will be dropped.

But, seriously, I do like this suggestion. When I was a private, I always had a hard time finding games without high ranks (although I think I judged high ranks as sergeants and up.) This would have a benefit for high-ranking players too; if more low ranks play amongst themselves, then they won't be playing in the high ranks' games.

[HardAttack]

k, paint shop will make my point. so, we have players (dots: Blue, red, orange, lime and brown) and points (green dots)

Blue red lime and orange all start out with 6 points (below the 10 point barrier) and brown is the high rank with 15 points. He stands alone in my diagram as the minority "officer" if you will. Orange wins a couple of games, and moves up to Browns bracket, and gets his butt handed to him. now he loses the points he took from blue red and lime, and moves back down.

Before, blue red lime and orange shared 24 points between themselves, while brown had 15 points to himself. in the end, blue red orange and lime share 21 points between themselves, and brown has 18 to himself.

Blue, red, orange, lime represent the lower bracket. orange wins a game, taking blue red and limes' points. Then goes and plays against brown. loses a few games, and moves back down. but he leaves his points in the next bracket up, therefore, he reduces the total number of points and the points to player ratio in the first group, while increase the total points and points to player ratio in the next bracket up. Now, until you can explain how they move DOWN in a bracket based system, I tell you that they will NOT move down in a bracket based system, causeing an upward flow in points, and a middle no mans land of striped ranks.

Can you please add color codes inside the chart ?

[AAFitz]

For anyone new, I will re-hash a quote that I read early on in my days at CC.

"CC win NEVER allow for games to be setup that discriminate against score."

Now, at the time, the site was new, and though there were many, the number was manageable, and the worry was that the elitist snobby higher ranks would simply never-ever play the lower ranks, and would result in a segregated site.

Personally, and Ive never mentioned this before because I did read that quote...I actually think the rank level on game making would solve some problems and not really create as many as were predicted. I think to a large degree, it would actually increase open games, and might even inspire some lower ranks to actually gain some points to join the ranked games. Since at this point, there are major games, colonel games, and all at the top make private games anyways, the fear of segregation has become moot.

So, by allowing ranked games, only the good aspects will shine through. Competition will be raised, and above all else, you wont have point terrorists ruining games, which to a large degree cut down on the number of games that people start.

I still believe they will stand by the pledge made years ago...but it is possible that they may consider it at some point, and mostly because the size of CC now is such that it makes the earlier worries, irrelevant.

[Mr_Adams]

Can you please add color codes inside the chart ?

I'll get to it. in a minute.

[Mr_Adams]

Click image to enlarge.

[danfrank]

I like the idea.. Yahoo Chess , Pogo Chess all use something similar to the suggestion.. Not so much as a Range ( 1300-1600) but as a no less than 1600 .

[Lindax]

Not saying there isn't already, but as Lindax says, every once in a while you play a bunch of 1v1 for fun. lose points.

Just for the record: I said I play a bunch of speed games once in while for fun. They're usually doubles or multi-player games, although I will play the occasional 1v1.

Lx

[AndrewB]

I said NOTHING about inflation. read the post. when you go up in rank, you will be transfering more points in to the group directly above. points which you will not take back down, because to move back down, they would have to be taken by somebody in one of your own games, therefore, in the same group as you., namely the group directly above your own, therefore and UPWARD flow of points.the points would therefor be suspended one group up. Those points will, inturn, be moved to the next group up. Do I need to make a visual diagram for you? I WILL! the rank barriers WILL DISRUPT POINTS FLOW if they are instated.

I think i understand what u are saying and it is true.

But there is a very easy way to mitigate this problem:

Make groups fluid. Instead of saying
only 0-900/900-1100 can play between each other

we can say that you can join a game with players within -200 to +200 points range from your rank.

[Woodruff]

I said NOTHING about inflation. read the post. when you go up in rank, you will be transfering more points in to the group directly above. points which you will not take back down, because to move back down, they would have to be taken by somebody in one of your own games, therefore, in the same group as you., namely the group directly above your own, therefore and UPWARD flow of points.the points would therefor be suspended one group up. Those points will, inturn, be moved to the next group up. Do I need to make a visual diagram for you? I WILL! the rank barriers WILL DISRUPT POINTS FLOW if they are instated.

I think i understand what u are saying and it is true.

But there is a very easy way to mitigate this problem:

Make groups fluid. Instead of saying
only 0-900/900-1100 can play between each other
we can say that you can join a game with players within -200 to +200 points range from your rank.

If the point range were SIGNIFICANTLY larger than that, I could see it. Frankly, my 8-player no-spoils random map games are hard enough to fill as it is...it'd take ages if only a 400-point-range could play.

[Mr_Adams]

I said NOTHING about inflation. read the post. when you go up in rank, you will be transfering more points in to the group directly above. points which you will not take back down, because to move back down, they would have to be taken by somebody in one of your own games, therefore, in the same group as you., namely the group directly above your own, therefore and UPWARD flow of points.the points would therefor be suspended one group up. Those points will, inturn, be moved to the next group up. Do I need to make a visual diagram for you? I WILL! the rank barriers WILL DISRUPT POINTS FLOW if they are instated.

I think i understand what u are saying and it is true.

But there is a very easy way to mitigate this problem:

Make groups fluid. Instead of saying
only 0-900/900-1100 can play between each other

we can say that you can join a game with players within -200 to +200 points range from your rank.

THIS would work, though it would be very inconvinient for people like King_Herpes , who is 500 points ahead of 2nd place. It would work as an option though.

[Master Fenrir]

Love this idea, nothing worse than setting up a public escalating game, because you want it filled quickly and not left to wither and rot as many officers mess games do, and having some cook/cadet come in and start attacking constantly to try to capture some large bonus he/she can not possibly hold, henceforth ruining said game for the unfortunate player who happened to be in this overexuburant player's way.

This is an excellent idea that is long overdue.

I am currently experiencing this exact problem. Terminator games can be brutal, too, with the private who drills you the entire game for your points. It absolutely takes all fun out of the game.

[AndrewB]

I said NOTHING about inflation. read the post. when you go up in rank, you will be transfering more points in to the group directly above. points which you will not take back down, because to move back down, they would have to be taken by somebody in one of your own games, therefore, in the same group as you., namely the group directly above your own, therefore and UPWARD flow of points.the points would therefor be suspended one group up. Those points will, inturn, be moved to the next group up. Do I need to make a visual diagram for you? I WILL! the rank barriers WILL DISRUPT POINTS FLOW if they are instated.

I think i understand what u are saying and it is true.

But there is a very easy way to mitigate this problem:

Make groups fluid. Instead of saying
only 0-900/900-1100 can play between each other

we can say that you can join a game with players within -200 to +200 points range from your rank.

THIS would work, though it would be very inconvinient for people like King_Herpes , who is 500 points ahead of 2nd place. It would work as an option though.

Again, there are ways to compensate for that by adding the following rule:

Regardless of your rank you should be able to play with 0.1% of the active members. To evaluate who you can play with, the rank boundaries will increase one by one until you cover 0.1% of the active members by the boundaries.

As long as there is a will, there are ways to alleviate any problem.

But if what AAFitz said is true, then all of this is futile, regardless of how much of the the membership support we will get for it. :S

[Thezzaruz]

Regardless of your rank you should be able to play with 0.1% of the active members. To evaluate who you can play with, the rank boundaries will increase one by one until you cover 0.1% of the active members by the boundaries.

Well thank you kind sir for so graciously guarantee me 200 opponents, that will give me a varied entertainment/challenge for days and days.
Had you said 50% I might have taken you seriously but 0.1% is a ludicrous number tbh.

I think i understand what u are saying and it is true.

But there is a very easy way to mitigate this problem:

Nah there is no easy way to stop the points migration. Though I'm not sure there is a need to stop it as the points inflation (that we currently experience) would be stopped for all game brackets other than the one where new recruits enter. Of course this mean that new recruits has to enter in the lowest games bracket otherwise any bracket below would soon run out of points completely.

we can say that you can join a game with players within -200 to +200 points range from your rank.

It has to be compared to some sort of fixed number (for that specific game) such as the rank of the one that started it and not just compared to any player in the game you are trying to join. Also what do you do if the rank of a player changes between the point of signing up and the start of the game?

As long as there is a will, there are ways to alleviate any problem.

The problem comes when the will for a change is greater than the need for said change.