[GO] [Rules] Rank Restricted Games

[Donlarry]

is there a way to only play players of a certain level i hate playing player that are to advance its not a fun game is mostly the reason i stop playing and start doing other things when i play a speed game there should be a way to put a limit on someone skill level

[spiesr]

MERGED: skill level limit

[Kaskavel]

Could someone who is familiar with the subject sum up the reasons those suggestions are declined?

[stahrgazer]

I will probably not approve a suggestion that allows you to specify the point range that is allowed for the games you create. Please come up with ideas that are more inclusive for the community at large.

Mets...this, your reason for refusal, is now an outdated idea.

See, the site used to think tournaments should mostly be open for the community at large, at a time when "certain ranks only" tournaments were frowned on. With the creation of the freaky stars with some of the more rare ones being prerequisites to join other tournaments, the site has opened the door to more and more requests for RHIP (rank has its privileges) games.

Additionally, the suggestion could minimize the appearance of farming and the appearance of points dropping, making it easier for mods to detect those who do those activities.

[betiko]

All right, the original post in this thread is from 2006. Let's do something useful with it! I want to organize the original post into several different feasible rank restriction ideas and then submit the suggestion. bigWham is open to considering almost any type of suggestion, so let's lay out some clear ideas for him to consider if and when he's ready to develop them.

My personal preference is to implement straight point level restrictions, like we have had unofficially in the Callouts forum for years and years. 2000+, 2500+, 3000+, etc. There have been quite a few AutoTournaments with point restrictions - both floor and ceiling values - so there seems to be no reason why we can't make normal games with point restrictions as well.

I like that idea

[jammyjames]

Agreed with the above, Fox makes an excellent suggestion.

Now can we finally get something like this approved? I'm starting to get fed up with low ranked players who have no idea what they're doing joining my escalating games and ruining the fun for evereyone else in the game.

[iAmCaffeine]

Agreed with the above, Fox makes an excellent suggestion.

Now can we finally get something like this approved? I'm starting to get fed up with low ranked players who have no idea what they're doing joining my escalating games and ruining the fun for evereyone else in the game.

You're a low ranked player.

[Andie23]

Implement a filtration system for higher/lower ranked players

There should be some filter so that your playing your same class/rank.

I feel there should be an option to block lower/higher ranked members from joining games with your current rank.

It seems even a premium account does not have this option. although a invite option is nice with the premium. being new to the site it would
not eliminate the problem. (eg. i feel there is no reason a ranked 1600 should be able to join a 4000, or a 400 join a 1600 game) or at least have the option to not allow it. lots of people are not in "clans" and dont have friends on site.


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

this would benefit the current ranking system with your score boards. also it would allow "freemium" games to be a little faster. as a freemium account we are only allowed to play 4 games at a time. when 3 people who join and miss all their turns and are "cooks" it gets very frustrating and causes one not to return to the site.

if there was this option in "premium" to close out a lower class (even if only by a certain amount lower) i would buy a membership in that moment.

also your bots should not affect the percentage of wins/losses.. but thats another subject.

thanks for your time.. Andie23

[Andie23]

basing my opinion on different gaming systems, that when there is a ranking system the lowest class cant chose to challenge the highest class on a system of merit.. you should have to earn that honor

[spiesr]

MERGED: Filtration system so higher/lower ranked player cant join.

[Rythum55]

I like the idea! you don't have to have it a setting, but like the Round limit, its an option. You should be able to use it if you want it, or if you don't then you don't have to! But it would be a good way for a rank to compete without the added stress of going through and looking for people to play you and having to invite them. And again, if you don't want to play, don't play, but it would be a nice option!

[jltile1]

At least do something at the Speed game level. For sure it is the reason most high ranking players never play speed games. Not a lot of fun if you care about your points to play one game loose 50 points and it takes 9 games to get the points back. A big waist of time. Make a filter for ranks or fix the point system!

[judge_reinhold]

I've solved everything. You don't need rank-restricted games. You need fixed-ante games.

The shitty part about the rank system is that a low rank player's luck is enough to cost a high rank player a lot of very hard earned points, while the low ranker risks almost nothing. Another shitty part is point yo-yo-ers (or point dumpers) who don't care about points winning games as Cooks that they joined as Majors.

My idea is: every player puts in 20 points, which is immediately deducted from their score (this would also limit the number of games people could play). Then points are paid out to the winner when the game is over.

The number of points to ante up could be a game option. Perhaps low-ranked players could only join games that cost 20 points per player, whereas higher-ranked players can create 30-40 point games if they want, which lower ranked players can't join. They won't worry about lower ranked players in their games in any case, since the potential point loss is predetermined. But lower ranked players should be restricted from 30-40 point games for their own safety.

When you "level up", you "unlock" higher point games. E.g. Only 20 point games allowed for players with a score below 1500. 30 point games unlocked at 1500, 35 point games at 2000, 40 point games at 2500. Etc.

Other benefits:
It would eliminate the annoyance of point yo-yo-ing bullshitters who momentarily reach Colonel and join a high-rankers tournament and end up winning a game as a captain and taking a lot more points than their click-happy playing style deserves.

Players stuck in a stalemated game could set up a tie-breaker game worth very low points (5 points/player? maybe even 0?) to determine who wins the valuable game.


You're welcome.

[Foxglove]

I've solved everything. You don't need rank-restricted games. You need fixed-ante games.

The shitty part about the rank system is that a low rank player's luck is enough to cost a high rank player a lot of very hard earned points, while the low ranker risks almost nothing. Another shitty part is point yo-yo-ers (or point dumpers) who don't care about points winning games as Cooks that they joined as Majors.

My idea is: every player puts in 20 points, which is immediately deducted from their score (this would also limit the number of games people could play). Then points are paid out to the winner when the game is over.

The number of points to ante up could be a game option. Perhaps low-ranked players could only join games that cost 20 points per player, whereas higher-ranked players can create 30-40 point games if they want, which lower ranked players can't join. They won't worry about lower ranked players in their games in any case, since the potential point loss is predetermined. But lower ranked players should be restricted from 30-40 point games for their own safety.

When you "level up", you "unlock" higher point games. E.g. Only 20 point games allowed for players with a score below 1500. 30 point games unlocked at 1500, 35 point games at 2000, 40 point games at 2500. Etc.

Other benefits:
It would eliminate the annoyance of point yo-yo-ing bullshitters who momentarily reach Colonel and join a high-rankers tournament and end up winning a game as a captain and taking a lot more points than their click-happy playing style deserves.

Players stuck in a stalemated game could set up a tie-breaker game worth very low points (5 points/player? maybe even 0?) to determine who wins the valuable game.


You're welcome.

But what if a person only wants to play 20 point games with people of similar rank?

I do like the ante up idea though. it would mess with the current scoreboard system as is, I think. Maybe there's some alternative where we can impelement a betting system involving stars and other inventory!

[betiko]

i like it

[rhp 1]

Leave it to judge.. Perfect idea. And @ foxglove, you still have callouts to play with others around ur rank.

[owenshooter]

sorry, think this would contribute even more to the Great Decline... new players would feel excluded... new players would see the site as elitist and not welcoming... it just won't happen... i remember the thrill in taking on ranked players when i was a private, etc... it was part of the learning experience.. a way to learn the right way to play... a better idea, which has been suggested, would be to limit the maps that new players can play... if they are locked into a certain range of maps (not too few to bore them) until they hit a certain score, UNLOCKING new maps, it could help this issue. anyway, i don't think rank restricted games would help the site, only a few players that are butt hurt over losing their precious points... if the site did this, they would lose a huge chunk of players...-Jésus noir™

[Geger]

Leave it to judge.. Perfect idea.

No, it's not!!

This idea would only solve one problem : lower ranked players would think twice before joining a game with a higher ranked player.

But this idea would make another problem worse : higher ranked players would join every game created by a lower ranked player, because they would risk only risk 20 points but have better chance to win.

[WILLIAMS5232]

what about instead of rank restriction, just have wager games.

when creating a game you could just wager the amount of points you want to risk. that way if a high rank wants to play doodle he can just bet the minimum with no worries when a 800 point player joins up.

could have 5, 10, 15, 20, and even like a whopping 60 point game wager.

this would also make for better games against the map specialists.

you could still have the regular games too.

i guess tho' due to the decline. this probably won't work. but it would be a nice change in my opinion.

[ViperOverLord]

Anyone who is familiar with Yahoo Hearts knows that rank (score) restrictions work just fine. If you don't, then go play it and learn exactly how it works out.

[WILLIAMS5232]

Anyone who is familiar with Yahoo Hearts knows that rank (score) restrictions work just fine. If you don't, then go play it and learn exactly how it works out.

in houston there is a tennis league. i think there is like 5 levels. you get ranked on your skill. you only play those in your level. the more you win the more points you get to move you up a level. if you move up and you start losing a bunch you get dropped back down to your previous level.

only problem with doing that here is it will further thin out the chance of starting a game.

[degaston]

only problem with doing that here is it will further thin out the chance of starting a game.

Or it might increase activity because...

1. It's something a lot of people have asked for, and people are more likely to participate and support sites that give them what they ask for than those that don't.
2. Players may be more willing to join a partially full game if they know that someone with a much higher or lower rank will not be joining after them.

[Geger]

only problem with doing that here is it will further thin out the chance of starting a game.

Or it might increase activity because...

1. It's something a lot of people have asked for, and people are more likely to participate and support sites that give them what they ask for than those that don't.
2. Players may be more willing to join a partially full game if they know that someone with a much higher or lower rank will not be joining after them.

+1

A rank restricted game as an option is good

[clangfield]

A tank game I play has a restriction that you can only create games with ranks up to 4 above and below yours (there is a slider bar that allows you to narrow it further).
This approach would cut out newbie farming by people who should know better; intuitively one might think it would make games harder to fill, but in practice it might encourage people to join in the 'middle' slots if they are confident that they won't be followed in by a much lower rank. Certainly I often wait to join last in order to avoid newbies who deadbeat.

[WILLIAMS5232]

only problem with doing that here is it will further thin out the chance of starting a game.

Or it might increase activity because...

1. It's something a lot of people have asked for, and people are more likely to participate and support sites that give them what they ask for than those that don't.
2. Players may be more willing to join a partially full game if they know that someone with a much higher or lower rank will not be joining after them.

i dont reaaly think #1 would make much difference. i think the decline is more complex than any one thing. im not arguing that people dont want it. keep that in mind.
no. 2 tho' seems pretty valid. i never looked at it that way, but i know i jesitate in joining games due to the chance of some clown joining that goi.g to attack all of his 3armies on the first turn.