It's obviously wanted - which is the reason so many private games are made with massive PM's to everyone of that rank.
It's the site's stupidity to not implement something like this - although they've made it clear they will strike it down. The host should be able to specify everything he wants about the gametype. Show me a game where someone can't do that...
been discussed many times before, i agree with the suggestion, maybe we could add a poll and walk around and tell ppl to vote and c what is the outcome. In every game that someone is in he can simply post a link to that poll in the chat box... if we were to raise enough ppl for a valid poll (say 5000) CC chiefs should discuss about it.
I have made, I think two posts on this exact topic, and I 100% agree with you! Checking the box would allow only players of equal OR GREATER rank correct? I think that this is a good idea, and should be put into action. ---C
cpurcell wrote:I have made, I think two posts on this exact topic, and I 100% agree with you! Checking the box would allow only players of equal OR GREATER rank correct? I think that this is a good idea, and should be put into action. ---C
If it is implemented, I want to be able to exclude much HIGHER ranks.... Generally, I don't mind, but there are times when I am just not in the mood to be slaughtered without a chance.
Gunner1980 wrote:been discussed many times before, i agree with the suggestion, maybe we could add a poll and walk around and tell ppl to vote and c what is the outcome. In every game that someone is in he can simply post a link to that poll in the chat box... if we were to raise enough ppl for a valid poll (say 5000) CC chiefs should discuss about it.
No matter how many people have voted in a poll, lack has consistently denied this suggestion because he wants to avoid rank discrimination. If you don't want to play against low (or high ranks), join the game last, make private games, or find your competition group in those ranked games in the Callouts forum.
FabledIntegral wrote:It's obviously wanted - which is the reason so many private games are made with massive PM's to everyone of that rank.
It's the site's stupidity to not implement something like this - although they've made it clear they will strike it down. The host should be able to specify everything he wants about the gametype. Show me a game where someone can't do that...
If you are too lazy to send the PMs, then you get what you get.
virus90 wrote: I think Anarkist is a valuable asset to any game.
FabledIntegral wrote:It's obviously wanted - which is the reason so many private games are made with massive PM's to everyone of that rank.
It's the site's stupidity to not implement something like this - although they've made it clear they will strike it down. The host should be able to specify everything he wants about the gametype. Show me a game where someone can't do that...
If you are too lazy to send the PMs, then you get what you get.
Okay. I know I am "asking for it", but how would you PM all the people of a rank range if you don't know who they are?
Also, Pming everyone is probably an exaggeration, so how many would you PM .. and how would you pick people out (other than rank?)
FabledIntegral wrote:It's obviously wanted - which is the reason so many private games are made with massive PM's to everyone of that rank.
It's the site's stupidity to not implement something like this - although they've made it clear they will strike it down. The host should be able to specify everything he wants about the gametype. Show me a game where someone can't do that...
If you are too lazy to send the PMs, then you get what you get.
Okay. I know I am "asking for it", but how would you PM all the people of a rank range if you don't know who they are?
Also, Pming everyone is probably an exaggeration, so how many would you PM .. and how would you pick people out (other than rank?)
I do it all the time... It doesn't matter their rank... I play people I enjoy chatting with and playing against...
virus90 wrote: I think Anarkist is a valuable asset to any game.
FabledIntegral wrote:It's obviously wanted - which is the reason so many private games are made with massive PM's to everyone of that rank.
It's the site's stupidity to not implement something like this - although they've made it clear they will strike it down. The host should be able to specify everything he wants about the gametype. Show me a game where someone can't do that...
If you are too lazy to send the PMs, then you get what you get.
Okay. I know I am "asking for it", but how would you PM all the people of a rank range if you don't know who they are?
Also, Pming everyone is probably an exaggeration, so how many would you PM .. and how would you pick people out (other than rank?)
I do it all the time... It doesn't matter their rank... I play people I enjoy chatting with and playing against...
Brilliant logic there kiddo. Let's make the system as tedious as possible - agreed! Maybe we should make the person every time they sign into fill out a form to make sure there is no babysitting abuse, or some other irrelevant benefit. If you don't do it... well you're too lazy to sign into CC, you can't play.
I await your first intelligent post to be made in these forums.
I like this idea. Here's an idea I like even more: be able to set a threshold rating for players. Say, only players with a rating over 4.5 can join your game, or 4.8 - or whatever. That would be great
Just do what Greatwhite does and stick anyone on foe who has the remotest chance of beating you. Then slither and slime into their team games without telling them you have them on foe. play alongside them, yes I said alongside them, while you have them on foe, pick up the points and slither and slime back off.
This way you only ever lose to those who get really lucky. Otherwise you just go round farming.
See it's easy, just follow that great player's way of doing things and you too can gain the reputation to die for across the ranks high and low. You also solve the problem mentioned in this thread.
Due to current economic conditions the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off
Funny you mention it, Fruitcake. Greatwhite also put me on his foe list for no apparent reason. Oh wait, maybe it's because I beat him 8 out of the 8 games we played.
My proposal would add a feature to the Game Finder - Average Rank.
Specifics:
This feature will allow users to find games with an average player rank and rating within the parameters that they specify.
Let's face it - Most people who don't join games that are too high or too low for them in rank are just going to waste their time searching manually for a game that seems challenging enough for them. I know I get ticked when my search results turn out a zillion Feudal War games that were created by cooks. (no offense cooks, but a large portion of you are indeed poor players).
Oh, I also had an idea for a search based on rating level. Any takers?
This will improve the following aspects of the site:
It's a good idea in the sense that you can join games against players that are of rank that you'd like to play, but I see a glaring issue.
You have no control over who joins after you. Which means if you are joining games against equal ranked players, some high ranked player could jump in after you and dominate the game, or a low ranked player could jump in and possibly cost you more points.
For this to be effective, you'd also have to add restrictions on who can join your games after you. Which means that the Join A Game option is no longer open to everybody, and would actually complicate the game finder more than simplify it.
denominator wrote:For this to be effective, you'd also have to add restrictions on who can join your games after you. Which means that the Join A Game option is no longer open to everybody, and would actually complicate the game finder more than simplify it.
I don't see that being an issue at all. If you want games with only your own rank then go to call outs, if you want help on finding games that seems suitable to you then this suggestion would help.
That said, even if I can see this suggestion being a helpful one I don't see the need for it. IMO there are many other suggestions, both on the to-do list and being discussed in the forum, that should hold higher priority.
Yeah, priority on this is a little low. And it's instead of being able to specify what ranks can join your games. Since that was rejected, I figured this would be an acceptable and time-saving alternative.
I wish we had the ability to block a specific rank and all ranks below. It gets aggravating to play a noob and get a one star ranking across the board for no reason. Even though 3 stars are suppose to be average, everyone looks at 5 stars as being acceptable. It makes it nice to play equal ranks so that when you lose, you don't lose 70 points and if you win all you get is 7. I know, I know, private games. that gets old after awhile.
come on, give me the option to block the ranks i want to avoid.
Last edited by nick11 on Thu Nov 27, 2008 10:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
nick11 wrote:I wish we had the ability to block a specific rank and all ranks below. It get aggravating to play a noob and get a one star ranking across the board for no reason. Even though 3 stars are suppose to be average, everyone looks at 5 stars as being acceptable. It makes it nice to play equal ranks so that when you lose, you don't lose 70 points and if you win all you get is 7. I know, I know, private games. that gets old after awhile.
come on, give me the option to block the ranks i want to avoid.
discussed several times, search is your friend... go to suggestions and fill out a form, if you are serious about it... GOOD LUCK!!!..-6cd
Thorthoth,"Cloaking one's C&A fetish with moral authority and righteous indignation makes it ever so much more erotically thrilling"
lackattack don't want to discreminate players because of rank. Which is very understandable. If you want to play with people of a particular rank. Then play private games.
White Moose wrote:lackattack don't want to discreminate players because of rank.
Meh,
He once said he wanted to 'keep rank out of the forums', but now we're all wreathed with clouds of medals and have ranks displayed next to our usernames.
If enough high-rankers make enough noise about the absence of a 'class-filter', then it'll get done (or at least get put onto the to-do-list of things that don't get done).
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
I suggest you click on every single person's profile, and foe them each individually.
I would tell you how to foe pretty much all cooks and cadets in under 5 minutes (unless you have a really crappy computer... this does work owen, since I have done it... takes a whole lot longer to undo though, so no "just not true" comments this time), but I agree with the other posters, not going to happen, and there is no use for it.
[/Edit]
