Conquer Club

neanderpaul14 wrote:hmmmmmm.....instead of a temporary private status how about having Team 1 as private and Team 2 as public....this might be easier to implement

There can be more than 2 teams though, and it's also got to work for non-team games.

Woodruff wrote:

laci_mae wrote:Bump. This is long overdue and almost unanimously supported. We pay our subscription fees (well most of us), so give us some bang for the bucks.
L

According to what I've been told in a separate (but similar in vein) thread, the fact that we have paid money into this site is irrelevant and should not be a reason for us to have this sort of capability. <sigh>
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=79715

Thanks for the link.

I'm actually at a point of extreme frustration with this. I read somewhere that lack prefers to do large updates rather than introduce new features one at a time. I'm not a technical whiz, but I know a lot about economic theory and customer service. These intentions of "one big bang" do not convincingly line up with best practices established by practitioners or scholars.

There's no excuse for something so widely popular and useful to not have been implemented as a top priority once it hit the To-Do list.

L

If you create a private game, you set up a password, right? So give the password to your teammates via PM, then once they have joined, publish the password in the Callouts forum. Voila, your private game is now open to anyone. If you want, you could even first give the password to someone who assembles the second team, who then publicizes it or passes it to a third team captain, and so on.

ender516 wrote:If you create a private game, you set up a password, right? So give the password to your teammates via PM, then once they have joined, publish the password in the Callouts forum. Voila, your private game is now open to anyone. If you want, you could even first give the password to someone who assembles the second team, who then publicizes it or passes it to a third team captain, and so on.

That technically gets the job done. However there are a couple flaws. First, it's just a lot of work. Second, my friends and I keep one group password. We just search each others' games and if they're private we all know the pw b/c it stays the same. If you start publishing it somewhere, you'll have to change it which requires pm'ing everyone whenever a new batch of games are created.

The private to public feature has been suggested at least a half dozen times (in different forms, but w/the same outcome) even since it got added to Lack's to-do list. With so much community support, it's time to get it done.

Best,
L

laci_mae wrote:

ender516 wrote:If you create a private game, you set up a password, right? So give the password to your teammates via PM, then once they have joined, publish the password in the Callouts forum. Voila, your private game is now open to anyone. If you want, you could even first give the password to someone who assembles the second team, who then publicizes it or passes it to a third team captain, and so on.

That technically gets the job done. However there are a couple flaws. First, it's just a lot of work. Second, my friends and I keep one group password. We just search each others' games and if they're private we all know the pw b/c it stays the same. If you start publishing it somewhere, you'll have to change it which requires pm'ing everyone whenever a new batch of games are created.

The private to public feature has been suggested at least a half dozen times (in different forms, but w/the same outcome) even since it got added to Lack's to-do list. With so much community support, it's time to get it done.

Best,
L

Point well taken. Your scheme is easier, and private-to-public would be easier still. But one standard password among friends seems like a good idea for setting up games with those friends only. It doesn't help much with setting up doubles/triples/quads games when you want to make sure your friends join as a team, while allowing public access for the other slots. Anyway, my idea was intended as a workaround until the to-do gets "to-done".

Best regards,
E

I like this idea,

I am in favor of this idea.