Conquer Club

Premium members having ability when creating new games to SELECT whether or not game can include/exclude "freemiums".

Purpose: to avoid having repeat multi's who were already busted and join again through another new account. Additionally to avoid having new recruits or new players who are more than likely to deadbeat and spoil the gameplay. This avoids having upset premium members who purposely want to create public games to meet and play against new players versus private inivitations.

owenator wrote:Premium members having ability when creating new games to SELECT whether or not game can include/exclude "freemiums".
Purpose: to avoid having repeat multi's who were already busted and join again through another new account. Additionally to avoid having new recruits or new players who are more than likely to deadbeat and spoil the gameplay. This avoids having upset premium members who purposely want to create public games to meet and play against new players versus private inivitations.

I wholeheartedly agree with this suggestion!

owenator wrote:Premium members having ability when creating new games to SELECT whether or not game can include/exclude "freemiums".

Purpose: to avoid having repeat multi's who were already busted and join again through another new account. Additionally to avoid having new recruits or new players who are more than likely to deadbeat and spoil the gameplay. This avoids having upset premium members who purposely want to create public games to meet and play against new players versus private inivitations.

Lots of people will do this, because they have nothing to lose, and then it's a pain in the ass for freemiums to try and find a game. You can already make private games, why restrict public ones as well? That's what the Callouts forum is for. If this happens and I have a hard time finding games to join, I will be pissed.

But it won't happen. Sorry.

Amazing idea, lmfao.

john9blue wrote:

owenator wrote:Premium members having ability when creating new games to SELECT whether or not game can include/exclude "freemiums".
Purpose: to avoid having repeat multi's who were already busted and join again through another new account. Additionally to avoid having new recruits or new players who are more than likely to deadbeat and spoil the gameplay. This avoids having upset premium members who purposely want to create public games to meet and play against new players versus private inivitations.

Lots of people will do this, because they have nothing to lose, and then it's a pain in the ass for freemiums to try and find a game. You can already make private games, why restrict public ones as well? That's what the Callouts forum is for. If this happens and I have a hard time finding games to join, I will be pissed.
But it won't happen. Sorry.

My feeling is that's a benefit of paying the $25. It's certainly correctable from your end.

Bad idea - freemiums dont need to be penalised all the time. It's bad for the site. Also, this would NOT prevent people repeadly creating multis as stated.

Rocket.

I disagree with this suggestion. Not all new recruits are deadbeats. Why punish all of them for the actions of a few? This could cause new players to have difficulty in finding a game, thereby giving them a poor experience. Why would they ever join if they're having additional restrictions placed on them solely because they are new? If you don't want new recruits to share in your games, go private!

king54 wrote:I disagree with this suggestion. Not all new recruits are deadbeats. Why punish all of them for the actions of a few? This could cause new players to have difficulty in finding a game, thereby giving them a poor experience. Why would they ever join if they're having additional restrictions placed on them solely because they are new? If you don't want new recruits to share in your games, go private!

I enjoy playing against new players, which is why I DON'T play privaate games...being able to play against whoever randomly signs up is a good thing. However, the astounding frequency of the deadbeats in my games has led me to seriously consider dropping the site entirely once the two tournaments I'm running have ended. It's simply not worth my time to have the vast majority of my games ruined by constant deadbeating.

Try playing different games.

dhallmeyer wrote:Try playing different games.

Different games? I routinely have up to 70 different maps going at a time. I'm not sure how I could possibly get more "different games".

Woodruff wrote:has led me to seriously consider dropping the site entirely

Dont expect anyone to stop you

a.sub wrote:

Woodruff wrote:has led me to seriously consider dropping the site entirely

Dont expect anyone to stop you

I'm not. Why would you even say such a thing?

This idea would probably just cause more freemiums to leave the site rather than purchase premium and continue playing. That's not good for the site.

Woodruff wrote:
I'm not. Why would you even say such a thing?

Because he's an asshole, duh.

Woodruff wrote:
Different games? I routinely have up to 70 different maps going at a time. I'm not sure how I could possibly get more "different games".

Try different settings along with different maps. Doing 1v1's will get you plenty of deadbeats. Doing 6 way FFA with escalating cards and fog on Feudal War will get you a good crowd, and hell, if anyone deadbeats that game, it means next to nothing.

Kotaro wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Different games? I routinely have up to 70 different maps going at a time. I'm not sure how I could possibly get more "different games".

Try different settings along with different maps. Doing 1v1's will get you plenty of deadbeats. Doing 6 way FFA with escalating cards and fog on Feudal War will get you a good crowd, and hell, if anyone deadbeats that game, it means next to nothing.

I don't enjoy flat rate or escalating cards matches, so I avoid those. But I typically play 7-and-8-player matches (lately I've been playing a lot of speed 1.vs.1 games to try to get a win on every map). And those larger games are the ones with the problems I'm talking about...they thoroughly ruin the big games by creating imbalances.

I actually haven't had ANY deadbeats in my 1-vs-1 games, until some of them start losing. Some speed-game folks seem to think it's not worth their time to avoid wasting my time.

Night Strike wrote:This idea would probably just cause more freemiums to leave the site rather than purchase premium and continue playing. That's not good for the site.

So losing known paying customers as opposed to losing potential paying customers is a good thing for the site?

Than make private games. Post them in Callouts. Normally, people that deadbeat don't visit this forum looking for games to not play.

Kotaro wrote:Than make private games.

I've already covered this previously.

Kotaro wrote:Post them in Callouts. Normally, people that deadbeat don't visit this forum looking for games to not play.

It makes sense to force paying customers to go to MORE WORK to enjoy the site so that we can ease an alleged burden on non-paying customers?

Boy, the economic plan for website is really whack.

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:This idea would probably just cause more freemiums to leave the site rather than purchase premium and continue playing. That's not good for the site.

So losing known paying customers as opposed to losing potential paying customers is a good thing for the site?

by losing non paying players you are going to lose a lot of people that players enjoy playing off against thus in the long run u risk losing more people.

Woodruff wrote:

Kotaro wrote:Than make private games.

I've already covered this previously.

yes your argument was that you enjoying playing new and random people, well then in that case join a tournament, new and random people and you dont lose customers.

Woodruff wrote:

Kotaro wrote:Post them in Callouts. Normally, people that deadbeat don't visit this forum looking for games to not play.

It makes sense to force paying customers to go to MORE WORK to enjoy the site so that we can ease an alleged burden on non-paying customers?
Boy, the economic plan for website is really whack.

your right, instead making an elitist wall that prevents certain players from joining each others game for no reason other than paranoid fear of deadbeats that arent as big a problem as most people make is a much better plan

a.sub wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Kotaro wrote:Than make private games.

I've already covered this previously.

yes your argument was that you enjoying playing new and random people, well then in that case join a tournament, new and random people and you dont lose customers.

I'm playing in many tournaments at the moment, so this is not relevant.

a.sub wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Kotaro wrote:Post them in Callouts. Normally, people that deadbeat don't visit this forum looking for games to not play.

It makes sense to force paying customers to go to MORE WORK to enjoy the site so that we can ease an alleged burden on non-paying customers?
Boy, the economic plan for website is really whack.

your right, instead making an elitist wall that prevents certain players from joining each others game for no reason other than paranoid fear of deadbeats that arent as big a problem as most people make is a much better plan

More than half of my non 1vs1 games have deadbeats. That's a pretty big problem, and I'm far from the only one noticing it.

Woodruff wrote:

a.sub wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Kotaro wrote:Than make private games.

I've already covered this previously.

yes your argument was that you enjoying playing new and random people, well then in that case join a tournament, new and random people and you dont lose customers.

I'm playing in many tournaments at the moment, so this is not relevant.

and how many of these have have deadbeats?
none, ergo if ur so paranoid just play tourney games

Woodruff wrote:

a.sub wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Kotaro wrote:Post them in Callouts. Normally, people that deadbeat don't visit this forum looking for games to not play.

It makes sense to force paying customers to go to MORE WORK to enjoy the site so that we can ease an alleged burden on non-paying customers?
Boy, the economic plan for website is really whack.

your right, instead making an elitist wall that prevents certain players from joining each others game for no reason other than paranoid fear of deadbeats that arent as big a problem as most people make is a much better plan

More than half of my non 1vs1 games have deadbeats. That's a pretty big problem, and I'm far from the only one noticing it.

well then life just hates you or you over exaggerated your number
i barely have any deadbeats in my games, in fact i cant remember one

So basicly, you want to be lazier, and because you pay for games, you believe you're entitled to whatever you want, because you're too lazy to do it yourself.

Sounds reasonable. And not going to happen. A good try though.

If the whole point is to loose deadbeats, then re-introduce the rule that your kicked out if you miss 3 goes in a game, not 3 goes in a row, i'v played games when a player takes a turn, misses 2, takes a turn, missed another 2, this really slows up the game and pisses me off. As to the suggestion of the segrigation of premiums and freemiums (thats what it would be in reality). Why would a noob freemium, who only experience of CC has been playing aginst deadbeats and multis want to pay for more of the same. One deadbeat in a game can ruin it, if all my games were full of them, I wouldn't be comming back to the site, let alone pay for the privilage. I dont think anyone else would bother either.

One perk of premium status is creating private games which makes this a moot point.

Kotaro wrote:So basicly, you want to be lazier, and because you pay for games, you believe you're entitled to whatever you want, because you're too lazy to do it yourself.
Sounds reasonable. And not going to happen. A good try though.

I don't believe I'm entitled to "whatever I want", nor have I implied that I am.

However, I do believe it's an odd fiscal strategy to have paying customers do more work than non-paying customers, given that paying customers would generally (not all-inclusively, of course, there are exceptions) have shown more dedication to keeping the site running.