Conquer Club

I know how do you feel, ziggy77. But please try to understand other situations. There are really bad players here, who you don't want to play with (eq: viewtopic.php?f=239&t=162507 - before he is banned). Just imagine, you joined a game, and this guy join after you.

ziggyy77 wrote:but if you like to play a certain game, as evolution stated above such as an 8 player assassin game on doodle,

Start your own.

[/discussion]

Like i mentioned before, some games take a very long time to get going and for people to join. If there are two games, one with some people in it and a new one, started by me, people are more likely to join the game with people in it already. I would want to join that game as well and not wait a day, 2 days, or a week for a game to start because i wasn't able to join another game because of one player.

You are giving power to people to keep certain players from games they do not start, but simply join. Would I like it if a player I did not like joined a game i was playing? Absolutely not, but I took the risk in joining someone else's game. And if the player were truly that bad, everyone else would see it and foe them. But since it is just one player with a poor opinion, he shouldn't have the power to prevent any player he wants from any game he is in. It should be just the one's he starts and if he chooses to join a game he did not start, than he takes the risk of his foe joining. That way, he can see that the player he foe'd isn't what he thought in the first place or other players can see how bad that player is and foe him as well and than it would make sense for that player not to be able to join games.

People who pay to use this site want to use it without restrictions. And if there are to be people who prevent other players from playing any game, it should be a MOD and not a random player with poor judgements.

ziggyy77 wrote:Like i mentioned before, some games take a very long time to get going and for people to join. If there are two games, one with some people in it and a new one, started by me, people are more likely to join the game with people in it already. I would want to join that game as well and not wait a day, 2 days, or a week for a game to start because i wasn't able to join another game because of one player.

Do you understand why those games are going to start soon? Because someone started them from scratch a few days ago, and players joined at their own pace. Once those games fill, the game you started will become the most attractive option. If everyone followed the "only join a game with 1-2 spots open" approach you use, public games would never start. I'm sorry, but your argument of "it's not fair that I can't join every game that's starting in the next 20 minutes" isn't compelling.

You say people pay to use the site free of restrictions. I disagree. I pay to play fun games, and I pay to play under the rules that the site has laid out. If I foe someone, and he joins a game I'm in, it's no longer fun for me.

ziggy, you can start the games instead of joining... Or join faster than the guy(s) who have you foed.

Alright, i will start a game, wait a week to join, find this gets very, very boring waiting for each game i want to play in to start, just because i don't join fast enough. If this site feels the need to allow a random player to prevent other players from playing any type of game, than there is something obviously wrong with this site.

I can always turn it around and say if I join a game that that one player who has foe'd me is in, not started, than he can always turn around and leave the game or start a game which i can not be allowed to join since i am on his foe list. Your foe list allows one player, not someone associated with this site or works for this site, to be able to control whether or not another player(s) can join another game. If he creates it and i can't join because he made it than fine, that's what a foe list should represent. But to prevent any player from any game he is in because of whatever reason he wants, than that is abuse of this site and i can not believe the one defense this site uses is, start your own game.........

Invite the players who usually play in those games and it will fill faster.

If it takes a week to fill, then go ahead and start multiple games so that when you are ready to play, the next one you want is getting ready to start.

I disagree entirely with this suggestion. In point of fact, the FOE LIST already is far weaker than it should be, as a foe'er can still join the games in which a foe'ee is present. Of course a suggestion to correct this was accepted OVER FOUR YEARS AGO and has yet to be implemented.

Foe lists may be used however a user chooses barring some extreme abuse. This is how the foe list was intended to work and how it will continue to work. I do, personally, sympathize with you on one thing: Why should the onus for creating a game be on the foed person rather than the person who foed?

However, it appears that many users disagree with the suggestion and have offered the appropriate workarounds.

These workarounds include (1) start your own game; (2) join the game before anyone who has you foed; and (3) don't play in a way that gets you foed (may not apply here, but for many users on many people's foe lists, this is good advice.)

As such, REJECTED.

[FOE JOINS A GAME BEFORE YOU - YOU CAN STILL JOIN GAME]

You should still be capable of joining a game that someone whom foed you joins

The moment someone else makes a game (say a friend) and a person whom foed you joins before you join - you are automatically disqualified from ever joining it. I think this is a horrible mechanic.

It should be coded so that you cannot join a game that a person whom foed you CREATED. The problem here is how it puts unfair pressure and stress on the creator and other players, with no history on either party. If one person is all that remains for starting a game and you cannot join that game, it's very likely the game will be dropped/shut down. So all players are negatively impacted by a quarell between two people whom have no relation to any of them.

The benefit is simple: it keeps foeing in-house. It ensures foeing only impacts the two people as it should - not others.

Again, I'm not attacking the foeing system - I'm simply stating the current idea of a first-come first-can join/other sol is flawed. It negatively impacts other players; it creates further animosity (why should i need to be reminded that I'm foed by someone) and it makes this game unattractive if i'm not allowed to join half the games available BECAUSE someone who foed me is in them (and did not create them).

Remember, foeing has no rules. Anyone can be foed for any reason. i have countless foes for "winning" games; people don't like playing gainst pepople who beat them. As a result, it ruins this sites' selling feature: play risk anytime, anywhere with anyone.

Fully agree. A buddy of mine set up a game and invited me. Before I accepted, some who has me on his foe list (for something I allegedly did wrong after I had just joined the site 3 years ago), joined the game before I could accept the invitation. As a result I could not accept my buddies invite. Ridiculous.

love this idea.. thought about starting a thread many times on this topic.. figured it had already been suggested and too lazy to look for it...
makes no sense if the seventh player has you foed and you want to join... lame

I will not join any game that anyone has foed me or I foed them. I haven't foed many but do not want to play in any game with them fullstop!!!

Agent 86 wrote:I will not join any game that anyone has foed me or I foed them. I haven't foed many but do not want to play in any game with them fullstop!!!

Cry some more?

Where is there a list to see who has foed you? I have been foed by countless people for WINNING games against them. People, on this site, do not like losing. So, to prevent another loss, they FOE you.

That's absolute bullshit when you want to play another multiplayer game and THEY are there. If "you" don't want to play a game with someone, then maybe a message should pop up telling you that someone you foed actually joined your game.

The logic behind "if I foed you/foed me then we shall not play" has no bearing on a >2 player game. The reasoning? How in the bloody hell does a quarrel between two people impact independent people? Preventing others from joining KILLS games.

The logic stands:
- You create the game, the people you foe cannot join.
- Others create games, it shouldn't matter because YOU ARE NOT THE HOST.

The problem here is that most people who foe others for winning don't want to "risk" losing to that person again. Is Conquerclub creating a bunch of softies? It's an online "multiplayer" game. Foe all you want, but it shouldn't impact MY ABILITY TO PLAY if I HOST and I CANNOT FILL A GAME because SOME FOE-HUNGRY PLAYER is the 2nd person to join...

This is a popular suggestion being MOVED out of Archives and back to Active due to a duplicate suggestion and converstation which is also MERGED here.

Also EDITED the OP for a clearer title with the one stolen from more recent post (after removing the annoying use of all caps) and edited content of what is now the OP with some links.

Rather than this, invites should just over-ride foe.

drunkmonkey wrote:Do you understand why those games are going to start soon? Because someone started them from scratch a few days ago, and players joined at their own pace. Once those games fill, the game you started will become the most attractive option. If everyone followed the "only join a game with 1-2 spots open" approach you use, public games would never start. I'm sorry, but your argument of "it's not fair that I can't join every game that's starting in the next 20 minutes" isn't compelling.

You say people pay to use the site free of restrictions. I disagree. I pay to play fun games, and I pay to play under the rules that the site has laid out. If I foe someone, and he joins a game I'm in, it's no longer fun for me.

The argument is not based on fairness of joining games that start within the next 20 minutes; it explaining the problem with how conflict between 2 people can impact others, independent of the entire situation.

To illustrate the argument in practice:
When a game cannot be filled and there are people that want to join that game - there is a problem.

I'm not saying this is what happens in every case. Instead, it's the illustration that a system is flawed and a problem exists "if" this can happen.

The very fact that a paying user must concede to "create games" and hope people join takes away from one appealing aspect of any online game that direct competitors embrace: comfort and experience.

Why should my overall experience, as a paying user, be negatively impacted just because another user does not like me for whatever reason? The arguments for the current system are quite pathetic and illustrate serious issues around entitlement, unrealistic expectations and elitism.

The facts are quite simple:
- There are no rules/guidelines behind why and how a user can foe another user
- Foed users cannot join games that the foer is in

As a result, it creates a negative atmosphere (i.e. experience) for ALL users.

By a poll (should one be created) how many people who are "for" the current system have actually foed more than 10 people in the past month? It sounds like those whom are foe-hungry are the only ones that like this sytem.

To quote agentcom's argument to support denial:

These workarounds include (1) start your own game; (2) join the game before anyone who has you foed; and (3) don't play in a way that gets you foed (may not apply here, but for many users on many people's foe lists, this is good advice.)

1. Starting your own game negatively impacts comfort and experience. Furthermore, why should I have to start my own game when others exist? The logic behind this is horrible as I am a paying user.
- Does conquer club care about retention?
- Does concuer club care about member experience and comfort?

2. Coming from a forum moderator, I'm quite surpised in this option as formulating a basis for a rejection: it's unrealisitic and is insulting. Furthermore, it illustrates a profound bias that a decision maker has regarding this entire issue. Agentcom's bias should go under review and result in his dismissal as a decision maker: someone in his position must be objective at all times.
- This is damaging to the community (the exact reason to why majorcommand.com was created)

3. This factor, again, ignores many of the feedback generated in this thread than an objective assessment would discover. There are no barriers and/or requirements behind the foeing mechanic. People foe for whatever reason:
- Losing games
- Winning games
- Dice being unlucky/lucky
- Obvious cheap tactics
- Non-obvious cheap tactics
...To save a thousand-point list, foeing is a direct result from people playing the game. As with life, some people just do not like other people for whatever reason. Fortunately, you cannot be foed by these people in real life; instead, they will act in a manner that illustrates the lack of logic behind their rational.

Once again, this suggestion is more than a suggestion - it's a business statement:

Listen to your players and understand your own mission statement. The inability to join a game because someone that foed you joined said game before you negatively impacts the expeirence and comfort a paying user should receive when playing on Conquer Club.

Sorry, but this is a very one-sided view.
Try turning it round: you have foed someone because he was very rude to you, played badly, broke a truce, gave you a bad rating, whatever. You really don't want to play him ever again, and it's all perfectly justifiable in your eyes.
You then join a game, and there's a spot left after you.
According to the suggestion, your foe should then be allowed to join the game because he hasn't foed you.
But you, the paying user, have foed him, so why should you have to put up with playing him again?
The only sure way to guarantee that you're not playing them would be to join every game last, and for any game with more than two players, that option isn't open to all.
Just consider that if you're allowed to join your foe's games, then they're allowed to join yours, which kind of makes foeing redundant.

clangfield wrote:Sorry, but this is a very one-sided view.
Try turning it round: you have foed someone because he was very rude to you, played badly, broke a truce, gave you a bad rating, whatever. You really don't want to play him ever again, and it's all perfectly justifiable in your eyes.
You then join a game, and there's a spot left after you.
According to the suggestion, your foe should then be allowed to join the game because he hasn't foed you.
But you, the paying user, have foed him, so why should you have to put up with playing him again?
The only sure way to guarantee that you're not playing them would be to join every game last, and for any game with more than two players, that option isn't open to all.
Just consider that if you're allowed to join your foe's games, then they're allowed to join yours, which kind of makes foeing redundant.

Correct

citizencane86 wrote:

Agent 86 wrote:I will not join any game that anyone has foed me or I foed them. I haven't foed many but do not want to play in any game with them fullstop!!!

Cry some more?

You have no idea what you are talking about..get a few more years experience then tell me to cry some more noob

clangfield wrote:Sorry, but this is a very one-sided view.
Try turning it round: you have foed someone because he was very rude to you, played badly, broke a truce, gave you a bad rating, whatever. You really don't want to play him ever again, and it's all perfectly justifiable in your eyes.
You then join a game, and there's a spot left after you.
According to the suggestion, your foe should then be allowed to join the game because he hasn't foed you.
But you, the paying user, have foed him, so why should you have to put up with playing him again?
The only sure way to guarantee that you're not playing them would be to join every game last, and for any game with more than two players, that option isn't open to all.
Just consider that if you're allowed to join your foe's games, then they're allowed to join yours, which kind of makes foeing redundant.

Again, this ignores the fundamentals behind why people are foed!

Sometimes it can be justified through the circumstances you have mentioned, but what about those whom are foed simply because the foer is being a bit*ch - something this site condones.

It's outrageous that people who foe through spite (losing, bad dice, etc.) can then ruin the "experience" those whom have done (quite literally) nothing wrong? Here are some circumstances where I've been foed:
- I didn't talk
- 64 vs 70 = +40 for me, 0 for him
- I called someone out on stacking
- I called someone out on missing turns to avoid taking a card (as opposed to deployment without aggression).

The list goes on. In the end, it's the fact that paying users should be chatised from other games simply because of the circumstance you mention.

Now, the situation/circumstances you illustrate bring the entire foeing system into question. Why would "anyone" want to play against someone who:
- suicides the game
- rude/verbal, etc.

Maybe it's not just the mechanic I'm arguing that needs to be revisted. Instead, maybe the entire foesing system should be eliminated:
- Create a displinary structure
- You cannot adhere to it after x reviews, your account is deleted (and the person at fault loses $25).

We can go back and fourth on the issue - maybe we should be analyzing this from a higher level: the foeing system.

I think that this is a very valid suggestion a foe should only be able to block you from games they create. Making this change would definitely decrease frivolous foeing, multiple identical games that take forever to fill, increase participation. The current system provide the potential for 1 person on the site to lock the rest of the site out of every open public game they do not start.

citizencane86 wrote:

clangfield wrote:Sorry, but this is a very one-sided view.
Try turning it round: you have foed someone because he was very rude to you, played badly, broke a truce, gave you a bad rating, whatever. You really don't want to play him ever again, and it's all perfectly justifiable in your eyes.
You then join a game, and there's a spot left after you.
According to the suggestion, your foe should then be allowed to join the game because he hasn't foed you.
But you, the paying user, have foed him, so why should you have to put up with playing him again?
The only sure way to guarantee that you're not playing them would be to join every game last, and for any game with more than two players, that option isn't open to all.
Just consider that if you're allowed to join your foe's games, then they're allowed to join yours, which kind of makes foeing redundant.

Again, this ignores the fundamentals behind why people are foed!

Sometimes it can be justified through the circumstances you have mentioned, but what about those whom are foed simply because the foer is being a bit*ch - something this site condones.

It's outrageous that people who foe through spite (losing, bad dice, etc.) can then ruin the "experience" those whom have done (quite literally) nothing wrong? Here are some circumstances where I've been foed:
- I didn't talk
- 64 vs 70 = +40 for me, 0 for him
- I called someone out on stacking
- I called someone out on missing turns to avoid taking a card (as opposed to deployment without aggression).

The list goes on. In the end, it's the fact that paying users should be chatised from other games simply because of the circumstance you mention.

Now, the situation/circumstances you illustrate bring the entire foeing system into question. Why would "anyone" want to play against someone who:
- suicides the game
- rude/verbal, etc.

Maybe it's not just the mechanic I'm arguing that needs to be revisted. Instead, maybe the entire foesing system should be eliminated:
- Create a displinary structure
- You cannot adhere to it after x reviews, your account is deleted (and the person at fault loses $25).

We can go back and fourth on the issue - maybe we should be analyzing this from a higher level: the foeing system.

There may be a (separate) issue about the foeing system. However, you appear to be side-stepping the point that, whenever you foe someone, it's fully justified, but when someone foes you, it might not be. My point is that, however odd their reason, it's justified in their eyes. For whatever reason, they don't want to play you, so why should they have to?
If they don't like someone who doesn't chat, then that's their prorogative not to play you again, so I don't see any justification in you being allowed to join their game regardless.
There are options for 'paying members' - private games, invites, and so on. If you see a game that you would like to join, and can't due to a foe, set up the game and invite the other players.
There is already cheating and abuse reporting which has a disciplinary structure. Foeing is there for personal choice rather than hard and fast rules, IMHO.
FAMO !

clangfield wrote:
There may be a (separate) issue about the foeing system. However, you appear to be side-stepping the point that, whenever you foe someone, it's fully justified, but when someone foes you, it might not be. My point is that, however odd their reason, it's justified in their eyes. For whatever reason, they don't want to play you, so why should they have to?
If they don't like someone who doesn't chat, then that's their prorogative not to play you again, so I don't see any justification in you being allowed to join their game regardless.

I am not side-stepping anything. In fact, I have not personally foed a soul. My point on the premise for a foe (through personal justification) is based on a subjective measure. As such, why does one paying member have the power to negatively impact another paying member's overall playing experience?

Now for the argument I have been waiting to use - apparently there are no business, investment bankers, accountants and/or lawyers among us? Well, let me educate you all on something called risk.

Risk is an environmental factor that impacts a situation. You cannot avoid it; instead, you can only hedge it's impact. The ability to "foe" someone negates a risk for a prior person to join a game the foer is in. The problem here is where a line is drawn:
- Public games vs. Private games

Private games exist for a reason - they, quite literally, completely hedge the risks associated with public games. From POS players with <2 stars, to those whom you rather not play with, a private game does just as a foe system is designed to do.

Public games, on the other hand, provide people the opportunity to play in an unfiltered environment at their own risk. Why, then, does a foeing system allow the FOER the ability to alter a PUBLIC GAME?

This is a contradiction of the logic behind PUBLIC vs PRIVATE. No single member should be allowed to prevent another member FROM JOINING A PUBLIC GAME that they DID NOT CREATE.

If you do not want to "RISK" playing against someone you do not like - PLAY PRIVATE.

End of discussion. Again, take this off a "rejected" list; dismiss the individual whom made the ignorant decision and re-assess the entire argument through an unbiased panel.

Right now, there is complete bias. Lets be honest: point hungry people LOVE foeing others whom win against them. How many people create hundreds of public games then foe someone the moment they win against that person? It's an effort to "scam the point system". Is that not illegal through your policy, which i've read quite thoroughly? Yes. Is it enforced? No.

Chances are, many moderates have a very big foe-list.

Give me my $25 back and I'll find another site that has no "foe list".

(To the OP) Hell no.

If I foe a player, it's usually for good reason, and if I join a game that they aren't in, I sure as hell do not want them joining after me. The foe list is there to protect member's rights to have fun. If you don't want to play with someone, you shouldn't have to.

@CitizenCane: That's because one might not know enough people to just go creating private games, yet they have come across a total asshat member who follows them around and joins their games just to be an asshat. It can and has happened to people. So, why should they not foe and move on, as they say.

so the logic I see is the site has a hypocrisy when it comes to foeing, what the site advocates is those that are foed should suck it up and create a new game with the same settings but those doing the foeing should not have to create there own game to avoid playing a foe because they may not know enough people?