About a low rank limit? Options

[2dot]

Hello there!
it's been a while i didn't play chivalry so i came back on my favorite servers some days ago.

I forgot how pain it was playing with newbies or low rank players in any 50/64 server
Lot of team damage, deadly kill steal, spam votekick, tk in spawn, charge attack in your back, no apologies, spam LMB in melee, admins spending their time banning and not playing etc etc...what a mess...

I guess how much fun it is to play with a lot of players but honestly, some people should have more experience before playing in a 50 server in my opinion. They also ruin veteran experience and any type of gameplay/teamplay.

I'm not raging, i don't want to discriminate them but only doing an observation, so here is my question:
What about a low rank limit (0-30?)? What are you, guys, thinking about it? is it even technically possible?

Regards.

[MonkeyFiend]

We can indeed set rank limits e.g. 0-30 or even set minimum ranks e.g. only people >rank 15 etc.,

The problem is the servers are funded by clan members/donations/bank of monkey and I think most people here are already well about rank 30, so if we were to start a low rank/training server most people would not be able to play (unless they use an alt but that would be some morally dubious low rank pub stomping if they do that).

Setting a minimum rank might work but it would cut a section of the playerbase from the servers and at the end of the day I'd rather have some noobs to slaughter than a bunch of empty servers.

However if it's something the clan members think might be useful, they can stick some voting options in the members are and if the majority can agree on an option I can set it up

p.s. looking at the configs we could disallow a certain rank... allowing everyone rank 0-52 and rank 54+... what rank is kanathekana again?

[Meowric]

we should have a rank 0 server that people get kicked when they rank up to rank 1 after a couple of kills

[TurboMidget]

Not in favour of a rank limit. It doesn't feel right to exclude a group, simply because they just bought the game yesterday. Hadn't it been for the bigger servers where I could get the occasional kill (steal), I probably would've dropped this game a long time ago.

[HackedPenguin]

I don't like the idea of not letting noobs join. Of course then there's the TK and killsteal, but you gotta deal with it.

Monkey, Kana is 51

[Sonne]

Honestly, you just came back at the very, very wrong time. With the steam summer sale, there were LOTS of new players. It's like this after every sale, it passes with time as players get better/filter out.

Hey, I'm not one to complain. Just got 66 kills yesterday

[2dot]

Ok guys, i understand your points of view
See you IG

[GuyIncognito]

Yea, as annoying as it is right now with all the low rank chaos, I agree there shouldnt be a limit. The first games I played were on a 50 server and it was the chaotic madness of it all that I fell in love with. As been said, we only have to deal with once in a while and at the end of the day new players are a good thing for chivalry and TB. And I have to admit, I kinda enjoy annihilating noobs en masse for as long as it lasts, before they wise up.. With that said I can certainly empathise with 2dot.

[Liche]

YES.

Since Monkey dont want to disable those disgusting lmb , a low rank limit is probably the best option.


But........
NO since , the server need all these nub , to be always full.

I would say : If we join a 50 slots , we know what to expect :/

Then just do like me , cry alone about lmbspammer.

[MonkeyFiend]

btw there's no server side configs that would prevent people from using LMB even if we did want to