only allow 1 newbie in a game of 6 or fewer player, 2 newbies in a game of 7 to 12 and 3 newbies in larger games
Specifics/Details: I am in a game (#17523957) with 6 players. Three are newbies and all three newbies were kicked out after three rounds.
I understand some of them will join and never play. But to have 50% of the players be newbies, adn all three kicked out after round 3 is frustrating[list]
How this will benefit the site and/or other comments: I am wiling to help newbies, but too many in one game takes away from the game strategy, and worse, if they all get kicked, as happened in this game, it realy ruins te game.
pony up for premium, you cheap f*ck. boom, problem solved. whenever i have a freemie complain about turns not being taken, i make a point of delaying them as long as i possibly can and tell them why as a punishment. i can only assume this is good for CC/you're welcome, BigWorm...
riskllama wrote:pony up for premium, you cheap f*ck. boom, problem solved. whenever i have a freemie complain about turns not being taken, i make a point of delaying them as long as i possibly can and tell them why as a punishment. i can only assume this is good for CC/you're welcome, BigWorm...
First of all, llamo ALWAYS delays his turns, regardless of whether his opponents are Freemies or Premies. Secondly, his response has nothing directly to do with new recruits in a game, particularly with the issues that Canuck addresses.
Solution: llamo, shut the funk up, problem solved.
I'm against this suggestion. I had been here awhile and managed to convince a good 6-8 of my friends to join roughly the same time. We held big standard games vs one another. If the option wasn't there to play together when they were NR, they wouldn't have come in the first place. Some of them stayed around for years, 3-5 premiums were purchased iirc, and it would have been missed out on had this rule been in place
fac vitam incredibilem memento vivere Knowledge Weighs Nothing, Carry All You Can
IcePack wrote:I'm against this suggestion. I had been here awhile and managed to convince a good 6-8 of my friends to join roughly the same time. We held big standard games vs one another. If the option wasn't there to play together when they were NR, they wouldn't have come in the first place. Some of them stayed around for years, 3-5 premiums were purchased iirc, and it would have been missed out on had this rule been in place
I also joined this game because of someone who was already a member. We were members of another website and regularly played different games over Skype. We started a 4 player game, him, me and two other complete newbies. If it hadn't been for that game, I would never have joined this site.
00:33:53 ‹riskllama› will her and i ever hook up, LLT??? 00:34:09 ‹LiveLoveTeach› You and Shannon? 00:34:20 ‹LiveLoveTeach› Bahahahahahaha 00:34:22 ‹LiveLoveTeach› I doubt it 00:34:30 ‹LiveLoveTeach› I don't think she's into farm animals
IcePack wrote:I'm against this suggestion. I had been here awhile and managed to convince a good 6-8 of my friends to join roughly the same time. We held big standard games vs one another. If the option wasn't there to play together when they were NR, they wouldn't have come in the first place. Some of them stayed around for years, 3-5 premiums were purchased iirc, and it would have been missed out on had this rule been in place
I think this does not address the core of the suggestion. One can imagine workarounds for this, like lifting the restriction if players are on each other's "friends" lists.
I remember signing up to some website for playing Diplomacy a while ago. They had a system where once a game had filled up, all the players signed up for it were alerted and given a certain amount of time to signal that they were still intending to play. If anyone didn't respond they were clearly a deadbeating noob and got kicked out of their slot so that someone else could take it. Something similar would work on CC too - noobs who sign up and then vanish would get chucked out, noobs actually intending to play would still get their games.
IcePack wrote:I'm against this suggestion. I had been here awhile and managed to convince a good 6-8 of my friends to join roughly the same time. We held big standard games vs one another. If the option wasn't there to play together when they were NR, they wouldn't have come in the first place. Some of them stayed around for years, 3-5 premiums were purchased iirc, and it would have been missed out on had this rule been in place
I think this does not address the core of the suggestion. One can imagine workarounds for this, like lifting the restriction if players are on each other's "friends" lists.
The problem needs to be thought of as "how do we get new players to stay". rather than "how do we limit new players from inconveniencing established players."
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
IcePack wrote:I'm against this suggestion. I had been here awhile and managed to convince a good 6-8 of my friends to join roughly the same time. We held big standard games vs one another. If the option wasn't there to play together when they were NR, they wouldn't have come in the first place. Some of them stayed around for years, 3-5 premiums were purchased iirc, and it would have been missed out on had this rule been in place
I think this does not address the core of the suggestion. One can imagine workarounds for this, like lifting the restriction if players are on each other's "friends" lists.
The problem needs to be thought of as "how do we get new players to stay". rather than "how do we limit new players from inconveniencing established players."
Blast you all for making me hold a stance similar to that of Sym-bot, but yes, NRs are not a problem, just play around or through them just like you would with neutral terrs.
IcePack wrote:I'm against this suggestion. I had been here awhile and managed to convince a good 6-8 of my friends to join roughly the same time. We held big standard games vs one another. If the option wasn't there to play together when they were NR, they wouldn't have come in the first place. Some of them stayed around for years, 3-5 premiums were purchased iirc, and it would have been missed out on had this rule been in place
I think this does not address the core of the suggestion. One can imagine workarounds for this, like lifting the restriction if players are on each other's "friends" lists.
I don't expect a newbie to start working on a friend's list before even playing.
I was almost certain that newbies could only join 4 player games anyway? Was this restriction lifted?
00:33:53 ‹riskllama› will her and i ever hook up, LLT??? 00:34:09 ‹LiveLoveTeach› You and Shannon? 00:34:20 ‹LiveLoveTeach› Bahahahahahaha 00:34:22 ‹LiveLoveTeach› I doubt it 00:34:30 ‹LiveLoveTeach› I don't think she's into farm animals
IcePack wrote:I'm against this suggestion. I had been here awhile and managed to convince a good 6-8 of my friends to join roughly the same time. We held big standard games vs one another. If the option wasn't there to play together when they were NR, they wouldn't have come in the first place. Some of them stayed around for years, 3-5 premiums were purchased iirc, and it would have been missed out on had this rule been in place
I think this does not address the core of the suggestion. One can imagine workarounds for this, like lifting the restriction if players are on each other's "friends" lists.
I don't expect a newbie to start working on a friend's list before even playing.
If you try to invite someone and it fails for this reason, it could emit a helpful warning telling you what to do to make the game possible. Maybe even a link that directly does the friend request.
Shannon Apple wrote:I was almost certain that newbies could only join 4 player games anyway? Was this restriction lifted?
This isn't about the number of games a newbie can play. This is about the number of total newbies there can be in a single game.
If you sign up for an eight-player game, you hope to play an eight-player game. If five of those are NRs who deadbeat out, you are essentially in a three-player game. Many people hate the dynamics of three-player games.
(I'm not in favour of the suggestion. I think the problem occurs infrequently enough that we don't need to burden the server with another variable to check. I'm posting just to clarify.)
“Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.” ― Voltaire
IcePack wrote:I'm against this suggestion. I had been here awhile and managed to convince a good 6-8 of my friends to join roughly the same time. We held big standard games vs one another. If the option wasn't there to play together when they were NR, they wouldn't have come in the first place. Some of them stayed around for years, 3-5 premiums were purchased iirc, and it would have been missed out on had this rule been in place
I think this does not address the core of the suggestion. One can imagine workarounds for this, like lifting the restriction if players are on each other's "friends" lists.
I don't expect a newbie to start working on a friend's list before even playing.
If you try to invite someone and it fails for this reason, it could emit a helpful warning telling you what to do to make the game possible. Maybe even a link that directly does the friend request.
How is this not the core of the suggestion? Hes suggesting limiting the number of NR in a game, and I provided my opinion and one example of why. There are workarounds to many things, like not joining a game with a bunch of NR's to begin with. Or creating games that arent' available for NR's due to player size or map selection.
Both of those things can be done if you wish to prevent this, which does address the core of the issue. Hows that for imagination?
fac vitam incredibilem memento vivere Knowledge Weighs Nothing, Carry All You Can
IcePack wrote:I'm against this suggestion. I had been here awhile and managed to convince a good 6-8 of my friends to join roughly the same time. We held big standard games vs one another. If the option wasn't there to play together when they were NR, they wouldn't have come in the first place. Some of them stayed around for years, 3-5 premiums were purchased iirc, and it would have been missed out on had this rule been in place
I think this does not address the core of the suggestion. One can imagine workarounds for this, like lifting the restriction if players are on each other's "friends" lists.
I don't expect a newbie to start working on a friend's list before even playing.
If you try to invite someone and it fails for this reason, it could emit a helpful warning telling you what to do to make the game possible. Maybe even a link that directly does the friend request.
How is this not the core of the suggestion? Hes suggesting limiting the number of NR in a game, and I provided my opinion and one example of why.
And in five seconds I was able to come up with a solution that solved your problem, which means that you weren't thinking very hard.
There are workarounds to many things, like not joining a game with a bunch of NR's to begin with. Or creating games that arent' available for NR's due to player size or map selection.
A workaround is an action that allows you to achieve the same effect via a different method. The latter is not a workaround as it restricts people from playing a significant number of games on the most commonly played maps, which is presumably not what we're about here. The former is just stupid because a person can create a public game and have no control over who joins. What's your solution there, just stop playing CC entirely? I guess by your standards that's a workaround.
