[Foe] Inability to Join Foe Games If Foe Created the Game

[e_i_pi]

Concise description:

• Foe-list only works for the original game creators when it's a FFA game

Specifics:

• If it is Standard/Assassin/Terminator then only the foe-list of the game-creator/first-person is used to determine who can and can't join
• If it is a team game, everyone's foe-list is in effect, as per usual

Still allows you to keep your foes out of your team games, but the 'open' games are still open to everyone who isn't on the OP's list.
The problem I see this solving is when there is say a Standard 8p game with 1-6 players in, then KLOBBER joins for instance. No-one else can join. He's basically earmarking the game, which is against the spirit of Public games.

[The Neon Peon]

I like the idea in theory...

But, 90% of the people on my foes list are people who have suicided (into me or someone else). I do not want to play ANY games with that person. So if I join a game, I still do not want that person in it no matter what.

Yes, it is unfair to the game creator that he might be friends with that person... but I would say I choose not being suicided into and hypothetically stopping that from happening to the game creator rather than being a bit more fair to game creators.

Good idea, but I would vote "no"

[e_i_pi]

I like the idea in theory...

But, 90% of the people on my foes list are people who have suicided (into me or someone else). I do not want to play ANY games with that person. So if I join a game, I still do not want that person in it no matter what.

Yes, it is unfair to the game creator that he might be friends with that person... but I would say I choose not being suicided into and hypothetically stopping that from happening to the game creator rather than being a bit more fair to game creators.

Good idea, but I would vote "no"

Yeah sure, no dramas. I'm more interested in just getting this idea out there for discussion. Some foe lists are a bit overboard IMO, just tossing up ideas to curtail the impact they have

[demonfork]

I like the idea in theory...

But, 90% of the people on my foes list are people who have suicided (into me or someone else). I do not want to play ANY games with that person. So if I join a game, I still do not want that person in it no matter what.

Yes, it is unfair to the game creator that he might be friends with that person... but I would say I choose not being suicided into and hypothetically stopping that from happening to the game creator rather than being a bit more fair to game creators.

Good idea, but I would vote "no"

If you are not the host of the game, why should your foe list apply to everyone else? I have always thought that this was a lame feature of the foe list. I have even been in situations where we had to drop the game that the host started and start up a new one, so that I could hop in before the guy did that had me on his foe list, or have the host send a pm saying "could you please take demonfork off of your foe list so he can join my game"

I think that this is a good idea, and would be for it's implementation

[e_i_pi]

Demonfork is agreeing with me? Someone ring Beelzebub, put in an order for 10 million ice cubes.

I would like to see it implemented, but you know, it's a raw idea. I don't mind being on people's foe lists, that's fine, but when it's abused and creates an environment of exclusivity, then it starts becoming it's own problem.

[GrimReaper.]

i like it

[Artimis]

A fringe benefit also is that hardcore farmers who foe regular players can't block regulars from joining unless they're the host.

My vote is 'Aye'.

[The Neon Peon]

A fringe benefit also is that hardcore farmers who foe regular players can't block regulars from joining unless they're the host.

My vote is 'Aye'.

Q: Um... yeah... and when is a farmer not a host?
A: When he joins last and still has a 100% chance of farming...

You need to use logic a bit more often... or maybe I am missing something?

[e_i_pi]

A fringe benefit also is that hardcore farmers who foe regular players can't block regulars from joining unless they're the host.

My vote is 'Aye'.

Q: Um... yeah... and when is a farmer not a host?
A: When he joins last and still has a 100% chance of farming...

You need to use logic a bit more often... or maybe I am missing something?

Game 3907033
Game 3907039
Game 3907479
Game 3908894

That's from a search of actives alone.

[Artimis]

or maybe I am missing something?

I could answer that, but then I'd be put on forum vacation. Besides I don't want to annoy e_i_pi by derailing his/her thread. I believe the point has been made, this suggestion is a good idea and I'm firmly behind it.

[Woodruff]

Concise description:

• Foe-list only works for the original game creators when it's a FFA game

Specifics:

• If it is Standard/Assassin/Terminator then only the foe-list of the game-creator/first-person is used to determine who can and can't join
• If it is a team game, everyone's foe-list is in effect, as per usual

Still allows you to keep your foes out of your team games, but the 'open' games are still open to everyone who isn't on the OP's list.
The problem I see this solving is when there is say a Standard 8p game with 1-6 players in, then KLOBBER joins for instance. No-one else can join. He's basically earmarking the game, which is against the spirit of Public games.

If I understand this idea correctly, I hate it. Allow me to explain why...almost everyone on my FOE list is there because of abusive language. If they're allowed to join any game I'm in simply because I didn't start it, then I am still going to be subjected once again to their abusive language. This suggestion, in my opinion, essentially eliminates all value of the FOE list. However, I recognize I may have misunderstood the idea, so feel free to tell me if I have.

[Woodruff]

If you are not the host of the game, why should your foe list apply to everyone else?

It seems patently obvious to me that the answer to this question is "because each individual is still playing in the game and each individual's enjoyment is just as important as anyone else's in the game".

In fact, I would say it seems very odd that ONLY the original game-starter's FOE list would apply to the game. That really eliminates the idea of what the FOE list is designed to do.

[e_i_pi]

Concise description:

• Foe-list only works for the original game creators when it's a FFA game

Specifics:

• If it is Standard/Assassin/Terminator then only the foe-list of the game-creator/first-person is used to determine who can and can't join
• If it is a team game, everyone's foe-list is in effect, as per usual

Still allows you to keep your foes out of your team games, but the 'open' games are still open to everyone who isn't on the OP's list.
The problem I see this solving is when there is say a Standard 8p game with 1-6 players in, then KLOBBER joins for instance. No-one else can join. He's basically earmarking the game, which is against the spirit of Public games.

If I understand this idea correctly, I hate it. Allow me to explain why...almost everyone on my FOE list is there because of abusive language. If they're allowed to join any game I'm in simply because I didn't start it, then I am still going to be subjected once again to their abusive language. This suggestion, in my opinion, essentially eliminates all value of the FOE list. However, I recognize I may have misunderstood the idea, so feel free to tell me if I have.

I'll answer this as best I can...

If it is a team game, they cannot join, so you don't have to put up with their shit no matter what
If it is Standard/Assassin/Terminator and you didn't start the game, they can still join. BUT, because they are on your foe list, they are automatically ignored, so you don't have to read their abusive language in game chat.

Sound better now? It's essentially to stop earmarking of games, abuse in game chat will still be ignored as your foe settings auto-ignore them

[Woodruff]

If I understand this idea correctly, I hate it. Allow me to explain why...almost everyone on my FOE list is there because of abusive language. If they're allowed to join any game I'm in simply because I didn't start it, then I am still going to be subjected once again to their abusive language. This suggestion, in my opinion, essentially eliminates all value of the FOE list. However, I recognize I may have misunderstood the idea, so feel free to tell me if I have.

I'll answer this as best I can...
If it is a team game, they cannot join, so you don't have to put up with their shit no matter what
If it is Standard/Assassin/Terminator and you didn't start the game, they can still join. BUT, because they are on your foe list, they are automatically ignored, so you don't have to read their abusive language in game chat.
Sound better now? It's essentially to stop earmarking of games, abuse in game chat will still be ignored as your foe settings auto-ignore them

Good point, and I hadn't considered the fact that I still wouldn't see their chat...I forgot about that affect of the FOE list. So for me personally, it does work since that's primarily why I FOE folks. Other FOE reasons may still not be aided by it, though.

[Try Again]

<
Concise description:
Whenever somebody creates a game the only foe list in effect in the joining of the game is the creators.
Specifics:
For Example if person A creates a game has person D on ignore. And person B is friends with person A and person B has person C on ignore. Person B joins the game. The only person that would be blocked from the game because person D was the only one on person A's ignore list.
This will improve the following aspects of the site:
In Battle Royale many people couldnt join because somebody had them on ignore. The person who starts the game doesnt have a choice who joins the game besides the ignore list and somebody can make a decesion to join a game or not even if they have the person on the ignore list.

I hope I'm not confusing

[Artimis]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=73219

This post is on the same subject, it also has my support, maybe the mods might consider merging these posts?

[Dibbun]

Concise description:

• Change foe mechanics so one can join a game in which the foe is in, but is not hosting.

Specifics/Details:

• Currently, if a person has foed you and is in a game either as the host or in another slot, you cannot join. This suggestion would change the mechanics so that if the person is in another slot in the game, player 2 through 7, you can still join.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• The host of a game should have discretion on who is banned from his/her game, not another player.
• In theory, if I foed every person on the site, I could join every single multiplayer game which has at least one extra slot still open and prevent every one of those games from being filled.
• If you have a foe in the same game as you, you already can't see their chat, so the main issue is whether they suicide on you - if they do so, rate it accordingly. If you already have, investigate it and see if they are habitually doing it and report it.
• I have a short memory - I've tried to join a game and it's blocked me because I was foed by someone and I was like really? I didn't even remember playing that person. I would not have caused trouble for them in the game... unless they did something new!
  
• Compromise: Don't let foed players join the same team, but permit them to join another team or join in a free-for-all.

[TheForgivenOne]

I don't see this happening. Many players don't create games at all, so basically the foe button would be absolutely, 100% useless for them. (Unless they post in the forums, but this isn't about the forums)

[greenoaks]

• Don't let foed players join the same team, but permit them to join another team or join in a free-for-all.

this would be good. there are many players out there i don't want on my team but it would be ok to play against them.

[TheForgivenOne]

Maybe if you can have options on your foe mechanics. Like
-Don't allow player on my team
-Don't allow player in game i started/joined

[Darwins_Bane]

The idea of a foe button is so that you don't have to see or hear from them anymore. If you want to see them again or play with them, y not just pm them and both of you unfoe each other.

[jefjef]

I have some peeps foed just to screw with but most of them are foed because I DON'T WANT TO SEE WHAT THEY HAVE TO SPEW OR PLAY GAMES WITH.

What needs to be fixed is people should not be able to join games with those they have on foe...

[Dibbun]

I understand that you don't want to play/see people you have foed but I have a problem when you're forcing your foe list on the person who created the game. If someone creates an 8-person free for all, when that last spot is going to get filled you have 7 different foe lists active.

[jefjef]

I understand that you don't want to play/see people you have foed but I have a problem when you're forcing your foe list on the person who created the game. If someone creates an 8-person free for all, when that last spot is going to get filled you have 7 different foe lists active.

Yeah well I don't play anything but team games. I am occasionally contacted by someone asking if I would unfoe them. It works fine.

FYI: The vast majority hardly use the foe option and when they do it's very few on it So I can't believe it's that much of an issue. (Unless my list is involved)

[tkr4lf]

I have some peeps foed just to screw with but most of them are foed because I DON'T WANT TO SEE WHAT THEY HAVE TO SPEW OR PLAY GAMES WITH.

What needs to be fixed is people should not be able to join games with those they have on foe...

Yeah, like how you join games that I created even though you have me foed....