Put a cap on the foe list.

[Shannon Apple]

Put a reasonable cap on the number of players that a person can foe

There was a thread here about creating a medal for people who don't foe too many. But I think we should just do the simplest thing and put a cap on the foe list. Certain people are abusing it.

The site now has around 5,000 active members. How many people can each person honestly need to foe. You don't need to use the foe system for medals, that's a cheap way of getting them, just play the game. Our current conquerer is foeing everyone that can possibly beat him on the Das Schloss map. This is enough reason for us to want to cap it since technically he's not breaking rules, but is exploiting a "ranching" loophole. Any of us could do this with our favourite maps. Just start foeing people that can beat us. It's sad and taking the fun out of the conquerer position for other players up there in the top 20.

A cap would force people to really think about who they have on their foe list and decide who truly deserves to be there.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
A more competitive scoreboard where one or two people can't just hog the place at the top for years on end. We've had truly excellent players hold conquerer, lose the position, gain it back and so on, because they play the game against all opponents and are a joy to play against.

[Ark_Angel_NZ]

I support this idea, I think it is a likely the best way to ensure that people don't manipulate the system.

By manipulate, I'm talking about ensuring competitive players are blocked from entering public games - only to make it certain that weaker/inexperienced players join.
It's not strictly outlawed in the current rules page, but it's pretty unsavory and goes against the spirit of the site.

This modification could help with that issue.

[*Pixar*]

Upvote

[fishydance]

Totally agree!

[IcePack]

I’m against this idea. We are here to enjoy the site and shouldn’t be forced to play with anyone. Forum personalities that don’t mesh take up game for slots that a cap would also hinder.

Ultimately I don’t think the entire community should have to adjust because of one member.

If it’s that bothersome what the conqueror is doing, I suggest changing / adjusting the requirements to hold the position of conqueror.

My $0.02

[Shannon Apple]

I’m against this idea. We are here to enjoy the site and shouldn’t be forced to play with anyone. Forum personalities that don’t mesh take up game for slots that a cap would also hinder.

Ultimately I don’t think the entire community should have to adjust because of one member.

If it’s that bothersome what the conqueror is doing, I suggest changing / adjusting the requirements to hold the position of conqueror.

My $0.02

How many people does one person need to foe? There are two people on this site that I can't stand. It has absolutely nothing to do with their play style. They just don't like me and I don't like them.

I would find it difficult to find 10 people of that caliber. And it wasn't suggested to make it anywhere near that low. The word "reasonable" is open to interpretation. Just pointing out that there's no way 1 person can clash with 100s of people out of 5000 unless they are the problem.

[IcePack]

I’m against this idea. We are here to enjoy the site and shouldn’t be forced to play with anyone. Forum personalities that don’t mesh take up game for slots that a cap would also hinder.

Ultimately I don’t think the entire community should have to adjust because of one member.

If it’s that bothersome what the conqueror is doing, I suggest changing / adjusting the requirements to hold the position of conqueror.

My $0.02

How many people does one person need to foe? There are two people on this site that I can't stand. It has absolutely nothing to do with their play style. They just don't like me and I don't like them.

I would find it difficult to find 10 people of that caliber. And it wasn't suggested to make it anywhere near that low. The word "reasonable" is open to interpretation. Just pointing out that there's no way 1 person can clash with 100s of people out of 5000 unless they are the problem.

Again as you said, reasonable is open to interpretation. But doesn’t change the fact that why are we making many adjust for one? Either what he’s doing raises to the level of needing to adjust the medal, or leave it alone. Also hard to argue anything when the proposal doesn’t include an actual number being proposed. So everyone can say “yeah love it” and then the number receives 1/2 as much attn as the generic proposal and gets implement with 25 foes or something (whatever the one impliment ing thinks is reasonable)

Whether someone wants to foe 1 person, or 500 should be left up to the paying members to cultivate a positive experience for their own gaming pleasure. There are many uses for foe beyond just the game, which is supposed to be fun. Why are we trying to force people to have people they don’t like and make it a bad experience?

Practical example: the site doesn’t have ways of tracking who people have beaten for a certain medal (add ons track this if you use them) but for awhile I was temporarily foeing people to help track unique wins on certain settings. Had nothing to do with personalities clashing but everything to do with medal hunting and chasing down unique kills and not playing the same 10 people repeatedly who happened to love those settings.

Find a way to improve the proposal to affect less people and implement a similar improvement on the conqueror without impacting the entire community.

Again, just my $0.02

[Shannon Apple]

It's not really about 1 person. Now that it's happened and people are aware of it, it's a loophole that more people will be tempted to use. That's how exploits work in all kinds of games. You see a problem, you should do something to close that loophole.

I have no interest in the conquerer position. I'm not motivated enough. But I imagine that it's demoralising for the people who do care about it.

Is this really about clashing with 500 people? Or you're worried about medal hunting?

[IcePack]

It's not really about 1 person. Now that it's happened and people are aware of it, it's a loophole that more people will be tempted to use. That's how exploits work in all kinds of games. You see a problem, you should do something to close that loophole.

I have no interest in the conquerer position. I'm not motivated enough. But I imagine that it's demoralising for the people who do care about it.

Is this really about clashing with 500 people? Or you're worried about medal hunting?

I already said it’s whatever the paying customers care about to facilitate their enjoyment on their leisure activity. Whether that’s not getting along with people, or medal hunting, it really doesn’t matter. It’s what they need / want to get a positive experience on a website they don’t need to be on if it’s a shitty experience.

I’m just saying imo, the far better idea would be permanently adjust the thing that affects 1 person, and maybe a few other dozen who actually care to try to hit conqueror, then impact everyone or lower players positive experience on the site. Both approach’s probably work, one impacts everyone, the other impacts extremely limited subset of people.

[Nucker]

I agree 200% with this suggestion.

Due to my chatty style I get foed far too often. Often by players who like to play the same settings as me.

It should be a small cap as well. Like 5 max.

There are players who target me, but I don't foe them as it improves my game.