Conquer Club

Limit how many newbies can join a game.

• 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.

no, i don't. wtf r u talking about, vegetable lasagne?

riskllama wrote:no, i don't. wtf r u talking about, vegetable lasagne?

Seriously??
Does anyone else want to chime in on llamo's pathetic denial of the obvious?

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

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 agree, the initial suggestion is stupid too.

No way.

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.

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.

where would all your pts. come from then, mrs?

From players like you.

Burn!

Like in our legendary Eurasia game.

we should do another one of those...

Metsfanmax wrote:

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."

Symmetry wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

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.

Metsfanmax wrote:

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?

chapcrap wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

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.)

Metsfanmax wrote:

chapcrap wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

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?

your creativity is off the fuckin' chart, IP. nicely done...