[Invites] Not allow inactive players to be invited to games

[Queen_Herpes]

One of the nice things about the invite feature---is that it can get inactive users active on Conquer Club once again. It is a nice tool for getting people that have wandered, to come back, if they know they have a game waiting for them.

That said, perhaps instead of going with a disallow of inviting inactive players, since it hurts Conquer Club's ability to get old people active again, what if for Team Games, when reserving/inviting opponents, you can only reserve/invite whole teams, instead of individual spots on a team.

Something like that would still allow for old people to become active again through using invites, but maybe limit some of the poor sportsmanship that goes on when trying to keep established teams out of games.

Just some thoughts.


--Andy

Great point Andy, this essentially kills the suggestion. The site needs as many players to stick around and/or come back if they have abandoned the site. As annoying as those invite emails are, its enough to remind me. And if I hadn't played in a long time, was inactive, it might just be enough to make me come back to the site!

[Woodruff]

One of the nice things about the invite feature---is that it can get inactive users active on Conquer Club once again. It is a nice tool for getting people that have wandered, to come back, if they know they have a game waiting for them.
That said, perhaps instead of going with a disallow of inviting inactive players, since it hurts Conquer Club's ability to get old people active again, what if for Team Games, when reserving/inviting opponents, you can only reserve/invite whole teams, instead of individual spots on a team.
Something like that would still allow for old people to become active again through using invites, but maybe limit some of the poor sportsmanship that goes on when trying to keep established teams out of games.
Just some thoughts.

Great point Andy, this essentially kills the suggestion.

No it doesn't...did you manage to overlook Metsfanmax's point regarding what constitutes an "inactive player"?

[greenoaks]

I was gone for over 2 years and had completely forgotten about the site but came back after i got a reminder

[AndyDufresne]

As far as limiting invites to teams, couldn't a player abuse that by inviting 2 random players to join the same team?

Denise makes a good point here, that abuse could still exist in an expanded form. So I'm stuck.


--Andy

[lord voldemort]

I think that once inactive. ie drop off scoreboard. That you shouldnt be able to get invites until you have taken a turn. So in theory you want to come back and your friend wants to invite you. make a pvt 1v1 take a turn you get the privs back

[Queen_Herpes]

One of the nice things about the invite feature---is that it can get inactive users active on Conquer Club once again. It is a nice tool for getting people that have wandered, to come back, if they know they have a game waiting for them.
That said, perhaps instead of going with a disallow of inviting inactive players, since it hurts Conquer Club's ability to get old people active again, what if for Team Games, when reserving/inviting opponents, you can only reserve/invite whole teams, instead of individual spots on a team.
Something like that would still allow for old people to become active again through using invites, but maybe limit some of the poor sportsmanship that goes on when trying to keep established teams out of games.
Just some thoughts.

Great point Andy, this essentially kills the suggestion.

No it doesn't...did you manage to overlook Metsfanmax's point regarding what constitutes an "inactive player"?

That suggestion would have to be developed first, before this suggestion could be functional. However, there are still holes regarding changing the determining factor(s) for inactive status.

Then, Denise brings up a a great point request to make this functional for teams could still be abused.

Overall, it won't work.

[darth emperor]

As far as limiting invites to teams, couldn't a player abuse that by inviting 2 random players to join the same team?

Denise makes a good point here, that abuse could still exist in an expanded form. So I'm stuck.


--Andy

But now you can see who would be your partner...and then choose if you accept or not....

[Denise]

What if the definition of "active" were based on last log-in, and not active games? That way old people who come back to the site can still feel involved.

Great point.

Could you develop this a little more? Is there still an issue with our desire to make it so users can still send invites to their friends who have wandered away from Conquer Club?


--Andy

hmm, when I think about this it would be a little difficult in some cases. In my example, it wouldn't be an issue. My friend would log on, thus making him "active" and able to receive invites. But if someone wants to get their friend back on by sending an invite, it might be an issue. I suppose they could just tell their friend to log on so they could send the invite? I haven't read the other thread in detail, but is this even the issue? Can't the abuse still happen, just by sending invites to random low rankers who are active?

I think that once inactive. ie drop off scoreboard. That you shouldnt be able to get invites until you have taken a turn. So in theory you want to come back and your friend wants to invite you. make a pvt 1v1 take a turn you get the privs back

This might work, but what if you want to play a team game and not a 1 vs 1? This limits the choices you get to become active again.

But now you can see who would be your partner...and then choose if you accept or not....

But the players who are being sent these invites will be happy to accept regardless of who their partner is, being newbies or maybe they are just inexperienced at team games.

[greenoaks]

But the players who are being sent these invites will be happy to accept regardless of who their partner is, being newbies or maybe they are just inexperienced at team games.

and they are the type of players these games are being set up to attract anyway

[NightWolf]

If the definition of "inactive" is amended to refer to a players last login, as opposed to last completed game (over a period of a month both ways), Andy's idea has little basis, since game invites expire after 24 hours. If it refers to the last time a game was completed, then it would be a problem. But in any case, if it is so difficult to find a solution, can't some other triggers make a player "active" again, such as logging in AND joining a new game, constituting a return to playing?

EDIT:

last login as in inviting someone who hasn't been on for month(s), and still has not returned.

[stahrgazer]

One of the nice things about the invite feature---is that it can get inactive users active on Conquer Club once again. It is a nice tool for getting people that have wandered, to come back, if they know they have a game waiting for them.
That said, perhaps instead of going with a disallow of inviting inactive players, since it hurts Conquer Club's ability to get old people active again, what if for Team Games, when reserving/inviting opponents, you can only reserve/invite whole teams, instead of individual spots on a team.
Something like that would still allow for old people to become active again through using invites, but maybe limit some of the poor sportsmanship that goes on when trying to keep established teams out of games.
Just some thoughts.
--Andy

Devil's Advocate: if it's "poor sportsmanship" enough that you're suggesting codes to disallow the problem, then why isn't it "poor sportsmanship" enough to make it a violation of rules?

Also, a few tourney organizers start games, invite the opposing teams' captains, and require those captains to invite the rest of their team... your solution to make something 'icky' be impossible without being illegal, would hinder the tourney organizers' ability to take this easy way out.

[Metsfanmax]

Devil's Advocate: if it's "poor sportsmanship" enough that you're suggesting codes to disallow the problem, then why isn't it "poor sportsmanship" enough to make it a violation of rules?

It's easier to disallow it automatically and have it not happen anymore, than to have mods who go around and look for people abusing the system; and inevitably, some of those people would be missed that way anyway.

[stahrgazer]

Devil's Advocate: if it's "poor sportsmanship" enough that you're suggesting codes to disallow the problem, then why isn't it "poor sportsmanship" enough to make it a violation of rules?

It's easier to disallow it automatically and have it not happen anymore, than to have mods who go around and look for people abusing the system; and inevitably, some of those people would be missed that way anyway.

And that logic is why I suggested we could elim social forums totally; easier not to allow things that people could abuse, than to have enforcement for the less than 1% that would abuse.

[Metsfanmax]

Devil's Advocate: if it's "poor sportsmanship" enough that you're suggesting codes to disallow the problem, then why isn't it "poor sportsmanship" enough to make it a violation of rules?

It's easier to disallow it automatically and have it not happen anymore, than to have mods who go around and look for people abusing the system; and inevitably, some of those people would be missed that way anyway.

And that logic is why I suggested we could elim social forums totally; easier not to allow things that people could abuse, than to have enforcement for the less than 1% that would abuse.

Nobody gets hurt when somebody posts a spam topic in a social forum.

[stahrgazer]

Nobody gets hurt when somebody posts a spam topic in a social forum.

And no one gets hurt when an inactive doesn't join a game he or she was invited to join; it expires in 24 hours. Nor does anyone get hurt by receiving a random invite; they join or do not join. If they join, they play, if they don't join, someone else plays.

[Metsfanmax]

Nobody gets hurt when somebody posts a spam topic in a social forum.

And no one gets hurt when an inactive doesn't join a game he or she was invited to join; it expires in 24 hours. Nor does anyone get hurt by receiving a random invite; they join or do not join. If they join, they play, if they don't join, someone else plays.

False; the OP and the first few responses indicated that the system was abused as a result of this.

[stahrgazer]

Nobody gets hurt when somebody posts a spam topic in a social forum.

And no one gets hurt when an inactive doesn't join a game he or she was invited to join; it expires in 24 hours. Nor does anyone get hurt by receiving a random invite; they join or do not join. If they join, they play, if they don't join, someone else plays.

False; the OP and the first few responses indicated that the system was abused as a result of this.

Not false. Here's what they're saying:

The trick that I've seen used (and there could easily be others), is a team will start a public game, and then invite a single, inactive player to fill one of the spots on the opposing team. This keeps any other real teams from joining together, as one of the spots is reserved, so the games fill up with random people, making for a much easier win than a well-practiced team would.

So?
The invitee does not have to accept. Established teams can join other games and play together.

"Near-farming" constitutes a much worse "abuse" of a system than, "omigosh, this particular game is full, my regular team and I will have to find another game to battle on,"

I define "near-farming" as picking on people who just got their 5 games so are no longer ? but are obviously not familiar with the types of maps that are "legal" for high ranking folk to "invite" them to play. And the response has continued to be, "the new cadet does not have to join."

So, that's the CC response: the player being invited does NOT have to join.

And stretching that a bit farther, the teams that wish to play together can open their own games or find another to join, or join a tournament together. However, assuming a cadet does join, he's got a better chance of someone else joining who does know the map, so can show him the ropes, than those who are being "orchard plucked" in 1v1 freestyle on intricate maps - which CC has ruled over and over again, is perfectly legal to do.

[Metsfanmax]

So?
The invitee does not have to accept. Established teams can join other games and play together.

"Near-farming" constitutes a much worse "abuse" of a system than, "omigosh, this particular game is full, my regular team and I will have to find another game to battle on,"

I define "near-farming" as picking on people who just got their 5 games so are no longer ? but are obviously not familiar with the types of maps that are "legal" for high ranking folk to "invite" them to play. And the response has continued to be, "the new cadet does not have to join."

So, that's the CC response: the player being invited does NOT have to join.

And stretching that a bit farther, the teams that wish to play together can open their own games or find another to join, or join a tournament together. However, assuming a cadet does join, he's got a better chance of someone else joining who does know the map, so can show him the ropes, than those who are being "orchard plucked" in 1v1 freestyle on intricate maps - which CC has ruled over and over again, is perfectly legal to do.

Qualitatively, this example is the same as "regular" farming - you're still taking advantage of new players who don't understand what they're getting into. Personally, I don't think there should be any rules against farming; but at the point where there are, they should at least be consistent.

[stahrgazer]

So?
The invitee does not have to accept. Established teams can join other games and play together.

"Near-farming" constitutes a much worse "abuse" of a system than, "omigosh, this particular game is full, my regular team and I will have to find another game to battle on,"

I define "near-farming" as picking on people who just got their 5 games so are no longer ? but are obviously not familiar with the types of maps that are "legal" for high ranking folk to "invite" them to play. And the response has continued to be, "the new cadet does not have to join."

So, that's the CC response: the player being invited does NOT have to join.

And stretching that a bit farther, the teams that wish to play together can open their own games or find another to join, or join a tournament together. However, assuming a cadet does join, he's got a better chance of someone else joining who does know the map, so can show him the ropes, than those who are being "orchard plucked" in 1v1 freestyle on intricate maps - which CC has ruled over and over again, is perfectly legal to do.

Qualitatively, this example is the same as "regular" farming - you're still taking advantage of new players who don't understand what they're getting into. Personally, I don't think there should be any rules against farming; but at the point where there are, they should at least be consistent.

Well, CC ruled that if it's not ? then it's not farming. Meanwhile, I disagree that there should not be any rules against farming, but I would like it consistent, which is why I do not support this change to the invite system.

The original post isn't about disallowing higher rank players from inviting new recruits. To be consistent with prior CC rulings, whoever invites miscellaneous players that aren't consistently new recruits, are doing NOTHING wrong, so no system change is required.

"Those being invited can refuse to join, and find other games to play," and "teams that wish to play together as a unit can open their own public games and invite whoever THEY would like to play with."

It has NEVER been illegal to refuse a game, and CC should not start a precedent of making it 'illegal' or "impossible" to refuse a game. Teams that are doing this "invite one opponent" thing are either 1) being cleverly proactive about refusing to play existing teams by limiting the ability in advance; 2) hoping some experienced players show a less experienced player the ropes; 3) trying to encourage more activity; or 4) letting the person they do invite go through the legwork of inviting whoever he/she wants to team with.

I can't see anything wrong with it, even if it pisses a few people off that they are unable to bring a team in to play THAT particular group on THAT particular public game.

[Metsfanmax]

It has NEVER been illegal to refuse a game, and CC should not start a precedent of making it 'illegal' or "impossible" to refuse a game.

Implementing this feature has nothing to do with whether players can refuse games or not.

Teams that are doing this "invite one opponent" thing are either 1) being cleverly proactive about refusing to play existing teams by limiting the ability in advance; 2) hoping some experienced players show a less experienced player the ropes; 3) trying to encourage more activity; or 4) letting the person they do invite go through the legwork of inviting whoever he/she wants to team with.

None of the above are what is being discussed here. Clearly there is a fifth possibility, that is the cause for this suggestion: they are taking advantage of naive or stupid players (i.e. the ones who would join a random game with an unknown teammate). Whether you call it farming or not, it's qualitatively the same.

[stahrgazer]

It has NEVER been illegal to refuse a game, and CC should not start a precedent of making it 'illegal' or "impossible" to refuse a game.

Implementing this feature has nothing to do with whether players can refuse games or not.

Teams that are doing this "invite one opponent" thing are either 1) being cleverly proactive about refusing to play existing teams by limiting the ability in advance; 2) hoping some experienced players show a less experienced player the ropes; 3) trying to encourage more activity; or 4) letting the person they do invite go through the legwork of inviting whoever he/she wants to team with.

None of the above are what is being discussed here. Clearly there is a fifth possibility, that is the cause for this suggestion: they are taking advantage of naive or stupid players (i.e. the ones who would join a random game with an unknown teammate). Whether you call it farming or not, it's qualitatively the same.

Sorry, you can't prove that it's not: Teams that are doing this "invite one opponent" thing are 1) being cleverly proactive about refusing to play existing teams by limiting the ability in advance;

But even if you could? Again, per CC prior rulings: It's only a problem if it's done to ? (new recruits). Otherwise, it's all perfectly fine parts of the game, that nothing needs to be done to correct... Nothing should be done to correct something that's perfectly legal ESPECIALLY when what would be done legitimate uses of invite, which this would.

Now, when CC starts ruling that any taking advantage of naivety on an ongoing basis against individuals (even if they are no longer 'new recruits') DOES constitute "farming or other abuse of the game system" and starts disciplining or other programming to fix that - then I would agree that something should be done about potential taking advantage of naivety in team games. But between the two, taking advantage on a 1-on-1 basis is worse, because at least with teams, the naive individual has a chance to get teammates who DO know what they're doing.

[Metsfanmax]

Sorry, you can't prove that it's not: Teams that are doing this "invite one opponent" thing are 1) being cleverly proactive about refusing to play existing teams by limiting the ability in advance;

But even if you could? Again, per CC prior rulings: It's only a problem if it's done to ? (new recruits). Otherwise, it's all perfectly fine parts of the game, that nothing needs to be done to correct... Nothing should be done to correct something that's perfectly legal ESPECIALLY when what would be done legitimate uses of invite, which this would.

Now, when CC starts ruling that any taking advantage of naivety on an ongoing basis against individuals (even if they are no longer 'new recruits') DOES constitute "farming or other abuse of the game system" and starts disciplining or other programming to fix that - then I would agree that something should be done about potential taking advantage of naivety in team games. But between the two, taking advantage on a 1-on-1 basis is worse, because at least with teams, the naive individual has a chance to get teammates who DO know what they're doing.

This is all irrelevant. If someone was going to be hurt by this policy, then that would be one thing. But the fact is that we're only preventing something that rationally shouldn't be allowed in the first place (inviting people to play your game who most likely won't join because they're inactive). The only people that this affects are the people who are using the current system to prevent actual teams from joining their games; but I don't feel particularly bad for them. If they don't want to play against particular people, they shouldn't start open games. As an added benefit, we also protect players from joining games with teammates that they didn't intend to play with. Even if you think it's a good thing that there's a loophole people can use to refuse to play existing teams (?), it's certainly also a good thing that we're protecting unsuspecting players.

[jefjef]

This is a fantastic and flawless suggestion.

End of discussion.

[stahrgazer]

This is all irrelevant. If someone was going to be hurt by this policy, then that would be one thing.

As (I think it was Andy?) pointed out, sometimes inactive players are invited to games as a means of bringing them back; which means that, potentially, CC would be hurt by this change.

And, it's not irrelevant to suggest that if it's "bad" to invite near-noobs to team games, because those near-noobs just might not understand the map; bad enough that you have to create a program change to prevent it... then it's quite relevant to wonder why, if it's so BAAAAAAAAAAD for team games, then why isn't it as bad or even worse to do it for individual games?

CC has already ruled consistently that it's only illegal to invite "lesser skilled players" if the near-noobs being invited are true noobs, as in, new recruits, on a systemic basis. That is not what this suggestion claims will be prevented.

So, if it's not illegal, no change should be made. If it is illegal, then start enforcing it on individual bases.

[Woodruff]

This is all irrelevant. If someone was going to be hurt by this policy, then that would be one thing.

As (I think it was Andy?) pointed out, sometimes inactive players are invited to games as a means of bringing them back; which means that, potentially, CC would be hurt by this change.

And, it's not irrelevant to suggest that if it's "bad" to invite near-noobs to team games, because those near-noobs just might not understand the map; bad enough that you have to create a program change to prevent it... then it's quite relevant to wonder why, if it's so BAAAAAAAAAAD for team games, then why isn't it as bad or even worse to do it for individual games?

CC has already ruled consistently that it's only illegal to invite "lesser skilled players" if the near-noobs being invited are true noobs, as in, new recruits, on a systemic basis. That is not what this suggestion claims will be prevented.

So, if it's not illegal, no change should be made. If it is illegal, then start enforcing it on individual bases.

Just because this action isn't currently illegal doesn't mean that it shouldn't be looked at as being illegal. As well, just because a thing is determined to be illegal, does not at all mean that all types of that thing must be illegal. This seems as clear-cut as possible of an example of abuse of the system that should be removed.