Conquer Club

I support the idea. I think, I actually requested it once myself.

You can discuss all you like, but the simple fact is: Those, who only want to play opponents of a certain rank, already do so. There are plenty of players hosting their own private games with minimum point requirements. To introduce this as an option when starting a game would only make it easier to start, find & join these games. With other words: Customer friendly ...

And by the way: Here a low ranked player complains about a high ranked team joining his/her team game "for easy points" and spoiling the fun of the game for his/her team of casual / not competitive players. It´s not the first time, that I heard a complaint like that. So I imagine, that the option to exclude players above a certain rank from your games, especially team games, would appeal to quite a few low ranked players as well.

Nice term - "bunny thumping". I think the concern with higher ranks joining is only applicable in a team game, and then it's not so much that the team is high ranked, as it is they play together nearly exclusively and troll around looking for weak people who have not played much team games and/or look like easy points. It's more of a personality thing that a points thing. Because the foe list can do the job of stopping from being bunny thumped more than once by the same person, and honestly there are not that many bunny thumping out there, I don't think a max join score needs to be added. Might just confuse people...

wicked wrote:No, only stuff that promotes excluding certain ranks from joining games would be shot down, which is why I clarified this doesn't. lack just doesn't really go through this forum anymore to actually approve things, so it'll just sit like a lot of other good suggestions.

LOL -then what is the point of this forum?
What are we paying money for?

I think this is a good suggestion. As an addendum, I would also like to see the ability to "limit by rating". When the ratings were first implemented, it was stated that this was going to happen...but it hasn't. I'm frankly sick of playing in games where half of the opponents drop out from the beginning. Between the rank and the rating limits, this could be easily avoided (for the most part).

Yep, this is a great suggestion. I'd like to allocate some of my premium money to this being implemented.

i dunno about this, seems a slippery slope. dont callout threads like the cc2000 games, society of cooks, officers mess, and 2500+ games already fill this need.

who wants to wade through dozens of threads pages and pages long, when it could be a simple click or two away? And what if I don't want to play the same Majors over and over again, but branch out and find new majors to play with? What if I'm a cook and want to play the highest ranks I can so i can watch and learn? Cookss can't get into those games via those threads, but can join open public games.

We like suggestion.
We want poll.

[We are having a moment.]

poles don't mean squat... unless I'm swinging from it.

FabledIntegral wrote:I agreee with this suggestion. If you're the host of the game you should be able to decide who you want to play with.

Doing away with the foe list too then are we?

I am a newcomer and I support the idea.

It would help high rank players avoid the potential lose if points if they didn't want to (after all it would be an option) but it also would help newcomers allowing us to play with someone supposed to have similar skill as we have.

If I see someone with 2000 or 3000 points I can think "oh I can get a lot of points by killing him" but I can also say "he is a lot more skilled than me. How am I supposed to win the game?" And despite luck might allow me to win, most probably the game result is decided from the start.

I think that, as someone suggested, half your score up and down should be enough. This means that you would still have some risk. The highest portential lose would be 40 points. And the highest score you have, the biger this range would be. Some examples:


and so on.

Also, if a low ranked player kills a very high ranked player. Do you think that he really has improved 100 points in his rank? Or more probably he just was lucky? In the best case scenario, a low rank player can beat 7 high rank players and earn... 700 points! Do you really think that his skill changed so dramatically only in one game?

I think that even without score restrictions, the highest point exchange should be 40 points. skills are supposed to slowly change over time, so 40 points are enough.

Oh and I forgot. Making it an option available only for Premium Members is a very good idea, and would provide an additional reason to pay.

cicero wrote:We like suggestion.
We want poll.

[We are having a moment.]

Are you speaking in the collective again Cic?

I've told you about your multiple personalities before!!

C.

PS - I like the suggestion!!

My apologies if this has been discussed previously but I didn't find it with a few attempts at searching...

Concise description:
Allow game creators to set an option requiring players joining their game to have a minimum percentage of turns taken.

Specifics:
Perhaps this option would also be enabled to require that opponents have played at least a certain (fairly small) number of turns so that this percentage is more meaningful. I think the option would work fine - and maybe better - without this addition though. The Game Finder search should have a checkbox to the effect of "Only show games which I am eligible to join."

This will improve the following aspects of the site:
More devoted players would be able to play in games with only other devoted players, if they wish. Also, players would have an additional incentive not to miss turns, so that in the future they have more available games to join.

YES THANK YOU I ENDORSE THIS IDEA 100%

Why didnt i think of that

I think that it would benefit players greatly if on the "start a game", and "game finder" buttons, there would be a checklist with all ranks posted, and players could block certain ranks from joining their games, or keep games with the specified rank of players from showing up when searching for games, by checking the boxes of the certain rank.
I believe that this will improve the site because players who are not interested in playing lower ranked players could block that rank of players from their game.

cpurcell wrote:I think that it would benefit players greatly if on the "start a game", and "game finder" buttons, there would be a checklist with all ranks posted, and players could block certain ranks from joining their games, or keep games with the specified rank of players from showing up when searching for games, by checking the boxes of the certain rank.
I believe that this will improve the site because players who are not interested in playing lower ranked players could block that rank of players from their game.

Please fill out the form

form wrote:Concise description:

• xxxxxxx

Specifics:

• xxxxxxx

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• xxxxxxx (you can obviously delete this for bug reports)
• xxxxxxx

AND, I think I saw this somewhere else (**goes to find thread**)

If this were implemented, I don't think there would be many games for lower ranked players to join. That's not really fair to them, they should be able to play whoever they want, regardless of their rank.

tubaman wrote:If this were implemented, I don't think there would be many games for lower ranked players to join. That's not really fair to them, they should be able to play whoever they want, regardless of their rank.

I have noticed that the heirarchy of this site do tend to play only other extremely high ranked players anyway. All they do is pm each other and set up private games...

blakebowling wrote:

cpurcell wrote:I think that it would benefit players greatly if on the "start a game", and "game finder" buttons, there would be a checklist with all ranks posted, and players could block certain ranks from joining their games, or keep games with the specified rank of players from showing up when searching for games, by checking the boxes of the certain rank.
I believe that this will improve the site because players who are not interested in playing lower ranked players could block that rank of players from their game.

Please fill out the form

form wrote:Concise description:

• xxxxxxx

Specifics:

• xxxxxxx

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• xxxxxxx (you can obviously delete this for bug reports)
• xxxxxxx

AND, I think I saw this somewhere else (**goes to find thread**)

Uh, That is the consise description, there aren't any specifics, and I included how it would help the site in the consise description...

I wish this was something we had, at least if nothing else to filter out the new recruits! I've had several games with deadbeat ?'s and it gets very frustrating! For my purposes, I would like to have the option to filter out the ?'s when starting a game and nothing more. maybe instead of points based, it's based on games completed. I wish I had seen this in time to vote on it, it might have made a difference. Hopefully this will be revisited in the near future.

Crap........necrobump.

You couldn't have seen this to vote in time because it's over 2 years old!!

If you want to avoid new recruits, join a game last or play private games. New recruits can't play team games, so you could play those too.

Concise description:

• Ability to start Casual games that only premiums can join

Specifics:

• Have an option in Start A Game that allows you to select Premium only when making Casual Games.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Multis can't stack these games to win
• Banned players can't keep coming back as 1000 rating players, playing like 2500 rating players, and upsetting honest paying members by taking an undue amount of points
• Unfortunately, does not fix the problem of people making multis to play games against themselves for points

I know this is a bold suggestion, likely to get shouted down by some. I'm suggesting it as an option, not mandatory like it is in Speed Games.

actually, many of *manimal 's Multi's have been premium, so this doesn't stop him.

blakebowling wrote:actually, many of *manimal 's Multi's have been premium, so this doesn't stop him.

Admittedly, I thought of this after reading t-o-m's post, but there are other positive side-effects of it. I don't think it's a rock solid idea, but it's enough to generate some more community discussion about ways to combat the problem.