[GO] [Rules] Rank Restricted Games

[jleonnn]

Concise description:
Why not have a point ranger where we can set a range of points and start the game. The game will only be open to the players with points within the range

Specifics:
For example, I start a game with a range of 500-1500. Only players within that range can join it. Of course, there is a limit for how much the range can be. for example, maybe the limit for the range can be 500 pts less than the players points, to prevent noob farmers.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Players can start games with their own settings and play with others suited for their level.
• Players can start games with their own setting without worrying that another, much more experienced player joins

[TotoroHat]

Use the search button. This has been rejected about a thousand times maybe more. I would still like to see a max button though where you can limit those in your games to people under 1300 points or something so that cooks can play cooks but it will never happen!

[jleonnn]

guess so

[The Neon Peon]

HEAR ME OUT!!! I have actual reasons and am not just restating the old threads.

Concise description:

• Minimum/Maximum rank option for PREMIUM members when starting a game.

Specifics:

• The suggestion is old, and commonly repeated... basically allow premium members to set a minimum rank allowed to join the game and a maximum rank. With these two alterations: the games are restricted to premiums like speed games.
• This will NOT make farming easier. Simply make a restriction that your rank must be within the limits. In that case, a major trying to farm lets every captain, lieutenant, sergeant etc. on the scoreboard join. Not exactly farming... especially hard to farm premium members either way.
• This will NOT make the games for new recruits and cooks. There are plenty of freemium members on the site. And they generally take their turns much faster than paying people since they only have a few games. By making games faster, the new members are more likely to stick to the site.
• There is nothing wrong with rank segregation if games are still available for all ranks. If there was something wrong with a ton of majors/colonels only playing other majors/colonels, you would not have allowed clans and threads for the purpose to be created. A lot of people only play high ranks by doing this, but it's a hassle.
• Games without the restrictions fill faster since the ranks excluded and all freemium members can still join. This means that the feature has no chance of becoming used for even close to half of all games.
• The rejection was a long time ago. I believe this needs to be re-evaluated.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• More New recruits will stay because their games go buy/fill faster.
• More people buy premium because it allows them to use one of the most suggested features to the site.
• The scoreboard will mean more since more people will gain points from playing their own rank rather than gaining points from those with a quarter of their score.

[Wellspring]

The scoreboard will mean more since more people will gain points from playing their own rank rather than gaining points from those with a quarter of their score.

Arguably the scoring and ranking system would mean less not more with this system. People would only play against people of their own rank or higher, therefore never risk losing a large amount of points. There would be very little movement between ranks.

Why not just play private games if you want to play against people of a certain rank?

[owenator]

The scoreboard will mean more since more people will gain points from playing their own rank rather than gaining points from those with a quarter of their score.

Arguably the scoring and ranking system would mean less not more with this system. People would only play against people of their own rank or higher, therefore never risk losing a large amount of points. There would be very little movement between ranks.

Why not just play private games if you want to play against people of a certain rank?

Sometimes you want to take a nibble at something new. It's like being married and waking up to the same woman...it get's boring. What? WHAT?!!!

[Woodruff]

The scoreboard will mean more since more people will gain points from playing their own rank rather than gaining points from those with a quarter of their score.

Arguably the scoring and ranking system would mean less not more with this system. People would only play against people of their own rank or higher, therefore never risk losing a large amount of points. There would be very little movement between ranks.

Yes, and yet possibly no. If someone is really at a certain rank only due to their high frequency of playing games against...lesser opponents, that will rapidly show as their rank drops from playing the higher players more consistently.

That being said, I believe the suggestion is really just for it to be an option, rather than a requirement...which makes it a win-win scenario.

[The Neon Peon]

The scoreboard will mean more since more people will gain points from playing their own rank rather than gaining points from those with a quarter of their score.

Arguably the scoring and ranking system would mean less not more with this system. People would only play against people of their own rank or higher, therefore never risk losing a large amount of points. There would be very little movement between ranks.

If I beat another major, doesn't that show something? There is a reason why people who play games against those of their own rank in general are more respected on the site than those who foed their own rank and only play with people 3 or more ranks below them.

I don't think you are going to find many people to back your belief that playing lower ranks and getting a high score is harder than playing those your own rank.

Why not just play private games if you want to play against people of a certain rank?

Because
1. They fill more slowly
2. Only a small minority read the forums, so the amount of different people you can play is very limited
3. Some games types will never fill because of the small people that see the games
4. Speed games are harder to fill and usually have the same people in them all the time
5. It is extra work, why not save us the effort? Just like the game finder... we could hypothetically join all our games through the join a games page
...

[cjbpulp]

Quandry: I want to learn to play the harder maps (eg., City Mogul), but every time I start a game, some high-rated shark shows up and whips me, which doesn't teach me much.

So, howsabouts an option to "start a game" with a specific rating range? So me, with my 1100-1200, might specify 1100-1300, thereby getting a close game, or at least a game with other learners, while specifically excluding sharks.

Discuss?

[jefjef]

Make private games and post in call outs. CC isn't interested in allowing us to put rank restrictions on games even though many support it.

[Woodruff]

Quandry: I want to learn to play the harder maps (eg., City Mogul), but every time I start a game, some high-rated shark shows up and whips me, which doesn't teach me much.
So, howsabouts an option to "start a game" with a specific rating range? So me, with my 1100-1200, might specify 1100-1300, thereby getting a close game, or at least a game with other learners, while specifically excluding sharks.
Discuss?

<sigh> What, and solve people's problems? Nay!

[stahrgazer]

So, howsabouts an option to "start a game" with a specific rating range? So me, with my 1100-1200, might specify 1100-1300, thereby getting a close game, or at least a game with other learners, while specifically excluding sharks.

Discuss?

Long way around: Foelist everyone who isn't the range you want; then they cannot join a game you've started.

Option B: Ask one of those sharks to dubs WITH you, to teach you.

[Bruceswar]

Your best way to do this is start a game private and invite someone close to your rank or post the password in callouts looking for a player within 200 points of you either way.

[Mr_Adams]

I like it in this form...

[Mr_Adams]

here's why

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.

[jleonnn]

Concise description:

• Maybe we could have a player finder. like game finder, except to find players

Specifics:

• e.g. I wan to find a player within 1000pts-2000pts, 50> games and from singapore, I don't want to scan the entire scoreboard just to find that player.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Players can find other players

p.s. forgive me, I'm eating with one hand and typing with the other

[AndyDufresne]

A sortable, and more advanced scoreboard search would probably cover this...and would keep such player searches, etc, together, without adding a new tab to the menu.


--Andy

[The Neon Peon]

bump... anyone have anything against this suggestion?

[Wellspring]

I don't think you are going to find many people to back your belief that playing lower ranks and getting a high score is harder than playing those your own rank.

If gaining points by playing against low ranks is so much easier, then why do you want to change it?

Take an 8 player terminator game for instance. It would certainly be much easier to gain / keep your rank if it was against everyone from your own ranking or higher who know how to play. But fill it with 7 cooks / privates and chances are they'll all go for you first just because you're the highest, and you're out 40 pts instead of 20. That sounds harder to me.


Don't get me wrong, I think it's annoying when low levels join my games and and all I get out of it is 8 or 9 pts, but I don't think the that justifies changing it.

[Mr_Adams]

besides that, they aren't going to make a major change to the site to satisfy the top 10% or so. I like the idea, I don't think we ever will/should see it.

[The Neon Peon]

I don't think you are going to find many people to back your belief that playing lower ranks and getting a high score is harder than playing those your own rank.

If gaining points by playing against low ranks is so much easier, then why do you want to change it?

Take an 8 player terminator game for instance. It would certainly be much easier to gain / keep your rank if it was against everyone from your own ranking or higher who know how to play. But fill it with 7 cooks / privates and chances are they'll all go for you first just because you're the highest, and you're out 40 pts instead of 20. That sounds harder to me.


Don't get me wrong, I think it's annoying when low levels join my games and and all I get out of it is 8 or 9 pts, but I don't think the that justifies changing it.

Quite the opposite...

The reason it is that way for you is because you play mostly 1v1s, where luck determines the game to a much greater extent than in most other game types. Take a look through your team games. Find how many times a team of sergeant's down has beaten you.

In most game types, having 7 players who don't know what they are doing in a game is a great advantage to you. Especially in freestyle speed games of all sorts. It is much easier to gain points by playing low ranks, except in 1v1s, where the drop kills you in half of the games, the dice kill you in half of the games that the drop did not kill you in, and your skill only shows in a small portion of them.

[Wellspring]

I agree with you on the team games. Playing low ranked opponents is often easier b/c they are new and don't know what they're doing yet. But on occasion, they do win, and it hurts pretty bad points wise, therefore offsetting all the points you've gathered from the multiple wins.

On the other hand though, playing multiplayer games, such as when you're trying to get your assassin / terminator medals, having a rank restriction would make these games much easier imho. Using one of my games as an example: Game 5455215. Those are the types of games that would never happen if you were able to set it to only allow players of the same rank or higher to join.

You're bound to get a bad drop / screwed over by the dice in a fair amount of your games, and if 20pts is all that's ever on the line, that kind of defeats the way that the point system currently works. It's those times where you're finally starting to get on a roll and become high rank, then you have a bad game or two and lose 50pts. That's what keeps things competitive & interesting.

[The Neon Peon]

You have just stated that when playing low ranks, luck will cause you to have a net loss of points, correct?
If that is the case, then score is being determined by luck rather than skill.

When a cook wins a game with a bunch of colonels/brigs/generals in it, how many times is it because he outplayed his opponents, and how many times is it based on luck? I think the answer is fairly obvious, that most of the time that happens, it is luck that determines the score.

In a scenario, I play ten games, I win 8 of them:
- If I beat 8 cooks, what does that say about my skill? A: nothing, so why should my score change?
- If I beat 8 colonel, what does that say about my skill? A: something, it is almost impossible to win 8 out of 10 games against someone better than you based on luck, doesn't that say more about my score than beating 10 cooks?

Take a look at people like obliterationX, he was a low rank... Then he foed all the high ranks/people who were good at the game. He became Brig pretty quickly... same thing with KLOBBER... same thing with sjnap... same thing with a whole bunch of other high ranked players.

Why? Because, that's the easiest way to get points. If it wasn't, then why are so many people on the site only managing to get to a very high rank after doing it, and then dropping out whenever they stop? (sjnap and KLOBBER are great examples of people who stopped noob farming and lost several thousand points)

[Wellspring]

You have just stated that when playing low ranks, luck will cause you to have a net loss of points, correct?
If that is the case, then score is being determined by luck rather than skill.

When a cook wins a game with a bunch of colonels/brigs/generals in it, how many times is it because he outplayed his opponents, and how many times is it based on luck? I think the answer is fairly obvious, that most of the time that happens, it is luck that determines the score.

Agreed. But that is also what keeps people's scores from getting out of hand, which is what I like most about the current point system. If you were able to set it so that only people of the same rank joined your games, the point system would be more of a flat rate of always 20pts per game. There's not much risk in that. The higher you get the more you have to lose, which makes it more challenging in itself.

lol, I've been wondering why obliterationX foed me. This is the first I've heard of the foeing all the good players thing so that you can farm noobs in freestyle, but it makes sense.

I think it all depends on the game-type which one is easier, restricted ranking or open. The restricted ranking system would make sequential games easier to gain/keep pts imo. Freestyle on the other hand it would be more difficult obviously. But even with the set ranking system, high ranked players could choose not to use it in their freestyle games and farm low levels, and then use it in their sequential games to only allow high ranked players to join. So it would seem you'd be getting the best of both worlds?

[jleonnn]

I suggested the new scoreboard, but it got rejected. someone said that it would take too much a toll on the server