Conquer Club

para wrote:hmm, do people like the additional sugestion i made to making this an option?

I can't see it being made as anything but an option.

making it a requirement only eliminates the ability for an already organized team to create a game where random people will be thier opponents?


is that something you want?

2009-01-12 11:57:35 - RADAGA: DAMN! joined another team game without really wanting...
2009-01-12 11:58:08 - RADAGA: And, of course, another rigged one....
2009-01-13 14:48:22 - L M S: how can it be rigged, you joined and last at that..... quit whining
2009-01-13 15:00:53 - RADAGA: Rigged ... you 3 joined together, making a team already fine tuned. And I bet you have been kicking anyone with 2 or more stripes until you have a low rank team to deal with. Dont play lamb when being a wolf.
2009-01-14 14:42:03 - L M S: we didnt join together
2009-01-15 11:14:37 - RADAGA: Worse. then he kicked every one who did not matched his perfect standards, and then kicked afterwards anywone that he perceived as good enough.

Game 3941437

This proves people are rigging the game. They are not friends, so the guy who made the game probably kicked whoever he perceived as "not good enough" on his side and then kicked whoever he perceives as "way too good" on the other side.

For one person to have such power, to have the ultimate call on who joins which side, while the others have to simply folow his choices is blatantly biased towards the game creator.

The game have 1 captain and 2 lieutenants (paying) against a private (paying) a cook (fremium) and a cadet (me)

Since LMS (one of the lt) claimed they were not together, how can this arrangement happen? DOnt insult our intelligence and say it was coincidence.

Selective player kicking detected.

RADAGA wrote:Selective player kicking detected.

There's your problem. You seem to have no idea what you're talking about. Where did you get the idea that anyone can kick players from a game?

RADAGA wrote:This proves people are rigging the game. They are not friends, so the guy who made the game probably kicked whoever he perceived as "not good enough" on his side and then kicked whoever he perceives as "way too good" on the other side.

For one person to have such power, to have the ultimate call on who joins which side, while the others have to simply folow his choices is blatantly biased towards the game creator.

Selective player kicking detected.

yeah, just imagine if this were ACTUALLY POSSIBLE. this is simply not true, but nice try... person who doesn't know how games work detected. the black jesus has spoken.-0

What they're trying to say is that you can't kick people from your games. No matter what. Ever. It's simply not possible.

Team 1

1 high ranked started the game.

2 other high ranks individually decided that they would like to play with this(these) high rank(s) because they assume one with a higher rank has more skill.

Team 2

Private joins game. Likes the map, settings, wants to win points?
Cook joins game. Cooks usually aren't worried about their score.
You join game. I have no idea why, looking to try to get a lot of points if you win, and lose little if you don't?

I'm not sure how something can be 'rigged' if you were able to look at the game, see who your partners would be, and still choose to join it! Come on!

Randomizing the teams would be... interesting?.... I'd never use it.

I could see this being an interesting option, but not something static. I think the number of team games played would increase dramatically, as, in my experience, the only team games being played now are generally tournament games or those started with a team already in place.

I agree that these team games are clogging up the "Join A Game" section as there are simply so many quad games up that they can never fill quickly.

Those people who don't have a set team could then join a "random team" game, in which all the players are randomly assigned so they aren't joining a game with 3 random people against a well oiled machine.

Definitely don't take away the current settings, but adding this as an option could be very beneficial.

I think that you should only be able to join games with people of a similar rank. The better you do and more points you earn the better players you can play. simple fix. like 2 ranks in either direction of your rank.

Sorry, I'd rather be having fun and playing my turns with my real-life friends, rather than being stuck with a clueless, ignorant chef. Not a great idea in my opinion, and at the very most, it should be an option. The only use I can see for this is for inner-clan practice games.

Try running a tourny like this if you are keen on the idea... you might find people sign up.

I'm tired of taking on 4 brigadiers with 3 cooks, there should be an option to make random teams, or matched point values. Is it just me or do others want to get rid of all those games that are clearly experienced players preying on beginners?

high ranked players being in the same team does not mean they're teaming up on newbs, it's just because those high ranked players trust each other...

I would like a mix up, I also have started games and have had a cook join a major join then three other majors and we are stuck with a cook

I did start a tourney. See viewtopic.php?f=90&t=74328 - it filled relatively quickly, and has already started.

It seems the general consensus is that randomized teams should be an option, and that more people would play triples games if it were created, but there are still a few people (mostly with high rank) that would stick with their set teams.

obliterationX wrote:Sorry, I'd rather be having fun and playing my turns with my real-life friends, rather than being stuck with a clueless, ignorant chef. Not a great idea in my opinion, and at the very most, it should be an option. The only use I can see for this is for inner-clan practice games.

Amen

Joodoo wrote:high ranked players being in the same team does not mean they're teaming up on newbs, it's just because those high ranked players trust each other...

Its almost like new player farming.

jonka wrote:

Joodoo wrote:high ranked players being in the same team does not mean they're teaming up on newbs, it's just because those high ranked players trust each other...

Its almost like new player farming.

yes, that is occasionally true, but this option would only encourage high ranked players to join/create private team games because they may not want to be in the same team with a low ranked player...
the good thing is this could stop newb farming, but it could also increase the "segregation" (as in they don't play with each other often) between low ranked and high ranked players...

jonka wrote:I'm tired of taking on 4 brigadiers with 3 cooks, there should be an option to make random teams, or matched point values. Is it just me or do others want to get rid of all those games that are clearly experienced players preying on beginners?

Tired? You havn't even played a team game against such ranks...

Phlaim wrote:

jonka wrote:I'm tired of taking on 4 brigadiers with 3 cooks, there should be an option to make random teams, or matched point values. Is it just me or do others want to get rid of all those games that are clearly experienced players preying on beginners?

Tired? You havn't even played a team game against such ranks...

LOL multi or just full of it?

But I have dropped out of games where it was going to happen.

Keebs2674 wrote:

laci_mae wrote:...but we typically just stick to tourneys b/c joining public games is too risky.

What's risky about joining a public game?

All my CC friends are casual players that I don't know in person. Attempting to set a time to find and sign up for games together is a nightmare. There should be more options to allow players to join half-filled public games w/their friends. This might include some version of being able to "save spots" for a reasonable amount of time.

laci_mae wrote:There should be more options to allow players to join half-filled public games w/their friends. This might include some version of being able to "save spots" for a reasonable amount of time.

So you want to play with certain people? That is why they made Private games.

You guys are still missing the point. There are already plenty of ways to make sure certain people end up on your team. Heck, if you are afraid of Private games you can even create public games until your ideal teammates join and leave any games where players lower than [whatever rank] join your team. This is not likely to change, so quit whining about problems that aren't problems.

There is NOT a way to keep (team) games roughly even without rigging teams (inviting friends, whatever). Random teams would help this. At this point I have basically stopped playing on CC, and this was the major reason why. Playing evenly-matched games should not require large amounts of work.

The deeper problem is that people are too worried about ranks, and that is why they are afraid to join team games with non-ideal teammates. I already suggested a way to fix that (viewtopic.php?f=4&t=30780) but it was rejected.

I have wanted this for a long time and never really understood why it was rejected before.

I have no problem with people who want to play each other on "set" teams. The problem is that I can't start a team game unless I do have a set group ready to play. If I try, over half the games wind up filled with "pouncers". I just don't play teams any more for that reason.

The one problem I can see is lop-sided teams. That is, one team could theoretically wind up with 2 majors and 2 cooks just through random selection. However, that is no worse than the current system.

tyler197802198 wrote:

laci_mae wrote:There should be more options to allow players to join half-filled public games w/their friends. This might include some version of being able to "save spots" for a reasonable amount of time.

So you want to play with certain people? That is why they made Private games.

You guys are still missing the point. There are already plenty of ways to make sure certain people end up on your team. Heck, if you are afraid of Private games you can even create public games until your ideal teammates join and leave any games where players lower than [whatever rank] join your team. This is not likely to change, so quit whining about problems that aren't problems.

There is NOT a way to keep (team) games roughly even without rigging teams (inviting friends, whatever). Random teams would help this. At this point I have basically stopped playing on CC, and this was the major reason why. Playing evenly-matched games should not require large amounts of work.

The deeper problem is that people are too worried about ranks, and that is why they are afraid to join team games with non-ideal teammates. I already suggested a way to fix that (viewtopic.php?f=4&t=30780) but it was rejected.

I'm going to try very hard not to take this post personally. Your tone and implications are quite insulting.

The point I was trying to make is that, for casual players, the options for maneuvering into team games could be improved. After all, improvement is the goal of the suggestions forum. Not just "whining about problems that aren't problems", which, incidentally, doesn't really even make sense.

Your advice to simply leave games when certain others join is not always possible. Games that idle, half-full, for weeks can fill in a matter of minutes.

More to the point, you say that "There is NOT a way to keep (team) games roughly even without rigging teams." Even-matching (based on ranks or some other criterion) is not my objective. When I see a long list of public games (that are the exact same settings & teammates), I know that this is likely a good, experienced team. I would like to challenge them with my own team. However, the current system is not optimized for that situation. To make it happen, I've got to get everyone online at the same time, pass out the game numbers, and hope that no one else jumps in the way. Instead, we could have a simple option that would improve team game joining for some people.

We do agree on one major point, "Playing evenly-matched games should not require large amounts of work." Perhaps, more evenly matched team games would be created if there was a better way for one person to get his or her team matched up against teams that have already staked out a bunch of games.