Suggestions on minimizing new player AFK/AWOLs.

[zenon550]

A couple of ideas here as it has become somewhat standard fare for players to join the site and various games and never come back, which is no fun for the other players - especially in team games where those established players willing to join against the generally already stacked starting team are now left with an overwhelming player deficit.

The first would be adding in the signup form a stipulation that players joining games will check the site daily to see if their games have started, and the second being having the players play maybe two or three games with other new players (with no missed moves) before getting a rating and the ability to join regular games. Regarding joining regular team games I would maybe have a condition of playing one or two team games with other new players before being able to join those.

The second would be a new designation called "recruit" with a "0" or "?" rating instead of the "cadet" designation which would be conferred after completing the required games, with a 1000 rating (a nice round rating with lots of upside potential and minimal downside potential) or perhaps somewhat higher if they manage to win one or more of their new player games.

I would also put in the signup form a stipulation of good behavior/ethics, which should deter toxic people and encourage good behavior in general.

 

[Sandydirt]

A couple of ideas here as it has become somewhat standard fare for players to join the site and various games and never come back, which is no fun for the other players - especially in team games where those established players willing to join against the generally already stacked starting team are now left with an overwhelming player deficit.

The first would be adding in the signup form a stipulation that players joining games will check the site daily to see if their games have started, and the second being having the players play maybe two or three games with other new players (with no missed moves) before getting a rating and the ability to join regular games. Regarding joining regular team games I would maybe have a condition of playing one or two team games with other new players before being able to join those.

The second would be a new designation called "recruit" with a "0" or "?" rating instead of the "cadet" designation which would be conferred after completing the required games, with a 1000 rating (a nice round rating with lots of upside potential and minimal downside potential) or perhaps somewhat higher if they manage to win one or more of their new player games.

I would also put in the signup form a stipulation of good behavior/ethics, which should deter toxic people and encourage good behavior in general.

I think most of this is overkill, but I would suggest new players would have to play at least 5? games before they can play team games. As I've noted elsewhere, I also think you should not be able to pick your teams in team games. It should be randomly allocated.

 

[LordBeardmore]

I second this! Lately when i see games(mainly team games) with players I've never seen before, it will deter me from joining their team because of the likeliness of them being AWOL. I like zenon550's ideas about the starting rank of recruit (0) rather than starting with an immediate rank of cadet.
I'm not sure it could be easily done to force all newbs into games against each other. What I can imagine what might be best would be to have Ranked and Unranked matches available for everyone, but newbs must complete "X" amount of unranked casual games before gaining a rank and access to ranked games.

 

[Stormcat]

I think most of this is overkill, but I would suggest new players would have to play at least 5? games before they can play team games. As I've noted elsewhere, I also think you should not be able to pick your teams in team games. It should be randomly allocated

i agree that some of those suggestions sound like overkill, and discouraging to new players, and for a minimum game requirement before joining teams (i think sheriff is planning that but not sure). but as far as teams being randomly assigned, i think that should only be a game option. i wouldn't mind a random team assignment on occasion (if everyone showed up and tried to communicate and work together) but for the most part i prefer getting to choose what teams we're joining. i'm even hoping that the tournaments expand to include letting us join as teams. i've landed on some really disappointing randomly allocated teams in tournaments. like where u wonder if they've discovered the chat or realize they're in a team game

 

[periwinkle]

i like the minimum number of games....5 is a good number. as for random team assignment...that's what tourneys are for.

 

[zenon550]

I don't see why people would think my suggestions (some of them) are excessive, it's not hard to check a site once a day when signing up to play games with daily moves (most people are probably already online for many hours a day checking a multitude of different sites daily) and its not some onerous task to play a couple games with other new players. If that is somehow too much maybe it could be a week of daily check-ins and an automatic graduation to cadet status if no games are to be found during that time.

In various team games I am playing/have recently played the majority - maybe 80% or more - of new players are AWOL, though it seems that there are enough of them to find some 1v1s together within any two week period or so.

Those who won't do the above are probably almost entirely the same ones who will abandon the site rather quickly if not immediately, having them put in some minimal investment to play with others and get a rating is not too much to ask IMO, nor is having some basic behavior requirements that anyone would naturally expect in any healthy IRL space (I've seen plenty of online spaces including at least two gaming site forums effectively get ruined by a few loud toxic people, the fact that it hasn't yet happened here doesn't mean it won't be a factor in the future).

I have suggested the randomized team game option - ideally with a ratings-balance function to make things relatively even - here previously IIRC, as long as it is clearly marked as such I see no issue with having that option, especially when so few team games are starting here otherwise.

 

[Roscokov]

I like the idea of a minimum number of games being played.

Ultimately i think the best way to solve it would be to go back to the old model and restrict people to playing 4 games at a time unless they have a paid membership....even if that membership cost $1 a year it would trim a bunch out.

Maybe a combination of both...you can only join 4 games at a time until you have completed your first 5 games

 

[Roscokov]

I would also put in the signup form a stipulation of good behavior/ethics, which should deter toxic people and encourage good behavior in general.

It is a long time since I signed up so I am not sure what the form says but there is already this...

Code of Conduct | MajorCommand

Read MajorCommand's code of conduct covering respectful communication, fair play, reporting, moderation, and competitive integrity.

www.majorcommand.com

Looks pretty well written to me and seems like it covers most of the bases! I am sure by signing up you agree to it.