Conquer Club

I don't know. But all i wanted today was a game to open up so i can start playing... I'm so irritated with all the players who joined my games. I would really like something for free players to show their interest for a RT. I miss speed games.

I think the idea is there so that you DO pay premium to have speed games

To have better luck I suggest going into Live Chat and asking in callouts if anyone was interested in a RT game, or PM the players that set up their own 1v1's

I like this idea...it would be good if there was some way to indicate you are looking for a RT game...

personally I dont look for RT 1v1 games...not a Freemium (and porbably never will be...love this site to much)
and also dont like playing 1v1 games that much but I can see that this would be a useful tool for players limited to 4 games..

most time when Freemiums need to find a RT game they will have to go into Live Chat Callouts and look for one but there are a few sharks in there just waiting for gullible players to eat up...

So this would be a good idea to allow Freemiums to set-up there own games and know they should get a RT game out of it...

unfortunately if it ever those get implemented it will be 3/4 years from now and it would probably only be available to Premium members...

a better idea is maybe start a thread in Callouts forum looking for other players who will play RT games and build a mailing list of your own also PM a few other active Freemiums that play a lot of 1v1 games to see if they are interested and add them to your mailing list and then when you want to play RT game just PM all the names you have gathered and...............sure you know the rest.....

or pay for Premium and play speed games.... ....I recently won a year Premium so am covered till late 2013 and am in the final of a inter Clan tourney with a year Premium as the prize, so if I win I will gifted it to you....cross your fingers..

Opening up the game label box wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea, but as others pointed out: I don't think the site is interested in making it easier for freemiums to play what is really the only type of game currently reserved for premiums. There are already ways around it, but you can never be guaranteed to play RT games as it stands now.

This site only costs $25 per year and already gives away the ability to play in nearly every game. I like this as it keeps the player numbers up, but I'm not sure they should be helping to give away more than they are now.

chapcrap wrote:

chapcrap wrote:When you make a game, there is already a box available to make a game label in... It is functional for tournament games, but not other games. Maybe it could just be enabled to allow people to add text to it. I would like that.

And, I'm pretty sure what I am saying has been suggested before... I'll look for it.

Found what I was looking for: https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 1&t=143590

That suggestion is for premium members only and got put in rejected for some reason. People wanted it though. The poll says 13-0 right now.

I find it hilarious how this thread that you linked and the other thread that I linked in the thread you linked were both moved to rejected without any explanations from the mods.

Ten bucks says this gets rejected without a word being said as well.

Cherry pepsi? wrote:Being a free member (which I have been a premium, but unfortunately can't afford it right now), I have set up many 1v1 games where I'm hoping that the person will agree to an RT. I do know that there is callout forums, and a callout section in the live chat to try to find other willing players to play a game, and maybe a RT. But I feel like maybe there should be a comment box where you can mention a comment like "Looking for an RT" or "Looking for a good game" "Good luck playing against me", or something short. It could be like an optional introduction of what type of person people are going to be playing.

I know there's plenty of flaws in this. But I thought it'd be worth suggesting. What are your guys's thoughts. Has someone thought of this before?

I think its a great idea,you are only stating a preference for rt,and no-one would be penalised if they reneged.

Army of GOD wrote:I find it hilarious how this thread that you linked and the other thread that I linked in the thread you linked were both moved to rejected without any explanations from the mods.

Ten bucks says this gets rejected without a word being said as well.

I think that the idea with the redesign of the suggestion forum is that no idea would sit in the main forum forever. The apparent process seems to be that ideas either achieve the necessary level of discussion/consensus/support/whatever to get moved to Submitted, or they get kicked out after being inactive for long enough. Right now the oldest suggestions in the main forum were last posted in in January 2012, so periodically inactive topics must be being swept out. The problem there is that they are being moved to the rejected bin as it is the only other place. A change should be made. Either inactive ideas that don't have a good reason to actually be rejected should be allowed to stay in the main forum forever, or a new "Archived Suggestions" area should be created were inactive "abandoned" threads could be sent. Ideally any posts in an archived thread should (automatically?) bring it back to the main forum were it can have another go at getting the necessary discussion to be Submitted or properly Rejected. (While you are at it, all the old threads that were improperly moved to rejected during the forum revamp should be moved there as well.) Somebody want to make a suggestion on the idea?

Already talked about this is another thread (it's in the suggestions forum somewhere) about this. Basically, the admins didn't want to make another subforum for what this subforum was already for. I guess you could just not move things to rejected when they aren't actually stupid ideas... At least don't do it without making a post saying that it is going to be moved to rejected shortly if there isn't more support.

spiesr wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:I find it hilarious how this thread that you linked and the other thread that I linked in the thread you linked were both moved to rejected without any explanations from the mods.

Ten bucks says this gets rejected without a word being said as well.

I think that the idea with the redesign of the suggestion forum is that no idea would sit in the main forum forever. The apparent process seems to be that ideas either achieve the necessary level of discussion/consensus/support/whatever to get moved to Submitted, or they get kicked out after being inactive for long enough. Right now the oldest suggestions in the main forum were last posted in in January 2012, so periodically inactive topics must be being swept out. The problem there is that they are being moved to the rejected bin as it is the only other place. A change should be made. Either inactive ideas that don't have a good reason to actually be rejected should be allowed to stay in the main forum forever, or a new "Archived Suggestions" area should be created were inactive "abandoned" threads could be sent. Ideally any posts in an archived thread should (automatically?) bring it back to the main forum were it can have another go at getting the necessary discussion to be Submitted or properly Rejected. (While you are at it, all the old threads that were improperly moved to rejected during the forum revamp should be moved there as well.) Somebody want to make a suggestion on the idea?

The negatives against a comment box (or a private game label) is that it'd probably add to C&A policing or more coding (such as a disciplinary tool to restrict people from using it if they use it for bigotry or flaming, etc.

I like the idea of in general, but as April Fools admin menu has shown (or the old Feedback system, or game chats or forum posts), if you give people an area to type things, it usually adds to the overall policing that has to be done.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:The negatives against a comment box (or a private game label) is that it'd probably add to C&A policing or more coding (such as a disciplinary tool to restrict people from using it if they use it for bigotry or flaming, etc.

I like the idea of in general, but as April Fools admin menu has shown (or the old Feedback system, or game chats or forum posts), if you give people an area to type things, it usually adds to the overall policing that has to be done.


--Andy

So create a check box that indicates the game starter is looking for an RT game and place the tag where the labels are currently.

IcePack wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:The negatives against a comment box (or a private game label) is that it'd probably add to C&A policing or more coding (such as a disciplinary tool to restrict people from using it if they use it for bigotry or flaming, etc.

I like the idea of in general, but as April Fools admin menu has shown (or the old Feedback system, or game chats or forum posts), if you give people an area to type things, it usually adds to the overall policing that has to be done.


--Andy

So create a check box that indicates the game starter is looking for an RT game and place the tag where the labels are currently.

Preface: As I indicated earlier, I don't really care if this idea goes through. But if it does ....

I think it should just be an open text field. I imagine people will come up with plenty of uses for it (beyond abuse, discussed below). For example, I'd bet you'd see "Majors or above only, please" or "Please teach me this map" or "I dare you ..." or plenty of other things that imaginative players could come up with. Don't limit the tool just because there might be some problems with it.

AndyDufresne wrote:The negatives against a comment box (or a private game label) is that it'd probably add to C&A policing or more coding (such as a disciplinary tool to restrict people from using it if they use it for bigotry or flaming, etc.

I like the idea of in general, but as April Fools admin menu has shown (or the old Feedback system, or game chats or forum posts), if you give people an area to type things, it usually adds to the overall policing that has to be done.


--Andy

Andy, I don't know the details about what you're talking about with April Fools, but I would imagine that those users did not know that whatever they typed in would then be publicly posted at the bottom of the page. I don't see this as as much of a risk for a game label box that everyone knows will be seen by everyone.

People who use this feature to abuse can be dealt with through the existing punishment mechanisms. I don't think it will be overly taxing on the C&A mods to simply apply the same rules that they apply in other forms of communication that can be used for abuse, whether they are forums, live chat, game chat, PM and wall.

Sure, some of that communication can be stopped (e.g. a forum ban), but other forms we just rely on the admins to warn or boot players who cross the line. So, I'm not sure that there is a reason that technical measures (like a Game Label Box ban) would be necessary to implement this suggestion.

99.999% (maybe more?) of users will never use this for inflammatory purposes. No need to curtail the suggestion on account of such an small minority of users.

I agree with everything that agentcom said.

We give people threads, PMs, and gamechat to type in. I don't think a label is much more.

IcePack wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:The negatives against a comment box (or a private game label) is that it'd probably add to C&A policing or more coding (such as a disciplinary tool to restrict people from using it if they use it for bigotry or flaming, etc.

I like the idea of in general, but as April Fools admin menu has shown (or the old Feedback system, or game chats or forum posts), if you give people an area to type things, it usually adds to the overall policing that has to be done.


--Andy

So create a check box that indicates the game starter is looking for an RT game and place the tag where the labels are currently.

You're brilliant.

I remember seeing threads like this before, and the reasons they were rejected were the same reasons people want them implemented:

1) Advertising RT games - the site has no incentive to make a premium-only feature more accessible to non-paying members.
2) "Majors and above only", etc - this has been suggested and rejected as a feature, as adding limits on public games could make it less appealing to new members. There's a callouts forum for that.

I still like this option.

I think this option would be great.

chapcrap wrote:I still like this option.

I think this option would be great.

+1

drunkmonkey wrote:I remember seeing threads like this before, and the reasons they were rejected were the same reasons people want them implemented:

1) Advertising RT games - the site has no incentive to make a premium-only feature more accessible to non-paying members.
2) "Majors and above only", etc - this has been suggested and rejected as a feature, as adding limits on public games could make it less appealing to new members. There's a callouts forum for that.

I have to agree with the monkey here.

perchorin wrote:

drunkmonkey wrote:I remember seeing threads like this before, and the reasons they were rejected were the same reasons people want them implemented:

1) Advertising RT games - the site has no incentive to make a premium-only feature more accessible to non-paying members.
2) "Majors and above only", etc - this has been suggested and rejected as a feature, as adding limits on public games could make it less appealing to new members. There's a callouts forum for that.

I have to agree with the monkey here.

The site has always had a compromise with these types of things. It has refused to hardwire it: by (1) having speeders as a premium perk and (2) rejecting the idea of setting point restrictions on your games, respectively. But it has allowed RT callouts in LC and rank-based callout threads in the forum. This would just be moving a little bit along that compromise. Whether a move in that direction is a good thing or a bad thing is up for debate. I think this one will ultimately be decided on by the admin/ownership based on these factors. But as I mentioned previously, there are plenty of other useful things that this text description could do ... limited only by the imagination of the users.

If this does get moved to rejected, I promise you that an authoritative reason will be provided this time, and (if we remember to) we'll post that explanation in the similar (premium only) thread that was linked to previously.

Note to self/other mods: Let's edit the OPs to link both suggestions. I would do it, but I don't have time to read the other thread right now.

I can see a comment box adding more work to Volunteers (perhaps the C&A Team), and I am not sure that is a good idea. It is a tough trade off.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:I can see a comment box adding more work to Volunteers (perhaps the C&A Team), and I am not sure that is a good idea. It is a tough trade off.


--Andy

Is there an echo in here?

agentcom wrote:

IcePack wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:The negatives against a comment box (or a private game label) is that it'd probably add to C&A policing or more coding (such as a disciplinary tool to restrict people from using it if they use it for bigotry or flaming, etc.

I like the idea of in general, but as April Fools admin menu has shown (or the old Feedback system, or game chats or forum posts), if you give people an area to type things, it usually adds to the overall policing that has to be done.


--Andy

So create a check box that indicates the game starter is looking for an RT game and place the tag where the labels are currently.

Preface: As I indicated earlier, I don't really care if this idea goes through. But if it does ....

I think it should just be an open text field. I imagine people will come up with plenty of uses for it (beyond abuse, discussed below). For example, I'd bet you'd see "Majors or above only, please" or "Please teach me this map" or "I dare you ..." or plenty of other things that imaginative players could come up with. Don't limit the tool just because there might be some problems with it.

AndyDufresne wrote:The negatives against a comment box (or a private game label) is that it'd probably add to C&A policing or more coding (such as a disciplinary tool to restrict people from using it if they use it for bigotry or flaming, etc.

I like the idea of in general, but as April Fools admin menu has shown (or the old Feedback system, or game chats or forum posts), if you give people an area to type things, it usually adds to the overall policing that has to be done.


--Andy

Andy, I don't know the details about what you're talking about with April Fools, but I would imagine that those users did not know that whatever they typed in would then be publicly posted at the bottom of the page. I don't see this as as much of a risk for a game label box that everyone knows will be seen by everyone.

People who use this feature to abuse can be dealt with through the existing punishment mechanisms. I don't think it will be overly taxing on the C&A mods to simply apply the same rules that they apply in other forms of communication that can be used for abuse, whether they are forums, live chat, game chat, PM and wall.

Sure, some of that communication can be stopped (e.g. a forum ban), but other forms we just rely on the admins to warn or boot players who cross the line. So, I'm not sure that there is a reason that technical measures (like a Game Label Box ban) would be necessary to implement this suggestion.

99.999% (maybe more?) of users will never use this for inflammatory purposes. No need to curtail the suggestion on account of such an small minority of users.

There should be a button similar to the "report a PM" button

Just wondering bout a lil comment section when you start a game to potentially thin out candidates a bit......ie......"high rank battle only" or simply "no leavers/suiciders" or whatever someone chooses to write.

Whadoyatink?

Written with full respect and Regard for da Conquer Club....

srcub

srcub wrote:Just wondering bout a lil comment section when you start a game to potentially thin out candidates a bit......ie......"high rank battle only" or simply "no leavers/suiciders" or whatever someone chooses to write.

Do you think that people would generally respect these requests? If I were someone with a generally poor attitude such that suiciding was a common tactic for me, I do not think I would particularly care about your request for me not to join your game.

As for requesting that only high ranked players join games -- if people did actually respect these requests, then we would be implementing the rank filter that has been rejected many times over.

I am open to the idea, but not convinced of its effectiveness or general usefulness. I could see it being useful if you wanted to advertise a game with, say, no diplomacy allowed in game chat. Obviously if someone violated your request we would not penalize them, but at least you would know to foe them.

Written with full respect and Regard for da Conquer Club....

Then next time, stick to the form please

srcub wrote:Just wondering bout a lil comment section when you start a game to potentially thin out candidates a bit......ie......"high rank battle only" or simply "no leavers/suiciders" or whatever someone chooses to write.

Whadoyatink?

Written with full respect and Regard for da Conquer Club....

srcub

See these 2 links: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=182828 http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=164719.....Apparently the site is not interested in the slow death of the Speed game area. If I was the owner of this site, I would demand these changes take place immediately. That said, I do not own the site and maybe el jefe is wealthy and don't care about money.

I'll be merging some stuff shortly...

GeneralRisk wrote:

srcub wrote:Just wondering bout a lil comment section when you start a game to potentially thin out candidates a bit......ie......"high rank battle only" or simply "no leavers/suiciders" or whatever someone chooses to write.

Whadoyatink?

Written with full respect and Regard for da Conquer Club....

srcub

See these 2 links: https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=182828 https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=164719.....Apparently the site is not interested in the slow death of the Speed game area. If I was the owner of this site, I would demand these changes take place immediately. That said, I do not own the site and maybe el jefe is wealthy and don't care about money.

Neither of those threads have anything do with this suggestion.