Conquer Club

Concise description:

[1] Allow you to filter out people with a certain % of negative feedback (I personally think if someone has more than 5-10% negative, I don't want to play with them)
[2] Allow you to filter out certain ranks [I realize this has been rejected before - and you COULD play private - but honestly, this is logistically more efficient]

Specifics:

[1] Not allow people with more than 10% negative feedback to enter your game
[2] Not allow people below 1500 points to enter your game [the disproportionate number of deadbeats, etc - though this is an arbitrary number, you get my point]

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

[1] You can SIGINIFICANTLY reduce the amount of games you have with proven "negative" players - who might join the game in the last spot.
[2] You will be saved the significant hassle of starting a private game, finding people at the appropriate rank and them messaging them the password. Sooo much simpler!

I realize that some people think that this will result in stratification of the community - if you can exclude rooks from your games - but be honest. When I play a doubles game, I WANT a partner who is comparable to me - that's what I play for. I don't mind playing with lower ranked players, because frankly - much more often than not - they disproportionately deadbeat or make game-ending mistakes.

As it is, we already CAN, technically make private games. This is just a private game made logistically easier.

that is exactly what a private game is. use them and stop your whining.

public games are there for THE PUBLIC.

id suggest you read the whole post greenoaks...

i believe there should be a filter that could be set up by each player to their tastes to filter out all those people who have a certain percentage of their feedback... and then automatically add these ppl to the foes list?

*shudders to think how long my list would be...*

TheScarecrow wrote:id suggest you read the whole post greenoaks...

i believe there should be a filter that could be set up by each player to their tastes to filter out all those people who have a certain percentage of their feedback... and then automatically add these ppl to the foes list?

*shudders to think how long my list would be...*

you should take your own advise TheScarecrow.

maybe then you'd realise this thread is about being able to make public games that are not available to the entire public, ie. private games.

What Greenoaks said is both true and besides the point.

Removing someone based on their % negative feedback and/or rank does indeed allow you to filter out players who you might not want to play it. Greenoaks's point is that you can do that in a private game.

However, he fails to notice that this is much, much faster - and happens all the time. I will LEAVE games where someone with (let's say) 20% negative feedbacks joins. I will leave if everyone who joins a 6 player game I host is a cook - not because I don't like them but because they - honestly - deadbeat more often than everyone else. This is especially critical since I primarily play doubles games.

Now, I COULD, in theory just only create private games. That would however require me to:

1. Check if I know enough people online at that moment to play
2. Pm them all their passwords - a task which we all know takes a long time

This entire process is very time-consuming indeed, and can be a dead-end if you only have 2 friends online.

Or I could just use a filter to remove cooks and people with too many negatives. Accomplishes the same thing, but makes it MUCH faster to find a game, much more logistically simple. And since people do it ANYWAY, why not just make it easier?

No because feedback is bullshit. Just because I do one thing in one game doesn't mean I need to get 30 positive feedbacks to level out the 3 I got because I revealed my own position in a FoW game. As I say it's bullshit. People think it's common courtesy to leave a positive if someone left you one. Same with negative. Half the negatives I've got would't be there if I hadn't left one first even though their feedbakc is reasonable.

bringiton4 wrote:What Greenoaks said is both true and besides the point.

Removing someone based on their % negative feedback and/or rank does indeed allow you to filter out players who you might not want to play it. Greenoaks's point is that you can do that in a private game.

However, he fails to notice that this is much, much faster - and happens all the time. I will LEAVE games where someone with (let's say) 20% negative feedbacks joins. I will leave if everyone who joins a 6 player game I host is a cook - not because I don't like them but because they - honestly - deadbeat more often than everyone else. This is especially critical since I primarily play doubles games.

Now, I COULD, in theory just only create private games. That would however require me to:

1. Check if I know enough people online at that moment to play
2. Pm them all their passwords - a task which we all know takes a long time

This entire process is very time-consuming indeed, and can be a dead-end if you only have 2 friends online.

Or I could just use a filter to remove cooks and people with too many negatives. Accomplishes the same thing, but makes it MUCH faster to find a game, much more logistically simple. And since people do it ANYWAY, why not just make it easier?

Can you imagine how many games these people would miss out on? For example with doodle assassins, now if someone has someone else on their ignore list then they can't join any of the games that that person is in. This is made even worse if that person is making the games. Now imagine a cook. He can't join this one guys games because that guy doesn't want to play a cook. So he makes his own assassin. People see the cook with one open and say a sergeant with one open. They join the sergeants so tey can win more points and lose less. The next person sees two games and wants to play ASAP so joins the one with most players in. This means it can take a lot longer for the cooks game to fill up. Why? Maybe he lost internet connection, or has had bad dice. And now he is unable to play risk which is exactly what he paid his $25 for.

I understand the idea behind the problem you mentioned, Firth - that it will be harder for Cooks to find games.

Imagine the following - this happened litreally two minutes ago - I created a doubles game, and the partner who joined the game was a cook with a 2-2 feedback record (the negatives were for "accidentally" attacking his own team-mate). I left the game STRAIGHT AWAY. The way the game is currently set up, if that person had joined last, his partner would have gotten slaughtered.

All I'm trying to say is - I intentionally exclude cooks from my game anyway (because of these issues - I want a reliable game, where people know how to play and will not deadbeat). Allowing me to filter based on this will not change my behaviour in any way - it'll just make it much simpler for everyone. As a consequence, it'll actually allow cooks to play more games together - which, if anything - is a good thing.

Finally - I note that your objections are primarily to the ranking issue, NOT the negative % part. What are your views on that?

I'd be pissed off because I'm a good guy really and I'd be on many ignore lists. Fircoal, oggiss and others that have stupid feedback or badgames would miss out and they are good players.

firth4eva wrote:I'd be pissed off because I'm a good guy really and I'd be on many ignore lists. Fircoal, oggiss and others that have stupid feedback or badgames would miss out and they are good players.

you are not on my ignore list. we'll play sometime but i will try and increase my rank first so i don't screw you over if i fluke a win.

I was in a doubles game today - and the fourth person who joined (i.e. the last one) - had two negatives out of 14 overall feedbacks (14%). For deadbeating. Guess what - he deadbeated.

We need to address this somehow. Private games are just not feasible logistically. This makes perfect sense......make it a 12% negative threshhold if you prefer....

I am not worried about the points as much as the neg feedback % I think there should be something to block the neg feedbacks

So far we have 5 people who agree on a negative % filter, and five who don't.

Hoping for more views and visibility here.

I can't see this being a good idea. And that is mainly because of that neg feedback is given for loads of reasons (and a lot of them seems to be just in spite or from poor losers). And having a filter against anyone that someone has disapproved off (for any reasons) seems just stupid to me.

I'd be all for stronger measures against deadbeats or people that breaks site rules but basing it on the neg feedback system... Nah rather not.

8 who disagree... someone with 14-2 feedback could easily have got them for trivial reasons, like me with 60-6 feedback and I didn't do much wrong. the idea is bad.

In my negatives:

1 for deadbeating - Even though I very rarely do so
1 as retaliations (which mods claimed wasn't) - I claimed he had secret alliance as he didn't attack the player who was right next to him with a continent.
1 as a supposed suicider as I had 50 men against 20 and a load of ones behind him and i lost, fair enough my men did die but the name of the game is risk
2 as a bas team mate - only ones i feel are justified (same game)

so My ratio is 33-5 but I feel it should be 33-2

using percent is tough, especially for new players. with only 1 bad feedback, they are pretty much screwed until they get 10 positives to counter that. But since all are filtered from most games, they won't be able to get the needed games and thus positive feedback.


I would like to propose something a little different.

When a game is complete, a deadbeat point is automatically given to the players who deadbeat. If they got booted by the system, the system should track that.

outside of text/comment feedback, which suffer from human error and revenge, the system has no feelings and doesn't lie.

using this deadbeat filter, you could allow only players with less than X% deadbeats.


Ultimately, i think this is what we're after. We' re not against chef's... we just actually want to play.

Hi all,

Just read your posts explaining why some people have some unfair negative feedback (retaliation, etc). I understand this, and am trying to figure out a way that can work with both viewpoints - mine being that I hate people who deadbeat (who you can generally identify through high negative feedback), the other being that you have unfair negative feedback at times (hence unfairly affecting some people).

I agree with what pissedoffsol said in his post - CC technology permitting - to code in a deadbeat variable (I believe wicked ran a thread about the feedback system a couple of days ago, which also addresses this). If I can filter out people who have (let's say) missed more than 5% of their turns (or dead-beated 5% of the time), that will also GREATLY help this problem.

I'll settle for that (i.e. not push for being allowed to filter by rank in my public games)

i don't understand the problem premiums have with deadbeaters.

it is free points

freemiums i can understand with their 4 game limit.

The problem is that we want to ENJOY games - especially doubles one, where you rely totally on your partner - not wait 15 minutes of our time.

I don't care about points, I want to have FUN, and deadbeaters ruin that

exactly.

as you can see by my score, i'm not the best player.... but i've played nearly 2500 games.

i'm here to have fun and PLAY. not to win all the time or get free points.

pissedoffsol wrote:When a game is complete, a deadbeat point is automatically given to the players who deadbeat.

outside of text/comment feedback, which suffer from human error and revenge, the system has no feelings and doesn't lie.

something like this is a much better idea.

What do people think of that?

I agree, in part, december '07 I had a valid reason for deadbeating, an operation, it was an emergency and as someone else cancelled I had to take their place, The system may not lie but neither does my dog, but at least the dog can take into account out of game experiances

Well, I see that this is not really going anywhere, with 60% of votes against the idea.

Oh well