Conquer Club

I feel like it has been suggested and rejected before, though I can't remember why. I imagine it had some to do with Speed games.

-Sully

The closest thing to this suggestion is currently sitting in Rejected:

viewtopic.php?f=471&t=139685

The last comments indicate that there seems to be no reason why we can't implement this for sequential games only. The objection to this was that it would hurt Freestyle games because someone could swoop back out of the reinforcement phase to go for an elimination, but this suggestion only applies before you've made any reinforcements. The logical point was made that this is fundamentally equivalent to simply not actually ending your assault phase, and it wasn't responded to. So I'm not going to merge this with the rejected pile until someone can actually explain why that's a reason to reject it in freestyle.

i don't think the site should be coding features to protect players from their foolishness or clumsiness.

greenoaks wrote:i don't think the site should be coding features to protect players from their foolishness or clumsiness.

+1

I think you guys should put in an undo button for reinforcements or troop placements. A couple of times, I've tried to place troops and, for example, wanted to place 3 out of my 20 troops in an area, but the dropdown menu happen to have 20 selected and I accidentally double clicked the region and, POOF, all the troops are right where I don't want them and there's no way to change it.

Sure it's a stupid mistake on my part, but should it really cost people games. Some sort of failsafes would be nice.

How would this work with Freestyle? Where people can easily be playing at the same time.

Nope.

Just don't screw up.

I have an issue with something that I am absolutely amazed that CC hasnt fixed yet. It has to do with making an error when you are attacking and you accidentally misplace your troops. For example, say you conquer a territory and you dont want to move all your troops to that new region but you accidentally do. It would be extremely useful if there were on option to "undo" that placement. I am currently going to lose a game because I accidentally forwared 0 troops instead of ALL of my troops while I was making a critical attack, and there was no way for me to correct it.

It should be an easy thing to do, and it wouldnt change the outcome of the game at all. Once you make an attack and move your troops, you should then have the option to undo that troop movement before making your next attack. Of course, once you make a new attack it would nullify the possibility to 'undo' the reinforcement from your previous attack.

Seriously guys, lets finally get this done.

This would be devastating for freestyle games.

You would simply disable the 'undo' feature for Freestyle games. I dont think that the existence of freestyle games should convince anyone that this 'undo' feature isnt desperately needed, cuz it is.

You can simply disable the feature for freestyle games. It would be a travesty if the existence of freestyle games caused people to think that we dont need this feature.

JudahsLion wrote:You would simply disable the 'undo' feature for Freestyle games. I dont think that the existence of freestyle games should convince anyone that this 'undo' feature isnt desperately needed, cuz it is.

There isn't a "disable" button when it comes to web programming, unfortunately. It would require a substantial amount of time to implement such a feature for only certain types of gameplay. Certainly too much to be justified for the occasional time or two that people make a mistake. If you find that you are constantly making such mistakes, then you should re-evaluate how careful you are when you take turns.

Metsfan, I rarely make the mistake, but when I do it is incredibly frustrating (as it is for anyone). So theres no need for your snarky-ass "re-evaluate my turns" comment.

As for the programming, if you really expect people to pay money for this site, then you should try to make it as good as you can.

look at it like this i was just in a game,pelop war where i was going to put 75 troops to block an opponent,and because i moved my mouse it sent them somewhere else entirley as i clicked to reinforce,game changer arrrgghh. from win to certain loss

JudahsLion wrote:Metsfan, I rarely make the mistake, but when I do it is incredibly frustrating (as it is for anyone). So theres no need for your snarky-ass "re-evaluate my turns" comment.

As for the programming, if you really expect people to pay money for this site, then you should try to make it as good as you can.

Of course it is frustrating when anyone makes a mistake. But we simply cannot justify asking for a feature so that people don't get annoyed every once in a while. If you get a chance, go peruse the Submitted Suggestions forum. We have 40-odd features designed to make the site as good as we can, all hoping for their chance to get implemented. Something like this cannot be anywhere near the top of our priority list given the time commitment implied to make it possible only for certain styles of gameplay, and the fact that (at its core) it is a feature designed to fix someone's mistakes. We hate to say no to feature ideas, but we do have to draw the line somewhere.

Merged Similar Threads.

I misclick after attacks all the time. It is up to the user to be more careful. It is my mistake so I live with it.

I just thought Id pass the suggestion along. Its definitely not fun to lose a game over a silly error like that. Even though it is a rare occurrence, it just seems to me like something that conquer club should have had all along. It may be trivial, but I think it is necessary.

Ha, you said cc has paying members, and therefore it should make it the best it can. Maybe you should actually pay for the site then.

If you can't walk the walk, don't talk the talk.

I think this feature would be cool, too. But I'm not really posting about that. I have observed that in this suggestions forum it is all too common for the people who seem to be speaking for CC to belittle the suggestion. I recognize that these people are probably volunteers (at least that's my assumption), but come on, you're in Consumer Relations!

"You don't need an undo feature, just don't make mistakes". Or whatever the quote was. That's just inappropriate. The refrain about prioritizing feature requests is fine, and should have been used first instead. However, it can be used *without* saying how this request is so obviously a low priority. That prioritization should, at least partly, be in the hands of the consumers (there was a thread about that earlier). The opinion of one consumer relations person should matter very little (or as just one vote).

Lastly, implementing undo may indeed be tricky, depending on the current architecture. But conditionally turning off the undo feature for freestyle games would be trivial. I'm pretty sure your technical people would agree.

tarcellius wrote:I think this feature would be cool, too. But I'm not really posting about that. I have observed that in this suggestions forum it is all too common for the people who seem to be speaking for CC to belittle the suggestion. I recognize that these people are probably volunteers (at least that's my assumption), but come on, you're in Consumer Relations!

This suggestion has been brought up in the past and rejected; clearly, the OP (for either of the original threads) did not bother to do their homework and see that, forcing us to repeat ourselves on why it was rejected in the first place. Furthermore, neither of them bothered to use the form that we have here. If they are not going to respect our Suggestions process, I am not going to go out of my way to be particularly nice.

"You don't need an undo feature, just don't make mistakes". Or whatever the quote was. That's just inappropriate.

That being said, this is not at all what I said. I was making it clear that if it's one or two mistakes, you're going to have to live with it as a low priority issue. If it's mistakes occurring constantly, it's in your hands because you're very much in the minority of users. I honestly did not know which scenario it was, so my statement was reasonable.

The refrain about prioritizing feature requests is fine, and should have been used first instead. However, it can be used *without* saying how this request is so obviously a low priority. That prioritization should, at least partly, be in the hands of the consumers (there was a thread about that earlier).

Did you happen to see who the author of that thread was?

The opinion of one consumer relations person should matter very little (or as just one vote).

I was not speaking from my own opinion when I said it was a low priority -- I was speaking from the community's point of view. They have put loads of time and effort into the suggestions currently in Submitted. If this thread gets dozens or hundreds of posts in support of the feature, we'll throw it in the pile. But when it's been brought up in the past, the general response from the community has indeed been "try not to make mistakes."

Lastly, implementing undo may indeed be tricky, depending on the current architecture. But conditionally turning off the undo feature for freestyle games would be trivial. I'm pretty sure your technical people would agree.

This would only be true if the game engine were customizable for each particular type of gameplay. I see no reason why the engine would have been implemented this way, it seems like a lot of extra work for no substantial gain (though I could be wrong).

Qoh, why would I pay for it when I can do it for free? My point was that they WANT people to buy the subscription, yet they dont make the simple changes like the one I suggested. Its not worth the money.

I dont understand why you pricks come on here and make these pissy little comments. I was just making a suggestion.

Metsfanmax wrote:

tarcellius wrote:I think this feature would be cool, too. But I'm not really posting about that. I have observed that in this suggestions forum it is all too common for the people who seem to be speaking for CC to belittle the suggestion. I recognize that these people are probably volunteers (at least that's my assumption), but come on, you're in Consumer Relations!

Metsfan, I certainly hope you consider these remarks from Tarcellius because whether or not my suggestion was good or bad, or whether or not I made my suggestion in exactly the correct forum, youre still representing CC to potential customers.

If responding to these kinds of threads is bothersome to you, then why would you volunteer to do it?

JudahsLion wrote:Qoh, why would I pay for it when I can do it for free? My point was that they WANT people to buy the subscription, yet they dont make the simple changes like the one I suggested. Its not worth the money.

In an ideal world we would implement the features people want, but our site development team is pretty much just one person at this point, who only has so much time to implement features (the tech team does an awesome job writing a wide variety of ancillary scripts and phpBB mods, though). Adding another web developer to the team is in the works. At any rate, $25 per year is an incredibly good value for what you get out of a premium subscription, even if we don't have a dev team that can implement every feature everyone wants. If we had enough devs to implement every suggested feature then a premium subscription would have to cost a lot more than $2 per month. I know it might not mean much coming from someone with a colored name, but I really do think that if you enjoy playing games on CC, the $25 is totally worth it.

I dont understand why you pricks come on here and make this pissy little comments like a bunch of school-girl bitches. I was just making a suggestion. Go to hell, QoH.

Please keep the discourse civil.

Metsfan, I certainly hope you consider these remarks from Tarcellius because whether or not my suggestion was good or bad, or whether or not I made my suggestion in exactly the correct forum, youre still representing CC to potential customers.

If responding to these kinds of threads is bothersome to you, then why would you volunteer to do it?

I do not mince words if there is an issue with a suggestion. I do not believe in the paradigm of embellishing my statements to make the reality of the situation unapparent. I would much rather be honest with you and tell you straight that it's not going to happen, rather than lie to you and say there's a substantial chance of it being implemented.

JudahsLion wrote:Qoh, why would I pay for it when I can do it for free? My point was that they WANT people to buy the subscription, yet they dont make the simple changes like the one I suggested. Its not worth the money.

I dont understand why you pricks come on here and make this pissy little comments like a bunch of school-girl bitches. I was just making a suggestion. Go to hell, QoH.

As Mets said, refrain from flaming people, or you very easily could earn yourself a forum vacation.