Conquer Club

I suspect someone is going to ask that this be expanded to a "not" option. (I am playing devil's advocate here, not an option I would use .. but I think its best to deal with both sides "up front").

That is, you can look for folks who are luietenant OR you can look for a game without any cooks (yet). Since this is just a search, it would not exclude anyone, would just make it easier.

The plus side is it might stem some of the complaints about playing with cooks.

The down side is it might give "legitimacy" to those who think cooks should be excluded.

Again, I am not sure that I would use either (the postive or negative search) option here. For one thing, unless the game is a 2 player (and there are rarely more than 1 page of those anyway) OR already filled, it won't tell you who is actually going to be in the game.

I think a better way to get this information is to allow a search based on the number of open spaces left in a game. If you find games with only 1 or 2 openings, then you do have a decent idea of how the ranks, etc. will "shake out". Since there are rarely that many games with just 1 opening, it will already be easy to search. This was already suggested in another thread, though.

itd be nice but dont they usually shoot stuff like this down?

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.

This is a suggestion that pops up fairly regularly here. It has been rejected every previous time. I can't see Lack changing his mind about it now. As others have mentioned, there are threads in the Callouts forum for private games involving only people above certain scores. If you'd like to play against only people of similar rank, you should go check out that forum.

There was only one post by Lack on this... and it was pretty general at best. I quoted it once, but I can't find it now. The concern seemed to be that this would make it too difficult to gain points for new players, who may be skilled but simply start at 1000, which is somewhat below the median score I think. Anyway, its a fair concern; if done wrong, this could kill the ability to attract new players.

Imagine that you can limit that only Briggadiers can join your games. That would mean you would be cut off from challenge by most of the site, and even though people do that a bit now with PM's and private games, making that phenomenon public would not be good for morale. Every search would bring back tons of games that were "rank blocked" if you tried to play someone with a higher rank.

In order to preserve the "climb the ladder" model, I say staunchly that the way this needs to be implemented is in a tier system. And the cutoff point for any tier that someone can select has to be BELOW, but not too much below, their own current rank. i.e., colonels should not be able to limit to colonels, but only perhaps captains and higher. Captains should not be able to limit to captains, but perhaps sergeants and higher. anyone 1000 and below would not have the option to limit games for obvious reasons.

Perhaps since lack's original post was a while back, and now the site shows that it is creaking at the seams, maybe growing the player base should no longer be a top priority. I'd like to think it's still important though. I'll try to find lack's old post ...

Here we go... check the last one. It's from back in 2006.

hecter wrote:http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=44446
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=41910
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=45203
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3119
There's a few. Learn how to search.

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:

Code: Select all

Score  Allowed range
1,000    500-1,500
1,500    750-2,250
2,000  1,000-3,000
2,500  1,250-3,750
3,000  1,500-4,500

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...