[Rules] Limit Number of New Recruits Per Game

[Mr_Adams]

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=58979

because I feel it deserves it's own thread, here I will state my case. I've noticed that with the new limited maps for new recruits deal, there will be a new manifestation of the idea of farming. I've unintentionaly stumbled upon a set myself where 85% of my oponents in a specific type of game are new recruits. so here's the idea:

note: ?'s = new recruit

Concise description:

• limit the # of ?'s to join a particular game. say, no more that 33% of a games players should be ?'s. exception ofcorse for private games, and 1v1

Specifics:

• the idea should DRASTICALY cut down on farming, because the only way to end up w/ 1v x(?'s) is 1v1
• perhaps an exception for a player who searches by game #. don't want to deter groups who join to play together.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• cut down on ?'s farming
• I don't have to find a new game to play to not become a farmer.

simple enough right?

examples:

5 man, me and 4 ?

Game 5168489
Game 5168490
Game 5168491
Game 5168497
Game 5168498
Game 5168493
Game 5168485

also, 5 man, me, somebody else and 3 ?

Game 5168486
Game 5168494
Game 5168495
Game 5168487
Game 5168496

[Mr_Adams]

nothing? No thoughts, responses, yays! or Nays!

[SultanOfSurreal]

so are you people just actively trying to alienate new members at this point

[Mr_Adams]

Are you serious? I want to cut backon the newbie farming and save the game. what was recently done has cut back on the number of playable games for the majority of the sites feudal players, because about 55% of the games one starts end up being filled with deadbeat ?'s. I've played almost purely feudal for quite a while, but the newest update has made feudal no more than a farming map. that's not cool. the people who would normaly join my games, no longer do, because they are full of ?'s, and they want to play 5 man games, not 2 man 3 deadbeat games. don't you see what I mean?

[YoursFalsey]

I would say nay.

I assume the average CC paying member (who we presumably wish to encourage more of) follows a path similar to that I took. Find CC by chance or by someone else's recommendation... play for a while as a Free player... gets a feel for the site, desires more games/more options, ponies up his/her $25 bucks to become a full player.

Newbie farming is opposed for two reasons. 1) It's in poor taste by the farmer- the farmer is being a points weenie at the expense of those least able to protect themselves, and while poor taste shouldn't be illegal it shouldn't be encouraged either. 2) Being farmed isn't any fun for the crop- trying a new site, getting your butt handed to you by someone who knows details you don't and has lots of experience- leads to players unlikely to follow the desired path and grow into paying customers.

Your idea would make it harder to farm, but would also make it harder to fill games. When I was freemium, I had four games to work with- a game waiting for players ate up one of my slots with no fun for me. Heck, I still sign up for games by looking on game finder for games that need one or two people to start- I care more that the game be about to start then what the settings are. With your idea, Freemiums would see games take longer to fill, and sometimes be told "Sorry, you cannot join this game, as you are only a noob" Neither experience would encourage the new Freemium to stick around and better yet pay money...

[Mr_Adams]

so I must find a new play style, or be a farmer, seeing as 85% of the players inmy last set of 15 5 man games were ?'s ?

[HardAttack]

so I must find a new play style, or be a farmer, seeing as 85% of the players inmy last set of 15 5 man games were ?'s ?

How can you make it buddy ?

[Mr_Adams]

well then, change my name to farmer Adams, sign me up for the FFA and what not...

[YoursFalsey]

I was thinking more about Mr. Adams suggestion. A newbie quota still seems like a bad idea, but how about a Semi-Private setting? A Public game would be open to anyone. Private would be open only to those invited. Semi-Private (or Semi-Public) games would serve as public games but only to those who met a condition set by the game starting player: certain rank or higher, rank w/in so many points of the starting player, attendance of x% or higher, or premium only. To players who didn't qualify, the game would not even show up on the game finder list. I don't know- this may still be too exclusionary, but it would allow the game starter to be the excluder, rather than stating all games have a newbie quota.

[Thezzaruz]

Semi-Private (or Semi-Public) games would serve as public games but only to those who met a condition set by the game starting player: certain rank or higher, rank w/in so many points of the starting player, attendance of x% or higher, or premium only.

Any block that is based upon the rank a player holds will be a non-starter and I'm guessing that the rest would be too.


Mr Adams real problem comes from the fact that feudal is one of the few non geographic maps that are open to "?". And as it is popular it will always be there on the "Join A Game" page looking inviting to play. Get it to be added to the restricted list and all your problems will be solved.

[MrBenn]

I actually think this is a reasonably good idea... perhaps something like "no more than two ?'s per game" would work.

Another solution might be for ?'s to see games listed in a slightly different order, so that those with only one or two spaces left fill are at the top of their list?

[Mr_Adams]

Mr Adams real problem comes from the fact that feudal is one of the few non geographic maps that are open to "?". And as it is popular it will always be there on the "Join A Game" page looking inviting to play. Get it to be added to the restricted list and all your problems will be solved.

complete restriction seems a bit harsh, but since they are only restricted for the first 5 games, this seems reasonable, however, this would just be shoving the problem off onto somebody who plays, oh, say, classic. then they get pissed of because thier games are all ?'s. this would become especialy frustrating for freemiums who prefer seq.

[YoursFalsey]

Any block that is based upon the rank a player holds will be a non-starter and I'm guessing that the rest would be too.

On one hand, I understand why, and yet.... Honestly, the best way for me to improve my game would be to find games against players who are slightly better then me. I can't learn much from someone who is worse than I am. Someone who is far better than me is just going to kick my ass quickly and painfully. I realize allowing someone to set a ceiling on opponent rating would only encourage newbie farming, but I would love to able to seek out opponents who are at my level...

Oh, and the other thing, since I became Premium, I've been signing up in lots of tournements- again seeking to learn and getting a different pool of opponents- I've seen everything I suggested as a tournament limitation. Since it is OK to screen tournaments, I thought it might be feasible to screen individual games...

[Thezzaruz]

I've seen everything I suggested as a tournament limitation. Since it is OK to screen tournaments, I thought it might be feasible to screen individual games...

Well I don't make the rules/policies, I just relay what we've been told before. But I would guess that as tournament games is a sort of private games screening is OK but it is not condoned for public games.