Conquer Club

Concise description:
Create a "kick player/boot" option for the host in the "Awaiting Players" area for the host. Most games/sites have this option to kick other players if they don't want them in the game. Maybe you don't want them on your foe list permanently, you simply don't want them in the game, and adding them too your foe list does nothing *after* they've already joined.

Specifics:
Currently, the foe list is nice as it allows us to prevent other people from joining games that we had a bad experience with. However, as said above, if someone already joins, you can't do anything about it. Even worse is when you've taken someone off your foe list to read the chat in a game (to quote them, or to see exactly what they said), forget to put them back on, and they join your game. It's at absolute rock bottom when you join a game, notice that, get annoyed, and then CC drops you from your own game because of the 5 minute speed rule, and then because they *do* have you on foe, you've just been blocked from your own game!

This will improve the following aspects of the site:
In order to file a Cheating/Abuse report, I unfoed leonidas1 in order to copy/paste his chat in the report. I forgot to add him back on. He joined a game I was in, although I don't want him to be in that game. Under current procedure, players typically will all get informed and remake the game with the said player added on the foe list. Such hassle wouldn't be necessary with a kick player/boot option, to simply remove them from the games. I mean, if you don't want to play with a person, you don't want to play with them, there's nothing more to it than that, is there?

I totally see where you're coming from Fabled, but I'm concerned the idea in its current form would be open to abuse.

Sure it might be a laugh to boot your friends out of a game for a giggle.
And in the exact circumstance you describe it would be appropriate to use the kick button.
But I can see some people using it as another method to abuse people either by randomly kicking people just to wind them up or by more deliberately inviting people to games just to take perverse pleasure from kicking them out again.

How can we tweak the idea mechanics to protect against this whilst still creating the functionality you require?

cicero wrote:I totally see where you're coming from Fabled, but I'm concerned the idea in its current form would be open to abuse.

Sure it might be a laugh to boot your friends out of a game for a giggle.
And in the exact circumstance you describe it would be appropriate to use the kick button.
But I can see some people using it as another method to abuse people either by randomly kicking people just to wind them up or by more deliberately inviting people to games just to take perverse pleasure from kicking them out again.

How can we tweak the idea mechanics to protect against this whilst still creating the functionality you require?

It's the host's players game, no? I mean, considering this doesn't happen in Starcraft, or other RTS games (sorry, I'm an avid RTS fan... love them), or games of chess, etc, then why would it be any different here? The person can join teh game and get booted sure, but then that's it. Put the guy on foe list or whatever you want. I mean, if a host player doesn't want them in their game that they created - why should he have to play with the person. You don't necessarily need a private game, which is a completely separate story. You're willing to let the entire community join, except for a specific person. That's what matters. The kicking would only prevent a certain player from joining that particular game.

If a member doesn't want to play a game with you, for whatever reason, and you can't simply accept that and move on, then you make yourself look like a bit of an internet stalker, in my opinion.

There are a lot of other games on the site, and a lot of other members to play with, guys!

I think this is a great idea.

hmm i am a little mixed about his one, i see where you are coming from ... but i ultimately side with 'no'.

if you are setting up games and for example see a good player join, you could throw them out in order to give more chance at the points.
I just think it enables players filter opposition and further tailor the home advantage. It would certainly be used as a cynical tool.

jiminski wrote:hmm i am a little mixed about his one, i see where you are coming from ... but i ultimately side with 'no'.

if you are setting up games and for example see a good player join, you could throw them out in order to give more chance at the points.
I just think it enables players filter opposition and further tailor the home advantage. It would certainly be used as a cynical tool.

If that's teh game you want to play, that's hte game you want to play... I mean if you want to have a game with low ranks, shouldn't you be entitled to it? You are the game creator, no? Just as in chess, if someone joins your game and they're a high rank and you want an easy relaxing match, you shouldn't be forced to play teh higher rank should you?

Yeah I see where you are coming from to...but ummmm NO !

KoE_Sirius wrote:Yeah I see where you are coming from to...but ummmm NO !

It's nice when people provide reasoning.

FabledIntegral wrote:

KoE_Sirius wrote:Yeah I see where you are coming from to...but ummmm NO !

It's nice when people provide reasoning.

It is Fabled

So, given all the questions/objections people are raising how we can apply reasoning to develop the idea so that it appeals to more people? So that more people will support it?

At the moment your first post after mine seems to suggest that the foe list does everything you wanted anyway ... Or am I misunderstanding ?

FabledIntegral wrote:

jiminski wrote:hmm i am a little mixed about his one, i see where you are coming from ... but i ultimately side with 'no'.

if you are setting up games and for example see a good player join, you could throw them out in order to give more chance at the points.
I just think it enables players filter opposition and further tailor the home advantage. It would certainly be used as a cynical tool.

If that's teh game you want to play, that's hte game you want to play... I mean if you want to have a game with low ranks, shouldn't you be entitled to it? You are the game creator, no? Just as in chess, if someone joins your game and they're a high rank and you want an easy relaxing match, you shouldn't be forced to play teh higher rank should you?

I understand these points, but I still say "no".

If you don't like that someone is playing your game, you can drop it. Else, tolerance is in order ... even when the other person has been a complete jerk. Someone might join your game, look forward to it and then find they were "booted". Instead of possibly easing a situation by giving someone a second chance, you would just create more ill will.

As for being the "game creator" and therefore controlling who is in the game ... too many people pick and choose so they won't lose points, etc. Play private games or just monitor your foe list better, if that is how you feel.

Monitor your

cicero wrote:

FabledIntegral wrote:

KoE_Sirius wrote:Yeah I see where you are coming from to...but ummmm NO !

It's nice when people provide reasoning.

It is Fabled

So, given all the questions/objections people are raising how we can apply reasoning to develop the idea so that it appeals to more people? So that more people will support it?

At the moment your first post after mine seems to suggest that the foe list does everything you wanted anyway ... Or am I misunderstanding ?

Because some people you might not necessarily want to play with even if you haven't added them to your foe yet. Simply you see them join, you don't want them to play. Whether or not because you DON'T want a high rank in your game, or you DON'T want a new recruit in your game, it shouldn't matter. The host should be able to pick and choose who they want to play. As of now, to avoid this, everyone in the game except for the person they don't want is typically PM'd, and a new game is remade with that person on foe. It's annoying to have to do this when a simple boot player option could be added.

If people want to kick so they can easily gain points - let them. Are you kidding? It happens already. That's hardly a valid excuse... to take so many measures against people who can get points just as easily doing other things such as playing team games with partners who know what they are doing, clickable maps, etc. If you want to fix people gaining easy points, preventing a "kick player" option would be the least of your worries. Ban clickable maps first, and other sorts. There's also a huge difference between private games and public games where anyone can join except for a specific few.

For example I might not want to have someone on foe, but I don't want to play any escalating classic games with them. Idc about world 2.1, etc. Or I don't want to play with any new recruits or cooks, but you expect me to filter through the gamelist and foe each one?

Also as said, people constantly unfoe people to read the chat from the game and forget to put them back on, much like I did.

FabledIntegral wrote:

KoE_Sirius wrote:Yeah I see where you are coming from to...but ummmm NO !

It's nice when people provide reasoning.

Your idea is unreasonable for a site that is beginning to be starved of Speed players with IGNORE lists longer then my pay slip and you want these power hungry know it alls to have more power...oh please !

FabledIntegral wrote:For example I might not want to ... play with any new recruits or cooks, but you expect me to filter through the gamelist and foe each one?

Sadly I think you just made an excellent argument against the suggestion Fabled

Since this principle was behind Rank/Score Limits for Joining Games ... and this was rejected.

cicero wrote:

FabledIntegral wrote:For example I might not want to ... play with any new recruits or cooks, but you expect me to filter through the gamelist and foe each one?

Sadly I think you just made an excellent argument against the suggestion Fabled

Since this principle was behind Rank/Score Limits for Joining Games ... and this was rejected.

Whatever - very poor logic to me, considering when a new recruit or someone joins, the game is merely dropped and restarted. People already act as if there was a boot option, it simply becomes a very tedious process. The mere fact that if people don't want to play games with certain people yet are forced to... well my foe list has become filled with 65+ people for the simple reason they don't know the gametype yet aren't willing to learn. I've seen the bullshit "well I have my own strategy" far too often, which in my opinion (and that's all that really matters to me personally, right? It is MY foe list), is one of the WORST excuses on this site. Recently I played a game where someone with Aussie had 60 armies and attacked everyone on teh board, suiciding, and ruined the game. He said, it was just his strategy to attack everyone, so he could prevent everyone on the board from gettng a bonus. The game ended the same turn as he killed me + green and left red with 40+ armies than everyone else.

Hilarious that you're forced to play with new people. Concerning "starved" for games - then it's the hosts own fault if he's kicking, isn't it? It's his game, if he wants to wait, what's it to you.

FabledIntegral wrote:...the game is merely dropped and restarted. People already act as if there was a boot option, it simply becomes a very tedious process. The mere fact that if people don't want to play games with certain people yet are forced to... well my foe list has become filled with 65+ people for the simple reason they don't know the gametype yet aren't willing to learn. I've seen the bullshit "well I have my own strategy" far too often, which in my opinion (and that's all that really matters to me personally, right? It is MY foe list), is one of the WORST excuses on this site. Recently I played a game where someone with Aussie had 60 armies and attacked everyone on teh board, suiciding, and ruined the game. He said, it was just his strategy to attack everyone, so he could prevent everyone on the board from gettng a bonus. The game ended the same turn as he killed me + green and left red with 40+ armies than everyone else.

Hilarious that you're forced to play with new people. Concerning "starved" for games - then it's the hosts own fault if he's kicking, isn't it? It's his game, if he wants to wait, what's it to you.

I concur.