[GO] [Rules] Rank Restricted Games

[blakebowling]

actually, many of *manimal 's Multi's have been premium, so this doesn't stop him.

Admittedly, I thought of this after reading t-o-m's post, but there are other positive side-effects of it. I don't think it's a rock solid idea, but it's enough to generate some more community discussion about ways to combat the problem.

Not saying I didn't like the Idea, I was just thinking that some freemiums might not

[e_i_pi]

Not saying I didn't like the Idea, I was just thinking that some freemiums might not

Yeah I hear ya. Personally, I have nothing against freemiums. I was a freemium myself for all of, ooh, 2 weeks lol. This isn't an anti-freemium thing, just a recognition that the majority of multi behaviour that directly affects Premiums could be moderated by individual users who feel it is a problem.

[Diamonds14]

Personally, i think its a good idea.. because i think people like *manimal make up a low population of multis. Im not going to spend 25 dollars to get an account banned, but a lot of people would create a new account ina matter of seconds. So even though its not a 100% multi filter it would reduce the numbers and there would still be plenty of players to play against freemiums so thats not an issue either.

[reggie_mac]

I think this is a great idea.

A freemium is more likely to miss turns/dead beat than a full paying member would (unless somehow it was to their tactical advantage)

There is nothing worse than having 3 turns of an assassin game then your target changes or the person trying to kill you changes.

[Night Strike]

1. Create private games (it's a premium's privilege).

2. It's just going to make games fill slower if it's just freemium members in the game. This will discourage freemiums from purchasing premiums.

[Timminz]

1. Create private games (it's a premium's privilege).

2. It's just going to make games fill slower if it's just freemium members in the game. This will discourage freemiums from purchasing premiums.

Wouldn't it encourage the purchase of premium, since they would know that all the "good" games are premium only?

[t-o-m]

actually, many of *manimal 's Multi's have been premium, so this doesn't stop him.

To be honest i dont think you can knock down an idea due to one person.

[blakebowling]

actually, many of *manimal 's Multi's have been premium, so this doesn't stop him.

To be honest i dont think you can knock down an idea due to one person.

well I was just using him as an example, but we don't have to worry about him now, as lack finally decided to do the right thing and permaban his ass.

[reggie_mac]

My understanding of this ..

Specifics:

• Have an option in Start A Game that allows you to select Premium only when making Casual Games.

Is that as a premium member we have the option to choose to only play other premium members

It's not to stop the freemiums from playing, or a blanket, but gives us more choice for who we choose to play. and then it answers this question.

Wouldn't it encourage the purchase of premium, since they would know that all the "good" games are premium only?

Yes. I think it would.

[AeroMate]

Rating adjustments for games

Perhaps CC can create a rating adjustment that enables players to set a minimum/maximum score for the challengers... Thus, a Cook couldn't walk into a Major's if he/she put the adjustment to 1600 to 5000... I would appreciate it if this is possible, others members have wanted the same thing... Perhaps it can be an extra to Premium accounts???

[blakebowling]

Not going to happen for Two reasons,

1. You didn't use the form. (Which I won't quote because of number two)
2. This has been rejected in the past

BTW: why are you shouting?? Suggs and buggs is a peaceful forum.

[cpurcell]

Concise description: A button that would enable players who would create games to block lower ranked players from joining their game



Specifics:
There would be a button that would enable players who would create games to block lower ranked players from joining their game



This will improve the following aspects of the site:
Mid to high level ranked players would not have to be bothered by playing noobs, and possibly losing loads of points if they get crappy luck

Then again, you could just go through the entire scoreboard and take loads of time, and add everyone who's under the rank of sergent to your ignore list... Maybe I'll try that
---C

[what,me worry?]

Agreed that its a bad idea. Yes the higher ups play private games against each other but they really have no business playing anyone else once you hit 3k. you pretty much have to win 7 games if you lose one to someone under 1600 or something around there.

And the lower ranks get their fair shots at higher ups all the time. I myself am all over the join a games page as are most of the people i play with who are 2k and up.

[Cundy]

Concise description:

• The most annoying thing for me in this game is the fact that i have to play very low scored people. Yeah i know they have a low score because they arnt that good and rarely win, however with a bit of luck they do and then they ripe the points off you .I think it would be a good idea to allow people to set score requirements for games (without having to make it private and find people). So people can avoid them if they so choose.
  
  Also the people with lower scores can make games without fear of some noob farmer jumping on them.

Specifics:

• This could be a simple option in the "Start A Game" menu. Two boxes for lowest score to highest score. I can also be in the "Game Finder" menu, with an option to select games which you have the score for.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Much more enjoyable game for everyone; as they will be playing people at their own level.

[lancehoch]

There are already topics discussing this idea. Please refer to this topic. Link

PS lack has already rejected this idea. Locked.

[PLAYER57832]

Concise description:
Allow folks, as an option, to select a "slot limit" game, open to those 3 ranks above and 5 ranks below their rank.

Specifics:
This would be an option, "slot limit game". It would be a public game, but one that would exlude folks much higher or lower in rank than the person starting this game.

The actual limits can be debated. Initially, I was thinking setting an upper limit of no more than 3 ranks above and a lower limit of no more than 5 ranks below thier rank when the game is set up OR the person's rank at the time the game is joined (this would depend on programming ease. Either the limits would be set when the game is begun OR would be 3 ranks up, 5 ranks below whatever the initiator's rank is when the new person decidedes to join the game.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:
This is definitely a variation on an old theme. I fully recognize that CC has a long-standing policy that all games should be scored, etc. However, I think it is time to review that policy. I have noticed fewer and fewer public games for some time now. At first, I thought it just the "summer blip" or some such. BUT, when I have forgotten to check "private" when searching for games, I am shocked to see over 200 open private games... compared to less than a dozen public ones (sequential, 2 person particularly, but also other game types). Further, the public games are largely limited to a few folks who like to post 30 of the same game type and such.

On the one hand, there is nothing "wrong" with people playing their friends. It is part of what makes this site work. HOWEVER, at some point CC is going to become a mostly private site with few public games. I don't think that is really what you wanted in this site.

I don't know if my solution is the best. I am certainly interested in other ideas. I see two suggestions already out there. Cicero's and another each asking for differentiated score boards. I felt Cicero's idea, while well thought out, would be too arbitrary and too easy to manipulate. The other idea I just thought too complicated. (yes, ME saying that! : ) lol). This is an idea I have considered for some time.

The advantages of a slot limit are that it would be changeable as someone's rank (and skill changes.) Ideally, the "slots" would be broad enough that they would offer competition, both up and down, but just eliminate the out and out "out of my league" folks on the up side and the "this guy will ONLY win by luck ... and make me lose a bunch of points" on the downward side. The actual limits I suggested are absolutely debateable. (In fact, we may need a special rule to deal with cooks, since there are a number of folks who go out of their way to get that rank, though they actually are good players.)

I decided on 3 for an upper limit and 5 for a lower limit because I consider myself a basic sergeant in skill. I figure games with majors are reasonable, though I expect to lose. On the down side, I am actually happy to play even a cook, but I can see where those more into obtaining points would object.


But, the idea is that I could set a game, as an OPTION, that folks with very low rank or much higher rank could not join.

[Jeff Hardy]

i love the idea but i think the player should be allowed to choose the limit

[blakebowling]

right, I say the user should be able to set "Rank Caps"

ex. At the Start a Game screen, the user has an option of "Minimum Rank" and "Maximum Rank" (can be left blank to have no Caps)

[Qwert]

these sound like discrimination sugestion.

[Hotdoggie]

these sound like discrimination sugestion.

barely...its giving a little from what CC would prefer to have [no rank limits]...but it fixes the problem that public games suck atm.

[Natewolfman]

I think this (or similar to) has been suggested multiple times

[PLAYER57832]

I think this (or similar to) has been suggested multiple times

Similar, yes ... and I said so.

Mostly, people want to be able to set their own limits. That, however, can be far too exclusive.

The primary legitimate reasons for limiting who joins are behavior (foe list deals with this) and the fear of losing too many points or playing someone way outside one's skill level. I set the range at 3 above and 5 below because I felt that is a good rough range for skill.

[blakebowling]

I think this (or similar to) has been suggested multiple times

Similar, yes ... and I said so.

Mostly, people want to be able to set their own limits. That, however, can be far too exclusive.

The primary legitimate reasons for limiting who joins are behavior (foe list deals with this) and the fear of losing too many points or playing someone way outside one's skill level. I set the range at 3 above and 5 below because I felt that is a good rough range for skill.

what ab out having a range requirement (eg. at least 5 ranks would have to be included.)

[PLAYER57832]

I think this (or similar to) has been suggested multiple times

Similar, yes ... and I said so.

Mostly, people want to be able to set their own limits. That, however, can be far too exclusive.

The primary legitimate reasons for limiting who joins are behavior (foe list deals with this) and the fear of losing too many points or playing someone way outside one's skill level. I set the range at 3 above and 5 below because I felt that is a good rough range for skill.

what ab out having a range requirement (eg. at least 5 ranks would have to be included.)

That IS my suggestion ... I guess I was not clear enough, I will look again.

[Jeff Hardy]

I think this (or similar to) has been suggested multiple times

Similar, yes ... and I said so.

Mostly, people want to be able to set their own limits. That, however, can be far too exclusive.

The primary legitimate reasons for limiting who joins are behavior (foe list deals with this) and the fear of losing too many points or playing someone way outside one's skill level. I set the range at 3 above and 5 below because I felt that is a good rough range for skill.

i dont like that at all
the gap between say... colonel and sergeant fc is HUGE
the user should be able to choose