Conquer Club

Concise description:
Limit the ability of people with either huge foe lists themselves OR who are on a large number of foe lists to join certain games.

A related suggestion is to block those with a significantly low rating from joining newbie games (under 4, perhaps ???)

Specifics:

1. if you have more than 100 people (or 50??) on your foe list OR if you are ON more than 500 foe lists, OR if you have a rating below 4, you cannot join games with newbies. (note -- numbers up for debate)

2. Similarly cannot join public games with more than 6 people or speed games with more than 3 people.
OR IF such a person joins a game (any but a 1 vs 1), the game originator will get a pm and will be allowed to block that person. This might be difficult to program(?)

3. Notify Tournament directors (via pm) of people who meet these criteria, so they can have the option of excluding them from tournaments.

4. Do have a procedure for "challenge". A person would only be able to challange once (or once every 6 months perhaps). Related to this, perhaps the "cannot join public games with more than 6 people" for those who are on OTHER PEOPLE"S foe lists can be automatically overridden for people of a significantly high rank (I am thinking the top 30-50 on the scoreboard, those in the running for Conquere .. because that is a situation where people might abuse this). The features limiting those with more than 50 people on their foe lists would stand.


This will improve the following aspects of the site:
I know variations of this idea have been proposed before, but it was a long time ago and a lot has changed since then.

Some people have such huge foe lists that if they join someone's game, that game will take forever to fill. Then you have other people that are such absolute jerks they are on a whole lot of foe lists.

I realize there are definite limits to what CC can do, but monitoring the extremes would help everyone.

First, prohibiting their joining newbie games will keep the worst offenders from giving newbies a bad experience in their first few games. People with huge foe lists are often "Farmers" in the negative sense of the word. As a side note, it might curb some multiism (?), though I am not sure how much of a correlation there is between foe lists and multis. This way, they would have to wait 5 games before joining the new profile. Again, I don't know how important that aspect would be, I just mention it as a side note.

Similarly, if someone is on all kinds of foe lists (500 was a number I picked out of my head .. that maybe be too high or too low), do we really want them to be the first person a newbie plays?


I relaize that as soon as you place any limit, there will be people who will place the limit -1 on their foe list. Again, there are limits to what CC can do. However, at least it will make these people think a bit more before putting people on their foe lists.

Because there is always a chance of someone abusing "on 500 foe list" feature ... maybe a jerk rallies all his "friends" to place the winner of the past few tournaments, etc. There should be a review process. However, so we don't create another "feedback abuse" workload issue, there should be serious limits on those who can object. Also, because it would be too easy for people to use this as a way to limit those near the top of the scoreboard, I would specifically exclude those at the very top -- maybe the top 50, maybe the topp 200?? from the "cannot join games with over 6 players" prohibition. However, some of those people are the very ones who use the high foe list count to their advantage and it is something fully within their control, so those provisions would not be overriden.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Concise description:
Limit the ability of people with either huge foe lists themselves OR who are on a large number of foe lists to join certain games.

I have a huge list of foes, because it includes everyone who I have seen abuse someone else in a game (believe me, that is sadly a lot of people!). So I should be limited to join certain games because I don't like to deal with abusive people?

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Concise description:
Limit the ability of people with either huge foe lists themselves OR who are on a large number of foe lists to join certain games.

I have a huge list of foes, because it includes everyone who I have seen abuse someone else in a game (believe me, that is sadly a lot of people!). So I should be limited to join certain games because I don't like to deal with abusive people?

I don't know the details of your situation. I would say that the foe list should be large enough that only farmers and those who consider basically everyone else a jerk are excluded. However, so far it does not look to be a popular suggestion, so it probalby won't happen

think it should only be ppl on a large number of foe lists
i dont foe people
but if i did foe people who used profanity id beat 100 in a week
cept id have to foe myself

Well, I didn't know your foe's can't join games you are in. I guess it would be nice to just showing publicly how many foes someone has and on how many foe lists he is on. Then give the option to the person who started a game whether or not he wants to block that player from the game.

As for ratings, 4 is a high number. If you wanted to block players of a certain rating, I would start at perhaps 2, because 3 (according to the instructions) is suppose to be the average player:

The number of stars given should be based on this scale: 1 = Bad, 2 = Below Average, 3 = Average, 4 = Above Average, 5 = Excellent.

4myGod wrote:Well, I didn't know your foe's can't join games you are in. I guess it would be nice to just showing publicly how many foes someone has and on how many foe lists he is on. Then give the option to the person who started a game whether or not he wants to block that player from the game.

It shouldn't be up to someone else (the initiator of the game) whether I have to play with someone I consider abusive or not. That should be my prerogative.

how about instead of limiting you can make a game where you have to be a minimum rating to join that game to stop all the jerks who have low rating joining your games

Gilly754 wrote:how about instead of limiting you can make a game where you have to be a minimum rating to join that game to stop all the jerks who have low rating joining your games

Yes, and no...because of the inconsistency between different raters in the rating system, a 4.2 is actually a pretty bad rating...and yet logically, it should be considered "better than average"...so how do we get around that problem?

Woodruff wrote:

4myGod wrote:Well, I didn't know your foe's can't join games you are in. I guess it would be nice to just showing publicly how many foes someone has and on how many foe lists he is on. Then give the option to the person who started a game whether or not he wants to block that player from the game.

It shouldn't be up to someone else (the initiator of the game) whether I have to play with someone I consider abusive or not. That should be my prerogative.

The idea is, if you don't like the people who are in the game then you don't join it. If you are afraid of someone joining after you who is going to be a bad person who you don't want to play with, then perhaps there can be a pre-game chat where you can request to the person who started the game (the initiator) to block a certain player that joined.. for such and such reason.

If anyone can block users... not just the creator, then anyone can jump into any game and just start blocking users, essentially hi-jacking the game, forcing the creator to quit and start the same game again, which that "hi-jacker" can join again and do the same thing. So there needs to be someone in charge of the game, which would be the person who started it, after all, he chose the map, he chose the settings, he chose everything. If you don't like the people he lets into the game you can leave the game and/or not join it in the first place, and instead perhaps start your own game or join another.

So I understand your wanting to have input in who you play with, but not everyone can have the power to block other players, or else it would get abused.

Woodruff wrote:

4myGod wrote:Well, I didn't know your foe's can't join games you are in. I guess it would be nice to just showing publicly how many foes someone has and on how many foe lists he is on. Then give the option to the person who started a game whether or not he wants to block that player from the game.

It shouldn't be up to someone else (the initiator of the game) whether I have to play with someone I consider abusive or not. That should be my prerogative.

QFT

4myGod wrote:If anyone can block users... not just the creator, then anyone can jump into any game and just start blocking users, essentially hi-jacking the game, forcing the creator to quit and start the same game again, which that "hi-jacker" can join again and do the same thing. So there needs to be someone in charge of the game, which would be the person who started it, after all, he chose the map, he chose the settings, he chose everything. If you don't like the people he lets into the game you can leave the game and/or not join it in the first place, and instead perhaps start your own game or join another.

So I understand your wanting to have input in who you play with, but not everyone can have the power to block other players, or else it would get abused.

I did mean just the creator...

HOWEVER, the above scenerio is exactly what happens right now. If I start an 8 player game and class A "jerko" with 20,000 on his foe list is the first one to join, then none of those 20,000 people can join -- that is how it works now. This can be an issue in speed games and freestyle, which people often try to play more or less "real time" for strategy reasons.

a.sub wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

4myGod wrote:Well, I didn't know your foe's can't join games you are in. I guess it would be nice to just showing publicly how many foes someone has and on how many foe lists he is on. Then give the option to the person who started a game whether or not he wants to block that player from the game.

It shouldn't be up to someone else (the initiator of the game) whether I have to play with someone I consider abusive or not. That should be my prerogative.

QFT

This is just a different problem entirely. Right now, the biggest issue with this is that, because most of us don't necessarily remember the names of people we might have played once and foed months ago (even if we have short lists), you can wind up joining a game and not even know a foe is in it. That, apparently, is about to change.

BUT, here is the thing. No one is saying you cannot play with jerks. If someone is blocked from one game, just start another game.

Its just right now, NO ONE really has a choice. The foe gets to join and the only "solution" is to delete the game.

Gilly754 wrote:how about instead of limiting you can make a game where you have to be a minimum rating to join that game to stop all the jerks who have low rating joining your games

The only real reason is that I think this would require a lot more programming and server space. That is, you would have to have options for anyone. Also, I can see too much potential for abuse if people set the limits too arbitrarily.

The other thing is that having a set limit will LEAD to more rating consistancy. I said 4.0, because most people do use all 5's as the "default" setting. I used to not do that and am now doing it myself for many, many reasons. In reality, the rating system needs fixing. However, this could be implemented with the current system and then "tweaked" later if the rating system is changed. In the mean time, like I said, I think it might add to the worth and consistancy of ratings.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

4myGod wrote:If anyone can block users... not just the creator, then anyone can jump into any game and just start blocking users, essentially hi-jacking the game, forcing the creator to quit and start the same game again, which that "hi-jacker" can join again and do the same thing. So there needs to be someone in charge of the game, which would be the person who started it, after all, he chose the map, he chose the settings, he chose everything. If you don't like the people he lets into the game you can leave the game and/or not join it in the first place, and instead perhaps start your own game or join another.

So I understand your wanting to have input in who you play with, but not everyone can have the power to block other players, or else it would get abused.

I did mean just the creator...

HOWEVER, the above scenerio is exactly what happens right now. If I start an 8 player game and class A "jerko" with 20,000 on his foe list is the first one to join, then none of those 20,000 people can join -- that is how it works now. This can be an issue in speed games and freestyle, which people often try to play more or less "real time" for strategy reasons.

I was replying to someone who said that HE wants to have control over who he plays a game with, so I was telling him that only the creator should have power.

4myGod wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

4myGod wrote:If anyone can block users... not just the creator, then anyone can jump into any game and just start blocking users, essentially hi-jacking the game, forcing the creator to quit and start the same game again, which that "hi-jacker" can join again and do the same thing. So there needs to be someone in charge of the game, which would be the person who started it, after all, he chose the map, he chose the settings, he chose everything. If you don't like the people he lets into the game you can leave the game and/or not join it in the first place, and instead perhaps start your own game or join another.

So I understand your wanting to have input in who you play with, but not everyone can have the power to block other players, or else it would get abused.

I did mean just the creator...

HOWEVER, the above scenerio is exactly what happens right now. If I start an 8 player game and class A "jerko" with 20,000 on his foe list is the first one to join, then none of those 20,000 people can join -- that is how it works now. This can be an issue in speed games and freestyle, which people often try to play more or less "real time" for strategy reasons.

I was replying to someone who said that HE wants to have control over who he plays a game with, so I was telling him that only the creator should have power.

Wow. I honestly and truly don't even know how to respond to this. Someone else should have the power over who I play games with rather than it being in my control? Egads...this would be the quickest way that I can imagine to killing the site, to be honest.

4myGod wrote:Then give the option to the person who started a game whether or not he wants to block that player from the game.

If the creator wants to make those decisions he should make the game private,

PLAYER57832 wrote:In reality, the rating system needs fixing.

Nah it needs death tbh, unfortunate but true as it provides us with almost none of the info it was supposed to.

PLAYER57832 wrote:I did mean just the creator...

HOWEVER, the above scenerio is exactly what happens right now. If I start an 8 player game and class A "jerko" with 20,000 on his foe list is the first one to join, then none of those 20,000 people can join -- that is how it works now. This can be an issue in speed games and freestyle, which people often try to play more or less "real time" for strategy reasons.

There is an excellent suggestion by e_i_pi for just this scenario: Suggestion: Limitation on the effect of foe lists


I occasionally review my foe list and remove a couple of players that no longer annoy me or I've straightened things out with, I still don't have a huge foe list because I save it for when I meet a truly obnoxious player. Rather than those who foe at the drop of a hat.


There is one individual who is renowned for having an absurdly large foe list, no names please, I don't want to get this thread locked! When you foe over 1,000 players it's not about avoiding bad game play or bad attitude, it's about strategically barring good players from your games to avoid points loss. So rather than learn to out play them, the lazy option is to foe them instead.

The Neon Peon experimented with the foe list and tried to foe 19,000 active players on the scoreboard, he made it to 10,000 before his foe list packed up, read about it here: [Poll] Points Inflation - Guess how much

Relevant Section wrote:In case any of you are wondering, I tried to foe every one of those 19000 people, but apparently foe list maxes out at a little under 10000. This max out is not on purpose, since all what happens is a timeout whenever you try to add anyone else to the menu. Maybe I need to get a better internet provider.

Moral of the story: always keep records of everything you ever do in life. Never know when they will become useful 4 months later.

If 10,000 players were the hard limit and not just the point at which it times out, then it would still be sufficient to foe every active player above the rank of Corporal. Makes you think doesn't it?

Artimis wrote:There is one individual who is renowned for having an absurdly large foe list, no names please, I don't want to get this thread locked! When you foe over 1,000 players it's not about avoiding bad game play or bad attitude, it's about strategically barring good players from your games to avoid points loss. So rather than learn to out play them, the lazy option is to foe them instead.

It might be worth mentioning that when someone is banned from the forums, they lose their foe list.

I foe people who (1) are really abusive in chat, (2) get busted cheating and (3) can't handle multi-player game negotiations and go nuts when weaker players band together to fight the strongest, or (4) use bully / suicide tactics.

Over 6000 games played, there's been a bunch. So my foe list is big.

I'm against any new feature of this site that would actually exclude me from playing games because I don't want people like that otherwise joining my games.

Woodruff, How do you NOT have the power over who you play with in this idea? Because someone else is in charge of kicking people?

How do you have the power now over who you play with? Obviously you think that you have the power now, and in this idea you wouldn't, this is why you think it will kill the site if the creator of the game could keep people out of their game who have large foe lists or who have been foed many times?

Timminz wrote:

Artimis wrote:There is one individual who is renowned for having an absurdly large foe list, no names please, I don't want to get this thread locked! When you foe over 1,000 players it's not about avoiding bad game play or bad attitude, it's about strategically barring good players from your games to avoid points loss. So rather than learn to out play them, the lazy option is to foe them instead.

It might be worth mentioning that when someone is banned from the forums, they lose their foe list.

This still makes me giggle every time I think about it.

4myGod wrote:Woodruff, How do you NOT have the power over who you play with in this idea? Because someone else is in charge of kicking people?

Perhaps I misunderstood this statement by you:
"Well, I didn't know your foe's can't join games you are in. I guess it would be nice to just showing publicly how many foes someone has and on how many foe lists he is on. Then give the option to the person who started a game whether or not he wants to block that player from the game."

This appears to be saying that the person who starts the game will be making the determination of whether someone can join the game or not...which would mean that I (as someone already in the game) no longer have any control over someone joining even if they're on my foe list. Did I somehow misunderstand that?

4myGod wrote:How do you have the power now over who you play with? Obviously you think that you have the power now, and in this idea you wouldn't

I now have the power because if someone is on my foe list, they cannot join a game I am in. Your statement takes that control away from me. It seems to be quite simple.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Concise description:
Limit the ability of people with either huge foe lists themselves OR who are on a large number of foe lists to join certain games.
A related suggestion is to block those with a significantly low rating from joining newbie games (under 4, perhaps ???)
Specifics:
1. if you have more than 100 people (or 50??) on your foe list OR if you are ON more than 500 foe lists, OR if you have a rating below 4, you cannot join games with newbies. (note -- numbers up for debate)
2. Similarly cannot join public games with more than 6 people or speed games with more than 3 people.
OR IF such a person joins a game (any but a 1 vs 1), the game originator will get a pm and will be allowed to block that person. This might be difficult to program(?)
3. Notify Tournament directors (via pm) of people who meet these criteria, so they can have the option of excluding them from tournaments.

I just counted...I currently have 180 people on my foe list. They are there almost exclusively for abusive in-game behavior. It doesn't make sense to me that because I make a habit of foeing abusive individuals, that I would also effectively be "foed" in this regard. I don't really care about the newbie games, but I do care about "more than 6 people or speed games with more than 3 people", since large-number games are what I play most often (outside of tournaments). And to be excluded from tournaments for that?

I'm certainly not using the foe list to keep better players out of my games (as anyone looking at my games can clearly see), and yet I would be included within that group for no good reason at all.

I haven't even been ON this site that long (about a year and a half), so my numbers are only going to increase, sadly I expect by a large number. This just seems insane to me unless the number is MUCH higher (like 1000).