A revised foe list for ppl who join games with foes in them

[KoE_Sirius]

I think a warning is fair.

That is apparently already pending, although I haven't taken the time to confirm this.

PS -- I just checked. It is a confirmed fact:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2823&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15

Yeah I just looked before I started this thread.Its different idea.
If you remain in your foes game,after a warning.I would like that your foe be removed from you list as default.

Lol we kind of got that By this thread but general consensus is that is unrealistic...

You may thinks its unrealistic,but I think the same for the current foe list..The way it works is unreal.

[Ditocoaf]

I haven't read the thread, but I have this to say:

Right now, people can put someone else on a Foe list on a whim... they're actually willing to play games with the person, just only when they want to. (chough, cough, Kobber).

Adding this in would fix the foe button. It should be used as a shield, not a weapon. People should be held accountable to who they chose to ban from their games -- if you really don't want to play against them, then DON'T play against them.

Right now, it's too easy for someone to gather up a really long foe list, then join a game. They kill the game, since barely anybody can join.

[PLAYER57832]

Agreed, but the more popular suggestion is to make it so you cannot join games (as well as preventing them from joining yours) with foes ... except for Tournaments and Battle Royale games.

[KLOBBER]

I haven't read the thread, but I have this to say:

Right now, people can put someone else on a Foe list on a whim... they're actually willing to play games with the person, just only when they want to. (chough, cough, Kobber).

Dude, I just said that I have no problem being prevented from entering into games with people on my foes list. Duh!

It's a good policy to actually read the thread before opening your big mouth and putting your foot in it.

[Thezzaruz]

Dude, I just said that I have no problem being prevented from entering into games with people on my foes list. Duh!

Yea you did, but tbf you did also spend the first 6 pages to claim that no change was needed/wanted. But kudos for being able to change your view.

[KLOBBER]

Yeah, it just suddenly occurred to me that I am really not attached to the idea of entering games with anyone on my foes list.

I just don't care about that.

The warning will be nice, and we'll see what happens with the other ideas in this thread.

[Soloman]

I think a warning is fair.

That is apparently already pending, although I haven't taken the time to confirm this.

PS -- I just checked. It is a confirmed fact:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2823&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15

Yeah I just looked before I started this thread.Its different idea.
If you remain in your foes game,after a warning.I would like that your foe be removed from you list as default.

Lol we kind of got that By this thread but general consensus is that is unrealistic...

You may thinks its unrealistic,but I think the same for the current foe list..The way it works is unreal.

Koe just about everyone who has posted agrees on some main points(even Klobber Now) 1 you should not be able to join a foes game whether you foe'd them or they foe'd you. 2 a popup notifying you will help you decided if you want to remove someone from your foe list so you can join a game(part of this is already to do) 3 we should not be just removing people automatically as that will create and be a new problem and not a better solution.

[Ditocoaf]

Dude, I just said that I have no problem being prevented from entering into games with people on my foes list. Duh!

Yea you did, but tbf you did also spend the first 6 pages to claim that no change was needed/wanted. But kudos for being able to change your view.

Yeah, sorry Klobber. I didn't realize you'd changed your mind later in the thread (I read the first page).

The only problem I can see with the suggestion is this: people with really long foe lists, if they wanted to join, say, a battle royale, would usually have to remove several people from their list just to join. Afterwards, they're still keeping a long list of people from playing.

[KLOBBER]

...kudos for being able to change your view.

Hats off to you, Sir, for handing out kudos so readily.

[PLAYER57832]

So now it seems there is a consensus (at least for those who have posted in this thread) for the following:

1. If you put someone on your foe list, they cannot joing your games AND you cannot join their games. (this would make the warning a moot point...)

2. Battles Royale and Tournaments should override foe lists. Anyone joining either game type will be so told.


YEAH!!!!! ... a consensus!!!!

[gdeangel]

Guys - I read up to about page 3, and then on the last page it sounds like the discussion is over, but my 2c is that if you foe someone, they should get blocked from games you start.

I don't think it's great that you can be shut out from a third party's games just because you are the last one to the party. I don't care if that's how restraining orders work. This is an online site, not the RW. So the way I'd like this to shake out is that if you foe someone, and they may not know it, when they attempt to join, YOU get a PM saying that so-and-so has joined the game XYZ that you are in, and they are in your foe list, and do you want to drop it. The only problem is if the foe is the last person to join, in which case, the game should remain in "wait" state for 24 hours to give the person with the foe list the opportunity to drop.

I don't think it's a problem that the person who has you on their foe list can join your games. I agree with the people who say that your protection is to foe them. It would be nice to have a control panel screen where you can see everyone who has foe'd you, and easily add them to your foe list.

And lastly, WTF does the friends list do in all of this. I have no idea what it is good for! So maybe, even though this would be an odd use of terms, you used foe list to designate who can NOT join games you start, and the Friends list to designate people who you are willing to play with if they happen to be on your foes list AND join a game (that someone else started) that you happen to be in. If they are in the foes list but not the friends list, you should auto drop the game when that person joins. In attempting to join a game, if a person is foe'd but not in the friends list, you should have to add them to the friends list (i.e., reciprocity) in order to join.

Yes, the terminology makes no sense, but the feature of a second list is already in the system just languishing away IMHO. And all the other stuff for foe list regarding chat / forums / etc. can just stay as it is... completely blocked.

[KoE_Sirius]

The only problem is if the foe is the last person to join, in which case, the game should remain in "wait" state for 24 hours to give the person with the foe list the opportunity to drop.

This thread mainly applies to speed game.This is only because 8 player speed games are very differcult to get started.
You made some really valid points though.Included the foe'er not even starting the game and he gets to exclude other players.

[KLOBBER]

So now it seems there is a consensus (at least for those who have posted in this thread) for the following:

1. If you put someone on your foe list, they cannot joing your games AND you cannot join their games. (this would make the warning a moot point...)

I could live with this, although I think the simple warning would be preferable.

[gdeangel]

The only problem is if the foe is the last person to join, in which case, the game should remain in "wait" state for 24 hours to give the person with the foe list the opportunity to drop.

This thread mainly applies to speed game.This is only because 8 player speed games are very differcult to get started.
You made some really valid points though.Included the foe'er not even starting the game and he gets to exclude other players.

But even in that case, the idea of bastadizing the so-called "friends" list to work in conjunction with the foe's list to control game interactions, while the foes list alone controls the "social" interactions (i.e., chat / forum / PM's / Wall) would be a solution for speed games as well...

[KoE_Sirius]

The only problem is if the foe is the last person to join, in which case, the game should remain in "wait" state for 24 hours to give the person with the foe list the opportunity to drop.

This thread mainly applies to speed game.This is only because 8 player speed games are very differcult to get started.
You made some really valid points though.Included the foe'er not even starting the game and he gets to exclude other players.

But even in that case, the idea of bastadizing the so-called "friends" list to work in conjunction with the foe's list to control game interactions, while the foes list alone controls the "social" interactions (i.e., chat / forum / PM's / Wall) would be a solution for speed games as well...

Yes,The foe list has far to much power with one click.More to the point ..Once someone clicks a foe in place they hardly ever look at it again and review why they foe'd someone to begin with.

[Thezzaruz]

YEAH!!!!! ... a consensus!!!!

Think I can add a "3." to the list to.

3. Split the foe-list into one for "playing foes" (blocking entry to games) and one for "forum foes" (not showing posts/PM's and possibly ingame chat).

but my 2c is that if you foe someone, they should get blocked from games you start.

I don't think it's great that you can be shut out from a third party's games just because you are the last one to the party.

Ideally that is how I'd like it to work but atm I can't see it getting enough support. So let's leave that one for a while, baby steps you know...

Also I had a idea earlier in this thread for a use of the friends-list that is a bit different from yours (sort of auto allow those on even if people joining later have them foed). I might find it and add it again tomorrow.

[KLOBBER]

Think I can add a "3." to the list to.

3. Split the foe-list into one for "playing foes" (blocking entry to games) and one for "forum foes" (not showing posts/PM's and possibly ingame chat).

I like it! Also, the site moderators should be subject to being blocked from your games, if you so desire. I understand that they may actually need to send some messages, even if you wish to foe list them, but what reason is there to allow them to enter into your games if you don't want them to? There is none.

[PLAYER57832]

I definitely like it too, but it has been proposed on several other threads. There is apparently a fundamental programming problem doing this because of how the different parts of CC are tied and seperated. I think it is pending, but will take a lot of time to come about.

[KoE_Sirius]

Is everyone in agreement that we have foes taken off our list if we join a game with one already there and remain there even after a warning ?
Another thought that has been brought up is that shouldnt the player who opened the game dictate who is or isn't allowed in his game.http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=55349
Just because a player is second to join and has an extensive foes list makes a speed game impossible to start.

[KLOBBER]

Is everyone in agreement that we have foes taken off our list if we join a game with one already there and remain there even after a warning ?

Absolutely not. The vast majority of people here agree that any tampering with the foes list by dint of entering into a game with a listed offender would be completely unacceptable.

The consensus was to either disallow entry into games including a person on your foes list, or better yet, to simply give a warning.

The queer notion of tampering with the foes list under any circumstances and automatically deleting its carefully compiled data was pretty much universally rejected.

Where have you been?

[KoE_Sirius]

Is everyone in agreement that we have foes taken off our list if we join a game with one already there and remain there even after a warning ?

Absolutely not. The vast majority of people here agree that any tampering with the foes list by dint of entering into a game with a listed offender would be completely unacceptable.

The consensus was to either disallow entry into games including a person on your foes list, or better yet, to simply give a warning.

The queer notion of tampering with the foes list under any circumstances and automatically deleting its carefully compiled data was pretty much universally rejected.

Where have you been?

I dont see why you would disagree...Its not logical.If you are warned that you have entered a game with a foe.
As for extending the foe list that is already restricting so many speed games its insane.
Do you even play speed games klobber? EDIT..you played 2 speed games and lost both..These changes wouldnt help the game types you play in.I have edited the opening statement to suit.

[KoE_Sirius]

If your prospective is just to be auto foe'd thats exactly what I do not want.If I wanted to foe someone I would.If I do not want to play a player I simply would not join his game.
SPEED GAMES ARE BEING RESTRICTED.
No other game type is a problem.You have the ability to open a 24 hour game and leave it forever and just wait until someone joins.
Speed games have a 15 minute time frame to fill I believe.

[PLAYER57832]

As for having trouble filling games .... I think there are other issues there.

Revising the foe list won't really fix that, because big foe lists mean that folks have whole lists of folks with whom they do not wish to play. If you don't think there are enough games, then you need to convince people not to put so many on their foe lists to begin with. If they put them on as most people do .. that is, because the people on them have acted like complete jerks (and not just small jerks on occasion, almost everyone can be that! : ) lol ), then I doubt it will happen.

If they are putting folks on for other reasons, then that might need addressing, but I have no idea how. Not letting people join games with foes (but NOT deleting them from the foe list) is a step in the correct direction.

I, personally, would have no issue with temporarily allowing suspension of foe lists , but it is discussed in another thread.

[KoE_Sirius]

As for having trouble filling games .... I think there are other issues there.

Revising the foe list won't really fix that, because big foe lists mean that folks have whole lists of folks with whom they do not wish to play. If you don't think there are enough games, then you need to convince people not to put so many on their foe lists to begin with. If they put them on as most people do .. that is, because the people on them have acted like complete jerks (and not just small jerks on occasion, almost everyone can be that! : ) lol ), then I doubt it will happen.

If they are putting folks on for other reasons, then that might need addressing, but I have no idea how. Not letting people join games with foes (but NOT deleting them from the foe list) is a step in the correct direction.

I, personally, would have no issue with temporarily allowing suspension of foe lists , but it is discussed in another thread.

Well I gave the link for the other thread already.The only possible reason I can think to foe someone is if they are serials deadbeats.Bad attitudes can be ignored by moving the screen up a little.

[yeti_c]

Another thought that has been brought up is that shouldnt the player who opened the game dictate who is or isn't allowed in his game.http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=55349
Just because a player is second to join and has an extensive foes list makes a speed game impossible to start.

Hmmm - I'm not sure about this...

If I get invited to join a game - and I join it - I still don't want to play with someone on my ignore list - regardless of whether or not the game maker likes them.

C.