Conquer Club

Concise description:

• change foe list limits
  
  
  Specifics:
  
  • allow a player on a foe list to join multiplayer games, so long as the person who started the game doesnt have that person on their foe list.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:
[list]


I can understand a person not wanting to play an opponent for various reasons 1 on 1 but i do not feel that this should apply to multiplayer games, especially if the game a player wants to join wasnt started by the foes nemeseis.

I understand your thought process behind this, but I think it will almost always be standard that if you have someone on your General Foe list, you will not have to play with them in any game, no matter if you start it or not.

That said, however, perhaps if and when the Foe/Friends features goes through some updates (either by phpBB or by hacking by lack), we could have a "Detailed Foe List" I.E. something similar to what you propose. For instance, a general list of people you just don't want to play with, a subset that you don't have to play freestyle with, a subset you don't want to play team games with, etc. If anything like this ever comes out, it's a little ways down the road, but I assume a number of people would like to micromanage their Foe List.


--Andy

Sorry, the very few people on my foe list EARNED their places and I don't want to play them, period. (with the exception of a couple I put because their sigs were so long it made viewing forum threads hard). Quite a few others almost certainly agree.

If this is such a problem that your play is seriously limited, then I suggest an attitude adjustment might be in order for you, rather than changing the foe list.

AndyDufresne wrote:I understand your thought process behind this, but I think it will almost always be standard that if you have someone on your General Foe list, you will not have to play with them in any game, no matter if you start it or not.

That said, however, perhaps if and when the Foe/Friends features goes through some updates (either by phpBB or by hacking by lack), we could have a "Detailed Foe List" I.E. something similar to what you propose. For instance, a general list of people you just don't want to play with, a subset that you don't have to play freestyle with, a subset you don't want to play team games with, etc. If anything like this ever comes out, it's a little ways down the road, but I assume a number of people would like to micromanage their Foe List.


--Andy

The only thing I can say to this is that apparently there are a few people abusing the list... putting folks on because they tend to get beaten, rather than because those players have acted inappropriately. I don't know what the answer is. I hate to open up the who "moderation" can of worms. (the only way it could be is if there were some sort of review panel, similar to what jiminski proposed, of volunteers apart from the mods).

The exceptions are forum foes versus game foes and team pla.
Forum foes and game foes should absolutely be seperated. The reasons I might not want to view someone's posts differ from why I might not want to play that person.

Teams, too, differ. There absolutely ARE people I don't want to team with because they are just poor players or poor communicators, but whom I would be happy to play against. If there is a change, those should be primary.

I think the micromanaging of the foes list would be great! It should satisfy the whiny complainer who wants his foes list to be double-edged (ie, he could be automatically placed on the foes list of anyone he places on his own), without making that the case for those who don't happen to like that option. It amazes me that that guy doesn't realize that he can just put anyone with whom he doesn't want to play on his foes list as well, and that solves the problem of them joining his precious games very simply, but whatever.

Personally, I prefer to have the option to join games with those on my foes list (one-sided foes list), and although I rarely do it, this option should definitely remain. Let's not forget that choosing with whom you are and are not willing to play certain games is also a method for expressing superior intelligence and game strategy. It would be nice to receive a warning, however, when I attempt to join a certain foe's game, just to remind me, as I don't memorize the names of any of the JERKS on my foes list. Their names are irrelevant -- I just put them there and forget them, much like filthy, used toilet paper after it gets flushed!

Also, there are many different reasons why members have placed other members on their foes lists. The majority on mine are there for being all-around JERKS, and I don't ever want to play any game with any of the JERKS on this site, nor do I want to see their envious forum posts or babyish game chats. However, I could see possible cases where I may want to allow certain individuals to join in my games, but may want to disallow verbal communications from them.

Still, I think the best and most practical setting is the one on the foes list as it stands today (you could call it a "one-sided universal" option). This option should definitely remain as one of the choices, perhaps even as the "default" foes list setting.

Overall, this is an excellent idea, and as long as the present setting remains, I think the more detailed and specific the options for micromanagement may get, the better.

KLOBBER wrote:Let's not forget that choosing with whom you are and are not willing to play certain games is also a method for expressing superior intelligence and game strategy.

It is? Seriously, how on earth can it be so?

KLOBBER wrote:The majority on mine are there for being all-around JERKS.

Thank you.

AndyDufresne wrote:I understand your thought process behind this, but I think it will almost always be standard that if you have someone on your General Foe list, you will not have to play with them in any game, no matter if you start it or not.

What I see as the problem is that the person that has people on his foe-list imposes that list on everyone else he plays with too (IF he wants to) without them having any say. You could have a situation where a friend of mine starts a game intending to play it with me and others but if someone that has me as a foe joins that game before me the game starters intent is effectively overruled and I won't be able to join that game.

Is this anything but a rare situation? Probably not but it is a principal flaw just as the one being discussed in the "auto foeing a foe" thread.
I'm not sure if the OPs suggestion is the best way to solve the issue but IMO it is an improvement on the current situation. One idea I had was to make the friends-list work as a sort of anti foe-list, i.e if the game starter or anyone else that is already in the game has me as a friend then the above guys foe-listing of me is ignored in that game.Not sure if that is codeable but something to that effect would be a good addition IMO.

AndyDufresne wrote:That said, however, perhaps if and when the Foe/Friends features goes through some updates (either by phpBB or by hacking by lack), we could have a "Detailed Foe List" I.E. something similar to what you propose. For instance, a general list of people you just don't want to play with, a subset that you don't have to play freestyle with, a subset you don't want to play team games with, etc. If anything like this ever comes out, it's a little ways down the road, but I assume a number of people would like to micromanage their Foe List.

The first micro option that is needed is the splitting of game and chat and forum foes. It's really quite stupid to assume that just because I don't want to play with someone I automatically don't want to read what he posts in the chat/on the forum and vice versa.

I am in absolute agreement with this proposal. I would also like to see the foe list abolished when Conquerclub holds battle royals. I had one person ruin it for me on both occasions when they held the battle royal, plus it takes for freaking ever to get people in those games who aren't on anybody's foe lists.

wrestler1ump wrote:I am in absolute agreement with this proposal. I would also like to see the foe list abolished when Conquerclub holds battle royals. I had one person ruin it for me on both occasions when they held the battle royal, plus it takes for freaking ever to get people in those games who aren't on anybody's foe lists.

True. For battle royals it should be removed. (Not that I'm ever able to get my ass in there in time anyways...)

Also, the post just above suggesting splitting up functions is interesting. E.g. I may not wanna play someone, but it could still be interesting to know whether they actually write something in game chats etc.

alstergren wrote:

KLOBBER wrote:Let's not forget that choosing with whom you are and are not willing to play certain games is also a method for expressing superior intelligence and game strategy.

It is? Seriously, how on earth can it be so?

Sorry, it is not my responsibility to attempt to teach aspects of strategy to those whose IQ is too low to comprehend them.

KLOBBER wrote:The majority on mine are there for being all-around JERKS.

alstergren wrote:Thank you.

You're welcome!