Suggestion for a possible site improvement

[Ginge86]

I have been thinking about this for a while now and would like to hear peoples thoughts.

Players all have different opinions on what should and should not be allowed in a game of diplomacy and it is impossible to please everyone. Because of this, a large amount of players stop playing.

I was thinking, we currently have a section for Foes. Which I believe currently acts as an auto blocking of chat feature, for players who you do not wish to speak with.

How difficult would it be, to enable a system in which, if someone on your foes list, joins an anonymous game you are in, for you to be warned and given the opportunity to leave that game before it starts? (I only suggest this for new games, not people who join late and would suggest that the name of the foe is not given).

The main reason for this, is that if a player has a particular pet hate, they can add players to their foes list and ensure that they never have to deal with that issue again.

The main benefits I see, would be that people would be less likely to leave the site because of 1 or 2 bad actors and that it would eventually encourage good behaviour from players, as a bad actor, may find, nobody wants to play with them.

So my first question would be to the Mods, is this even possible?
My second would be to the player base, would this be a good idea?

[Bonatogether]

I think this would either flop or prompt a situation of general buckets of players not playing with each other that often, if used often.

[Bonatogether]

For anonymous games - it's anonymous. If you can't tell who's talking (the situation in all but the most extreme cases), then do you need to avoid playing with them?

[Claesar]

For anonymous games - it's anonymous. If you can't tell who's talking (the situation in all but the most extreme cases), then do you need to avoid playing with them?

Because they're even more unpleasant to talk to in anonymous games.


I think it's a fine idea. At first I was worried about abuse, but I can't think of any. E.g. blocking all top100 players is mitigated by the ELO factor of Ghost Ratings.

[Gwyn]

If a person is blocked because they're toxic, they should get banned for being that toxic.

If you're blocking people because they backstabbed you, then you're going to wind up playing solo.

The system described here I think would kill this site entirely - good luck getting enough people together that don't have anyone on their Foes list if you can just list people who did something to you that made you upset.

[cjva]

If a person is blocked because they're toxic, they should get banned for being that toxic.

If you're blocking people because they backstabbed you, then you're going to wind up playing solo.

The system described here I think would kill this site entirely - good luck getting enough people together that don't have anyone on their Foes list if you can just list people who did something to you that made you upset.

For most people who's a bit adult I guess that people wouldn't block just because somebody made them upset once. And if somebody is blocking everybody that makes them upset in a game, it sounds way harder for them to get into a game.

Don't know what I think of the idea in OP, but I don't think that this is a problem with the idea.

[Gwyn]

The problem is that it will make it harder to fill games.

You have 3 of 7 players. Someone looks to join, but they're on someone's block list. So they can't join.

Eventually a fourth joins. Now there are four block lists for the remaining players to clear. If you get one player who has a bunch of people on their block list, that cuts out a huge portion of players.

It gets worse as the number of players increases. The end result is that games will take longer to fill, people will give up waiting, and eventually, the site dies because there are too few games occurring to keep people coming back.

[cjva]

The problem is that it will make it harder to fill games.

You have 3 of 7 players. Someone looks to join, but they're on someone's block list. So they can't join.

Eventually a fourth joins. Now there are four block lists for the remaining players to clear. If you get one player who has a bunch of people on their block list, that cuts out a huge portion of players.

It gets worse as the number of players increases. The end result is that games will take longer to fill, people will give up waiting, and eventually, the site dies because there are too few games occurring to keep people coming back.

The suggestion in OP is not to block people from joining games but to give people the chance to leave game if somebody on their list of foes join.

"if someone on your foes list, joins an anonymous game you are in, for you to be warned and given the opportunity to leave that game before it starts? "

[Wusti]

Why would it matter in Gunboat?

[Bladerunners]

#1 site improvement would be fixing major design flaw in the bots re italy attacking austria. Bots fun overall but this is a long over due fix needed (bots not learning as italy when austria attacked; fully a development ‘whoops’)