Conquer Club

http://www.conquerclub.com/player.php?m ... nt_id=5559

This happens far too often. Someone that has left the site is left in an active auto-tournament, or even one still waiting to fill, and it either ruins multiplayer games or gives one player free wins. This corporal just got seven wins for nothing, from a major. That's around 200pts for free. In C&A a major concern has always been the integrity of the scoreboard. Well, auto-tournaments do a good job of messing that up.

Dukasaur wrote:There's nothing WE can do to fix this, but I think the webmaster can program a fix.

Every time there's an elimination in an autotournament, the system checks to see if any of the players are inactive. If they are inactive (ie. 30-day mark, same as the scoreboard) they are preferentially eliminated ahead of players who may have a lower score but are still around.

There will still be deadbeats who get promoted during non-elimination rounds, but if we at least do this then we can get them dropped at elimination points.

I'm encouraged by the recent update that drops inactive players from waiting public games. This can be the next step.

iAmCaffeine wrote:http://www.conquerclub.com/player.php?mode=autotournament&tournament_id=5559

This happens far too often. Someone that has left the site is left in an active auto-tournament, or even one still waiting to fill, and it either ruins multiplayer games or gives one player free wins. This corporal just got seven wins for nothing, from a major. That's around 200pts for free. In C&A a major concern has always been the integrity of the scoreboard. Well, auto-tournaments do a good job of messing that up.

I know it can be resolve in advance if we know that player left before the tournament has started, unfortunatly when this happen after start then there is nothing you can do but wait for the round to be over and mark him/her eliminated, but this may bring another issue while the system launch games for, let's say, 16 players and actually only 15 shows current then your Round 2 gets mess'up because the system is looking to pair'up the guy who is now alone waiting for an opponent...At this point its down to admin and/or Tech Team to create such a rule that kick the player automatically before tournament gets full in case of no connection during the last "x" day...I've seen one of the recent suggestion about kicking abesent player from old game previously created therefore there is maybe a way to use the same kind of code for the Auto-Tournament...

Otherwise I don't see how to prevent this to happen...down side of using fully automated tournament.

There's nothing WE can do to fix this, but I think the webmaster can program a fix.

Every time there's an elimination in an autotournament, the system checks to see if any of the players are inactive. If they are inactive (ie. 30-day mark, same as the scoreboard) they are preferentially eliminated ahead of players who may have a lower score but are still around.

There will still be deadbeats who get promoted during non-elimination rounds, but if we at least do this then we can get them dropped at elimination points.

I'm encouraged by the recent update that drops inactive players from waiting public games. This can be the next step.

That is only half the problem. The other half of the travesty is that Freemium members are liable to get kicked out of tournaments when a new round starts. Once a player is in a tournament, he should be guaranteed a spot in it as long as he plays well. In other words subsequent tournament rounds should NOT count towards the Freemium 4-game limit. This has long been one of the prime issues lobbied for by F.R.O.A.C. (Freemium Rights Occupy Action Coalition).

Thorthoth wrote:That is only half the problem. The other half of the travesty is that Freemium members are liable to get kicked out of tournaments when a new round starts. Once a player is in a tournament, he should be guaranteed a spot in it as long as he plays well. In other words subsequent tournament rounds should NOT count towards the Freemium 4-game limit. This has long been one of the prime issues lobbied for by F.R.O.A.C. (Freemium Rights Occupy Action Coalition).

I don't see that happening. It's just more "motivation" to get people to become premium.

As for finding a fix, that would seem like common sense and a priority, no? What is it with bW implementing new things and not fixing them or resolving issues?

No, Freemium players' previously joined tournaments should remain valid, the same as their waiting games. The benefit would be the same. If players knew they would be dumped from tournaments, the Tournaments would fill faster, and be more fair, an therefore more respected.

Thorthoth wrote:No, Freemium players' previously joined tournaments should remain valid, the same as their waiting games. The benefit would be the same. If players knew they would be dumped from tournaments, the Tournaments would fill faster, and be more fair, an therefore more respected.

Is it fair to the site to have freemiums pay for 1 month of premium, join a bunch of year long auto tournaments, and then enjoy a years worth of premium benefits?

may I suggest Thorthoth be made unable to post in suggs for a spell?

Hey, who moved my thread?! This isn't a suggestion, it's a demand.

IcePack wrote:

Thorthoth wrote:No, Freemium players' previously joined tournaments should remain valid, the same as their waiting games. The benefit would be the same. If players knew they would be dumped from tournaments, the Tournaments would fill faster, and be more fair, an therefore more respected.

Is it fair to the site to have freemiums pay for 1 month of premium, join a bunch of year long auto tournaments, and then enjoy a years worth of premium benefits?

Yes, I think so. If we don't like this, the solution here is to not offer 1 month of premium as a subscription option, not to privilege people who are premium at longer intervals than others.

iAmCaffeine wrote:Hey, who moved my thread?! This isn't a suggestion, it's a demand.

I moved your thread. Your demand is noted.

Metsfanmax wrote:

IcePack wrote:

Thorthoth wrote:No, Freemium players' previously joined tournaments should remain valid, the same as their waiting games. The benefit would be the same. If players knew they would be dumped from tournaments, the Tournaments would fill faster, and be more fair, an therefore more respected.

Is it fair to the site to have freemiums pay for 1 month of premium, join a bunch of year long auto tournaments, and then enjoy a years worth of premium benefits?

Yes, I think so. If we don't like this, the solution here is to not offer 1 month of premium as a subscription option, not to privilege people who are premium at longer intervals than others.

iAmCaffeine wrote:Hey, who moved my thread?! This isn't a suggestion, it's a demand.

I moved your thread. Your demand is noted.

Or keep it as is and people realize if you only plan to be premium a month don't son up for extended tournaments? Pretty simple and no changes needed? 1 month premium is to try out the site without committing to a year, not to load up on a shit ton of activities and eek out a years worth of entertainment

IcePack wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

IcePack wrote:

Thorthoth wrote:No, Freemium players' previously joined tournaments should remain valid, the same as their waiting games. The benefit would be the same. If players knew they would be dumped from tournaments, the Tournaments would fill faster, and be more fair, an therefore more respected.

Is it fair to the site to have freemiums pay for 1 month of premium, join a bunch of year long auto tournaments, and then enjoy a years worth of premium benefits?

Yes, I think so. If we don't like this, the solution here is to not offer 1 month of premium as a subscription option, not to privilege people who are premium at longer intervals than others.

iAmCaffeine wrote:Hey, who moved my thread?! This isn't a suggestion, it's a demand.

I moved your thread. Your demand is noted.

Or keep it as is and people realize if you only plan to be premium a month don't son up for extended tournaments? Pretty simple and no changes needed? 1 month premium is to try out the site without committing to a year, not to load up on a shit ton of activities and eek out a years worth of entertainment

So what is your proposed solution? Eliminate someone from a tournament if their premium expires?

It's not a proposed solution? That's how it is. Saying something needs to be fixed implies there's something broken. It's working as intended.

IcePack wrote:It's not a proposed solution? That's how it is. Saying something needs to be fixed implies there's something broken. It's working as intended.

Yes, but I was asking how you would deal with this if it were your choice, I was not asking how it actually is. I think it is broken if someone is allowed to join a tournament but then is not allowed to finish it because their premium subscription expired. On other sites I have played in, you can continue to play out a tournament even if your subscription expires -- you just won't be able to play new ones. It may seem unfair in the extreme case you mentioned, but there are other cases where it would seem equally unfair in the opposite extreme sense. For example, a player who makes it to the final round of a tournament, and then has their premium expire because they forgot to renew or couldn't afford it until their next paycheck came through, and gets dropped out of the tournament -- even though they could have finished if they hadn't let their premium lapse at that specific moment when the round started.

Well, thank you! That was a confusing exchange, but it seems Metsfanmax is basically agreeing with me. Tournaments will be neither respected or respectable if people get thrown out in the middle of them for non-play related reasons.

And btw, just so you both know, the only 1-month Premium membership available is as a gift card. Indeed, it would be nice if a player could sign themselves up for 1-month but also 3-months is the smallest self-membership option.

And as for that llama character trying to ban me from the forums. Alas that is his typical modem operandi. He is also a notorious troll on GC, always banning, foeing, muting, snitching, isulting and bossing others. Most players on GC can't stand him.

I rarely see active freemium players being kicked from auto-tournaments. Does that happen? Can anyone provide any examples? What I do see, are people who have quit the site and deadbeat all games from one round in an auto-tournament, but are then kept in the tournament for future rounds. I don't believe that would be hard to fix; if someone does deadbeat, kick them out.

it's happened to me. When a new tournament round starts, A a Freemium players who doesn't have 4 free game space usually get booted from the tournament.. and then the player who was going to compete against the Freemium player gets a free win. One player is unfairly eliminated, another gets an unfair boost and the rest of the competitors are also put at a disadvantage... This has got to stop. Get the necessary buttons pushed and make this change NOW.

Is it unfair when the freemium knows they're limited to four active games and choose to join the tournament? I'm not saying the way rules are is right, but if I was freemium I wouldn't expect to be able to play more than my allowance.

I believe general cod has a tale about this...
perhaps if he were asked nicely, he would share his tale of woe. SOON.

I can't remember the details of that. Was he denied a considerable prize because he was freemium?

think so. don't recall the details, just that he was pretty upset. shouldn't be too hard to dig up, I bet.

iAmCaffeine wrote:I rarely see active freemium players being kicked from auto-tournaments. Does that happen? Can anyone provide any examples? What I do see, are people who have quit the site and deadbeat all games from one round in an auto-tournament, but are then kept in the tournament for future rounds. I don't believe that would be hard to fix; if someone does deadbeat, kick them out.

I could probably see this / understand this part being addressed, more than I could see the active freemium thing.

iAmCaffeine wrote:Is it unfair when the freemium knows they're limited to four active games and choose to join the tournament? I'm not saying the way rules are is right, but if I was freemium I wouldn't expect to be able to play more than my allowance.

It may be unfair, I think that's a morally subjective question. But the relevant question from a site administration perspective is: is there any fair way to stop them from doing so? Or in general, do we want to stop them from doing so?

Metsfanmax wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:Is it unfair when the freemium knows they're limited to four active games and choose to join the tournament? I'm not saying the way rules are is right, but if I was freemium I wouldn't expect to be able to play more than my allowance.

It may be unfair, I think that's a morally subjective question. But the relevant question from a site administration perspective is: is there any fair way to stop them from doing so? Or in general, do we want to stop them from doing so?

Well I think the sites already answered that. It's not unfair from their perspective.

They don't stop them from signing up, because only they know whether they plan to upgrade in the future or not. So they must decide for themselves what they will / won't sign up for and make their own plans.

Ya know, personal responsibility and all that.

IcePack wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:Is it unfair when the freemium knows they're limited to four active games and choose to join the tournament? I'm not saying the way rules are is right, but if I was freemium I wouldn't expect to be able to play more than my allowance.

It may be unfair, I think that's a morally subjective question. But the relevant question from a site administration perspective is: is there any fair way to stop them from doing so? Or in general, do we want to stop them from doing so?

Well I think the sites already answered that. It's not unfair from their perspective.

Do you have opinions of your own, or do you just automatically support whatever decision the site has already made?