[Rules] Limit New Recruits to 1

[Tezu]

Concise description:

• Limit New Recruits on any game to max 1

Specifics:

• The idea isn't to bann them from any games, but to set up a limit to the amount of new recruits who can join a game. If there could only be 1 new recruit in every game, a lot of problems could be avoided.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• It will limit the risk of having deadbeaters in a game.
• Deadbeating won't be avoided, since there's always gonna be people who join and never return, but at least, the game won't be completely ruined.
• People who set up games with the settings they like, won't be acussed of farming, and asked to stop playing the settings they like, just because a bunch of newbies join their games, and since the site won't implement rank barriers, this can at least prevent ending up with a lot of deadbeaters in one game...
• New recruits would still be able to enjoy the site, without spoiling the fun for other members.

I've got nothing against new recruits, we've all been there once, but the fact is a lot of them deadbeat, and it's frustrating to set up a game for 5 players, and end up playing against 1 person, or none at all!!! I'm guessing it would be specially frustrating to a freemium member to set up a game for 5 players, go to sleep, and wake up to find 4 newbies joined and are deadbeating, preventing him/her from joining a new game and unable to do anything about it.

xoxo

[Masli]

It might be better to make it so that new recruits are not able to join games against the higher ranks.
Games of Lieutenant and higher.

New recruit often play against eachother, so your suggestion for me is a nono

[Strife]

If a cap is put on it, which I would highly disagree with it because it would limit new recruits(Also, it would force them to player more experienced players giving them a disadvantage), it should be no more than around 80 % of the players can be new recruits. This is a bad idea because new recruits usually join other new recruit games so they have a similar experience level, or at least this was my rational two years ago. So, a lt. starts a game and one recruit joins, and then another because of him and then two more to fill. They just want people of their level so they can learn how to play better. Or that's how I see it.

[Tezu]

I totally understand what you are thinking. However you should think that you WERE a new recruit a long time ago.

Did you even read all the way through what I said????

New recruits need to taste more about Conquer Club, if they play a huge variety of different games, then when the earn a promotion, the games in Conquer Club can become more competitive! In conclusion, I do not agree giving too many limitations to new recruits.

So, you think a new recruit should be able to join games with a lot of deadbeats in order to become more competitive?

[Tezu]

It might be better to make it so that new recruits are not able to join games against the higher ranks.
Games of Lieutenant and higher.

New recruit often play against eachother, so your suggestion for me is a nono

I'm all for rank limitations, but that idea has been rejected over and over. One of the reasons for rejecting that idea was that it would force new recruits to play against each other, and therefore have a lot of deadbeats in their games... That's why I thought of this idea...

[Masli]

On the todo list of lack is : No Points For New Recruit Deadbeats

Think that will be a good thing

[Tezu]

On the todo list of lack is : No Points For New Recruit Deadbeats

Think that will be a good thing

Great!!! It's been on the list for almost 3 years now, but at least its there...

[Masli]

On the todo list of lack is : No Points For New Recruit Deadbeats

Think that will be a good thing

Great!!! It's been on the list for almost 3 years now, but at least its there...

It has been suggested 3 years ago, for how long it is on the todo list i don't know

[Thezzaruz]

On the todo list of lack is : No Points For New Recruit Deadbeats

Think that will be a good thing

I think it is a good suggestion too. But I don't see how it has any relevance to the OP's suggestion.

[Tezu]

On the todo list of lack is : No Points For New Recruit Deadbeats

Think that will be a good thing

Great!!! It's been on the list for almost 3 years now, but at least its there...

It has been suggested 3 years ago, for how long it is on the todo list i don't know

Well, it's been almost 3 years since lack said he'd put it in the to do list... so, I guess since then...

But anyway... this only tells us how seriously the sugestions are taken... Since that has nothing to do with the topic...

[The Neon Peon]

Concise description:

• Make it completely impossible to farm.

Specifics:

• Hide all games to new recruits that already have a new recruit in them.
• Remove all restrictions on the games new recruits can join. (optional, it just won't be necessary to stopping farming after this)

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Make it impossible to farm:
  - any 3 or more player games will have non-new recruits join.
  - 2 player games fill fast enough to keep them from joining
• New recruits will not have other new recruits deatbeating as their first experience on CC
• Nothing that isn't a problem will get fixed. We're not changing the join a game page, making rank restrictions, or changing anything that will affect anything other than farming.

[TheMissionary]

This will also prevent people using new multiple accounts to engage in diplomatic advantages in games.

[jefjef]

The NEWEST farming craze is 1v1. Loophole after loophole.

[The Neon Peon]

The NEWEST farming craze is 1v1. Loophole after loophole.

If you start 50 two player games on any map and settings, it will never fill with new recruits, with two exceptions:
1. You've foed every player on the site.
2. You use the reserve feature to keep players out.
You currently get punished only for using these methods to farm, they seem to be okay with everything else.

What other loopholes can you think of?

[AndyDufresne]

I think data on Farming would be interesting to look at first---before adding other solutions. How much of "Farming" is actually still geared toward NR, since the addition of the rules and other solutions that have been instituted.
How much of "Farming" is geared towards those below a specific level of points, say 800 or something.

What sorts of data would be pertinent to understand and use, before instituting any additional barriers?


--Andy

[the.killing.44]

I think data on Farming would be interesting to look at first---before adding other solutions. How much of "Farming" is actually still geared toward NR, since the addition of the rules and other solutions that have been instituted.
How much of "Farming" is geared towards those below a specific level of points, say 800 or something.

What sorts of data would be pertinent to understand and use, before instituting any additional barriers?


--Andy

I don't get it. The restriction is only on NR's…

[The Neon Peon]

I think data on Farming would be interesting to look at first---before adding other solutions. How much of "Farming" is actually still geared toward NR, since the addition of the rules and other solutions that have been instituted.
How much of "Farming" is geared towards those below a specific level of points, say 800 or something.

What sorts of data would be pertinent to understand and use, before instituting any additional barriers?


--Andy

Well, right now we've just had someone get "Warned" for doubling his score by raising it over 1600 points in a week by creating games on a map and setting that only attract new recruits several times. Even after seeing 100 games filled with only new recruits, creating more of the same type. He's still got 75 games going (almost as many as he's finished), which'll raise him another rank or two. And he gets a warning.

Honestly, if you're not going to ban and score reset people for farming new recruits, you might as well put something in place to stop the farming from happening.

Yeah, farming of low ranks occurs also, but I thought the whole farming rule was set in place to keep new members staying at the site which they had a much lower chance of doing when in a game with a bunch of deadbeats... or do you not care about that any more? Let's enforce the rules you've got in place before me make new ones. I'm not interested in a "no farming low ranks" announcement and action that still let's it happen.

Let's fix the part of the ship that has a whole in it before we add another deck.

[Mr Changsha]

I think data on Farming would be interesting to look at first---before adding other solutions. How much of "Farming" is actually still geared toward NR, since the addition of the rules and other solutions that have been instituted.
How much of "Farming" is geared towards those below a specific level of points, say 800 or something.

What sorts of data would be pertinent to understand and use, before instituting any additional barriers?


--Andy

But your adding in a whole other issue here. It is CC that has stipuated that farming is only related to NR's and therefore benefiting from deadbeats.

Taking on players with sub 800 scores is entirely within the rules.

I think you need to start a seperate thread!!!

[the.killing.44]

Big thumbs up from me.

[Woodruff]

I think data on Farming would be interesting to look at first---before adding other solutions. How much of "Farming" is actually still geared toward NR, since the addition of the rules and other solutions that have been instituted.
How much of "Farming" is geared towards those below a specific level of points, say 800 or something.

What sorts of data would be pertinent to understand and use, before instituting any additional barriers?

--Andy

If we're going to look at farming of low-rankers as well as NRs (and I absolutely think we should be), then the only data that's particularly relevant in my view is "where is the very top-end of scores and how flexible do we want those players to be allowed to play". Why is this relevant? Because it would allow us to set up a "filter of sorts" so that the game-initiator's current score would determine who could join that individual's games. For instance:

Let's pretend that the number we want to use is "within the range of 50% of the game-initiator's score" (we can argue about what percentage to use, I'm just throwing that number in to get the discussion ongoing). Based on that 50%, if a player with a rank of 3,000 started the game, anyone from 1500 through 4500 could join whereas if a player of 900 started the game, then only players from 450 through 1350 could join. And if a conqueror with a score of 5069 started the game, then only players with a rank of 2535 would be able to join (still leaving 250+ players to join their games). Again, don't focus on the "only 250 could join a conqueror's games" because that number can be adjusted as we see fit.

This method would eliminate the entire possibility of farming WHILE AT THE SAME TIME ensuring that newbies/cooks/cadets have PLENTY of reasonably competitive games that will further their enjoyment of the site, causing them to be more likely to invest in it.

The ONLY POSSIBLE downside that I've been able to come up with is the scenario where someone who has a significant rank gets a friend to join the site and they want to play games with their friend immediately...they wouldn't be able to until the friend ranked-up a bit. My response to that is...HELP THEM RANK UP BY TEACHING THEM and then you will be able to play against them.

There are no other downsides.

[PepeAtila]

Well I think another way to solve is thinking in the other side... what about not to change NRs but don't allow premium to play more than 4 games with NRs?? I mean to trate us as freemiums when NRs join?

[The Neon Peon]

Well I think another way to solve is thinking in the other side... what about not to change NRs but don't allow premium to play more than 4 games with NRs?? I mean to trate us as freemiums when NRs join?

That's not a bad idea, although I am wondering if this would be a lot harder to code. And we should probably make the same for free members as well, since they would be able to play 4 games with 7 new recruits per game.

What if we added this to my suggestion?

That way, you could only farm in 2 player games, and only in 4 at a time if you somehow figured out a way to make your games reach page 1 of the join a game page without using the foe list, or reserve feature, or something else that the mods would ban you for.

[PepeAtila]

Well I think another way to solve is thinking in the other side... what about not to change NRs but don't allow premium to play more than 4 games with NRs?? I mean to trate us as freemiums when NRs join?

That's not a bad idea, although I am wondering if this would be a lot harder to code. And we should probably make the same for free members as well, since they would be able to play 4 games with 7 new recruits per game.

What if we added this to my suggestion?

That way, you could only farm in 2 player games, and only in 4 at a time if you somehow figured out a way to make your games reach page 1 of the join a game page without using the foe list, or reserve feature, or something else that the mods would ban you for.

Perfect.

[MrMoody]

Well I think another way to solve is thinking in the other side... what about not to change NRs but don't allow premium to play more than 4 games with NRs?? I mean to trate us as freemiums when NRs join?

That's not a bad idea, although I am wondering if this would be a lot harder to code. And we should probably make the same for free members as well, since they would be able to play 4 games with 7 new recruits per game.

What if we added this to my suggestion?

That way, you could only farm in 2 player games, and only in 4 at a time if you somehow figured out a way to make your games reach page 1 of the join a game page without using the foe list, or reserve feature, or something else that the mods would ban you for.

When you start to add other restrictions it is no longer the simplest solution. Keep in mind some members have hundreds of games going. Restricting them to 4 total new recruits is well past whats needed. The way it is solves every thing but 1v1. This idea really gets most of the work done. Andy is correct in saying data is needed in this. I'm not sure he has the right data in mind. Any new recruit data we could work up would be helpful. starting with % of new recruit games that are 1v1.

[The Neon Peon]

Well I think another way to solve is thinking in the other side... what about not to change NRs but don't allow premium to play more than 4 games with NRs?? I mean to trate us as freemiums when NRs join?

That's not a bad idea, although I am wondering if this would be a lot harder to code. And we should probably make the same for free members as well, since they would be able to play 4 games with 7 new recruits per game.

What if we added this to my suggestion?

That way, you could only farm in 2 player games, and only in 4 at a time if you somehow figured out a way to make your games reach page 1 of the join a game page without using the foe list, or reserve feature, or something else that the mods would ban you for.

When you start to add other restrictions it is no longer the simplest solution. Keep in mind some members have hundreds of games going. Restricting them to 4 total new recruits is well past whats needed. The way it is solves every thing but 1v1. This idea really gets most of the work done. Andy is correct in saying data is needed in this. I'm not sure he has the right data in mind. Any new recruit data we could work up would be helpful. starting with % of new recruit games that are 1v1.

Excellent points there, MrMoody. I think I was just getting a bit greedy and trying to solve everything. That suggestion would probably do better as separate, and might be unnecessary if the date shows very few new recruits in 2 player games.