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

[ziggyy77]

Alright, i will start a game, wait a week to join, find this gets very, very boring waiting for each game i want to play in to start, just because i don't join fast enough. If this site feels the need to allow a random player to prevent other players from playing any type of game, than there is something obviously wrong with this site.

I can always turn it around and say if I join a game that that one player who has foe'd me is in, not started, than he can always turn around and leave the game or start a game which i can not be allowed to join since i am on his foe list. Your foe list allows one player, not someone associated with this site or works for this site, to be able to control whether or not another player(s) can join another game. If he creates it and i can't join because he made it than fine, that's what a foe list should represent. But to prevent any player from any game he is in because of whatever reason he wants, than that is abuse of this site and i can not believe the one defense this site uses is, start your own game.........

[chapcrap]

Invite the players who usually play in those games and it will fill faster.

If it takes a week to fill, then go ahead and start multiple games so that when you are ready to play, the next one you want is getting ready to start.

[Woodruff]

I disagree entirely with this suggestion. In point of fact, the FOE LIST already is far weaker than it should be, as a foe'er can still join the games in which a foe'ee is present. Of course a suggestion to correct this was accepted OVER FOUR YEARS AGO and has yet to be implemented.

[agentcom]

Foe lists may be used however a user chooses barring some extreme abuse. This is how the foe list was intended to work and how it will continue to work. I do, personally, sympathize with you on one thing: Why should the onus for creating a game be on the foed person rather than the person who foed?

However, it appears that many users disagree with the suggestion and have offered the appropriate workarounds.

These workarounds include (1) start your own game; (2) join the game before anyone who has you foed; and (3) don't play in a way that gets you foed (may not apply here, but for many users on many people's foe lists, this is good advice.)

As such, REJECTED.

[citizencane86]

[FOE JOINS A GAME BEFORE YOU - YOU CAN STILL JOIN GAME]

You should still be capable of joining a game that someone whom foed you joins

The moment someone else makes a game (say a friend) and a person whom foed you joins before you join - you are automatically disqualified from ever joining it. I think this is a horrible mechanic.

It should be coded so that you cannot join a game that a person whom foed you CREATED. The problem here is how it puts unfair pressure and stress on the creator and other players, with no history on either party. If one person is all that remains for starting a game and you cannot join that game, it's very likely the game will be dropped/shut down. So all players are negatively impacted by a quarell between two people whom have no relation to any of them.

The benefit is simple: it keeps foeing in-house. It ensures foeing only impacts the two people as it should - not others.

Again, I'm not attacking the foeing system - I'm simply stating the current idea of a first-come first-can join/other sol is flawed. It negatively impacts other players; it creates further animosity (why should i need to be reminded that I'm foed by someone) and it makes this game unattractive if i'm not allowed to join half the games available BECAUSE someone who foed me is in them (and did not create them).

Remember, foeing has no rules. Anyone can be foed for any reason. i have countless foes for "winning" games; people don't like playing gainst pepople who beat them. As a result, it ruins this sites' selling feature: play risk anytime, anywhere with anyone.

[aad0906]

Fully agree. A buddy of mine set up a game and invited me. Before I accepted, some who has me on his foe list (for something I allegedly did wrong after I had just joined the site 3 years ago), joined the game before I could accept the invitation. As a result I could not accept my buddies invite. Ridiculous.

[rhp 1]

love this idea.. thought about starting a thread many times on this topic.. figured it had already been suggested and too lazy to look for it...
makes no sense if the seventh player has you foed and you want to join... lame

[Agent 86]

I will not join any game that anyone has foed me or I foed them. I haven't foed many but do not want to play in any game with them fullstop!!!

[citizencane86]

I will not join any game that anyone has foed me or I foed them. I haven't foed many but do not want to play in any game with them fullstop!!!

Cry some more?

Where is there a list to see who has foed you? I have been foed by countless people for WINNING games against them. People, on this site, do not like losing. So, to prevent another loss, they FOE you.

That's absolute bullshit when you want to play another multiplayer game and THEY are there. If "you" don't want to play a game with someone, then maybe a message should pop up telling you that someone you foed actually joined your game.

The logic behind "if I foed you/foed me then we shall not play" has no bearing on a >2 player game. The reasoning? How in the bloody hell does a quarrel between two people impact independent people? Preventing others from joining KILLS games.

The logic stands:
- You create the game, the people you foe cannot join.
- Others create games, it shouldn't matter because YOU ARE NOT THE HOST.

The problem here is that most people who foe others for winning don't want to "risk" losing to that person again. Is Conquerclub creating a bunch of softies? It's an online "multiplayer" game. Foe all you want, but it shouldn't impact MY ABILITY TO PLAY if I HOST and I CANNOT FILL A GAME because SOME FOE-HUNGRY PLAYER is the 2nd person to join...

[agentcom]

This is a popular suggestion being MOVED out of Archives and back to Active due to a duplicate suggestion and converstation which is also MERGED here.

Also EDITED the OP for a clearer title with the one stolen from more recent post (after removing the annoying use of all caps) and edited content of what is now the OP with some links.

[DoomYoshi]

Rather than this, invites should just over-ride foe.

[citizencane86]

Do you understand why those games are going to start soon? Because someone started them from scratch a few days ago, and players joined at their own pace. Once those games fill, the game you started will become the most attractive option. If everyone followed the "only join a game with 1-2 spots open" approach you use, public games would never start. I'm sorry, but your argument of "it's not fair that I can't join every game that's starting in the next 20 minutes" isn't compelling.

You say people pay to use the site free of restrictions. I disagree. I pay to play fun games, and I pay to play under the rules that the site has laid out. If I foe someone, and he joins a game I'm in, it's no longer fun for me.

The argument is not based on fairness of joining games that start within the next 20 minutes; it explaining the problem with how conflict between 2 people can impact others, independent of the entire situation.

To illustrate the argument in practice:
When a game cannot be filled and there are people that want to join that game - there is a problem.

I'm not saying this is what happens in every case. Instead, it's the illustration that a system is flawed and a problem exists "if" this can happen.

The very fact that a paying user must concede to "create games" and hope people join takes away from one appealing aspect of any online game that direct competitors embrace: comfort and experience.

Why should my overall experience, as a paying user, be negatively impacted just because another user does not like me for whatever reason? The arguments for the current system are quite pathetic and illustrate serious issues around entitlement, unrealistic expectations and elitism.

The facts are quite simple:
- There are no rules/guidelines behind why and how a user can foe another user
- Foed users cannot join games that the foer is in

As a result, it creates a negative atmosphere (i.e. experience) for ALL users.

By a poll (should one be created) how many people who are "for" the current system have actually foed more than 10 people in the past month? It sounds like those whom are foe-hungry are the only ones that like this sytem.

To quote agentcom's argument to support denial:

These workarounds include (1) start your own game; (2) join the game before anyone who has you foed; and (3) don't play in a way that gets you foed (may not apply here, but for many users on many people's foe lists, this is good advice.)

1. Starting your own game negatively impacts comfort and experience. Furthermore, why should I have to start my own game when others exist? The logic behind this is horrible as I am a paying user.
- Does conquer club care about retention?
- Does concuer club care about member experience and comfort?

2. Coming from a forum moderator, I'm quite surpised in this option as formulating a basis for a rejection: it's unrealisitic and is insulting. Furthermore, it illustrates a profound bias that a decision maker has regarding this entire issue. Agentcom's bias should go under review and result in his dismissal as a decision maker: someone in his position must be objective at all times.
- This is damaging to the community (the exact reason to why majorcommand.com was created)

3. This factor, again, ignores many of the feedback generated in this thread than an objective assessment would discover. There are no barriers and/or requirements behind the foeing mechanic. People foe for whatever reason:
- Losing games
- Winning games
- Dice being unlucky/lucky
- Obvious cheap tactics
- Non-obvious cheap tactics
...To save a thousand-point list, foeing is a direct result from people playing the game. As with life, some people just do not like other people for whatever reason. Fortunately, you cannot be foed by these people in real life; instead, they will act in a manner that illustrates the lack of logic behind their rational.

Once again, this suggestion is more than a suggestion - it's a business statement:

Listen to your players and understand your own mission statement. The inability to join a game because someone that foed you joined said game before you negatively impacts the expeirence and comfort a paying user should receive when playing on Conquer Club.

[clangfield]

Sorry, but this is a very one-sided view.
Try turning it round: you have foed someone because he was very rude to you, played badly, broke a truce, gave you a bad rating, whatever. You really don't want to play him ever again, and it's all perfectly justifiable in your eyes.
You then join a game, and there's a spot left after you.
According to the suggestion, your foe should then be allowed to join the game because he hasn't foed you.
But you, the paying user, have foed him, so why should you have to put up with playing him again?
The only sure way to guarantee that you're not playing them would be to join every game last, and for any game with more than two players, that option isn't open to all.
Just consider that if you're allowed to join your foe's games, then they're allowed to join yours, which kind of makes foeing redundant.

[Agent 86]

Sorry, but this is a very one-sided view.
Try turning it round: you have foed someone because he was very rude to you, played badly, broke a truce, gave you a bad rating, whatever. You really don't want to play him ever again, and it's all perfectly justifiable in your eyes.
You then join a game, and there's a spot left after you.
According to the suggestion, your foe should then be allowed to join the game because he hasn't foed you.
But you, the paying user, have foed him, so why should you have to put up with playing him again?
The only sure way to guarantee that you're not playing them would be to join every game last, and for any game with more than two players, that option isn't open to all.
Just consider that if you're allowed to join your foe's games, then they're allowed to join yours, which kind of makes foeing redundant.

Correct

I will not join any game that anyone has foed me or I foed them. I haven't foed many but do not want to play in any game with them fullstop!!!

Cry some more?

You have no idea what you are talking about..get a few more years experience then tell me to cry some more noob

[citizencane86]

Sorry, but this is a very one-sided view.
Try turning it round: you have foed someone because he was very rude to you, played badly, broke a truce, gave you a bad rating, whatever. You really don't want to play him ever again, and it's all perfectly justifiable in your eyes.
You then join a game, and there's a spot left after you.
According to the suggestion, your foe should then be allowed to join the game because he hasn't foed you.
But you, the paying user, have foed him, so why should you have to put up with playing him again?
The only sure way to guarantee that you're not playing them would be to join every game last, and for any game with more than two players, that option isn't open to all.
Just consider that if you're allowed to join your foe's games, then they're allowed to join yours, which kind of makes foeing redundant.

Again, this ignores the fundamentals behind why people are foed!

Sometimes it can be justified through the circumstances you have mentioned, but what about those whom are foed simply because the foer is being a bit*ch - something this site condones.

It's outrageous that people who foe through spite (losing, bad dice, etc.) can then ruin the "experience" those whom have done (quite literally) nothing wrong? Here are some circumstances where I've been foed:
- I didn't talk
- 64 vs 70 = +40 for me, 0 for him
- I called someone out on stacking
- I called someone out on missing turns to avoid taking a card (as opposed to deployment without aggression).

The list goes on. In the end, it's the fact that paying users should be chatised from other games simply because of the circumstance you mention.

Now, the situation/circumstances you illustrate bring the entire foeing system into question. Why would "anyone" want to play against someone who:
- suicides the game
- rude/verbal, etc.

Maybe it's not just the mechanic I'm arguing that needs to be revisted. Instead, maybe the entire foesing system should be eliminated:
- Create a displinary structure
- You cannot adhere to it after x reviews, your account is deleted (and the person at fault loses $25).

We can go back and fourth on the issue - maybe we should be analyzing this from a higher level: the foeing system.

[Fazeem]

I think that this is a very valid suggestion a foe should only be able to block you from games they create. Making this change would definitely decrease frivolous foeing, multiple identical games that take forever to fill, increase participation. The current system provide the potential for 1 person on the site to lock the rest of the site out of every open public game they do not start.

[clangfield]

Sorry, but this is a very one-sided view.
Try turning it round: you have foed someone because he was very rude to you, played badly, broke a truce, gave you a bad rating, whatever. You really don't want to play him ever again, and it's all perfectly justifiable in your eyes.
You then join a game, and there's a spot left after you.
According to the suggestion, your foe should then be allowed to join the game because he hasn't foed you.
But you, the paying user, have foed him, so why should you have to put up with playing him again?
The only sure way to guarantee that you're not playing them would be to join every game last, and for any game with more than two players, that option isn't open to all.
Just consider that if you're allowed to join your foe's games, then they're allowed to join yours, which kind of makes foeing redundant.

Again, this ignores the fundamentals behind why people are foed!

Sometimes it can be justified through the circumstances you have mentioned, but what about those whom are foed simply because the foer is being a bit*ch - something this site condones.

It's outrageous that people who foe through spite (losing, bad dice, etc.) can then ruin the "experience" those whom have done (quite literally) nothing wrong? Here are some circumstances where I've been foed:
- I didn't talk
- 64 vs 70 = +40 for me, 0 for him
- I called someone out on stacking
- I called someone out on missing turns to avoid taking a card (as opposed to deployment without aggression).

The list goes on. In the end, it's the fact that paying users should be chatised from other games simply because of the circumstance you mention.

Now, the situation/circumstances you illustrate bring the entire foeing system into question. Why would "anyone" want to play against someone who:
- suicides the game
- rude/verbal, etc.

Maybe it's not just the mechanic I'm arguing that needs to be revisted. Instead, maybe the entire foesing system should be eliminated:
- Create a displinary structure
- You cannot adhere to it after x reviews, your account is deleted (and the person at fault loses $25).

We can go back and fourth on the issue - maybe we should be analyzing this from a higher level: the foeing system.

There may be a (separate) issue about the foeing system. However, you appear to be side-stepping the point that, whenever you foe someone, it's fully justified, but when someone foes you, it might not be. My point is that, however odd their reason, it's justified in their eyes. For whatever reason, they don't want to play you, so why should they have to?
If they don't like someone who doesn't chat, then that's their prorogative not to play you again, so I don't see any justification in you being allowed to join their game regardless.
There are options for 'paying members' - private games, invites, and so on. If you see a game that you would like to join, and can't due to a foe, set up the game and invite the other players.
There is already cheating and abuse reporting which has a disciplinary structure. Foeing is there for personal choice rather than hard and fast rules, IMHO.
FAMO !

[citizencane86]

There may be a (separate) issue about the foeing system. However, you appear to be side-stepping the point that, whenever you foe someone, it's fully justified, but when someone foes you, it might not be. My point is that, however odd their reason, it's justified in their eyes. For whatever reason, they don't want to play you, so why should they have to?
If they don't like someone who doesn't chat, then that's their prorogative not to play you again, so I don't see any justification in you being allowed to join their game regardless.

I am not side-stepping anything. In fact, I have not personally foed a soul. My point on the premise for a foe (through personal justification) is based on a subjective measure. As such, why does one paying member have the power to negatively impact another paying member's overall playing experience?

Now for the argument I have been waiting to use - apparently there are no business, investment bankers, accountants and/or lawyers among us? Well, let me educate you all on something called risk.

Risk is an environmental factor that impacts a situation. You cannot avoid it; instead, you can only hedge it's impact. The ability to "foe" someone negates a risk for a prior person to join a game the foer is in. The problem here is where a line is drawn:
- Public games vs. Private games

Private games exist for a reason - they, quite literally, completely hedge the risks associated with public games. From POS players with <2 stars, to those whom you rather not play with, a private game does just as a foe system is designed to do.

Public games, on the other hand, provide people the opportunity to play in an unfiltered environment at their own risk. Why, then, does a foeing system allow the FOER the ability to alter a PUBLIC GAME?

This is a contradiction of the logic behind PUBLIC vs PRIVATE. No single member should be allowed to prevent another member FROM JOINING A PUBLIC GAME that they DID NOT CREATE.

If you do not want to "RISK" playing against someone you do not like - PLAY PRIVATE.

End of discussion. Again, take this off a "rejected" list; dismiss the individual whom made the ignorant decision and re-assess the entire argument through an unbiased panel.

Right now, there is complete bias. Lets be honest: point hungry people LOVE foeing others whom win against them. How many people create hundreds of public games then foe someone the moment they win against that person? It's an effort to "scam the point system". Is that not illegal through your policy, which i've read quite thoroughly? Yes. Is it enforced? No.

Chances are, many moderates have a very big foe-list.

Give me my $25 back and I'll find another site that has no "foe list".

[Shannon Apple]

(To the OP) Hell no.

If I foe a player, it's usually for good reason, and if I join a game that they aren't in, I sure as hell do not want them joining after me. The foe list is there to protect member's rights to have fun. If you don't want to play with someone, you shouldn't have to.

@CitizenCane: That's because one might not know enough people to just go creating private games, yet they have come across a total asshat member who follows them around and joins their games just to be an asshat. It can and has happened to people. So, why should they not foe and move on, as they say.

[Fazeem]

so the logic I see is the site has a hypocrisy when it comes to foeing, what the site advocates is those that are foed should suck it up and create a new game with the same settings but those doing the foeing should not have to create there own game to avoid playing a foe because they may not know enough people?

[citizencane86]

(To the OP) Hell no.

If I foe a player, it's usually for good reason, and if I join a game that they aren't in, I sure as hell do not want them joining after me. The foe list is there to protect member's rights to have fun. If you don't want to play with someone, you shouldn't have to.

@CitizenCane: That's because one might not know enough people to just go creating private games, yet they have come across a total asshat member who follows them around and joins their games just to be an asshat. It can and has happened to people. So, why should they not foe and move on, as they say.

Foe and move on?

What about banning and enforcing such acts of "harassment" as outlined in the terms of use?

The majority of 'legitimate' reasons people argue to keep this suggestion at bay are, quite literally, ALL illustrating a total lack of care regarding ENFORCEMENT of conquer club's own bloody terms of use.

If you harass, are beligerant, racist, etc. you can EXPECT a ban WITHOUT refund. Yet, there are no bans...

Word of advice: rention = measure of success. Popularity dies when you cannot maintain a client base. Now ask yourself, from a practical business standpoint: how do you build and maintain a client base?

Answer: TEARING DOWN ROADBLOCKS.

The entire suggestion illustrates a PROFOUND roadblock that impacts YOUR BUSINESS. How, in the "f*ck" do you people argue otherwise?

Private games are where the majority of people "concerned" about facing another "ass clown" can run to. Building up a fortress of restriction only pisses off the rest of the community: case in point - everyone that is subsequently DROPPED from a game that could not start because a "foe hungry asshole" joined it and disqualified good talent from ever joining said game.

Ultimately, the argument follows a "whole is greater than the sum of the individual parts".

[clangfield]

(To the OP) Hell no.

If I foe a player, it's usually for good reason, and if I join a game that they aren't in, I sure as hell do not want them joining after me. The foe list is there to protect member's rights to have fun. If you don't want to play with someone, you shouldn't have to.

@CitizenCane: That's because one might not know enough people to just go creating private games, yet they have come across a total asshat member who follows them around and joins their games just to be an asshat. It can and has happened to people. So, why should they not foe and move on, as they say.

Foe and move on?

What about banning and enforcing such acts of "harassment" as outlined in the terms of use?

The majority of 'legitimate' reasons people argue to keep this suggestion at bay are, quite literally, ALL illustrating a total lack of care regarding ENFORCEMENT of conquer club's own bloody terms of use.

If you harass, are beligerant, racist, etc. you can EXPECT a ban WITHOUT refund. Yet, there are no bans...

Word of advice: rention = measure of success. Popularity dies when you cannot maintain a client base. Now ask yourself, from a practical business standpoint: how do you build and maintain a client base?

Answer: TEARING DOWN ROADBLOCKS.

The entire suggestion illustrates a PROFOUND roadblock that impacts YOUR BUSINESS. How, in the "f*ck" do you people argue otherwise?

Private games are where the majority of people "concerned" about facing another "ass clown" can run to. Building up a fortress of restriction only pisses off the rest of the community: case in point - everyone that is subsequently DROPPED from a game that could not start because a "foe hungry asshole" joined it and disqualified good talent from ever joining said game.

Ultimately, the argument follows a "whole is greater than the sum of the individual parts".

13 million games (or thereabouts) played on this site. Is it so hard to find a game to play?
As you state that you've never foed anyone, then perhaps you're not best placed to assess the strength of feelings that cause one really not to want to play someone again - or, perhaps I should say, "risk" playing someone again. I have foed people based on C&A reports in order to avoid playing with them at all.
I would simply argue at least as many people, if not more, are going to get upset by having a foe join a game after them than by not being able to join a game that a foe is already in, and that the suggestion is therefore likely to decrease enjoyment of the site overall.
Perhaps there should be some control over excessive foeing; maybe a league table for number of foes, or at least an indicator on one's profile of numbers foed and foed by.
I must confess to amusement at your phrase "disqualified good talent from ever joining said game". Do you feel the same way if the last spot is taken by a new player? I wonder if you're one of those who feels that a player only qualifies as "good talent" if they play the same way you do...

[Donelladan]

13 million games (or thereabouts) played on this site. Is it so hard to find a game to play?

Let's say I want to play a King's Court. It happens that this is my favorite map on the site.
I look at how many waiting game. I take all setting, just public, waiting for player, and 24h games.

I found there is only 8 games.
I may join 6 or 7 of them, really no kidding. If I did foe you, then you cannot play King's court on CC anymore, unless you create your own games.

Well, if you are premium then ok why not. It is quite annoying, but you may do it and play a lot of other game while you wait.

If you are freemium it sucks, because then you have to block one spot, and since there is only 8 games opened actually on king's court, let assume it is possible than it take few days at least to fulfill them.

I am not talking about speed game. but there is very few speed games open at a time with not that many player. If you get foe by one guys playing those 8 player classic escalating, and that one is in the same timezone than you, then you'll have real problem joining the games !

So, I agree with the OP, and I agree with almost everything citizencane86 said. The current system sucks. And I did foe several people. I mostly dont want to play with them ever. But still, it should not prevent them of having fun. So I say :

The site should implement that if you join a game where there is one of your foe, OR if your foe join a game that you are inside ( assuming this excellent suggestion is accepted), then you receive a PM telling you - careful you are in a game with that foe. And then you can take the choice of playing or not with him. I guess this should make everyone happy.

And if the guys join systemecally all the game you are in only to annoy you, then you report him to C and A, and I guess the site can block you of playing together and no more pb.

[Shannon Apple]

I still disagree with you citizen. The people I have on my foe list, I can count on one hand, but they stay there and I never want to play them. I am not a foe-hungry asshole, I just don't wanna play games against horrible people. I should still be able to play as many public games as I want without being harassed by said people.

Also, that is not enough to ban them. You need substantial evidence of abuse, screenshots and the like. You also have to be strong enough not to reply to said abuse or you get in trouble as well. If you are having a difficult time in real life, for example, ignoring asshats online becomes a little more difficult, so getting in trouble as well is a given. The foe feature removes the hassle.

So one person foes you. Who cares? Join another game. I have been foed by idiots collecting medals. I have never been foed for anything I did in a game, but honestly, I just move on and find another game/create one. It's not that hard to do.

And if the guys join systemecally all the game you are in only to annoy you, then you report him to C and A, and I guess the site can block you of playing together and no more pb.

This makes absolutely no sense because that's what the foe feature is for in the first place. If the site blocks them from playing together, then they are just official permanent foes, so it's the exact same as foeing that person yourself.

[DoomYoshi]

The site should implement that if you join a game where there is one of your foe, OR if your foe join a game that you are inside ( assuming this excellent suggestion is accepted), then you receive a PM telling you - careful you are in a game with that foe. And then you can take the choice of playing or not with him. I guess this should make everyone happy.

There have been 4 proposed ways to deal with the problem, as of this point in the conversation.

Original Suggestion was to just ignore it since you can just start your own game. The merits of this argument are that it gives more players incentive to get premium. The downside is that it doesn't really address the issue.

Donelladan's suggestion would take a ton of new code. As such, it seems impractical.

I suggested that if a player is INVITED, then that over-rides the Foe status. This solves half the problem and is a fairly easy coding probably.

Suggestion 4 is the most extreme in that only the game starter should be allowed to determine FOE interactions. As a Suggestions Mod, I can say with good authority that this option will never pass.

If we want to address the issue, we need to think outside the box and a solution needs to 1) allow you to not play people you have foe'd if you don't want to in most cases 2) allow friends to play together.

In regard to donelladan's point, if somebody joins all the King's Court games: I think that if you are part of one of the micro-communities, you need to be careful to not annoy the other players in that community. If it is an "unjust" foeing, then perhaps a plead to be re-accepted into that community should be thought of.

I would like to commend the posters on the ability to express strong differing opinions without crossing the lines we draw here on CC.