[GO] [Rules] Rank Restricted Games

[Army of GOD]

The saddest part of this thread is that OP is 23 and American.

[Metsfanmax]

Rejected. Please see the multitude of other threads on this topic to understand why we haven't made this.

[blakebowling]

Rejected. This won't happen.

[chapcrap]

The saddest part of this thread is that OP is 23 and American.

This

[jgordon1111]

a good indicator of our education system,but he can play this game pretty darn good

[Army of GOD]

a good indicator of our education system,but he can play this game pretty darn good

Not sure if you're one to talk.

[SaviorShot]

The saddest part of this thread is that OP is 23 and American.

Why is this sad???

[TheForgivenOne]

Since this is getting a tad offtopic. Locked

[oran0007]

I have always wanted an option like this, and wish it was not turned down all the time. I would not want to always create games that way, but when I try a new map, choosing to play members around my rank should help protect me from some of the people who know how to play that map so well I basically stand no chance. I don't think it should be an optional range though. If I am a sergeant, it should limit to 1 rank above and 1 below (or 2 or whatever the decided on number is). This way, it is slightly less likely to become something high rank members use to protect their score.

On that note, there is a sort of progressive approach also which could greatly reduce the ability of higher ranked players from protecting their score. It would depend on the score at time of game creation. The people who can see the game are within a certain range of the creator's score. That range would be 10% of the score multiplied by a number. That number would be the level of rank the creator is. score * .1 * rank number. So my number would be 7, because sergeant is the seventh rank (not including recruit). If I started a game at my current score (1377), someone with a score between 414 (rounding up to the next integer) and 2340 (rounding down to the next integer) could see the game. If chapcrap created such a game, there would be no lower limit (as the number is negative) and the upper limit would be 4372. For socxc9, the numbers would be 646 and 1506.

As you can see, the higher the score of the game creator, the less it limits their chances of losing to a lower rank while still allowing them to omit 'higher' ranks. While I do understand and agree (to some extent) with the argument that rank/score don't show skill, it is a fair indicator for the most part. If you want to make rank more meaningful, the requisite number of games played to achieve ranks should be raised and farming should be redefined. Barring those changes, I think rank is still a good enough indicator of the skill level of the majority of players. The best examples of those for whom it is not a good indicator probably spend a lot of time playing certain types of games (some probably losing more than they win as well as the other way around).

So with my idea as the suggestion, here is the form:



Concise description:

• Add an option on game start to limit those who can see the game by their current score.

Specifics/Details:

• 1. Multiply the game creator's score by .1 (at the time of creating the game, not dynamic after game creation).
• 2. Assign a number value to each rank (i.e. 1-Cook, 2-Cadet, 3-Private, ..., 14-General, 15-Field Marshall)
• 3. Multiply the result of step 1 by the game creator's rank number.
• 4. Subtract the result of step 3 from the creator's score and round up to the nearest integer.
• 5. Add the result of step 3 to the creator's score and round down to the nearest integer.
• 6. All players within the range established by those two numbers may see the game once it is created.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• 1. Allows lower ranked individuals to play games against members whose skills are possibly more evenly matched to their own. This is in the interest of allowing players to work on their strategy without having to hand-pick all of their opponents.
• 2. Progressively removes the benefit of choosing this as an option as score increases.
  Field Marshalls may begin to see games started by players with scores as low as 2143. Considering that there are only two right now plus the Conqueror, there is not much of a point to starting a game this way at those high scores.
• 3. Prevents the complete segregation of ranks as is feared with previous suggestions.
  Starting at a score of 1800, all lower ranked players can see the game, so higher ranked players would not be able to use this feature to shield themselves from losing large numbers of points by being defeated by players with much lower scores.

[macbone]

This is a common feature on chess sites. We already do this through private games and invites - why not make it a public feature? And don't limit it to premium players - many people want to get together and play a game with other players of their own skill. Why not make this easier to do?

Natty, I agree that rank doesn't necessarily equate to skill (I'm awful at Freestyle Speed, for instance), but it's the closest approximation we have right now.

[Woodruff]

Been suggested before. Try searching for something before posting it.

It's been suggested a lot. By a lot of different people, different ranks. Freemiums, premiums. A lot of people want this option. I don't care what lack wants or if there is already a section in Callouts, this is something that obviously would improve the game for a lot of players.

IRRELEVANT, MISTER!!!!

(But yeah...it really is too bad it won't be implemented. This and no-points games both.)

[Geger]

I think it's a lot easier to add a "level limit" similar to "round limit", that we already have.

The options will be :

• none (default)
• +/- 1
• +/- 2
• +/- 3
• ...

Examples :
- a Major create a game and chooses "+/- 2", so the game can be joined by players with ranks from Lieutenant to Brigadier.
- a Corporal create a game and chooses "+/- 1", so the game can be joined by players with ranks from Private 1st Class to Corporal 1st Class.

And remember, there is always the option none as default.

Just my 2 cents

[oran0007]

I think it's a lot easier to add a "level limit" similar to "round limit", that we already have.

The options will be :

• none (default)
• +/- 1
• +/- 2
• +/- 3
• ...

Examples :
- a Major create a game and chooses "+/- 2", so the game can be joined by players with ranks from Lieutenant to Brigadier.
- a Corporal create a game and chooses "+/- 1", so the game can be joined by players with ranks from Private 1st Class to Corporal 1st Class.

And remember, there is always the option none as default.

Just my 2 cents

This just promotes the perceived problem of separation. The decision makers feel that players would separate themselves, namely those of high rank would use this to prevent themselves from losing large point values to artificially protect their rank. Of course this is possible now, but it is much more work than it would be under your proposed system. Currently they would have to only join games last, or only start private games. Under this suggestion they would be able to start 50 games, knowing that they would only play against those of similar rank.

Like I said before, I would like a system like this, but it just is not going to happen. It may happen at some point if it is limited to players below a certain rank or if there is some sort of progressive removal of the possibility of abuse.

[Woodruff]

I think it's a lot easier to add a "level limit" similar to "round limit", that we already have.

The options will be :

• none (default)
• +/- 1
• +/- 2
• +/- 3
• ...

Examples :
- a Major create a game and chooses "+/- 2", so the game can be joined by players with ranks from Lieutenant to Brigadier.
- a Corporal create a game and chooses "+/- 1", so the game can be joined by players with ranks from Private 1st Class to Corporal 1st Class.

And remember, there is always the option none as default.

Just my 2 cents

This just promotes the perceived problem of separation. The decision makers feel that players would separate themselves, namely those of high rank would use this to prevent themselves from losing large point values to artificially protect their rank.

The fact of the matter is that this is an artificial argument. I say "artificial", because the only other possible alternative isn't very nice to say. It would not at all cause rank segregation any more than we currently have it. Unfortunately, the site owner seems to believe that if he just ignores the desires of his customers, they will still remain paying customers.

[greenoaks]

i don't like this idea.

if you want to limit who can play your games then use the function already built into this site. PRIVATE GAMES.

[sherkaner]

hmm, I'd just throw it at 20% score difference from the creator of from the lowest/highest in the game or something like it. So someone at 2000 can start and ppl between 1600 and 2400 can join. But I do see the logic of the current situation too.

[Geger]

i don't like this idea.

if you want to limit who can play your games then use the function already built into this site. PRIVATE GAMES.

I know about this. Create Private Game then invite players to join or post in Call-Out.

The problem are :
- Most players don't like PM-Spam
- Most players don't visit forum

.

[oran0007]

i don't like this idea.

if you want to limit who can play your games then use the function already built into this site. PRIVATE GAMES.

I know about this. Create Private Game then invite players to join or post in Call-Out.

The problem are :
- Most players don't like PM-Spam
- Most players don't visit forum

.

Exactly, the work put into keeping yourself from playing people of dissimilar rank is currently extensive if you want to start your own games. Under most of the suggestions for 'fairness' everyone would be able to do it easily. With the progressive scale, the segregation doesn't happen because those of lower rank are not likely to only play similar rank forever. Just until they feel they have learned what they wanted to before playing higher ranks. This leaves lower ranks the ability to do it easily for learning, and does not afford any greater opportunity to higher ranks to abuse the rank system.

[Riskmaster101]

I would be really appreciative if when we posted speed games, or casual games, that we could put a rank limit on them. (Instead of having to make them private and invite certain people over the rank of X.) I know I'd really enjoy being able to post a speed game and not having a seargent join. It'd be nice to make it 2000+ and anyone over that rank could join. It could be an option just like speed of the rounds.

Cheers,
Risk

[owenshooter]

I would be really appreciative if when we posted speed games, or casual games, that we could put a rank limit on them.

i would really appreciate it if suggestions went into the suggestions forum... cheers...-el Jesus negro

[Uncle Death]

I would be really appreciative if when we posted speed games, or casual games, that we could put a rank limit on them.

i would really appreciate it if suggestions went into the suggestions forum... cheers...-el Jesus negro

Why keep playing to the Man's rules brother.

[Riskmaster101]

I'm bein' a rebel. I'll post it wherever I want Gotta give the mods something to do

[hmsps]

Personally i think its a good idea, it means lower ranks could also set a points limit and stop certain people ranching them. I suggested it a while ago and the powers that be (lol) said it would never happen to have rank segregation

[pitrules88]

Making it so the creater can limit the joiner's score when joining.

Concise description:
I would like it so the creater can put a limit on the joiner's score. For example, if I start a game, I'd like to set it to only players between 3000-4000 can join. Or only players over 2000 can join, etc.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
I know there are private games where players can set up and invite players, but I don't want to keep playing against people I already know. I want to start a game and have any random 2000+ players join freely without worrying about some noob players joining in. If I make the game private, I'm no longer making the joining process random.

I play A LOT of 1v1 games and I'm so tired of having to go up against some 1300 dude who is more than 2000 points below me. I'd like to make it so that when I create a game, there is a score limit of 2000-6000 for people who could join. It would make this more convenient for me and many other players who do this. Plus, then we can't get accused of farming.

Conversely, I'm sure there's plenty of lower rated players who are tired of high rated dudes coming in and stomping them. They can set a score limit of 800 - 1400 or whatever they want and not have to make the game private and hand-choose their opponents. By making a score limit, it makes it more fair for players to go against other players who are closely ranked to them and also keeps the opponent selection process random.

[ScootChina]

many chess site have same feature