Restrict tables by rating

[Jimmy V.]

Hello,

We'd like to know your opinion.

When opening a new table, we'd like to offer the option to restrict the table to a rating range.
For example, you would restrict the table to players between 1500 and 1800.

There are a few ways to that, for example, for someone with a rating of 1600:
- with limitations:
A1) choose a "symmetrical" range around your rating, for example, between 1500 and 1700, or between 1400 and 1800.
A2) choose a range of your choice around your rating, for example between 1500 And 2000,
A3) choose a min rating only for example, above 1600
A4) choose a max rating only for example, below 1600
- without limitations
A5) you can restrict the table as you wish, for example ask for players below 1100 and 1300 only, or below 1600 or above 1900.

So in essence, can the option give complete freedom or is best to allow only reasonable ranges?

Thanks for your input.



NB: Bear in mind that the feature may have consequences on the Daily Quest.
NB2: The question of playing against specific bots comes into the picture. It is probably not desirable that players always pick the same bot to play online. Probably the feature would not apply to bots.

[Thanthamthomap]

I agree that the rating restriction (if possible) should only be applied for human vs human games

For the rating range, I vote for the option to let player free to create any custom range (option A5?). I would prefer a slide bar (or any feature so that I can easily select the custom range without really have to type in the actual number), or some default options with the choice to remember my last custom range (so that next time I don't have to input the number again).

Just my 2 cents! 

[Jimmy V.]

Something I forgot.

Should the range of preferred rating be:
B1) Absolute (1500-1700)
B2) Relative to your rating (-100 / +200)

[John S.]

I agree that the rating restriction (if possible) should only be applied for human vs human games

For the rating range, I vote for the option to let player free to create any custom range (option A5?). I would prefer a slide bar (or any feature so that I can easily select the custom range without really have to type in the actual number), or some default options with the choice to remember my last custom range (so that next time I don't have to input the number again).

Just my 2 cents! 

I like these ideas.  Custom range and ability for mouse only input (like slider bar) and remember the previous settings.  The benefit of playing within a custom range is being able to play against player with similar skill level. The close matches seem to be the more interesting ones and this is more likely to happen between players in a similar ratings range.

[Marlene H.]

I like the idea of being able to select a range, or a minimum or maximum score.  The minimum would be very helpful for some of the daily quests. 
But I think the minimums should apply to bots as well. 
There have been times I was trying to complete a daily quest that had a minimum, and I ended up with a bot way below my level and below the minimum required for the quest. 
That's really annoying.

I think that might be more of a problem for US players, because once the Europeans log off for the night, there are usually less humans available.

[Stuart L.]

***  (Apologies in advance for the length of this message!)  ***

Yes, yes, absolutely yes!!  Please do this option of restrictions by ratings!

I think the fairest system would probably be a choice between a +/- range around the player's current rating or selecting any minimum (or at least a minimum that correlates with the Daily Quest requirement).

Although, I suppose that if you do allow total freedom of selection, then if other players feel that a player is trying to be manipulative with the system, then they can just choose not to play them.

As for the bots though, I have to totally second what Marlene said about the idea of being able to at least select a MINIMUM score for bots (given that they're unlocked, I guess) to be able to at least attempt conquering the Daily Quest.  It being random luck whether or not you get paired up with a bot that meets the required minimum (and it usually failing to happen) is indeed very annoying.

There is also the "Play different players" requirement, but if you keep getting matched up with the same bot over and over again...  Perhaps an option to force the selection of a different bot (rather than people being able to select the same bot over and over again)?

Can't wait for this to be implemented!  Great stuff!  — But when you say there could be consequences for this feature on the Daily Quest, what do you mean exactly?  Does that mean it's all going to be moot?

Speaking of the Daily Quest, I've always thought it'd be better if you displayed the rankings as a percentage of Kings Favours earned, rather than the number of them (those at the top of the chart would show 100%, of course).  What do you think?  I've just noticed too that one of my Friends who hasn't logged in for two months or more is still in the charts... how can that be?  Aren't the Quests calculated for only the last twenty days?  (Similarly for the Wheat!  I guess I don't understand how it really works..)

One more suggestion concerning percentages (which I'm positive players would absolutely love if you were able to implement!) is to have a percentage number (or maybe a percentage 'completion' bar?) displayed on each table (or even if it's just a flag that appears when hovering the mouse – can't be done on touchscreens though, right?) to indicate how complete the game is, so they can know if certain other players are just starting or halfway through or nearly finished!  For most games this could be easily calculated based on the number of cards remaining in the draw deck (or on the number of wishing stones remaining, in the case of Keltis Ór) but some games admittedly could be trickier to calculate.

But I'm probably getting a bit too off-topic here, sorry.

Back on the topic of table restrictions: I've never understood the point of the "All players" option being under the restricted access menu.  If the table is open to all, then it's not restricted, is it?  Am I missing something?

Also, I think the "Only Friends" option is superfluous, as you could just use "Selection of Friends" option and click the "All" button.  Similarly the "Access by link only" option is also superfluous, as the "Selection of Friends" option covers this too and, if necessary, the player can just select "None" in their friends list (which is how it starts by default, anyway, so the only point of the "None" button is if you had started making selections, then changed your mind and it'd be easier to start over than to unselect) – although the Link Only option does bring up the link window, I suppose.. a suggestion on that below, too. 

I think that the table access menu selection could really benefit from being streamlined and simplified. 

Instead of option 1) then 2)a,b,c,d, perhaps instead just something like:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table access via link for any player/guest and via the inn for:

1) any qualified player
2) a selection of friends

(with friends menu directly underneath, where players can choose all, none, or some)

and then three buttons instead of two:

--------------------
* OPEN TABLE

* OPEN TABLE
  (and view link)

* Cancel
--------------------

and if Selection of Friends: None has been chosen (thus via Link only) then either remove or hide or disable the first "Open Table" button or just have it function the same as the second one (i.e.: bring up the link window automatically regardless).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's just one idea, anyway. 

Thanks for reading.    Keep up the great work!   

[Carl]

A known issue on some sites is that some players only want to play stronger players, so they would pick their own rank as a minimum. It may be less of an issue here, but that's a benefit with requiring the range to be symmetric (i.e. players who are +/- x00 points). Within 100, 300 and 500 (or no restriction) should cover most of the common cases and makes it easy to use.

It would definitely be a useful feature. I came here just to play Cartographers, and I'm pretty strong at the game. Some nights I just don't feel like playing a complete or almost beginner, especially since some players can be pretty slow.

[Huggable T.]

Personally I would not like to restrict anybody from playing me but I can see the benefits of such restriction on tables.  Everybody has to start somewhere and its amazing how many of the happy meepler community can play this game so well whatever their rating. Its great fun.  So I approve of the scheme but would not put any restrictions on my account.

I am also wanting a Cartographers tournament and a new Hanamakoji like the one last year