We had a good discussion about a point cap for the rating system which you can refer to at the link below:

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/2406/Points_Cap

It seemed like the concensus is that people do not want a point cap but might be open to some other method.

I had another frustrating instance where I lost 51 points in a 1v1 Wargear Warfare game where I had -17 luck. 

So, I am opening this thread to discuss the option of adding a filter when you start a game based on your opponents rating.  I, without question, understand and endorse promoting fair competition for all games.  Because of this we must be careful instigating any type of opponent filter method. 

As a baseline I suggest being able to filter opponents whose rating is 1/2 of yours when you start a game.  I think this is enough of a seperation of ratings to not be seen as a method of avoiding opponents or discouraging geameplay.  

I am open to any other ideas.  I start lots of games and encourge play on this site, but it is getting to the point where I dont want to start an open game where someone with a rank less than 750 or so can jump in and win only because they are very, very, very lucky.  There are others who also said they stopped creating games for this reason.  If I am left to sit and wait for opponents within a reasonable rating range to join their game I just wont do it.

Well, let me know what you think.

One simple way to do it would be to have a "restrict to veterans"/"no newbs" type of option.  The filter could be a minimum score (maybe around 1200) or a min # of games (15?) or both?

I'm still not sure I think it's necessary.  Could be a premium feature.

I like this idea, but I like it as a way to promote competition.  So you would have a filter that only invites people within 50% of your score in either direction, or 10%, or whatever is decided on.  I mean, you can sell it as a way to play people around your skill level.  That is what sounds the most fun about this idea to me.

I haven't been commenting in that other thread, but as a lower ranked player there is something that rubs me the wrong way about the way this discussion has unfolded.  There was a 'We are the 99%' comment that was kind of laughed off, but if the top players have a way to hedge their risk by choosing not to play against lower players, I want a way to block them from farming me for points should I choose.  It seems like the discussion was started as a way for top echelon of players to protect their points, with barely any acknowledgement about what that might mean for the rest of us. 

We live in a simple system here, where like them or not the rules are clear from the outset.  I know some people think it would be awesome to keep gaining points forever, but that isn't the way the system works.

While I see the logic, I think any filter or ruleset that precludes people from being able to play in public games is a horrible idea that would create two groups that basically don't play together because of rating.

I enjoy playing better players because it essentially makes me learn how to play better or get stomped.  If you can't handle getting stomped every once in a while then you're in the wrong place.  Of course if you also can't handle losing points then don't play in those games.  It's fairly simple.

Now if you want a filter for private games, I'm all for that, but public games are public for a reason.   Creating essentially seperate groups will do nothing but segregate the population and further remove the upper echelon of players from the lower.

Viper wrote:

While I see the logic, I think any filter or ruleset that precludes people from being able to play in public games is a horrible idea that would create two groups that basically don't play together because of rating.

Now if you want a filter for private games, I'm all for that, but public games are public for a reason.   Creating essentially seperate groups will do nothing but segregate the population and further remove the upper echelon of players from the lower.

I agree with this.

It could also result in games taking longer to get filled or never getting filled in some instances.

Viper wrote:

If you can't handle getting stomped every once in a while then you're in the wrong place. 

+1

I know that those losses hurt, Squint, but that doesn't give justification to protect the upper echelon against them.
I was adamant in the last thread that I didn't like that idea, and will continue to stand strong on that position.

The Rope wrote:

I like this idea, but I like it as a way to promote competition.  So you would have a filter that only invites people within 50% of your score in either direction, or 10%, or whatever is decided on.  I mean, you can sell it as a way to play people around your skill level.  That is what sounds the most fun about this idea to me.

I haven't been commenting in that other thread, but as a lower ranked player there is something that rubs me the wrong way about the way this discussion has unfolded.  There was a 'We are the 99%' comment that was kind of laughed off, but if the top players have a way to hedge their risk by choosing not to play against lower players, I want a way to block them from farming me for points should I choose.  It seems like the discussion was started as a way for top echelon of players to protect their points, with barely any acknowledgement about what that might mean for the rest of us. 

We live in a simple system here, where like them or not the rules are clear from the outset.  I know some people think it would be awesome to keep gaining points forever, but that isn't the way the system works.

A NOTE TO ALL

I completely agree with your sentiments if indeed the intention was as you suggest, 'as a way for top echelon players to protect their points'.  It is completely, unequivocably, not at all the intention - nor the unintended consequence of what I am suggesting.  I felt that I clearly stated that in the numerous posts before along with others.  It has nothing to do with us versus them or high versus low.  I played nearly a thousand games on this site and I have the right to be treated fairly too!  Please don't make it seem like I am being an elitist - I am far from that as I hope those who have dealt with me can attest.

I think if you give a cursory view of the topic without careful consideration you can come to the wrong conclusions. I hope you can take the time to read the previous posts closely.  However, I have lost the energy to defend myself anymore.

I see a much greater variety of opponents here than I did on ToS because of the queue filters.  Yertle and I played about 65,000 games against each other because our queue filters matched but there are a lot of you here who played on ToS that I never played against there but here I see you all the time.  I like that.

My view has less to do with the rankings and more that you will be splitting the player base and restricting players from playing against other players.  

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying in regards to Ratings (although I would question the "treated fairly too" piece) and see your point.  I would just vote for currently keeping it more open than allowing for more restriction.

It seems like a very minor restriction. If you take WarGear Warfare, which is the game I think SquintGnome is primarily concerned about, 3225 players have completed a public game. SquintGnome, with his 1582 game score, would be able to exclude 90 of them (2.8%). (Bulk of those 90 are probably long gone from the site, of course.)

SquintGnome wrote:

... However, I have lost the energy to defend myself anymore.

You have my support and i hope you will keep advocating improvment ideas. In this case, I truly believe something should be done either by lowering the points cap or by having a soft way to filter players, on an optional basis of course.

You know a sure fire way to protect yourself against massive point losses?  Play and gain points on more than just a handful of maps (i.e. Wargear Warfare).  Problem solved...

Viper wrote:

You know a sure fire way to protect yourself against massive point losses?  Play and gain points on more than just a handful of maps (i.e. Wargear Warfare).  Problem solved...

And win...don't forget winning!

RiskyBack wrote:

Viper wrote:

You know a sure fire way to protect yourself against massive point losses?  Play and gain points on more than just a handful of maps (i.e. Wargear Warfare).  Problem solved...

And win...don't forget winning!

Gaining points assumes you are winning to gain those points but yeah you're right haha.