Conquer Club

Concise description:

• Implement a function which would allow players to drop a game/allow the host to boot a player before the game begins and send it back into signups.

Specifics/Details:

• Once a game reaches capacity, it normally enters the game immediately and turns may be taken. Under this scenario, a 24 hour "confirmation period" would begin instead
• During this time, players will confirm that they are pleased with the game's configuration using a command which would be implemented for this purpose. If they are not, they may drop the game and it will return to the signups page.
• In addition, the host would also have the option to boot a player he/she did not want in the game. The host would also be prompted to give a reason for the boot. If the host mistakenly made the setup wrong, the may also have he option to drop out.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• Reduce the number of games that have undesirable configurations for players by giving them a second chance to review the setup.
• Reduce the number of C&A reports involving alliances between two friends when someone accidentally stumbles upon their game.

EDIT: Suggestion of Boot mechanic removed

pancakemix wrote:[*]During this time, players will confirm that they are pleased with the game's configuration using a command which would be implemented for this purpose. If they are not, they may drop the game and it will return to the signups page.

How could they not be pleased with the configuration? The settings don't change after you join the game...

[*] In addition, the host would also have the option to boot a player he/she did not want in the game. The host would also be prompted to give a reason for the boot. If the host mistakenly made the setup wrong, the may also have he option to drop out.

If there are players you don't want in your games, either foe them or do not create public games. We will not start giving hosts of games the ability to boot players from public games. Then they are no longer available for all to join. I could see cooks having a hard time playing any games if this is implemented.

Metsfanmax wrote:

pancakemix wrote:[*]During this time, players will confirm that they are pleased with the game's configuration using a command which would be implemented for this purpose. If they are not, they may drop the game and it will return to the signups page.

How could they not be pleased with the configuration? The settings don't change after you join the game...

My most common mistake when joining a game is a different fortification type from the one I wanted. Only when I enter the game do I realize my mistake. It makes a huge difference in the gameplay, especially if I wanted unlimited, and got adjacent.

[*] In addition, the host would also have the option to boot a player he/she did not want in the game. The host would also be prompted to give a reason for the boot. If the host mistakenly made the setup wrong, the may also have he option to drop out.

If there are players you don't want in your games, either foe them or do not create public games. We will not start giving hosts of games the ability to boot players from public games. Then they are no longer available for all to join. I could see cooks having a hard time playing any games if this is implemented.

Upon further review, the boot option does nothing the drop wouldn't solve. I'll remove it from the subject line.

My main concern here is not about keeping out undesirables but to prevent unnecessary barring. Consider this scenario: Three friends who go to school together decide to start a three player game during lunch. They decide one of them will start the game and they'll all join after school. Two of them get home around 2pm, but something unexpected comes up for the third and he doesn't get home until 5pm. During that 3-hour window, someone else joins and the game begins.

The two that managed to enter the game on time are resentful toward this uninvited entrant. They proceed to attack him and only him. Naturally, the other player files a C&A report. The two friends attempt to explain themselves, but their actions are enough to warrant a ban from playing together on grounds of secret diplomacy.

I've seen this scenario or something similar play out in the C&A forum. Friends get banned from playing together because of this and then they stop coming to the site. That's potential loss of business and can also lead to bad word of mouth. Implementing this will allow them to simply drop out and start another game.

pancakemix wrote:My most common mistake when joining a game is a different fortification type from the one I wanted. Only when I enter the game do I realize my mistake. It makes a huge difference in the gameplay, especially if I wanted unlimited, and got adjacent.

It sounds like this is a lot of work to ask of the webmaster when this could just be solved by people being more careful when they join games, but I'll grant you that this probably does happen more often than it should.

My main concern here is not about keeping out undesirables but to prevent unnecessary barring. Consider this scenario: Three friends who go to school together decide to start a three player game during lunch. They decide one of them will start the game and they'll all join after school. Two of them get home around 2pm, but something unexpected comes up for the third and he doesn't get home until 5pm. During that 3-hour window, someone else joins and the game begins.

The two that managed to enter the game on time are resentful toward this uninvited entrant. They proceed to attack him and only him. Naturally, the other player files a C&A report. The two friends attempt to explain themselves, but their actions are enough to warrant a ban from playing together on grounds of secret diplomacy.

I've seen this scenario or something similar play out in the C&A forum. Friends get banned from playing together because of this and then they stop coming to the site. That's potential loss of business and can also lead to bad word of mouth. Implementing this will allow them to simply drop out and start another game.

This is a fair point. I forgot that only premium players can set up private games. Let me think more on this. Thoughts, anyone?

I'm interested in what others have to say about this. Anyone?

Do I count?

It's an interesting idea, but I'm not so sure I'm fond of it as it stands. While you brought up a scenario in which this feature would be helpful, I feel this would be abused more than used, and I could see freemiums using it as a way to get around paying for premium for the invite system, since this would work almost just as well (like your example). Perhaps some tweaking like allowing all other players to approve of a boot requested by the red player and disallowing this feature for 1v1s would help, but I'm still leaning toward "no", I'm afraid.

-Sully

You could have one of the three friends be a premium, and invite the rest.

Victor Sullivan wrote:Do I count?

It's an interesting idea, but I'm not so sure I'm fond of it as it stands. While you brought up a scenario in which this feature would be helpful, I feel this would be abused more than used, and I could see freemiums using it as a way to get around paying for premium for the invite system, since this would work almost just as well (like your example). Perhaps some tweaking like allowing all other players to approve of a boot requested by the red player and disallowing this feature for 1v1s would help, but I'm still leaning toward "no", I'm afraid.

-Sully

Maybe, but the issue presented in the scenario still presents itself. Not doing anything is just giving way for people's emotions to get the better of them.

What you say actually brings up another interesting issue: why exactly is the invite system premium only? In my eyes it seems redundant; People with premium already have private games, why should they pay to get two different ways to restrict who plays with them? It feels like paying for the same thing twice, and to some extent devalues the product.

jghost7 wrote:You could have one of the three friends be a premium, and invite the rest.

Except for that not everyone has expendable cash to spend $25 on extra features. Or parents willing/able to spend $25 on a gaming site (this is probably what would apply to the scenario at hand).

pancakemix wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:Do I count?

It's an interesting idea, but I'm not so sure I'm fond of it as it stands. While you brought up a scenario in which this feature would be helpful, I feel this would be abused more than used, and I could see freemiums using it as a way to get around paying for premium for the invite system, since this would work almost just as well (like your example). Perhaps some tweaking like allowing all other players to approve of a boot requested by the red player and disallowing this feature for 1v1s would help, but I'm still leaning toward "no", I'm afraid.

-Sully

Maybe, but the issue presented in the scenario still presents itself. Not doing anything is just giving way for people's emotions to get the better of them.

What you say actually brings up another interesting issue: why exactly is the invite system premium only? In my eyes it seems redundant; People with premium already have private games, why should they pay to get two different ways to restrict who plays with them? It feels like paying for the same thing twice, and to some extent devalues the product.
...

No, those are 2 different ways to have games filled. You can invite to fill your team or your friends, and still be able to have the other team(s) or the rest of the game filled publicly while private games tend to be already reserved for picked players. And since you only pay one fee, you cannot pay for it twice even were it redundant.

pancakemix wrote:

jghost7 wrote:You could have one of the three friends be a premium, and invite the rest.

Except for that not everyone has expendable cash to spend $25 on extra features. Or parents willing/able to spend $25 on a gaming site (this is probably what would apply to the scenario at hand).

I truly understand that not everyone has the extra cash to get a premium membership. As it stands, these are current perks for premium members. If you want to use them you will have to work for it. Either you guys can get together and pool some cash and get one of you the premium membership or find a way to get your own. Or you can try to make a friend on here that is premium and have him do the invites. It would only take one of you to have it to get what you wanted to from this suggestion.

thanks,

J

jghost7 wrote:No, those are 2 different ways to have games filled. You can invite to fill your team or your friends, and still be able to have the other team(s) or the rest of the game filled publicly while private games tend to be already reserved for picked players. And since you only pay one fee, you cannot pay for it twice even were it redundant.

Or I could fill my team and post for the empty team in Callouts. Unless you're suggesting the invite system should only be used to farm new recruits. Heaven forbid that farming should be a payed service.

OR I could start a public game and just invite everybody. That certainly already happens, else I wouldn't see "Game XXXXXXX is fully reserved". See how it's redundant now?

Now this is getting interesting. Basically, the only perk of having the invite system as it stands is so that one can farm new recruits (without difficulty, anyway). If you expand it to freemium, it devalues both Private Games and the Invite System, because freemiums can have "private games". If you take it away, farmers will whine about it, even though if something like that went wrong, they could all - you guessed it - drop the game.

In other words this site defies all logic. By enabling this way of cheapening the higher ranks it cheapens itself and the casual atmosphere. But of course, that cheapening does not come cheap...

jghost7 wrote:I truly understand that not everyone has the extra cash to get a premium membership. As it stands, these are current perks for premium members. If you want to use them you will have to work for it. Either you guys can get together and pool some cash and get one of you the premium membership or find a way to get your own. Or you can try to make a friend on here that is premium and have him do the invites. It would only take one of you to have it to get what you wanted to from this suggestion.

Don't mistake my situation for that of those I'm trying to aid. I'm here for the community (read: Mafia Games). I rarely play CC, and when I do I'm playing FFA. If I wanted premium, I'd have it. I just think I've noted a problem (which is clearly more common than it ought to be) and proposed a viable solution. It doesn't seem fair to the people affected by this to say "Well, maybe you should have bought premium".

That also doesn't account for a number of variables. Maybe they're playing their tenth game and still haven't made up their mind about the site yet. Maybe they're waiting until their birthday or Christmas. Maybe THEY wouldn't buy premium but someone else they might end up telling about the site would. There's more to this than simply throwing money at the problem.

i play a lot of public games and i haven't seen a problem, therefore no fix is required.

For your first reason, joining a game that has one type of fortifications when you want another type, I feel for you. I've done it myself. But you always have the option to drop the game before it starts (unless you're the last player to join), and you can see what type of game it is before you click "Join Game." A 24-hour confirmation period would just make it that much longer for a game to start.

For the second problem, you're starting a game among friends and someone else joins, I know how that is, too, especially with team games where one team mate might decline the invitation and a random person joins instead. But still, this problem can be overcome with a little coordination. When I want to play my buddy in Starcraft, I call him up and we set up the game right then.

As to certain features being available just for premiums, well, that's kinda the point. I actually didn't realize it wasn't available to freemiums, but Lack probably has a good reason for it being that way if that's the case. If Lack opens up the store and lets everyone sample every feature for free, it's less compelling to buy premium. Invite is a great feature to get your friends together for a game or get your buddy in on your team, just like Speed games are awesome for a quick CC fix and unlimited games feeds the addiction.

macbone wrote:For your first reason, joining a game that has one type of fortifications when you want another type, I feel for you. I've done it myself. But you always have the option to drop the game before it starts (unless you're the last player to join), and you can see what type of game it is before you click "Join Game." A 24-hour confirmation period would just make it that much longer for a game to start.

That's exactly the situation I'm talking about: the one where you're the last player. That's where I think this would be relevant as far as double checking what you're getting into. As far as the confirmation period is concerned, I don't think I actually went into detail on the system as I saw it: It would operate in much the same way a freestyle turn does: by having a 24 hour period for all players, and once everyone "locks in", the game starts. For the last person who "locked in", it will be as though they had just ended their turn (if possible, it could also count against their missed turn count without deferred troops).

You also raise an interesting point regarding dropping out: I can drop a game at any time before a game starts. Why should I not be allowed once the game is full?

For the second problem, you're starting a game among friends and someone else joins, I know how that is, too, especially with team games where one team mate might decline the invitation and a random person joins instead. But still, this problem can be overcome with a little coordination. When I want to play my buddy in Starcraft, I call him up and we set up the game right then.

The situation I've put forward is one that defies that sort of coordination. Plus, the Starcraft analogy is flawed considering it's based on an automatic matchmaking system, versus CC's "Look through pages of games and find what I want or make my own" manual system. As far as custom games go, it's fairly similar to CC's, but the main difference is I expect my Starcraft match to start within 5 minutes, 10 minutes at the most.

I don't expect CC to have an advanced matchmaking system like Starcraft's, mainly because of the skill-based parameters of Starcraft's system and CC's committal to maintaining an open, casual atmosphere. The point being, Stacraft's system demands coordination, CC's shouldn't have to.

This simply won't happen. This encourages several things that are frowned upon.

IMO, public games should be random (eg you pick a gametype, and the players are secretly matched up (ie hidden)). There really isn't any reason for someone to need to drop out of a game because they don't like one of the players.

this would be abused, people would just drop the game if they get a bad drop. bad idea

padsta wrote:this would be abused, people would just drop the game if they get a bad drop. bad idea

This suggestion is about dropping the game AFTER everyone has joined but BEFORE the game starts.

Metsfanmax wrote:

padsta wrote:this would be abused, people would just drop the game if they get a bad drop. bad idea

This suggestion is about dropping the game AFTER everyone has joined but BEFORE the game starts.

yes i know. that is how you would see your drop and be able to drop the game if it is bad

padsta wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

padsta wrote:this would be abused, people would just drop the game if they get a bad drop. bad idea

This suggestion is about dropping the game AFTER everyone has joined but BEFORE the game starts.

yes i know. that is how you would see your drop and be able to drop the game if it is bad

No, the OP is suggesting that this drop out period occur before the game board is even assembled. This is not to drop the game if your drop is bad, but to drop the game if you don't like the settings that the game has (like if you wanted an escalating game but accidentally joined a No Spoils game).

The game finder is your friend.. If you prefer no spoils then just search for it. I see lots of potential abuse from this. Say there is someone who likes to farm.. Creates some games and instead of low ranked players joining, high ones do. Now they are going to drop the game because the game maker thinks they are gonna lose and the game doesn't get played.

Or the opposite of that if no one wanted to play with you because you are a cook and everytime you joined people could avoid you

if you create public games they are open to the public

if you are too stupid to understand the settings of the game you are joining then you shouldn't be playing a strategy game

Why not just do this. Make a conformation button. That will solve most everything mentioned here. This button could be turned off / on. When joining a game it would ask are you sure you wish to join game XXXX Settings XXXX.

blakebowling wrote:This simply won't happen. This encourages several things that are frowned upon.

IMO, public games should be random (eg you pick a gametype, and the players are secretly matched up (ie hidden)). There really isn't any reason for someone to need to drop out of a game because they don't like one of the players.

Such as?

Are you suggesting that one shouldn't be able to see one's opponents before a game begins? That COULD create an interesting dynamic, but if I want to play with my friends, that doesn't do me any favors.

MoB Deadly wrote:The game finder is your friend.. If you prefer no spoils then just search for it. I see lots of potential abuse from this. Say there is someone who likes to farm.. Creates some games and instead of low ranked players joining, high ones do. Now they are going to drop the game because the game maker thinks they are gonna lose and the game doesn't get played.

Or the opposite of that if no one wanted to play with you because you are a cook and everytime you joined people could avoid you

If it's a four-player game and a player with a rank I want to avoid joins third, as it stands right now I COULD drop then game if I wanted to. I fail to see how changing it would make a difference, unless cooks have a habit of sneaking into games against high-ranks that I don't know about.

Bruceswar wrote:Why not just do this. Make a conformation button. That will solve most everything mentioned here. This button could be turned off / on. When joining a game it would ask are you sure you wish to join game XXXX Settings XXXX.

This doesn't solve a good number of the points I've brought up, but I wholeheartedly support this, especially if it's done in the same way that the enlarged map view is shown.