PDA

View Full Version : Penalties and the ability to report players.



Pages : [1] 2

OutlandishMatt
08-25-2013, 08:39 PM
While I am currently trying SolForge for the first time there should be a way to report players and penalize them extensively for quitting a game by just dropping out. See, I've italicized the word "currently" because as I sit here and type this I am waiting for my opponent's timer to go down. I'm having to wait out the entire 25 minutes or so before I am declared victor. He's at 33 life while I am at 88 and he's going to lose. This happened a lot when I played MTGO/MODO and I suspect it will happen to more F2P TCGs such as Hearthstone, SolForge, and Chromancer but I am hoping Cryptozoic can be the first to come down hard on such acts.

I know, someone could accidentally disconnect but there should be a system in place that tracks a player's record of abuse. I'm hoping that not only are cards being tracked thoroughly but also player records. I know I cannot be alone in this. We have a great community and I want it to stay that way. I have a feeling when it goes live the Free to Play aspect of it will draw in the worst of the Internet community.

Matt

Xtopher
08-25-2013, 08:54 PM
Yeah, it's a constant problem with casual play. If you're in an event with prizes, it's still irritating but at least the win translates into advancing your position in the tourney. This is the main reason I don't waste time playing casual constructed.

I personally would prefer a maximum of two minutes for a player to reconnect in a casual game. If they don't come back in that time, they take the loss. I don't think that's overly draconian for a casual game, but rather a very generous amount of time. That way it's not necessary to report anyone and it's all taken care of automatically. In a sanctioned event, though, they should get their entire clock regardless of the circumstances.

hex_colin
08-25-2013, 09:16 PM
It's sucks, but when you sign up to play a game you know that there is some amount of time available to both of you to complete your turns in that game. Just assume it's going to take the maximum time and be done with it - that way you won't be annoyed or disappointed. Worst case, you can skip out and watch strategy videos on YouTube!

Also, once people know it bothers you, they can use it against you to put you on "tilt" (to borrow a term from poker).

zadies
08-25-2013, 10:20 PM
If someone is doing it as a grand strategy to annoy you so you go into the second match bothered then they haven't dced. I think two mins in casual and possibly 5 in tournament is more then enough time. I also feel after 5 disconnects in a month for each other disco there should be an hour penalty preventing you from requeing.

hex_colin
08-25-2013, 10:24 PM
If someone is doing it as a grand strategy to annoy you so you go into the second match bothered then they haven't dced. I think two mins in casual and possibly 5 in tournament is more then enough time. I also feel after 5 disconnects in a month for each other disco there should be an hour penalty preventing you from requeing.

Let's penalize people who have crappy internet who've done nothing wrong! I don't think so...

zadies
08-25-2013, 10:34 PM
If your internet is so very crappy that you can't reconnect in a reasonable amount of time and it does so more then five times a month if you are actually gaming online as opposed to just using email perhaps you should look for a new provider. I don't see this game being bandwidth intensive so you shouldn't just be lagging out here.

hex_colin
08-25-2013, 10:38 PM
If your internet is so very crappy that you can't reconnect in a reasonable amount of time and it does so more then five times a month if you are actually gaming online as opposed to just using email perhaps you should look for a new provider. I don't see this game being bandwidth intensive so you shouldn't just be lagging out here.

Some people don't have a choice of providers. My previous comment stands - CZE has set a time limit for a match. You or I shouldn't care when our opponents make their plays - as long as they're done before their timer runs out that's up to them (no matter what caused them to use time up). If they run out of time for any reason (wife, girlfriend, boyfriend, pets, bad internet, dinner, surfing pr0n, a meteor, etc.) they'll lose.

You're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

HyenaNipples
08-25-2013, 10:49 PM
If you managed to make it past the tutorial of Solforge, you are made of sterner stuff than I.

20 life shouldn't take too long to blaze through if your opponent isn't there. I think perhaps 60 seconds per Priority Pass would work, and then if 3 consecutive Priorities pass without player input- they start passing automatically after a 5 second pause.

keldrin
08-25-2013, 10:53 PM
If your internet is so very crappy that you can't reconnect in a reasonable amount of time and it does so more then five times a month if you are actually gaming online as opposed to just using email perhaps you should look for a new provider. I don't see this game being bandwidth intensive so you shouldn't just be lagging out here.
For the past several years, Living in the USA, in a rural area, my only internet option has been satellite internet. There is no other option period. It's usually fairly good, but has latency issues of about .5 seconds making real time games impossible to play.
That said, cloud cover can make me lose connection, I may have no idea there is even clouds out there, and suddenly, no internet.
So, by your recommendation, I should do what?

MasterN64
08-25-2013, 10:54 PM
As one that used to be on satellite internet via hughesnet i cant say i agree with too hard of penalties for stuff like this. It would have to be someone that regularly and consistently abuses this for any punishment to kick in. Im not saying it should not be implemented but the regulations for it should be more lax instead of more strict. One compromise could be that after the first 3 or so minutes of afk or DC the progress of the timer speeds up to 2x speed then 4x speed or such after so long untill the timer is finally empty. That way instead of waiting a full 20 minutes you might be able to negate it down to half that or less.

And as long as you can open more than one game at a time i might even go so far as to say im fine with not punishing it at all. After all if you can just leave that window open and load up another separate game with the same deck its just not as annoying.

tautologico
08-25-2013, 11:04 PM
In MTGO tournaments, after 10 minutes without activity the player loses even if his/her timer has not gone out yet.

The_Wine_Gnat
08-25-2013, 11:29 PM
I agree about including the ability to report players. Ideally this would be similar to LoL.

Examples for reporting:
1.) Verbal Abuse
2.) Inappropriate name
3.) AFK (only matters if they do this umpteen times for those who like myself have spotty internet)
4.) ???

Mr.Funsocks
08-25-2013, 11:34 PM
Let's penalize people who have crappy internet who've done nothing wrong! I don't think so...

<--- Had crappy internet for a while
<--- Had the respect for other players to stop playing that day when it was apparent it wouldn't work. Picked up some other games until I could fix it.

I seriously doubt Hex will have that much of a problem with D/Cs being frequent, no matter how bad your internet is. But if it's randomly cutting out for 20 minutes at a time, with regularity, it's really rude to subject a stranger to that. There should be a buffer, there should always be a buffer, emergencies happen. But if they happen with enough regularity that you're bailing on 5, 10, 20 games a month, it's incredibly disrespectful to others' time.

OutlandishMatt
08-25-2013, 11:35 PM
In MTGO tournaments, after 10 minutes without activity the player loses even if his/her timer has not gone out yet.

This.

And I think if it's a frequent occurrence then a player SHOULD be penalized. They wouldn't allow it in live TCG tournaments so why do we suddenly think it's acceptable for online TCGs? Because of technical difficulties? Sorry, but that's the chance you take when playing competitive online. When Hex goes live, if you have frequent disconnects, I would suggest you don't pay money to play in tournaments. You'll most likely lose going to time.

I say set the timer at 10 minutes of inactivity, first loss. Another 5 minutes, match loss. I'm hospitable about my loses, I concede. And there should be some measure of sportsmanship especially if Cory wants this to be an eSport.

We've discussed it on here several times I know. There needs to be some sort of player feedback system and penalty system for unsportsmanlike players in tournaments.

Kroan
08-26-2013, 12:22 AM
In events this is of no influence, as mentioned before. You have to wait anyway for other people to finish. You count on 50mins per round.

Other than that there should be a option to report a person of course, generally speaking.

Malicus
08-26-2013, 02:10 AM
I think your clock is your own and you should be able to do with it what you will. While it is not nice to bail on a game there are legitimate times where this may occur and setting an arbitrary number on this seems excessive for what is really a minor inconvenience. Something like a 10 minute inactivity timer might be OK.

Also tournaments as said are dependent already on timings outside your control so it is somewhat less of an issue (though I suppose conversely I suppose it could be more of an issue if the other games are finished). I don't really see the issue in casual - if someone bailed on a game and I felt it was because I had beaten them I would just leave, what is the harm in losing a casual game?

DXKramer
08-26-2013, 03:04 AM
In MTGO tournaments, after 10 minutes without activity the player loses even if his/her timer has not gone out yet.

Really? That long? In Pokemon TCG Online, you get TWO minutes.

Ofiach
08-26-2013, 03:14 AM
Having played SolForge (I regret the lost time of my life) I agree 100% with a report feature for people obviously gaming/abusing the timers. One or two reports a week won't do anything but if you play 20 games in a week and get 20 reports saying you're AFK. I think there should definitely be punishments. I won't submit my idea of punishments because they will seem draconian and "mean." I also understand this will require some more moderator support by the company, which may increase the bottom line, but will make players happier and willing to spend more cash. Lets be honest about F2P games, they attract the worst kind of scum the internet can dredge up, if this game wants to have a good long life it needs to do all it can to remove that scum.

I value my time and don't want to sit there for an hour because some turdwaffle is busy watching youtube videos and doesn't even try to play the game until 3 minutes are left on his timer. (usually people like that hope you give up so they get an easy win)

I forget who said it earlier, but just because this game is online doesn't mean you throw all the rules for TCG's out the window! If anything add a "pause" option and give a reason. If someone DC's give them a 3 minute "pause" timer to get back in game. Hell even a "Bio break pause timer" isn't unreasonable. I know I've put a few games of Magic on hold because nature came calling. The generic 30 mins to play timers just don't work when you have a massive amount of people online with absolutely no real world consequences for acting like a disrespectful idiot.

keldrin
08-26-2013, 03:30 AM
Well, as long as rules are reasonable, I can understand there being a abuse to disconnects/AFKs.
I will never play Yahoo chess against random opponents again, because of verbal (well written) abusive language, and the people leaving a losing game to let the timer time out.

Kates
08-26-2013, 05:39 AM
Hell even a "Bio break pause timer" isn't unreasonable. I know I've put a few games of Magic on hold because nature came calling. The generic 30 mins to play timers just don't work when you have a massive amount of people online with absolutely no real world consequences for acting like a disrespectful idiot.

Is this a real thing? Because it almost made me Bio break in my pants!

I agree with what others have said about not penalizing for this so-called offense. I understand that people may abuse the timer system, but it seems more likely to me that people in remote areas both in the US and abroad may simply not have a better option. I think an obvious obstacle that has been dodged thus far is what precisely should this punishment be and how should it be implemented? Agreed, that it would be decidedly crappy for people to bail routinely. The only reasonable "punishment" I could think of would be to have a reporting mechanism that shows the feedback that player has received. I'm thinking something like how there is feedback on eBay. You could potentially see if this is a player that is routinely AFK and make an educated decision to play them.

If I'm being perfectly honest, though that seems like a waste of time and resources on CZE's part. Plus, it's not yet clear whether this will be a real problem with Hex. Implementing a formal punishment seems severe and unwarranted.

Vengus
08-26-2013, 05:45 AM
I just hope this system can't be abused for easy wins. For example by bringing your opponent's lifepoints below your own and then going AFK so you win once the timer is over since the opponent had less life or something like that.

blakegrandon
08-26-2013, 05:49 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l1_8wefR7c

I believe the above video is the only reasonable solution to deal with abusers.

This is the first thing I thought of when reading this thread... Cryptozoic will already have our addresses :-p

Icepick
08-26-2013, 05:50 AM
It's worth noting that someone from CZE has confirmed that there will be a 3 minute reconnection timer if you drop during a game.

OutlandishMatt
08-26-2013, 09:29 AM
It's worth noting that someone from CZE has confirmed that there will be a 3 minute reconnection timer if you drop during a game.

Does it count against their overall timer? If not, I could see that being a problem. If so, kudos. Is it 3 minutes and a game loss or 3 minutes and a match loss?

As for punishment, I could see a good form of punishment being restricted from tournament play for a period of time [week(s) or month(s)]. I'd say 10 tournament "disconnects" in a 30 day span from the first disconnect, maybe even 5. I don't think in this day and age it's too much to ask for someone that's willing to play in an online competitive environment to be responsible for their internet connection.

And yes, you can say that they should expect to play the full length of the round but what if there are 100+ other players that are waiting on your one round? And they have to sit around for an extra X amount of time? Shouldn't that person holding up the other 100+ people be held accountable if it's unwarranted? Disconnecting instead of conceding/playing it out is a form of trolling and I don't know why anyone would argue to protect that. especially in a tournament environment.

hex_colin
08-26-2013, 09:48 AM
Does it count against their overall timer? If not, I could see that being a problem. If so, kudos. Is it 3 minutes and a game loss or 3 minutes and a match loss?

As for punishment, I could see a good form of punishment being restricted from tournament play for a period of time [week(s) or month(s)]. I'd say 10 tournament "disconnects" in a 30 day span from the first disconnect, maybe even 5. I don't think in this day and age it's too much to ask for someone that's willing to play in an online competitive environment to be responsible for their internet connection.

And yes, you can say that they should expect to play the full length of the round but what if there are 100+ other players that are waiting on your one round? And they have to sit around for an extra X amount of time? Shouldn't that person holding up the other 100+ people be held accountable if it's unwarranted? Disconnecting instead of conceding/playing it out is a form of trolling and I don't know why anyone would argue to protect that. especially in a tournament environment.

I'm not against punishment per se for that sort of abuse. The problem is PROVING the abuse. You can't! Unless they say "f$%k you, I'm DCing to screw you over". And because you can't prove it, any of the punishments suggested in this thread are unwarranted.

I spend the majority of my life in hotels, frequently with horrible internet. Not because the hotels are cheap, but usually because they've signed 10 year low bandwidth technology deals years ago and are locked in to horrible service. I could easily get disconnected 5 times in a month - and I should get banned from tournaments as a result??? No chance...

zadies
08-26-2013, 10:14 AM
I don't feel saying you can't que again for an hour is harsh most MMOs have penalties for abandoning a que for surgeons or PvP... Allowing 5 in a month before imposing a penalty at all is actually generous in that regard.

hex_colin
08-26-2013, 10:25 AM
I don't feel saying you can't que again for an hour is harsh most MMOs have penalties for abandoning a que for surgeons or PvP... Allowing 5 in a month before imposing a penalty at all is actually generous in that regard.

A penalty of not being able to queue for an hour is not the same as a tournament ban for "[week(s) or month(s)]".

Aside from that, and especially in a tournament, your gameplay experience is not significantly diminished by someone DCing - take your easy win/points and move onto the next round.

Vengus
08-26-2013, 11:12 AM
I wonder if someone who DCs a lot would even enter a tournament in the first place. After all, it costs real money to enter tournaments (except for the free draft).

Short penalties would be fine with me, something like if you DC you can't queue for 15 min. However having a penalty in place that bans players for long periods of time because they DCed more than 5 times in a whole month (seriously?) would be absolutely rediculous.

felmare
08-26-2013, 11:24 AM
If you managed to make it past the tutorial of Solforge, you are made of sterner stuff than I.

20 life shouldn't take too long to blaze through if your opponent isn't there. I think perhaps 60 seconds per Priority Pass would work, and then if 3 consecutive Priorities pass without player input- they start passing automatically after a 5 second pause.
I really like big nips idea. i dont think it should be an auto forfeit but an auto pass. that way they still COULD come back and finish out the match. if not then you win by autopass.

vickrpg
08-26-2013, 11:34 AM
I'm not against punishment per se for that sort of abuse. The problem is PROVING the abuse. You can't! Unless they say "f$%k you, I'm DCing to screw you over". And because you can't prove it, any of the punishments suggested in this thread are unwarranted.

I spend the majority of my life in hotels, frequently with horrible internet. Not because the hotels are cheap, but usually because they've signed 10 year low bandwidth technology deals years ago and are locked in to horrible service. I could easily get disconnected 5 times in a month - and I should get banned from tournaments as a result??? No chance...


This could easily be proven actually. If they have half the data-mining power WoW does, it should be very easy to tell when someone is abusing a system vs someone who has crappy internet. All you would have to do is track game state (which, I think they will with game replays) and have a system (automatic but changeable by GMs)

"95% of your disconnects appear to happen when one of the follwoing is true;
You have less life than your opponent,
You have less permanents than your opponent,
Your board was just wiped by your opponent."

Should be easily distiguishable from

"About 30-40% of your disconnects happend when
You had twice your opponet's life total,
You had board control"

Even by an automatic system. tracking it over a week or a month should provide sufficient evidence.
DCing happens randomly, Abuse happens repetitively.

"Once in incident, twice is co-incidence, thrice is a pattern"
I

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-26-2013, 11:35 AM
Just keep in mind that in certain match ups on certain turns, you may want to use more of your allotted 30 mins than just 1 minute. I'd only ever be ok with a restriction like that if there was the option to extend your time (ie. to prove you weren't afk).

Personally though, I'm fine with just the 30 minute clocks. If my opponent is away for enough that they lose to time out, cool, easy win for me. I didn't even realise that MTGO has (apparently) a 10 minute auto-lose; it's honestly never come up for me, I guess because I've never failed to have an opponent participate. That feature would be alright (or even 5 minutes) as 5 minutes for a single turn is too much no matter the gamestate. But 1 minute is very slim with difficult gamestates.

zadies
08-26-2013, 11:36 AM
True some people have proposed harsher penalties then I did originally but really my goal was to punish griefers not punish those with bad internet connections though you did attack the idea as the forth post.

Norious
08-26-2013, 12:02 PM
I just hope this system can't be abused for easy wins. For example by bringing your opponent's lifepoints below your own and then going AFK so you win once the timer is over since the opponent had less life or something like that.

Whats the turn timer in this game? I assume you have to do something in an allotted time or you pass priority. I can't imagine you can lock down a game for too long. Good point

LargoLaGrande
08-26-2013, 12:09 PM
Whats the turn timer in this game? I assume you have to do something in an allotted time or you pass priority. I can't imagine you can lock down a game for too long. Good point

Both you and your opponent get 30 minutes for the match (presumably excluding sideboarding). It works like a chess clock, so your timer only runs when you have priority. When you run out of time you lose the match.

Deathfog
08-26-2013, 12:22 PM
Many modern multiplayer games cap disconnect time at 5 minutes absolutely regardless of how many disconnect incidents, some much less. So long as any disconnect counts as a full loss/concede/forfeit, its pretty easy to mitigate. Someone disconnecting for a significant % of an average game and expecting a pass/mitigated loss/draw isn't really going to fly.

Now if matches turn into LoL/HoN style 5v5 random matchups with someone throwing the game, then there are some issues to work out.

OutlandishMatt
08-26-2013, 01:13 PM
I think game state can be tracked well enough to penalize those that "disconnect" during a match when it's malicious.

I'm not saying penalize people that disconnect for a minute or even 2-3. I'm saying let people report others that disconnect when they disconnect. It flags the game and saves it to that player's record. Once it happens 5 times a GM could review the 5 incidents and decide if they deserve a penalty. If not, the GM wipes away the 5 reports and it starts a new.

I just have a lot of high hopes for this game and I'm worried that because of it's Free to Play status it will attract a lot of trolls/griefers.

blakegrandon
08-26-2013, 02:55 PM
your gameplay experience is not significantly diminished by someone DCing - take your easy win/points and move onto the next round.

This plus here is no such thing as "griefing" in a tournament where each participant has 30 minutes to complete their moves or lose.

Penalizing someone because of their internet in a day where our infrastructure still actually sucks hard is redundant, they're already being penalized because they're less likely to win.

"Griefers" are going to be the ones to sign up for PUG Raids and play with a terrible deck, because they can waste other people's time.

Griefers in tournament play will be a non-issue because it's an easy win. Why waste time tracking all the D/C's and "stallers" when the problem is self correcting?

Should we next penalize the people that take the full 30 minutes? What if my deck is complex and I want to make sure each interaction will go off without a hitch?

What if I'm playing a 200 card deck in constructed and it takes me 15 minutes to pull the right card?

It's pretty easy to see situations where taking the full 30 minutes is absolutely warranted.

I just hope there is an easy to use ignore function with no cap to the number of people on ignore.

Ofiach
08-26-2013, 03:27 PM
You guys are all expecting people to be honest and not abuse a F2P system, while its great you have that much faith in humanity, I for one don't. All the what if this, what if that issues are going to few and far between compared to intentional abusers. The forums are civil now and the community seems great, but that's because almost everyone here put money in on KS or slacker backer. Once you get a bunch of F2P people who find any way to troll or grief they will do it and post videos on youtube called "How to troll in Hex."

Personally I will use the chat to tell an opponent hey I have to use the restroom or hey refilling my water bottle, etc etc. It's when you get people not communicating anything and just sitting there hoping you DC so they win by forfeit. It's a rampant problem in other F2P TCG's that don't have an automatic loss condition for being idle.

I thought a little more about this and think some simple rules could keep the system functioning just fine.

-automatic loss after a 5 minute idle period. Opponent must "accept" the loss, This is for when you're playing someone you know and want to give them more time.

-automatic loss after 3 minutes of disconnect. Once again accepted by the opposing player.

-add a couple pause timers like I said earlier, like a 3 minute bio break timer.(1 time use)

-Add a persistent reputation system. That won't be perfect because some trolls will just click everything negative about someone no matter what, but those people will be found out easily enough. I know that isn't a perfect system but it will keep alot of people in line just because they fear being called out on their BS.

LargoLaGrande
08-26-2013, 03:56 PM
I really don't understand how people could abuse the system. It's basically a non-issue in tournaments, and in casual play if your opponent is being a scumbag you can concede, put them on your ignore list and find another game. This is especially easy if casual games are set up like in MTGO, players create and join individual games so you can make sure that you never have to play with someone again if you don't want to.

Malicus
08-26-2013, 04:03 PM
If there are any report features I hope they also implement time wasting penalties(CZE time due to bad reports), one of the least pleasurable experiences in online tcgs wasn't the times where my opponent dc'd but when they tried to hurry me on my clock and I would expect such player times to be constantly reporting behaviour that is perfectly ok but they find unacceptable and I would see them regulated.

blakegrandon
08-26-2013, 05:24 PM
You guys are all expecting people to be honest and not abuse a F2P system, while its great you have that much faith in humanity, I for one don't.

As everyone on this thread has said, what EXACTLY could be abused?

You have 30 minutes to play a game, if you waste it your opponent wins by default. How exactly can a person going afk be abused in any way, shape, or form?

The only possible griefing I could see would be PUG Raids and afking, but that also should be easily fixable by allowing a vote-kick feature.

Kami
08-26-2013, 05:28 PM
You have 30 minutes to play a game, if you waste it your opponent wins by default. How exactly can a person going afk be abused in any way, shape, or form?

In this example, it would depend heavily on if you can play multiple matches simultaneously. Otherwise, you're stuck waiting on your opponent before you can play another game.

Currently, it's difficult to predict abuse because we don't know how the system is set up. We don't have access to the game. For all we know, you could spam a player with game invites that they can't close/ignore as another example.

zadies
08-26-2013, 05:49 PM
The issue becomes wasted time if you can't play 2 games at once... Also originally it was about doing if you don't see how this is an issue imagine turn five you have 20 health a bunch of fliers and they have no way to block then they DC so you waste 20mins of time because of a lack of a built in system and the person does this every game they lose... You may not do it, the majority of the ppl on the board may not do it but there are people that enjoy doing this just like they get laughs abandoning LoL teams.
Making rules for the worst common denominator typical curbs the appeal of it.
Before there were penalties for abandoning PvP or dunegeon Que's in wow it was a much more common occurrence.

blakegrandon
08-26-2013, 05:49 PM
In this example, it would depend heavily on if you can play multiple matches simultaneously. Otherwise, you're stuck waiting on your opponent before you can play another game.


The thing is though, it's not different than someone being really slow when it comes to taking their turns.

I don't think it's realistic to expect games to end fast, and how people utilize their turns shouldn't matter or be penalized.

In a tournament setting it can't be abused because you pretty much have to expect that it will take the full timer for a game.

If I have 30 minutes to play a game and I use every minute allotted there is no abuse occurring, I'm very analytical so I figure most of the games I'll run out the clock to ensure my turns are properly performed, should I be penalized for using the time allotted to me just because "YOU" can't play another game in the time it takes to complete our game?

Ofiach
08-26-2013, 06:07 PM
So by the assumptions I've seen made, casual games mean nothing? No little amount of gold or an experience boost to a card etc etc? I guarantee you there will be people running multiple accounts and just sitting back and afking letting the little bonuses for winning pile up, then they will trade or give all the little bonuses to a single account that they actually play on. If they give a couple daily rewards for "Games played" or "Games won" that makes the issue a little bigger.

If the game only gives little bonuses for playing tournaments/PVE then I guess it wouldn't suffer too much abuse. I do agree with Zadies you have to make rules for the lowest forms. If you're a generally decent person you have nothing to worry about from rules aimed at griefers.

Also putting bonuses ONLY in PVE/tournament play will cut out alot of people. I for one don't have more than a couple hours to play on a weeknight, tournaments won't be possible for me on weeknights. Now it's either PVP casually with no reward or go grind PVE content and wait until the weekend to earn anything in PVP tournaments.

But I went off topic with that, because that goes more into F2P vs P2P and other topics that never end well.

Kami
08-26-2013, 06:10 PM
The thing is though, it's not different than someone being really slow when it comes to taking their turns.

I don't think it's realistic to expect games to end fast, and how people utilize their turns shouldn't matter or be penalized.

In a tournament setting it can't be abused because you pretty much have to expect that it will take the full timer for a game.

If I have 30 minutes to play a game and I use every minute allotted there is no abuse occurring, I'm very analytical so I figure most of the games I'll run out the clock to ensure my turns are properly performed, should I be penalized for using the time allotted to me just because "YOU" can't play another game in the time it takes to complete our game?

No but if your opponent is in a 100% lost position and intentionally doesn't concede, or at least end their turn and let you claim victory, and proceeds to waste the next twenty minutes of your time, I'd say that's abusive.

You could argue that in a proper game, both players could potentially run down the clock. But when you're in a position where it's obvious, why would you waste someone's time? You could also argue that you still win but how boring of a win is that? That's still a lot of extra time... and if multiple players do that, that could easily amount to hours of time a day.

In chess, I've had opponents do that intentionally in the hopes you resign or accept a draw - even in a winning position. (And some chess games start at 2 hours per person.)

gohan661
08-26-2013, 06:16 PM
Report Drow, feeder and has 3 pairs of brown boots

Maphalux
08-26-2013, 06:18 PM
In my opinion, players need to allot for the full time of a match or event before jumping in. If each player has 30 minutes, you allot an hour to play one match. It is a bonus if it doesn't go that long but you will likely just end up waiting anyway as other people finish their matches in the event.

Regardless, it isn't wasted time when the time frame was part of the rules going in. If you don't have four hours to do a draft, don't play in one. Go play some PvE instead or challenge a friend to a friendly constructed match.

What do I care if someone is going to run down their clock out of spite because I'm winning or whatever? That's fine with me. They will still lose and I will still win. It is no skin off my back if a person decides they want to act like a child.

I also feel that people who harass or otherwise try to rush their opponents are just as bad as people that deliberately run out their clocks. If the latter should be punished, then most certainly the former should be as neither are displaying good sportsmanship.

zadies
08-26-2013, 06:26 PM
There is a distinct difference between utilizing the clock and dcing if you are utilizing the clock you are still there if you dced it is because you turned your computer off. If you left a magic table in the state I described after five mins of you not being in the tournament room i would see if I could at least get a slow play sanction if not get them flagged for abandoning the tournament. I find it strange that different behaviors are allowed online that you would not attempt in person. Doing is equivalent to picking up your deck and leaving the room.

Malicus
08-26-2013, 06:54 PM
...

Also putting bonuses ONLY in PVE/tournament play will cut out alot of people. I for one don't have more than a couple hours to play on a weeknight, tournaments won't be possible for me on weeknights. Now it's either PVP casually with no reward or go grind PVE content and wait until the weekend to earn anything in PVP tournaments.

...

Playing the game is the reward. I do not see a need to reward casual play to be honest and if there is no reward the griefers will have less reason to grief you since you wouldn't need to bother hanging on if you already consider the game won. Many situations in TCGs aren't truly hopeless, I know I have frustrated opponents by hanging on grimly hoping to top deck and sometimes it even pays off.

I think a reasonable inactivity timer is acceptable other than that I fear the misuse of slow play penalties, monitoring so called rage quits seems to me that it would be more trouble than it is worth.

My hope is that multi play is available at some level - even if it is simply one pvp and one pve.

zadies
08-26-2013, 07:04 PM
Not sure how this became an inactivity timer vs someone leaving through DC. An inactivity timer indicates the sever sees then online. Also the assumption that multiplay will make the situation better is just wrong it means a griefer can profit while getting their laughs.

Ofiach
08-26-2013, 07:07 PM
Playing the game is the reward. I do not see a need to reward casual play to be honest and if there is no reward the griefers will have less reason to grief you since you wouldn't need to bother hanging on if you already consider the game won. Many situations in TCGs aren't truly hopeless, I know I have frustrated opponents by hanging on grimly hoping to top deck and sometimes it even pays off.

I think a reasonable inactivity timer is acceptable other than that I fear the misuse of slow play penalties, monitoring so called rage quits seems to me that it would be more trouble than it is worth.

My hope is that multi play is available at some level - even if it is simply one pvp and one pve.

Like I said I got a little off topic. I wouldn't mind discussing that in another topic, but as a simple statement to respond. I have strong feelings about games that call themselves F2P then limit the amount of gametypes you can play to earn in game currency. I believe a system like that would alienate a big group of casual players. That's getting into the F2P P2P argument, lets save that for another topic.

As for limiting griefers, yes it obviously would but it would have alot of other consequences, at least IMO.

zadies
08-26-2013, 07:15 PM
Multiplay will not limit griefers it will either allow them to multigrief or else force ppl to pve who would rather not.

The_Wine_Gnat
08-26-2013, 07:58 PM
Here's an idea:

Include the feature to "block" said player from being paired in future games with you. SCII and LoL do this. Someone AFKs, DCs, gets angry, or is called "Poopieboobies", no biggie, just click "block" and never see them again. (exception draft)

Problem solved.

zadies
08-26-2013, 08:18 PM
Unless all you do is play tournaments

The_Wine_Gnat
08-26-2013, 08:33 PM
Unless all you do is play tournaments

If all you do is play tournaments and you have one player constantly quitting on you, why are you complaining? You just won. Are you still actively trying to make a point or just trolling now?

zadies
08-26-2013, 08:40 PM
I'm still actively making a point staring at a screen for 20 mins is time better spent doing something else. Also no one really addressed my concern as to why it is OK for someone to do the equivalent of pick up their deck and leave the tournament space possibly repeatedly.

Nicalapegus
08-26-2013, 08:53 PM
This is a foolish idea. The person who disconnects is going to lose-netting you xp, gold, w/e. You lose nothing from them disconnecting, if anything you gain those items/gold for free.

This is a non-issue. Also, the ability to report someone shouldn't be something readily available. LoL's system is the downfall of that game. Cyberbullying runs amok.

Just play it out. There's a timer for a reason. If you don't want to wait guess what! You can leave too.

zadies
08-26-2013, 09:03 PM
I never proposed a reporting system, I proposed a 5 disconnect grace with escalating timeouts for disconnecting. There should be a penalty for leaving a game that just goes beyond well you lost, and you do not gain the stuff for free the griefer wasted someone's time. I still have not seen it addressed why behavior that would not be tolerated in person should be given a free pass online.
Most online games have timeout penalties before you can reque if you abandon what you qued for whatever the reason.

Ofiach
08-26-2013, 09:03 PM
@ Zadies I think alot of people feel that because this game is online it allows for a break in rules or common courtesy, and IMO that is a very miopic stance to take. I forget who said it but someone mentioned it might take 15 minutes to look through a deck for a certain card, that is on the extreme limit of sense, but I can understand if a player is actively searching for a card and takes a few minutes. I know in Magic tournaments when someone is actually doing something no one has an issue.

Where I play magic slow play warnings are rarely given out because everyone is respectful enough not to just sit there for ten minutes at a time, staring at a wall. They know if they sat there for ten minutes doing absolutely nothing other players would start grumbling, and they would more than likely be asked to leave.

In an online world no one has consequences for doing anything, that is why consequences need to implemented from the start. Slow play isn't something that I disagree with I know I've taken a few minutes here and there thinking over moves, you have to use common sense in these cases.

Also as far as I can tell no one is debating slow play v fast play, everyone is talking about intentional AFK or DC's. Once again some common sense is needed in reading the reports from the reporting system. (that sounded weird)

Now as far as a "Block" feature goes, yes I believe it is a very good option to have in all games. However, think about this situation. Someone has a massive computer issue, or somehow their internet just drops, so now you block the person for AFKing and never see them again due to circumstances outside their control. A report feature would mitigate that because you can look at the persons record and see they've played 200 games and have 1 report for DC'ing, well using some common sense I can comfortably assume they didn't do it on purpose that one time. Now go to someone who has 200 games with something like 80 wins and 120 losses with DC reports on all losses, that's probably a person who I wouldn't play because he's DCing everytime hes going to lose just to make the winner wait for their win.

funktion
08-26-2013, 09:21 PM
While I'll start off by saying that yes... GRIEFING should be actively patrolled...

What most people are talking about here though just seems unnecessary. Granted in a digital game far fewer games get close to the timer like they do in say physical magic... but regardless most large tournaments are going to go VERY close to the timer whether or not your opponent disconnected.

The reason? There's always that one person that is playing a deck they're unfamiliar with or they just play slow in general that slows down the tournament for everyone.

My suggestion, if the tournament takes 8 rounds and each round has a 30 minute timer per player... plan for the tournament to last 8 hours. It probably won't, but you should plan for it, regardless of whether you're the one disconnecting / needing to bio / taking a work call or the one playing against that person.

Maybe they take a long time to think, it's just a complex board state, they're new to the game, someone is knocking on the door, their wife needs help smashing a spider, pizza just arrived and is getting cold... Sure there are griefers out there, but they are far less common than the people who have a legitimate reason to need to pause the game. Don't punish all those people just because that one time you had to wait 10 minutes for a game you'd already won.

Ofiach
08-26-2013, 09:26 PM
I know I'm starting to harp on this, but I feel it is important. In a P2P game yes you will be dealing with more RL interruptions than anything else, but in a F2P game where "gold farmers" can make a hundred accounts and never be there you will be dealing with more abusers and trolls than anything else. I may be jaded but I've seen it alot, especially in F2P TCG's.

Xtopher
08-26-2013, 09:27 PM
Personally, I'd never report anyone for disconnecting. In a casual game you just chalk it up as a win and start another, in a tournament game you're compensated by advancing in the event. But, that's me. I just don't stress about that kind of stuff.

Rather than a report system, I'd much prefer a set of tools players can use to filter their potential opponents. Being able to eliminate being matched with players that disconnect more than x% of the time, for example, or players that concede more than x% of the time, if needing to play the game out to the end is your kind of thing.

What's good about a system like that is that a player's disconnect or concession stats don't need to be public. Putting the equivalent of a scarlet letter on someone with a poor internet connection does not equal a positive environment.

I encourage CZE to give players the tools to play against the kinds of opponents they want to be matched with, rather than wasting time on some sort of petty punishment system.

OutlandishMatt
08-26-2013, 09:55 PM
What do I care if someone is going to run down their clock out of spite because I'm winning or whatever? That's fine with me. They will still lose and I will still win. It is no skin off my back if a person decides they want to act like a child.

Because you should care about the community you're playing in? Also, just because you're fine with it doesn't mean the other people in the tournament are fine with waiting an extra 10-20 minutes for your match to be resolved. When I read a statement like this where someone is fine with griefing, all I can think is I hope you come across it every single match so that you can understand the frustration of it. Every now and then, you're going to run into a situation where you will actually want to start the next round 10-20 minutes earlier but you can't because you have to wait for the sore loser to time out.

When people do malicious things, they should be punished for it so that it's not encouraged.


I also feel that people who harass or otherwise try to rush their opponents are just as bad as people that deliberately run out their clocks. If the latter should be punished, then most certainly the former should be as neither are displaying good sportsmanship.

Where did this come from? I have yet to see anyone complain about slow play. I'm fine with people taking their time. The only complaint is about people that maliciously stall or just "disconnect" because they're about to lose. I WANT my opponent to try and win. Games are not fun when someone doesn't draw resources or can't quit drawing resources. It's not fun when I lose to it and it's not fun when I win because of it. A game built around strategy isn't fun when chance ends up ruining it.

OutlandishMatt
08-26-2013, 09:56 PM
I find it strange that different behaviors are allowed online that you would not attempt in person. Doing is equivalent to picking up your deck and leaving the room.

This. ONE THOUSAND TIMES THIS!

OutlandishMatt
08-26-2013, 09:59 PM
I think a reasonable inactivity timer is acceptable other than that I fear the misuse of slow play penalties, monitoring so called rage quits seems to me that it would be more trouble than it is worth.

I think the report player feature should only appear after a certain criteria is met. For example maybe after a d/c and they get a match loss it prompts if you would like to report the player and maybe you have to type in a reason. I think a criteria could be put into place so that there cannot be misuse of penalties.

The_Wine_Gnat
08-26-2013, 10:05 PM
Rather than a report system, I'd much prefer a set of tools players can use to filter their potential opponents. Being able to eliminate being matched with players that disconnect more than x% of the time, for example, or players that concede more than x% of the time, if needing to play the game out to the end is your kind of thing.
.

This is why I mentioned the "BLOCK" feature. You can choose to not be paired vs them again. Self filtering.

OutlandishMatt
08-26-2013, 10:06 PM
Now go to someone who has 200 games with something like 80 wins and 120 losses with DC reports on all losses, that's probably a person who I wouldn't play because he's DCing everytime hes going to lose just to make the winner wait for their win.

And that person should be excluded from participating in tournaments for a certain amount of time as punishment. None of this would fly with the DCI for Magic or card show owners. You'd be banned from card shops if not the DCI itself.

Ofiach
08-26-2013, 10:17 PM
And that person should be excluded from participating in tournaments for a certain amount of time as punishment. None of this would fly with the DCI for Magic or card show owners. You'd be banned from card shops if not the DCI itself.

At least you're understanding my point :P I know the way I word things can sometimes seem vitriolic or uncompromising but I do have strong opinion on things like this.

I know from personal experience that someone playing like that would find very few friends in the real world so why do we allow them to flourish in an online world? Slow play is one thing, I play golf as well so I understand some people like taking their time with shots/plays, but once again golf is a real world activity where if someone takes ten minutes a shot they will be asked to leave the course.

Why do we feel being online allows disrespect one way or another? I know if a family emergency called me away from a magic tournament I would forfeit and leave I wouldnt say well I have a half hour to deal with it I'll just leave the other guy hanging. I personally believe the rules should be similar online and IRL. With some tools there for bio breaks and communication we can deal with things like this in a common sense fashion.

OutlandishMatt
08-26-2013, 10:18 PM
What most people are talking about here though just seems unnecessary.

Funktion, my bro, my homie, mi compadre. I don't think we're talking about people stepping away so much as people just up and quitting, disconnecting, ceasing to be online, kaput.

In a draft, it's 3 rounds, single elimination. Imagine if each one of those rounds the player quit on you and you had to wait for an extra 10-20 minutes each round? And all of those rounds, the other players also had to wait on your match to end. Do you not think those players causing those delays should be penalized for the benefit of future drafters and tournament players?

To break it down.

Round 1: You vs Opponent. 3 matches end. That's you and 3 other players having to wait 10-20 minutes.
Round 2: You vs Opponent. 1 match ends. That's you and 1 other player having to wait 10-20 minutes.
Round 3: You vs Opponent. Now you have to wait 10-20 minutes.

That's a lot of people wasting a lot of time. And I think players that maliciously do it should be penalized and I think Cryptozoic could possibly program in a reporting feature that says, "If a player disconnects and a match loss is given. The winning player is given the opportunity to report the losing player for unsportsmanlike behavior."

Nicalapegus
08-26-2013, 10:18 PM
I never proposed a reporting system...you do not gain the stuff for free the griefer wasted someone's time....

The title of the thread is ability to report players. Yes you do gain stuff for free. You gain the win in drafts/tournaments. You gain the platinum from the win. Or you just gain the win. And if it's a custom game, you gain the confidence boost that they quit. And in turn you can quit as well.

This is a complete and total non-issue. Why do you think they're not addressing this, or Hearthstone isn't addressing this, or Scrolls? Because it's already addressed in the manner I described. Move along.

EDIT: Outlandish stop double posting. Use your edit button.

Also, the ability to grief someone for a poor connection is beyond silly, especially when given that you gain the win from them disconnecting. We aren't talking team games here, we're talking 1v1. They disconnect, then they lose. This is so simple a child could understand it.

Yoss
08-26-2013, 10:23 PM
I agree with Nic, and I'll add that I would like to see the ability to play multiple games at once (like Yahoo can with chess) so that you have something else to do while you wait for a dropper to lag out.

funktion
08-26-2013, 10:29 PM
Funktion, my bro, my homie, mi compadre. I don't think we're talking about people stepping away so much as people just up and quitting, disconnecting, ceasing to be online, kaput.

Yar, that's why I started off with the first sentence that yes there should be measures taken for flat out griefing. But what many people are suggesting could also be very easily used by griefers themselves.

I'm totally 100% down for griefers to be harshly penalized by Crypto, was just trying to distill a little blood in the water. There were a lot of statements like 2-3 min afk timer... sorry but that's way too short.

I'm not disagreeing with you one bit on the prevention of griefing aspect. Someone on here mentioned playing Yahoo chess... I LOVED me some yahoo chess when I was young... but man was that filled with so many people intentionally making it no fun for me as a teenager.

Edit: regarding playing multiple games, there are way more people that think they are capable of doing that than there actually are people who can... I've played countless games on MTGO where they were slowed down dramatically because someone wanted to play more games at once. That can be almost as bad as the griefing. Maybe let them do pve and pvp at the same time, that way at worst they're only ever keeping one person waiting.

And regarding my "unnecessary" comment, there are some simple solutions to this, and generally with stuff like this the less player involvement and the simpler it is the better. PvP won't be F2P... the problems that LoL faced won't be quite so prevalent.

Nicalapegus
08-26-2013, 10:32 PM
I don't think you guys understand the definition of the word griefer. This is like saying...

"HA! I QUIT SO YOU WIN! IM TOTALLY GRIEFING BRO!"

If your argument is the time it takes for the person to time out of the game... uh... most MTG rounds last 30+ minutes. If you're worried about time, you're playing the wrong video game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d696t3yALAY

Ofiach
08-26-2013, 10:35 PM
I don't think you guys understand the definition of the word griefer. This is like saying...

"HA! I QUIT SO YOU WIN! IM TOTALLY GRIEFING BRO!"

If your argument is the time it takes for the person to time out of the game... uh... most MTG rounds last 30+ minutes. If you're worried about time, you're playing the wrong video game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d696t3yALAY

Go play solforge for about 15 games, if you don't count what 1/3 of the people do is griefing let me know. They just open 2 games and sit there watching youtube until the games time out or someone quits so they can go play a real game against a real opponent. I dont know if you haven't played alot of F2P TCG's or if you've been lucky in the one's you have played. It is a real issue and just blowing it off doesn't fix it.

Nicalapegus
08-26-2013, 10:37 PM
Go play solforge for about 15 games, if you don't count what 1/3 of the people do is griefing let me know. They just open 2 games and sit there watching youtube until the games time out or someone quits so they can go play a real game against a real opponent. I dont know if you haven't played alot of F2P TCG's or if you've been lucky in the one's you have played. It is a real issue and just blowing it off doesn't fix it.

You have no clue what the word griefing means. I'll give you a hint! It involves a team.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=griefing

EDIT: Last time I post in this thread. This is akin to complaining when you go play MTG and play a 6 yr old. Does anyone complain? No, they destroy them and move on. If someone gives up on me in LoL I kill them, push to their base, and requeue(and have fun while doing so). I fail to see a reason to be upset about someone quitting on you... they're clearly inferior to you. Take the win, take the xp/gold/etc, and move onto the next game. Do pro Sc2 players complain when someone gives up and sends all their workers into their base to be killed? Do they beg Blizzard to ban them? They aren't breaking any rules by giving up, or disconnecting. And beyond that even if we are to judge someone on this... how do you discern connection problems from behavior? Are we to alienate fellow players for having poor internet?\

Ofiach
08-26-2013, 10:42 PM
You have no clue what the word griefing means. I'll give you a hint! It involves a team.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=griefing

So according to you griefing someone requires them being a part of your team. That is such a limited scope on the word! Verbal/chat abuse to a player is griefing them, isn't it? You're trying to close the point down into a very limited scope so your points seem stronger, but I do not believe that is a realistic argument.

Nicalapegus
08-26-2013, 10:46 PM
So according to you griefing someone requires them being a part of your team. That is such a limited scope on the word! Verbal/chat abuse to a player is griefing them, isn't it? You're trying to close the point down into a very limited scope so your points seem stronger, but I do not believe that is a realistic argument.

The point is this: Regardless of your opinion on the definition of griefing, what the afkers/disconnecters, etc are doing is HURTING THEMSELVES NOT YOU. This is NOT an issue.

And no, griefing originated from Counter Strike, when players would shoot fellow teammates. If you notice the #1 definition of the top rated post there says it all. Sorry I don't have a better source, but it's a word which originated from gaming. And again, it's irrelevant to the point of this forum, or what people have been saying. I was just pointing out that you are throwing around words you don't even understand... to make your points seem stronger. Hmm, see what I did there?

Ofiach
08-26-2013, 10:54 PM
Since "griefing" isn't even a real websters dictionary word it is open to an evolving interpretation. As it is being used in this context everyone else is understanding it, why are you falling back on a single definition for defense of a point? Like I said, sometimes I can be vitriolic or uncompromising but I believe this is a very important subject that doesn't need to suffer from semantic arguments.

I won't get into a shit slinging contest but I believe I have defended my standpoint well enough, is it better if I call it trolling or delaying? No it is still interpreted today as griefing. Look at the root word "Grief" it stands as a very clear definition of these people's actions. "causing grief to someone else" Is the most basic example.

Anyway once again I degenerate off topic and I apologize.

Nicalapegus
08-26-2013, 11:01 PM
...this is a very important subject that doesn't need to suffer from semantic arguments.

And you say this after arguing semantics with me.

Dude, yet again here you are focusing on the term griefing. I wasn't the one throwing that word around, all I said was you're using the word wrong. Which you all are. THE POINT ISN'T THE DEFINITION OF GRIEFING. Reread my last post. Hell, reread all of them. You seem to be avoiding my point and focusing on an argument of semantics (which you then say you don't wish to do. hypocritical much?).

Since you do seem to want to focus on the term "griefing" so much though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefer

You have defended your standpoint... not well at all actually. What is your standpoint? You've defended why you think griefer means something... you haven't defended why someone quitting or leaving is actively HURTING other players. If anything it's HELPING them.

Griefer isn't rooted in the word grief, just as troll isn't rooted in the medieval definition of the word troll. You throw out so many fallacious arguments it's hard to continue correcting you.

Ofiach
08-26-2013, 11:10 PM
Ok this is my vitriolic side coming out. You are the one who started describing the word griefing as a specific and fallacious reference to people like this. You are the one who said it's only about dealing with team mates.

I'm sorry but I won't stand down here because if a word is rooted in a basic root word that is understood to all. In this case being "Greif", a "Greifer" is someone who causes grief and "Greifing" is the action of causing grief. Troll and trolling are actually rooted in the same way. A troll lives under a bridge or chokepoint and wont let people pass. So trolling is the action of not allowing people to pass. So you might say that they are very disparate definitions but they truly aren't. A troll and trolling are actually very much related.

I know I'm delving into an offtopic discussion here and I really do apologize to moderators.

Nicalapegus
08-26-2013, 11:12 PM
^ Still ignoring the point of the thread, and my point. Still focusing on semantics.

To quote the most recent movie "The World's End"-

I'm not arguing with you. There's no point, really.

I do love your cutesy apology to the moderators. You're so innocent! (not)

Ofiach
08-26-2013, 11:24 PM
Heh, you bring semantics into the argument, then try to deflect it on me hoping people wont read the posts before this. I actually do feel bad for going off topic, but I won't back down from someone who is an obvious poly sci student.

This community has seemed so open to discussion and honest argument. I have seen that people like you are the minority on the forum, I will end my comments to you here. This has degenerated far enough.

Mr.Funsocks
08-26-2013, 11:31 PM
*sigh*

Every damn time.

No one wants to do ANYTHING that would deal with griefing, because "it could be used to grief people!"

And so every damn game that's made. Every SINGLE one. Gets overrun with douches who will do whatever they can to annoy their opponent in an unsportsmanlike way.

Hell, LoL is the only game I've ever seen that took it seriously for pro players, and that was only after their community got so goddamn awful it was a running joke on the internet. What's it going to take for people to finally realize that rules have a place? That it's a good idea, even if occasionally they unfairly punish the innocent?

There're easy ways to deal with toxic players, that don't require GM intervention. They can be designed so they aren't easily abused. But no, we can't have that. Because maybe, one time, someone who just had a shaky internet connection MIGHT get mildly impacted by it. It's FAR better for every dipshit upset because his brother was always smarter than him can take it out on you, me, and anyone else he can find for weeks or months, or even for the length of the game, until a GM can finally say "You have officially infracted this rule enough I can ban you."

AFKing instead of accepting a lost, abusive/racist/sexist language, trashtalking, leaving games before they start, finding any possible way to exploit things, yelling at teammates, trolling general chat, as long as they do it juuuust under the level the GMs can get away with banning for, they can do it as much as they want. Got forbid we leave it up to the community in some fashion (10 people just ignored you in 30 seconds? You're muted for a week), or automate it (afk timewasting someone you're losing to? If 5 people report you for it, you get a 3 day ban).

No, we can't do these things, because someone can come up with some example where some tiny population might be affected. Even if it'd be an easy workaround, like making sure reports from 5 people in the same guild don't count, we still can't do it, because of reasons. And it's not that big of a deal, it doesn't bother you!

Yeah, that's a flat out lie. If you're telling me that toxic behavior doesn't bother you, you're lying. Yes, I am accusing you of being a liar. Because it bothers everyone. It's basic human psychology. When someone does something unpleasant at you, it bothers you. Yes, you get over it, like any rational adult. But that doesn't change the fact that that little pissbucket took what was supposed to be your fun, relaxing game time, and for a brief moment, ruined it because Daddy never loved him. And why does he get to keep doing it? Because it would be outright unthinkable for someone to give him some kind of consequence. Consequences are sometimes misapplied! No, he couldn't possibly learn that the community thinks him a poor member because of his behavior. It's far better to reinforce it.

Anyway, that's my rant, as this frustrates me with the community of every new game I play. I'm out.

Deepdigger
08-27-2013, 03:46 AM
*sigh*

Every damn time.

No one wants to do ANYTHING that would deal with griefing, because "it could be used to grief people!"

And so every damn game that's made. Every SINGLE one. Gets overrun with douches who will do whatever they can to annoy their opponent in an unsportsmanlike way.

Hell, LoL is the only game I've ever seen that took it seriously for pro players, and that was only after their community got so goddamn awful it was a running joke on the internet. What's it going to take for people to finally realize that rules have a place? That it's a good idea, even if occasionally they unfairly punish the innocent?

There're easy ways to deal with toxic players, that don't require GM intervention. They can be designed so they aren't easily abused. But no, we can't have that. Because maybe, one time, someone who just had a shaky internet connection MIGHT get mildly impacted by it. It's FAR better for every dipshit upset because his brother was always smarter than him can take it out on you, me, and anyone else he can find for weeks or months, or even for the length of the game, until a GM can finally say "You have officially infracted this rule enough I can ban you."

AFKing instead of accepting a lost, abusive/racist/sexist language, trashtalking, leaving games before they start, finding any possible way to exploit things, yelling at teammates, trolling general chat, as long as they do it juuuust under the level the GMs can get away with banning for, they can do it as much as they want. Got forbid we leave it up to the community in some fashion (10 people just ignored you in 30 seconds? You're muted for a week), or automate it (afk timewasting someone you're losing to? If 5 people report you for it, you get a 3 day ban).

No, we can't do these things, because someone can come up with some example where some tiny population might be affected. Even if it'd be an easy workaround, like making sure reports from 5 people in the same guild don't count, we still can't do it, because of reasons. And it's not that big of a deal, it doesn't bother you!

Yeah, that's a flat out lie. If you're telling me that toxic behavior doesn't bother you, you're lying. Yes, I am accusing you of being a liar. Because it bothers everyone. It's basic human psychology. When someone does something unpleasant at you, it bothers you. Yes, you get over it, like any rational adult. But that doesn't change the fact that that little pissbucket took what was supposed to be your fun, relaxing game time, and for a brief moment, ruined it because Daddy never loved him. And why does he get to keep doing it? Because it would be outright unthinkable for someone to give him some kind of consequence. Consequences are sometimes misapplied! No, he couldn't possibly learn that the community thinks him a poor member because of his behavior. It's far better to reinforce it.

Anyway, that's my rant, as this frustrates me with the community of every new game I play. I'm out.

100% with you.

This is a game -> made for me having fun and others having fun. There is no other purpose. (expept making money for producer)
everything that can cause bad feelings (even when not a deliberate act) should be in some way penalized. This is true for every other social interaction, i dont get it why games dont follow it.

Even if you are handicapped in some way, you are not allowed to spoil the fun for others.
If your internetconnection is not stable enough to play it, even if you are not responsible for it, i feel sorry for you, but this is not MY problem. I dont care. I am not allowed to drive my Jetta in the Formula 1, you are not allowed to waste my time afking.

If the rules are clear beforhand, even if they are extremely strict, they still can be fair.

blakegrandon
08-27-2013, 05:42 AM
*sigh*
No one wants to do ANYTHING that would deal with griefing, because "it could be used to grief people!"


Every anti-griefing system can be used to grief people even more, and griefers WILL abuse it, to assume that only honest people will use self-"policing" ignores the griefers that exist.

Do you really honestly believe griefers won't abuse any systems put in place?

0 people just ignored you in 30 seconds? You're muted for a week

Griefers will start to ignore people in sync, causing honest players to get muted for a week. Then you'll have customer service swamped with reports of people getting falsely ignored for no reason. When you have hundreds of thousands of players to millions of players, customer service can get flooded with false negatives at an extremely rapid pace.


Even if it'd be an easy workaround, like making sure reports from 5 people in the same guild don't count, we still can't do it, because of reasons.
Do you really think griefers wouldn't find a way to abuse this? Like you said earlier griefers find a way to abuse WITHIN the system by staying under what it takes to get banned.

Yeah, that's a flat out lie. If you're telling me that toxic behavior doesn't bother you, you're lying

Griefing bothers me. Guild spam bothers me. Gold sellers bothers me.

Do you know what I do about it? I ignore it because I know the cost to eliminate it would be incredibly high for the developers.

There is no anti-griefer stick that they can apply to keep the griefers away for 8-10 hours at a time. A griefer will grief within the rules.

I hate to break it to you but you and proponents of strict rules act like they won't have unintended consequences, and that's demonstratively false, over the years innocent people have gotten swept up in robotic enforcement of rules intended to help the majority of players, and often it has caused more issues than it's solved.

Take WC3 Banlist for example, it was used by the DOTA community as a form of self-policing. I got on there several times because of opponents that couldn't stand losing, getting off of the list was more difficult than getting on the list.


Consequences are sometimes misapplied! No, he couldn't possibly learn that the community thinks him a poor member because of his behavior. It's far better to reinforce it.

Just like it's naive to think toxic behavior doesn't bother people, it's naive to think that consequences are not misapplied.

Police arrest the wrong person all the time, hell look at the college kid that got 3 million dollars for being locked in a room for DAYS.

Real life has strict laws that get abused ALL the time, just because it's the internet doesn't mean it will be infallible.

I'm not against rules, I'm against knee jerk reactions that solve precisely nothing.

Others have stated this over and over again, but just to make it absolutely clear: In a tournament almost every round will take the full 30 minutes. NO ONE in the tournament will be playing multiple games because there will ALWAYS be at least one match taking the full 30 minutes. If YOUR opponent afks or D/C's then you get an easy win, just have a browser open or read a book or something.

In real life if my opponent no shows I get an automatic win, I go read a book or grab some food, I don't go demanding he be stripped of his DCI number and I don't demand that they track how many no shows the guy has.

If we want to apply REAL LIFE to Digital gaming, apply the whole damn example, don't just cherrypick and say "no one" in real life would walk off from a tournament, because it happens ALL the damn time.

I expect this post to get dissected and people to selectively respond to what they perceive as the weak points in the post, while completely ignoring the actual point.... BUT I hope I got my point across and that while I AM NOT opposed to rules, they have to be crafted in a way that uses common sense.

"Griefers" in tournament play are a non-issue because your rounds will almost always use the full 30 minutes per player.

Cryptozoic has more important things to worry about than how someone uses the time legally allotted to them.

Kami
08-27-2013, 06:02 AM
Others have stated this over and over again, but just to make it absolutely clear: In a tournament almost every round will take the full 30 minutes. NO ONE in the tournament will be playing multiple games because there will ALWAYS be at least one match taking the full 30 minutes. If YOUR opponent afks or D/C's then you get an easy win, just have a browser open or read a book or something.

Uh... I dunno about you but having watched many players on Twitch.tv, I'd disagree. Only a handful of games tend to go the full thirty minutes. Usually it's pretty decisive after 15mins. Additionally, many of the more advanced players DO play multiple games simultaneously because they're able to analyze and play quickly.


In real life if my opponent no shows I get an automatic win, I go read a book or grab some food, I don't go demanding he be stripped of his DCI number and I don't demand that they track how many no shows the guy has.

There's a marked difference between no show and starting the game then leaving you waiting for the remainder of the game after only a few minutes of play at the start. Yeah, you could argue <1% of the population might do that but let's assume that the population hits one million or higher. That's 10,000 people that would be doing that! Honestly, who plays a game only for the prize? People play for the game, the prize is a byproduct.


If we want to apply REAL LIFE to Digital gaming, apply the whole damn example, don't just cherrypick and say "no one" in real life would walk off from a tournament, because it happens ALL the damn time.

Some things aren't enforceable online.


"Griefers" in tournament play are a non-issue because your rounds will almost always use the full 30 minutes per player.

I still disagree with this.


Cryptozoic has more important things to worry about than how someone uses the time legally allotted to them.

I have mixed opinions on this because they want to break into eSports. If they don't properly manage rules and have a fair and sportsman-like system in place, it can potentially turn into a League of Legends vitriolic cess pool. Granted, one of the main differences for League of Legends is that you rely heavily on your teammates.

However, even in competitive chess, unsportsmanlike conduct will net you penalties.

That being said, I believe a good Code of Conduct for the game itself is in order. Things should be enforced on a case by case basis - there are more than enough analytics for CZE to have a list of players to keep an eye on and enforce as needed.

While it will suck to be playing with an unsportsmanlike player, it shouldn't be left to the community itself to enforce such things.

Maphalux
08-27-2013, 06:19 AM
Because you should care about the community you're playing in? Also, just because you're fine with it doesn't mean the other people in the tournament are fine with waiting an extra 10-20 minutes for your match to be resolved. When I read a statement like this where someone is fine with griefing, all I can think is I hope you come across it every single match so that you can understand the frustration of it. Every now and then, you're going to run into a situation where you will actually want to start the next round 10-20 minutes earlier but you can't because you have to wait for the sore loser to time out.

Oh well. The round accounts for an hour of time and so should the players. I'm not saying it is ok for people to be jerks. I'm just saying if people get irritated waiting the full time for a round to be over, that is a problem with their perception and they need to learn patience regardless of the reason why the round went the full time.

In the grand scope of things, a losing player drawing out their match via stall or disconnect doesn't bother me because I'm still going to win and I had already accounted for the fact that a match can take up to an hour as per the rules.

vickrpg
08-27-2013, 07:10 AM
People people... let's try to take the emotional level down a level, not every argument has to be turned to 11. I get that we're passionate about this (and other) game(s), but let's try to respect each other.

It is my opinion that Protecting the innocent, making play more fun for honest players, and preventing bad behavior are far more important than punishing the guilty. Punishment can be an effective deterrent, but it leaves itself open to abuse, but that's just like, my opinion, man.

Let's look at the proposed Ideas from a calmer perspective.

Avoidance
I'm all for the ability to ignore, report or otherwise prevent people from being matched up with you, that's like, a standard in most games online these days and I'd be surprised if there wasn't such a system. but I'm a bit weary of penalties, especially automated ones, because they can be used maliciously or triggered accidentally. I'm not opposed to them completely, but harsh penalties should be avoided, IMO

Harsh penalties
I agree that negative behavior should not be reinforced, and there should be some sort of system to track negative behavior. but this is also very easy to abuse. so IF there are penalties, they should not be so harsh that they cause a significant long term impact on a player's account, but just a deterrent. Someone mentioned being banned or muted for a week, this is the kind of harshness I disagree with, especially if automated. bans and mutes (never seen a muting system in a game) should be left to GMs and saved for repeat offenders. People are not perfect and sometimes we slip up, it's the patterns and community we need to worry about, not individual mistakes. but again, just what I think.

Disconnect timers
They have already confirmed a 3 minute disconnect grace period, this is a non-issue. You take the win when your opponent disconnects, no need to punish people further. Disconnected on purpose often? still a non-issue, you are penalized with a 3 minute loss. if you have connection issues, you are not impacted any further. I think we can agree this is fair. In games like WoW, where when you disconnect or leave a pvp match, you have a 30-40 minute penalty, this can be horrible for an honest player who disconnects accidentally. Did it reduce griefing? yes, somewhat. but it sucks when you come home have about an hour to play, want to play a quick WSG, your internet betrays you in the first minute, and you are no longer allowed to play that WSG for the hour. This would be horrible for hex, IMHO, because it is supposed to be designed for quick play.

AFK timers?
A 5-10 minute timer with a button on your opponent's side to accept. When someone proposed this Idea earlier in the thread I thought "That's amazing! wish I had thought of it!". A system where after 30-45 seconds of no user input (no mouse moves, typing, etc) you are flagged as AFK, then a dialogue box appears on your opponent's side that says "Your opponent is AFK, You will be allowed an auto-win in X minutes" Where X is a countdown, that is broken by user input sounds fair, and enough of a pain to get around to at least reduce abuse. Perhaps even an "Are you there?" button, (with a 45-60 second cooldown to prevent spamming) that gives the opponent 5 minutes to respond or act in game before auto-loss?

Match/turn timers
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the people who went to Gencon have confirmed a 30 minute timer for matches, yes? That seems like plenty of time to me, but with the above AFK timer I think we could solve many an issue discussed here. as long as there is both user input (mouse moves, clicks) and cards being played or resolved, I don't think anyone has argued against turn timers whatsoever. Slow play is Okay, no play is not "yay." </rhyme> What IS a problem is people stalling by not playing cards or clicking anything at all, whether it is by leaving or by staying to annoy. An AFK timer would solve the former, and the latter will be rare IMO, if it isn't I'm sure our friends at CZE will come up with a creative solution IF it becomes a problem.


And on a slightly off topic note, another point of view that I'll probably start another topic with soon(my posts take a while to write)
The reason we are quick to "forgive" behavior online that we wouldn't forgive in IRL is simple: It's not IRL. Your parents/spouse wouldn't dream of going into a card shop, in the middle of a torunament and asking you to kill a spider or buy some milk. but in our society being at a computer is not considered a "Real" activity. It is not considered as important as the same activity in physical space. Unfortunate, but true. this is an obstacle that e-sports have to deal with, but it is reality. Even people who work online have this problem.

zadies
08-27-2013, 07:14 AM
I can understand people not wanting to make rules for afkers which can also be seen from the opponents end as slow play.... But the issue is if you are at you computer interacting with the game the server will know. If your still connected to the internet the server will know. Saying that the game can't tell when someone is playing it and using it as a defense for poor behavior because it might flag someone who is just taking a lot of time making up their mind is silly you can have a pop up if nessicary that asks are you still there.
No one defending the idea of no penalties has yet to give an explanation as to why things not acceptable in real life should be acceptable here.
It makes me wonder other then those complaining about poor internet connections are actually looking forward to doing this to people during actual games and they are just defending their right to grief by trolling on the forums now.

blakegrandon
08-27-2013, 07:25 AM
I can understand people not wanting to make rules for afkers which can also be seen from the opponents end as slow play.... But the issue is if you are at you computer interacting with the game the server will know. If your still connected to the internet the server will know. Saying that the game can't tell when someone is playing it and using it as a defense for poor behavior because it might flag someone who is just taking a lot of time making up their mind is silly you can have a pop up if nessicary that asks are you still there.
No one defending the idea of no penalties has yet to give an explanation as to why things not acceptable in real life should be acceptable here.
It makes me wonder other then those complaining about poor internet connections are actually looking forward to doing this to people during actual games and they are just defending their right to grief by trolling on the forums now.

First, it's you're. The word you're looking for is you're.

Second, the game might be able to tell whether you're playing or not but what's the difference between someone stalling by taking REALLY long turns and someone stalling by taking ONE really long turn? Either way you are going to be taking the full 30 minutes to play.

Third, I'm defending the idea of no penalties and again, I gave an example of a situation in real life that you're asking to be penalized for but that results in no penalties in real life. If a person leaves a match and walks away instead of playing it out he's not going to get kicked out of the DCI, you will still have to wait until the round is over to get your win.

If you want to penalize the same as in "real life" go ahead, but don't invent penalties that don't exist in real life.

Fourth: This is what really pisses me off, you insinuating that those of us that are against penalties are griefers. I'm the furthest thing from a griefer, but I believe there are unintended consequences that can cause more problems than the problems that the rules set out to fix.

Seriously, your post history contains quite a bit of what some could construe as trolling and you have the audacity to accuse us of looking forward to griefing and trolling?


Uh... I dunno about you but having watched many players on Twitch.tv, I'd disagree. Only a handful of games tend to go the full thirty minutes. Usually it's pretty decisive after 15mins. Additionally, many of the more advanced players DO play multiple games simultaneously because they're able to analyze and play quickly.

The finished product could easily play quite differently once people get more advanced deck options and the game play is polished. I've played a ton of magic games that "look" decisive after 15 minutes but then get dragged out and the game flips on it's head and the decisive winner loses.

I'm against playing multiple games because then it could lead to botting, anyone that thinks botting can't occur in a TCG doesn't realize just how advanced botting can be.

*Full disclosure is that botting cannot be prevented even by limiting it to one game at a time, people will always find ways around limiting one game at a time.

Who is going to be in charge of deciding whether someone is "griefing" while running out the clock versus playing slow? The players? That opens it up to abuse. If you say Cryptozoic then I'm not sure you understand how difficult it is to have hundreds of thousands to millions of players concurrently and deal with adjudicating on a massive scale.

It's no different than our legal system, the more laws you impose the more lawbreakers you create, leading to more people getting punished that otherwise wouldn't be punished.

zadies
08-27-2013, 07:59 AM
Turning a debate into a battle of symantics to avoid the issue I would construed as trolling. Nico turned it into a symatic debate then attacked the person for continuing it so yes. I never proposed a slow play penalty I used it as an example of a real life rule I'd try to apply to some who dced. I have been focusing on dcs here and gave a rather generous five times a month.
Are you saying there would be no penalties in real life after 5 separate DCI tournaments where you took your cards left and did not tell the judge/scorekeeper. I kept it on the simplest most easy to see example the fact that everyone has been focusing on slow play in their counter arguments is their doing but not. At all what I have personally been talking about here. Also I have been defending postioins that cze has already stated an official stance on when it comes to things like mercs though possibly in an aggressive way.

blakegrandon
08-27-2013, 08:05 AM
Are you saying there would be no penalties in real life after 5 separate DCI tournaments where you took your cards left and did not tell the judge/scorekeeper.

People leave early from tournaments all the time, they're simply dropped if they no show for more than one match in a row. Granted it's been at least 5 years since I've played or judged a DCI tournament, but as a DCI sanctioned judge I never penalized people for leaving early, their opponents already get a win.

It's a GAME, not a serious business negotiation, and thus it needs to be treated like a game. Just because someone D/C's 5 times a month doesn't mean they're griefing.

Still waiting on that apology for insinuating those of us that aren't agreeing with you are looking forward to Griefing.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-27-2013, 08:42 AM
I do have to second that in a live game or MTGO, there's no penalty for leaving early (though in MTGO it's nice if you leave instead of just going AFK, and in real life it's nice if you tell the TO so he can record that you've left). And I don't think there should be a penalty.

In a game that actually matters (ie. a match for prizes, or in a tournament, or in a ranked match), again I'm totally fine with just the 30 minute clock, though I don't mind a 5 minute no-action-means-forfeit timer, as even with the most complicated gamestates 5 minutes is pushing it. You could make an argument for 3 minutes, but any less is dangerous territory. As for casual games though, I don't think it needs to be policed - if someone goes AFK or leaves, just quit and move onto the next game. Sure, it's not as fun as playing, but it's not like you can force your opponents to finish matches, nor should you be able to. We should be encouraging people in the community to be good players, and actually leave a game with a "gg, /concede" rather than AFK - not punishing everyone who goes AFK in any format.

zadies
08-27-2013, 10:33 AM
The issue here is if someone got up from a tournament I would not have to sit and wait there 30 mins before it was declared a win which is actually the point in contention here.
DCI rule 2.10
`Players that repeatedly and or intentionally drop from tournaments without informing the scorekeepers of those events may be subject to DCI penalties up to including suspension.`
End of the first paragraph of the rule involving dropping from the tournament. I am saying repeated dcing is equivalent to leaving a tournament without informing the score keeper we can discuss the number of dcs necessary to impose a penalty but the fact you are trying to say there are no penalties for doing it in real life and I would have to sit at my table for the full 30 mins on the off chance my opponent was going to come back after picking up his deck and leaving is utterly false.
Also you keep discussing slow play which I have made no comments about having qualms about if you are interacting with the game you have not dced.
Also a 5 min afk timer isn't harsh if you have a wife and kid that ask you to go kill a spider they can walk by and hit the button every so often. Instituting a penalty after repeated offenses in good behavior even if you need 20 infractions tho if it took that many I would say they should slowly decrease rather then reset to 0 each month encourages good behavior.

LargoLaGrande
08-27-2013, 10:35 AM
Turning a debate into a battle of symantics to avoid the issue I would construed as trolling. Nico turned it into a symatic debate then attacked the person for continuing it so yes. I never proposed a slow play penalty I used it as an example of a real life rule I'd try to apply to some who dced. I have been focusing on dcs here and gave a rather generous five times a month.

Here's the thing about slow play: it doesn't exist on MODO. It's only an infraction in paper tournaments because players share a 50 minutes clock, instead of online where they each have separate 25 minute clocks. The consequence of being a virtual game means that there is no comparison for slow play, the best comparison is someone leaving in the middle of a match which has the same penalty on MODO (match loss) it just takes some amount of time to make sure the person isn't coming back (it's 10 minutes on MODO)



Are you saying there would be no penalties in real life after 5 separate DCI tournaments where you took your cards left and did not tell the judge/scorekeeper. I kept it on the simplest most easy to see example the fact that everyone has been focusing on slow play in their counter arguments is their doing but not. At all what I have personally been talking about here. Also I have been defending postioins that cze has already stated an official stance on when it comes to things like mercs though possibly in an aggressive way.

The IRL penalty is a match loss, and then if you don't show up before the end of the round they just drop you from the tournament.


The issue here is if someone got up from a tournament I would not have to sit and wait there 30 mins before it was declared a win which is actually the point in contention here.

Nor do you here. You're on a computer with internet access, go on the youtube, or play pokemon, or duo queue casual games until the round is over (or, if you already are playing casual just concede and find an opponent who will play his game). You don't have to just sit there and wait.

OutlandishMatt
08-27-2013, 10:45 AM
In real life you would be penalized for slow playing and trying to extend the game until time has been called. That's what I consider the act of disconnecting maliciously. You are knowingly delaying your opponent from a win. How is anyone arguing for this? I can't believe anyone would say, "I think people should have a right to repeatedly delay people from a win for 10-20 minutes." No, it's unsportsmanlike behavior and if there are no penalties in place to hinder it I believe it just encourages it.

Also, how can griefers/trolls/bad people abuse a system that is only available to report players when a certain action takes place? My suggestion was, you only get the option to report a player if it's a disconnect and you earn a match win from the disconnect. How can anyone be trolled by that? If it happens multiple times then you deserve to be reported for the offense and shouldn't participate against other players. It's not fun for the other players to deal with it.


Nor do you here. You're on a computer with internet access, go on the youtube, or play pokemon, or duo queue casual games until the round is over (or, if you already are playing casual just concede and find an opponent who will play his game). You don't have to just sit there and wait.

Everyone else in the tournament would have to sit around and wait. How is this sportsmanlike behavior? Please, someone, tell me. Why is anyone arguing for the allowance of this behavior?

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-27-2013, 10:55 AM
The difference between slow play in a tournament and online is that, online, you lose if you run out of time on your 30 minute clock, so it actually helps the opponent if you play slowly (I'm pretty sure you simply flat out lose, even if you're up a game in the match). IRL, they declare the current game a draw and still keep previous results, so if you slow play then you can actually use that to your advantage.

I don't mind a report system. I don't mind a 5/10-minute-afk-concession (that is, if they're afk for 5 or 10 minutes, whichever is chosen, they're forced to concede). I just think it's dangerous to go with an auto-concede that's less than that as some complicated turns can take a minute or two to think through, especially when there's a lot on the line.

nicosharp
08-27-2013, 11:16 AM
For everything I hate about MTG:O, I do like their timer system.

People need to understand that what happens in a card-shop / at a live event, is a lot different when you are online. There are real world obligations around you that can not be avoided by simply ignoring them, and not all come with a timer, or specific time of the day.

With that said, MTG:O's tournament/draft timer was either 25 or 30 minutes for each player, for their best of 3 match. It is like a chess timer, and only clicks down for you while the play is in your priority. If you were idle for 10 minutes during your priority, you would get an automatic match loss.

Why so long? Well, it gives people the ability to step away and take care of business while their timer ticks down. I always played games there quickly, but I had certain scenarios where I had to get some business done. 3-4hour blocks of time running on a timer, with no built in breaks can be challenging unless you use those 10 minutes. Sometimes I need to eat, go to the bathroom, run a quick errand. I found the 10 minutes invaluable and sometimes too short. I even had to make my wife pass priority for me once while I ran a 15 minute errand.

A tournament or draft does not just effect your opponent, it effects everyone in that tournament. Having consistent timers for the whole group of players is necessary, but if the timers are too short, and the matches still take a long time, it is more difficult for players to actually deal with real world responsibilities. I know real world responsibilities don't mean a lot to some hardcore gamers that have uninterrupted time, but all types of players want to play competitively, and for some even getting 30minutes uninterrupted is a challenge.

Yoss
08-27-2013, 11:59 AM
Edit: regarding playing multiple games, there are way more people that think they are capable of doing that than there actually are people who can... I've played countless games on MTGO where they were slowed down dramatically because someone wanted to play more games at once. That can be almost as bad as the griefing. Maybe let them do pve and pvp at the same time, that way at worst they're only ever keeping one person waiting.
Letting you PVE while you PVP would be perfect. Then if your PVP game is stuck waiting for timer, you just PVE while you wait. Also, if there's a 30 minute timer, I want the full 30 minutes in case I get called away like nico was talking about.

zadies
08-27-2013, 12:23 PM
I'm sorry going afk, dissconecting and slow play are three TOTALLY separate things.
Slow play indicates that you are actually playing the game.
Disconnecting means you are no longer connected to hex so you have left the tournament zone and did not tell the scorekeeper.
Afk with a 5 or 10 min timer where it pops up after either 2 or 7 mins and has a count down press this button or you concede the game gives you the option of telling the score keeper and this timer should not be poping up when you are interacting with the hex client.
It is avoiding the issue saying all three things are the same afk/disconnects/slow play they are three separate things and should be treated separately.

Everyone seems to be defending slow play, but are then using slow play examples to defend the other two concepts from penalties. I have no issues with slow play.
Slow play should not be penalized more then the timer.

Afk loses should be tracked and if they get excessive such that 25% of your loses are due to the afk timer you should be named from compretitve play for a period of time and I'm talking weeks here not hours. If you get in interupted in real life more then 10% of the time your spending money to game you should have better sense then that. And if it is found that you lose 5 matches after timing out where you coninously said you were not afk it should auto escalate to a gm to have the behavior examined for briefing this is not something someone should need to report.
Also in regards to bio breaks or needing a drink between switching opponents perhaps a 10-15 min timer to confirm your ready for the next match where it gives you an option to start it concede or it concedes for you if you don't start the mastch when the timer expires where the game tracks so after 25% your games auto conceding on switches you are named or doing it in too many tournaments in a row 3-5 would be a good number.

Disconnects are leaving the building in real life I understand some people have poor internet connections but of you are disconnecting for more then 3 mins 5+ times a month it is more likely a case of griefing and you shouldn't be able to request for an hour vafter the 6+ dissconect.

Muliplay just encourages briefing because some that grinds pve to pay for tournaments are more likely being f2p players the ones to be griefing so you allow them both to grief someone and provide the means to grief someone else all at the same time.

The auto loss on disconnect/afk after a certain amount of time has passed are good starts they alivate the fact that those concerned about the community and not doing it habitually from acting like asses. The issue is defining something that is habitual everyone is opposing this is operating under the assumptions that people are reasonable as has been shown through various conversations on the forums and how great the people at gencon were. These are the individuals that have invested into the game already though, not people who are playingn for free who would get kicks annoying third elders.

nicosharp
08-27-2013, 12:54 PM
In the virtual world, you need to treat afk/slowplay/disconnects all the same way. You don't know what is happening on the other end.

I think the biggest realization people need to come to concerning this topic is your opponents timer does not effect your timer. If we are given a timer, it is there for a reason, and all rules based around time are built into that clock.

I don't see the benefit in reporting offenders of 'time'. Yes, it is brutally annoying when you are being slow-rolled, but in the end, it really only hurts the person doing the slow-rolling.

I am not saying 10 minutes is the best answer for auto-loss if AFK, but from my experience, 5 minutes or less seems too short.

hex_colin
08-27-2013, 01:03 PM
In the virtual world, you need to treat afk/slowplay/disconnects all the same way. You don't know what is happening on the other end.

This.

As I've stated previously, you can't divine intent from ANY of the above actions. Wait for your opponents clock to run down and pick up your win.

I'm a bit disappointed that many in this community are so eager to be punitive (in some cases excessively so, e.g. long tournament bans) AND assume the worst in their opponents. That sort of attitude is almost as bad as the (as yet unencountered!) "griefing" behavior people are trying to penalize.

Xtopher
08-27-2013, 01:29 PM
This.

As I've stated previously, you can't divine intent from ANY of the above actions. Wait for your opponents clock to run down and pick up your win.

I'm a bit disappointed that many in this community are so eager to be punitive (in some cases excessively so, e.g. long tournament bans) AND assume the worst in their opponents. That sort of attitude is almost as bad as the (as yet unencountered!) "griefing" behavior people are trying to penalize.

The key is CZE giving players access to filters that will allow them to weed out the types of players they don't want to play against. Three filter suggestions:

1) Slow play (< x moves per minute)
2) Disconnect percentage
3) Quit percentage

Anything that happens in a tourney or sanctioned play environment along these lines doesn`t require the use of filters or penalties.

I really don`t want to play in an environment where people get off on reporting others. If I wanted to play in the TCG equivalent of a police state I`d still be playing MTGO.

hex_colin
08-27-2013, 01:41 PM
The key is CZE giving players access to filters that will allow them to weed out the types of players they don't want to play against. Three filter suggestions:

1) Slow play (< x moves per minute)
2) Disconnect percentage
3) Quit percentage

Anything that happens in a tourney or sanctioned play environment along these lines doesn`t require the use of filters or penalties.

I really don`t want to play in an environment where people get off on reporting others. If I wanted to play in the TCG equivalent of a police state I`d still be playing MTGO.

In reality, none of these really work the way you'd want them to, especially "slow play".

Also CZE would have to implement mechanisms for the potential review and removal of each and every "black mark" against an account so that people could appeal, remove unwarranted instances, etc.

That'd take considerable time and resources to develop the software to make this happen, and ongoing human support costs. Personally, I'd prefer they spent the time improving the game, adding new cards and PVE content, etc.

Finally, even if occasionally it happened to you (someone rage-quitting and not conceding), you can mitigate it almost completely by playing matches against guildies, friends, etc.

Xenavire
08-27-2013, 02:10 PM
We do need some limited report features, but anyone reported should go through a review process before any punitive actions are taken. There are the risks of bots, griefers, and more, and we should be able to report people who are obviously abusing the system.

On the flip side, anyone abusing the report feature (reporting people who are obviously innocent) should be equally punished.

As for the actual issue of timers and disconnects and AFK'ers, there should be a disconnect warning or icon to show your opponent has disconnected. If that is there, you simply cannot report them (as they would get the loss anyway.) If they are AFK or Slow playing, you should be able to request an action timer (which you can only access after a certain amount of time has passed so you cannot grief others) that brings up a query for the other player. If they don't click it in X amount of time, they forfeit.

Now the times on these things should be dependant on the circumstances. I am not advocating we punish innocent players, and would like to have every safeguard against poor play. I simply want a fair and simple way to weed out the poor sportsmen.

ramseytheory
08-27-2013, 02:30 PM
Slow play can trivially be distinguished from AFK and disconnection by popping up a dialog box on the slow player's end to ask if they're still there, as multiple people have pointed out. And given that CZE are already planning a disconnect timer, we know they can tell disconnects from AFKs and slow play. (As you'd expect - a server can generally tell whether or not a client is connected to it!) The only difficult thing is distinguishing between slow play and griefing.

Alt-tabbing out to Youtube and waiting for the win is not a viable solution. Otherwise, you'll get people sitting there and doing nothing on turn one until you alt-tab out, then taking their turn and watching your clock run down. Unless there's an in-game facility for switching to PVE and getting a notification when your opponent moves, you have to at least check what's happening every few minutes.

Drawing comparisons to organised paper tournaments is off-base. Those tournaments have strict round timing because they're large enough that without strict timing rules there would be chaos, and large enough that probably someone will be taking the full time in most rounds. The vast majority of Hex tournaments, meanwhile, are going to have eight players and last three rounds. There's no reason at all not to proceed to the next round as soon as one round is over - and when a round consists of one or two games in parallel, more often than not that will be after twenty minutes or so.

It's true that all this can be mitigated by playing with friends and guildies (unless you want to draft or play in tournaments), but the game will be far better and grow far faster if new players don't need to have a clique of Hexite friends to make the experience tolerable.

I'm not sure what the actual solution is, or where the balance between punishment and tolerance should fall, but I do think the problem is real.

OutlandishMatt
08-27-2013, 02:39 PM
As I've stated previously, you can't divine intent from ANY of the above actions. Wait for your opponents clock to run down and pick up your win.

But they can. Colin, please help me identify where someone can abuse the system I have stated multiple times. My example would only allow reporting in tournament matches and only once a certain criteria has been met.

The person disconnects, doesn't reconnect and gets a match loss. That game gets flagged, saved, and added to the report if the opponent decides to report them. The opponent playing him is now given the option to report the user for unsportsmanlike conduct. If a 5th infraction happens within a 30 day time period of the 1st infraction, then it gets forwarded to a GM who can look at all 5 matches and see the game state when the disconnect happens and make a ruling and then suspend that player for a certain amount of time from tournament play, JUST tournament play (they can still play casual PvP and PvE), if it is warranted. If the disconnects look like they were not unsportsmanlike, the GM can remove the reports.

How is that abusive and how do you see that being a problem? I don't see it happening a lot and the GM reviewing the game state when the disconnect happens makes it justifiable. It takes away the guess work that you're worried about.

nicosharp
08-27-2013, 02:41 PM
I am not advocating we punish innocent players, and would like to have every safeguard against poor play. I simply want a fair and simple way to weed out the poor sportsmen.
In a turn-based card game, what would you associate with poor play outside of slow-play?
Verbal abuse? Written abuse? Potential Botting or Card interaction abuse?
Assuming the cards work as intended, what else could you possibly complain about?

If the solution was "fair and simple" we wouldn't need to hash it out here, and other games would already have those solutions in place.

Riot Games has spent a ton of money and resources to try and improve their player-base. They even go to the effort of validating it with numbers and reports to the public. However, if you actually play LoL, you will know the same trolls find new ways to troll, and the community has not improved at all since their October 2009 launch. On paper, their report system and community Tribunal may look good, but even with that weed killer, weeds grow back, or just grow elsewhere.

LoL is a bad example as it is harder to have mechanisms in place to protect players randomly grouped together on the same team. Griefing is always going to be an issue that makes sense to be policed by players.

In a game where it is you against a single opponent, it is much easier to have mechanisms in place, and those mechanisms tweaked, to prevent a toxic environment. (as opposed to a player sanctioned reporting tool)

hex_colin
08-27-2013, 02:48 PM
But they can. Colin, please help me identify where someone can abuse the system I have stated multiple times. My example would only allow reporting in tournament matches and only once a certain criteria has been met.

The person disconnects, doesn't reconnect and gets a match loss. That game gets flagged, the opponent playing him is now given the option to report the user for unsportsmanlike conduct. If a 5th infraction happens within a 30 day time period of the 1st infraction, then it gets forwarded to a GM who can look at all 5 matches and see the game state and make a ruling and then suspend that player for a certain amount of time from tournament play, JUST tournament play, if it is warranted. If the disconnects look like they were not unsportsmanlike, the GM can remove the reports.

How is that abusive and how do you see that being a problem? I don't see it happening a lot and the GM reviewing the game state when the disconnect happens makes it justifiable. It takes away the guess work that you're worried about.

You're adding software complexity and support costs for no good reason. Your match ended within the timeframe allotted to it (and always will) and, as a bonus, you got an easy win! What are you trying to accomplish except punish someone who you're assuming had bad motives, but that you can't prove?

I guarantee you that CZE definitely doesn't want "Player banned from tournament play for bad internet connection" to make the headlines on popular fan sites and gaming sites.

Sometimes the right answer is not to have an answer, especially to a problem that hasn't happened yet, and certainly hasn't been quantified to an extent necessary to determine whether or not there is value in making investments to "fix" it.

Xtopher
08-27-2013, 02:51 PM
In reality, none of these really work the way you'd want them to, especially "slow play".
Personally I could not care less if they work or not as I would never use them. However, what people want is to not be matched up against quitters, disconnects, and slow players. This would accomplish that. It's a much better alternative than having a Byzantine report system that wastes CZE's time and resources.

For example, a slow player that when he's on the clock uses more than 60 seconds of time on average, per turn. Filter. Don't ever have to play them.

A player who disconnects from 20% or more of his games. Filter. Don't ever have to play them.

A player that quits/disconnects from 80% or more of their games. Filter. Don't ever have to play them.

Note, I'm referring to casual games only, not tourney games. People that pay an entry fee are entitled to their full clock time, always.

OutlandishMatt
08-27-2013, 03:03 PM
You're adding software complexity and support costs for no good reason. Your match ended within the timeframe allotted to it (and always will) and, as a bonus, you got an easy win! What are you trying to accomplish except punish someone who you're assuming had bad motives, but that you can't prove?

Software complexity? I wouldn't think it would take much programming to say "If Win Condition = Disconnect then Prompt Report Player." "If Report Player = Yes Add X Game and Y Infraction for Z Player Record" "If Z Player Record = 5 Y Infractions Report to GM". Also, you can prove it because of the game state that I said the GM would review in each infraction.


I guarantee you that CZE definitely doesn't want "Player banned from tournament play for bad internet connection" to make the headlines on popular fan sites and gaming sites.

I guarantee they don't want that either but I'd also guarantee Cory doesn't want toxic community members. And the system I have stated has checks and balances.


Sometimes the right answer is not to have an answer, especially to a problem that hasn't happened yet, and certainly hasn't been quantified to an extent necessary to determine whether or not there is value in making investments to "fix" it.

You can look at every online TCG and see the problem exists, in full force. I've encountered it in every one I've played starting with Magic Online which Hex is trying to be and beat. One of the many ways I want to see Hex beat it, have a better community that embraces sportsmanship and punishes those that don't. I guarantee more people would praise Cryptozoic for having something like this in place than condemn.

Cryptozoic has a chance to improve on everything every other online TCG tries to do. They can take what every MMO and TCG tries to accomplish and actually accomplish it. They're building from the ground up rather than having to improve on what is already there.


Personally I could not care less if they work or not as I would never use them. However, what people want is to not be matched up against quitters, disconnects, and slow players. This would accomplish that. It's a much better alternative than having a Byzantine report system that wastes CZE's time and resources.

You cannot have a system in place that allows you to bypass tournament pairings. Going off of Magic, you would easily say I want to ignore everyone that is a Pro Player. You can't do this. You could only go as far as to mute the player. In no way could you put a system in place that allows another player to avoid playing a specific player.

And yes, I see you said Casual format but in Casual format I think you actually pick who you play against. I'm not sure there will be a random queue. Of course, I'm basing this off my Magic Online play.

nicosharp
08-27-2013, 03:06 PM
Personally I could not care less if they work or not as I would never use them. However, what people want is to not be matched up against quitters, disconnects, and slow players. This would accomplish that. It's a much better alternative than having a Byzantine report system that wastes CZE's time and resources.

For example, a slow player that when he's on the clock uses more than 60 seconds of time on average, per turn. Filter. Don't ever have to play them.

A player who disconnects from 20% or more of his games. Filter. Don't ever have to play them.

A player that quits/disconnects from 80% or more of their games. Filter. Don't ever have to play them.

Note, I'm referring to casual games only, not tourney games. People that pay an entry fee are entitled to their full clock time, always.
Black-list filters never make it into games with matchmaking because it screws up matchmaking and can be exploited to a players benefit. Brief example - 10 players beat you badly so you black-listed all 10 so you can't lose to them anymore despite them being listed in the same ELO range as you.

If the games don't matter, you can still have someone on your ignore list and leave the game if they end up being your opponent.

For people that want to avoid all forms of griefing by time, and by verbal, I think the game you are looking for is Hearthstone. Each turn has a limited timer, and the only way you can communicate is through hero commands. This is made possible by most games taking 10minutes, and even tournament queues being entered when the player chooses, not setup to a time schedule.

Dealing with a full TCG, and priority windows, and in a chat friendly MMO world, there are very few black and white areas. Just a lot of shades of grey.

hex_colin
08-27-2013, 03:14 PM
Software complexity? I wouldn't think it would take much programming to say "If Win Condition = Disconnect then Prompt Report Player." "If Report Player = Yes Add X Game and Y Infraction for Z Player Record" "If Z Player Record = 5 Y Infractions Report to GM". Also, you can prove it because of the game state that I said the GM would review in each infraction.

It's much more complicated that that after you add in the UI for monitoring the "infractions", parsing them out to GMs, automated code for removing bans, etc. etc. Not to mention all of the extra data...

You can only prove that they DC'd and didn't make it back on. You can't prove intent. And punishment without considering intent is a slippery slope... I get DC'd and I can't get back online for 10-20 minutes at least once a week - I'm the poster child for your tournament bans.




I guarantee they don't want that either but I'd also guarantee Cory doesn't want toxic community members. And the system I have stated has checks and balances.

Very, very expensive HUMAN checks and balances. That's not where you want CZE spending their money early in Hex's life.


You can look at every online TCG and see the problem exists, in full force. I've encountered it in every one I've played starting with Magic Online which Hex is trying to be and beat. One of the many ways I want to see Hex beat it, have a better community that embraces sportsmanship and punishes those that don't. I guarantee more people would praise Cryptozoic for having something like this in place than condemn.

Cryptozoic has a chance to improve on everything every other online TCG tries to do. They can take what every MMO and TCG tries to accomplish and actually accomplish it. They're building from the ground up rather than having to improve on what is already there.

They can't do everything all at once. Even if they came up with the most perfect, fairest system possible - would you want that instead of 3 sets in a year? Instead of match replays? Instead of new PVE content every couple of months? Instead of new tournament types? Instead of awesome guild features? Instead of more money as tournament prizes?

hex_colin
08-27-2013, 03:32 PM
It strikes me that if someone REALLY wanted to grief a game of Hex, their best course of action would be play part of their turn, kill their client or internet connection, reconnect just before the "griefing" DC limit, play another part of their turn, kill their client, reconnect again after a couple of minutes, and repeat as necessary for the maximum amount of time possible...

How would you differentiate this from someone with a bad connection? You couldn't! You report it to a GM who follows up with the "griefer" who says "yeah, sorry my internet connection was crap - I kept trying to get back online". Net result - no action against the "griefer", but you've wasted your time, and the GMs time, and increased support wait times for everyone.

zadies
08-27-2013, 03:43 PM
The reason for the toxicity in LoL and other games was the attempt to make rules after the issues arose. If you stop it from being an issue in the beginning and have the systems in place before launch you don't allow things to become toxic in the first place.
And while I on my computer can't tell that there is something going on at your end the server can tell if you are sending packets to it thus not connected it can pop up an afk timer after 5-10 mins to find out if you are analyzing boards state.
There is no reporting feature needed... The game tracks all behaviors that players exhibit internally thus there is nothing to abuse and accuse the innocent.
I am willing to discuss numbers for possible infractions but someone who can't plan their game time so they can't arrange to not lose due to afk 25% of their total games either a)is briefing or b)should not be playing competitively. If 25% seems harsh I'd be willing to entertain the notion of 50% but just of loses due to afk being unsportsmen like.
The fact is if you went to a real life tournament and half the times you lost you stormed out you would not be invited back.
As to not wanting to peanilize disconnects most games don't even give you five free passes before locking you out of the que for 15-30mins depending on the game and those are games that don't even have prizes.
I would rather have rules in place that prevent toxic behavior then any of the things you listed because if the game is toxic it might as well die after a year.
I never suggested long term bans on disconnects only that they can't request for a peroid of time' and if you only have the issue once a week the five free pass rule which I had always given keeps you out of trouble due to resetting each month.

nicosharp
08-27-2013, 03:51 PM
The reason for the toxicity in LoL and other games was the attempt to make rules after the issues arose. If you stop it from being an issue in the beginning and have the systems in place before launch you don't allow things to become toxic in the first place.

This is a great way to think about LOL's situation, but it just is not true. Point me to a MOBA now that has no form of griefing?
Smite is the only one I can think of where I've seen minimal griefing, and that may just be because I've only played a handful of games and the community seems a lot more niche than most. DOTA2 had systems in place, and it is still a big troll fest.

There is no point in arguing about this point, or about casual games and how they should be policed. I don't disagree that there should be systems in place, but I share Colin's feelings on the best answer in terms of player created reports is to not have them and let the game client handle griefing matters. Waste of resources and energy.

hex_colin
08-27-2013, 03:54 PM
The reason for the toxicity in LoL and other games was the attempt to make rules after the issues arose. If you stop it from being an issue in the beginning and have the systems in place before launch you don't allow things to become toxic in the first place.
And while I on my computer can't tell that there is something going on at your end the server can tell if you are sending packets to it thus not connected it can pop up an afk timer after 5-10 mins to find out if you are analyzing boards state.
There is no reporting feature needed... The game tracks all behaviors that players exhibit internally thus there is nothing to abuse and accuse the innocent.
I am willing to discuss numbers for possible infractions but someone who can't plan their game time so they can't arrange to not lose due to afk 25% of their total games either a)is briefing or b)should not be playing competitively. If 25% seems harsh I'd be willing to entertain the notion of 50% but just of loses due to afk being unsportsmen like.
The fact is if you went to a real life tournament and half the times you lost you stormed out you would not be invited back.
As to not wanting to peanilize disconnects most games don't even give you five free passes before locking you out of the que for 15-30mins depending on the game and those are games that don't even have prizes.
I would rather have rules in place that prevent toxic behavior then any of the things you listed because if the game is toxic it might as well die after a year.

You, or anyone for that matter, shouldn't get to decide the circumstances under which someone gets to play a game they want to play.

There is already a system in place to ensure that you don't get impacted if their circumstances don't live up to your barrier for entry - their timer runs out and you win. No additional complexity needed.

You'll be much happier if you don't assume malice as a default when presented with the "actions" of some online stranger. Of course, and as I said previously, if they say "f^&k you, I'm quitting" and go offline, submit a ticket and let CZE deal with it. Otherwise go listen to Matt's podcast and wait for the next game.

P.S. Just to get it on record - I'm not actually a meth chemist or dealer... ;)

Nicalapegus
08-27-2013, 04:19 PM
Turning a debate into a battle of symantics to avoid the issue I would construed as trolling. Nico turned it into a symatic debate then attacked the person for continuing it so yes. I never proposed a slow play penalty I used it as an example of a real life rule I'd try to apply to some who dced. I have been focusing on dcs here and gave a rather generous five times a month.
Are you saying there would be no penalties in real life after 5 separate DCI tournaments where you took your cards left and did not tell the judge/scorekeeper. I kept it on the simplest most easy to see example the fact that everyone has been focusing on slow play in their counter arguments is their doing but not. At all what I have personally been talking about here. Also I have been defending postioins that cze has already stated an official stance on when it comes to things like mercs though possibly in an aggressive way.

I didn't turn it into a semantic debate. I argued your ridiculous stance that somehow someone going afk is GRIEFING someone, and needs to be dealt with. It's dealt with. They lose, you win.

It BECAME a debate on semantics because you guys used the word wrong. Am I trolling? No. You're just wrong, and can't deal with it. So you label me "TROLL!" and that dissipates my solid argument.

zadies
08-27-2013, 05:12 PM
Actually you said you wouldn't post again then had a nice discussion on semantics when you brought it up and tried to define a word possibly not technically correct from your point of view was leading to a mutual understanding which is really what language is for. Thus you tried to define the argument away instead of addressing said argument. Which I if you are not a troll you were attempting to defend trollish behavior through semantics. And no just because you are cherry picking a definition the word isn't being used wrong because if it is understood I'm context given it is not a Webster defined word means it was doing what it needed to do.

Sorry but I'm not advocating user submitted feedback I want an automated system in place...
So your saying that it is OK for someone to rage quit 100% of their losses and waste days of other peoples time with no repercussions?

Nicalapegus
08-27-2013, 05:16 PM
You are so completely wrong and off base... and your sentence structure is completely confusing and inane. Not sure what point you were trying to make... besides argue the definition of "griefing" again... the definition is out there... it's completely non-applicable in this sense... see my Kung Pow video:

"I am bleeding...MAKING ME THE VICTOR!"

The other guy loses, you win, you lose nothing besides the time it takes the clock to wind down. This is so not an argument it's not even funny.

Kami
08-27-2013, 05:28 PM
Okay guys... enough of the back and forth provocation and try to keep on topic. ^^;

zadies
08-27-2013, 06:06 PM
OK let's take an example. Over there course of a time someone plays 1000 games and loses half of them. All loses are afk affairs. There is no afk timer in place per the suggestions wining via afk is a great thing. Every time he is beaten it is in the first round. We will be nice and say they realize they lost 15 mins into those timer so it only had 15 mins left. Which means over the course of the year he has wasted 7500 mins his one opponents time, but wait this was the first round so in fact there were seven people affected So he really wasted 52500mis of time or in essence 36 days of peoples time. Are you tell I me that 100% afk loss abandonment rate is OK?

nicosharp
08-27-2013, 06:11 PM
OK let's take an example. Over there course of a year someone plays 1000 games and loses half of them. All loses are afk affairs. There is no afk timer in place per the suggestions wining via afk is a great thing. Every time he is beaten it is in the first round. We will be nice and say they realize they lost 15 mins into those timer so it only had 15 mins left. Which means over the course of the year he has wasted 7500 mins his one opponents time, but wait this was the first round so in fact there were seven people affected So he really wasted 52500mis of time or in essence 36 days of peoples time. Are you tell I me that 100% afk loss abandonment rate is OK?

In a tournament, any time set by both clocks should be seen as "The Maximum Time Granted". Anything that finishes early is considered "Time Saved". Anything that finishes at the end of both timers is considered The Maximum Time Granted" not "Time Wasted". Also, if your opponent decides to AFK a loss, most of the time it takes less time than "The Maximum Time Granted", as your clock will more than likely have time left. The poor sport more often than not will still result in "Time Saved" for the tournament players.

ossuary
08-27-2013, 06:12 PM
I can't believe this thread is over 120 posts and counting...

The timer is there to support a maximum time limit to the matches. You know going in that you could be in the game for a maximum of 30 minutes. Whether your opponent is playing the whole time or not, you are still done in a maximum of 30 minutes. Who the CRAP cares whether he is active or not? If your fuse is so short that a griefer can get to you that easily, maybe the internet isn't a safe place for you and your fragile, twitchy temper.

Hey, look, that guy walked away, free win for me. Maybe I can read a book while the clock runs out, or god forbid interact with other humans in my house.

This is SO not an issue.

nicosharp
08-27-2013, 06:17 PM
This is SO not an issue.
The majority of the interactions on this forum, and the posts created here are a joke. People are trying way too hard to create content that they end up over analyzing idiotic stuff. Along with the egotistical know-it-all's that are pretty typical in the 'comic geek' TCG genres, which make for frustrating stubborn conversations one way or another.

I wanted to address this post, because I have a lot of experience with in-game griefing and timer based TCG play, but for what it's worth I really don't think the general forums here has the ability to make sense of actual 'reasoning' vs. trolling. I just hope CZE catches a post or two that are meaningful and don't get lost in the BS.

zadies
08-27-2013, 06:19 PM
No one answered the question you are ignoring it. I believe you are dodging the question because you can see it isn't right but don't want to admit it now that an actual worse case scenario was laid out instead of the my internet isn't perfect so I shouldn't be punished.
It was a black white yes no question is the example as written wasting 32 days of time acceptable.

nicosharp
08-27-2013, 06:20 PM
No one answered the question you are ignoring it. I believe you are dodging the question because you can see it isn't right but don't want to admit it now that an actual worse case scenario was laid out instead of the my internet isn't perfect so I shouldn't be punished.
Are you tell I me that 100% afk loss abandonment rate is OK?
In a timer based TCG game, Yes. 100% yes.

blakegrandon
08-27-2013, 06:24 PM
In a timer based TCG game, Yes. 100% yes.

But Nico, don't you realize that you need to REALLY answer the question, do you seriously not have a problem with 100% afk loss abandonment rates???

I mean, I know you answered that question, but can you answer THE question?

Stop arguing semantics, can't you see briefing is bad for the game?!?

(I can't be the only one that wants to engage in table flipping when I see obvious typos like briefing instead of griefing throughout the thread...)

nicosharp
08-27-2013, 06:26 PM
But Nico, don't you realize that you need to REALLY answer the question, do you seriously not have a problem with 100% afk loss abandonment rates???

I mean, I know you answered that question, but can you answer THE question?

Stop arguing semantics, can't you see briefing is bad for the game?!?

(I can't be the only one that wants to engage in table flipping when I see obvious typos like briefing instead of griefing throughout the thread...)

LOL, you are my new best friend sir.

zadies
08-27-2013, 06:39 PM
Sorry given griefing isn't a 'real' word my tablet tries to be smart with it.
Seems like everyone is hiding behind someone that likes to argue semantics instead of debate things.

Xenavire
08-27-2013, 07:40 PM
I can't believe this thread is over 120 posts and counting...

The timer is there to support a maximum time limit to the matches. You know going in that you could be in the game for a maximum of 30 minutes. Whether your opponent is playing the whole time or not, you are still done in a maximum of 30 minutes. Who the CRAP cares whether he is active or not? If your fuse is so short that a griefer can get to you that easily, maybe the internet isn't a safe place for you and your fragile, twitchy temper.

Hey, look, that guy walked away, free win for me. Maybe I can read a book while the clock runs out, or god forbid interact with other humans in my house.

This is SO not an issue.

I have a minor bone to pick here. It is an issue for me - I actually want to spend time playing, not buffing my win/loss ratio. I may not have a real preference on how I earn my wins, but I would honestly enjoy the game more if I played all my matches out, rather than sit for 12 odd minutes of timer.

I don't want to go diving into hyperbole, but poor behaviour like that is the very reason I never played any online matches in MTG: DotP 2013 or 2014, and I instead logged hundreds of hours against the AI. So if this AFK behaviour becomes standard somehow, I might end up being a PvE only player, which would be dissapointing for me, and a minor loss for CZE (as they want to convert free players to paying players, not the other way around.)

So it isn't a non-issue, but I agree, it is less of an issue than people are making of it. I would like to be able to report people who were making real nuisances of themselves, or blatant cheaters, and an AFK timer would be a nice addition, but none of those things are required. The system they have in place should work most of the time, so this should only be something we need to discuss once there is evidence of griefers ingame.

All the squabbling is not pretty.

zadies
08-27-2013, 07:57 PM
I disagree with the sentiments of any wait and see approaches just seems like ppl are waiting to say I told you so. Attempting to add rules afterward makes ppl Feel persecuted, if they attempt to add them to do to it would vastly improve the play experience but you would get a massive backlash from the ppl that act that way.
It is quite telling that such behavior keeps ppl from playing a basically free to play game so why would people pay to be abused... Because it should be expected?

OutlandishMatt
08-27-2013, 09:19 PM
I'm just dumb founded that people don't want to punish repeat offenders. "You got your win. Be happy." That's not what upsets me. What upsets me is there's no repercussions for doing it and everyone is okay with that. That players will get away with doing this over and over and over again.

We've established a 3 minute timer, good. My problem is just the bad sportsmanship. Imagine if this would have happened at the Hex League at Gen Con. How would any of you that attended felt if someone sat there, did nothing until it timed out? They've paid their $10 to play. They're allotted their 30 minutes of game clock. They can play however they want.


Otherwise go listen to Matt's podcast and wait for the next game.

What's with the hate? We don't see eye to eye on this, that's cool. We don't have to agree on everything. I don't want honest people to be affected but I do want the environment to remain friendly and pleasant and I think a report feature should be in place to eliminate repeat offenders and give out harsh punishments. I believe in the 3 strikes and you're out law.

I think Hex is going to be big enough to support a system I'm asking for. I think the funds will be there. Heck, the game made $2.8 million in 30 days and is continuing to make money and it hasn't even come out yet. I don't think the system will pull anything away from the creative department once it's up and running. All you would have to worry with is the extra storage for the database and GMs which they're going to need anyways for support and PvE.

hex_colin
08-27-2013, 09:31 PM
What's with the hate? We don't see eye to eye on this, that's cool. We don't have to agree on everything. I don't want honest people to be affected but I do want the environment to remain friendly and pleasant and I think a report feature should be in place to eliminate repeat offenders and give out harsh punishments. I believe in the 3 strikes and you're out law.

No hate at all. And quoted out of context - the preceding sentence in important to the interpretation. You assumed the worst, much like you're assuming that everyone who DC's a few times has malefic intent and needs to be punished. It was just an example of how someone could spend their time waiting for their opponent to time out. And a promo for your podcast! :)

zadies
08-27-2013, 09:33 PM
It seems to me most people's arguments about being harsh on potential griefing amount to either my internet sucks so I don't feel I should even deal with having to wait 15mins to reque, or well none of the other games deal with it so we shouldn't either which is rather short sited because if you do deal with griefers you know what will happen they will go elsewhere where they can get away with it so you end up with a more respectful community. Also in regards to what hex_Colin said about continuously reconnecting after a DC that only works if the DC timer resets.
This is also why moba communities are toxic it has become acceptable to be so so no one actually tries to change it or once they realized it it was too late.

Grumph
08-27-2013, 09:40 PM
Nothing is more annoying than having only enough time for one game before work and instead of actually getting to play having to wait until the clock runs out. This happens to me in league of legends all the time and i would much rather have a good game then get an easy/cheap win because some decided to go afk/dc, it wouldnt be so frustrating if i had tons of time to play, but i usually work 60+ hours a week so my game time is pretty limited.

The_Wine_Gnat
08-27-2013, 09:40 PM
I just hope CZE catches a post or two that are meaningful and don't get lost in the BS.
Considering the number of views to this thread vs number of comments by unique usernames, that data alone suggests most people reading this forum "topic" are skipping most of the pointless chestbeating to find something useful. TBH, this thread should be locked for devolving into several shouting matches and getting off topic for..... 8 pages worth?

OutlandishMatt
08-27-2013, 09:48 PM
No hate at all. And quoted out of context - the preceding sentence in important to the interpretation.

Well, I hope you've heard me promote you on there. I told several people in the Hex league line about you. I thank you for what you're doing for the community as much as Cory does. You're a good man and I know a lot of us wish we could be in the financial position you're in so we could do the same.

We all just want a great community and I'm starting to worry about the free to play aspect of it. When the ability to make an account at no cost is presented it usually brings out the worst of the internet, even more so when there are no repercussions. I just want a reason for people to fear doing stuff that's unsportsmanlike or causes others inconvenience. Without any penalty at all it seems like it's encouraged rather than discouraged.

And before someone replies again with, "But you get the win. That should be penalty enough." No, I was already going to win. The only thing that has changed is how much time I now have to sit and wait to win. The person that quits loses nothing, if anything they gain my X minutes of free time because now I have to sit around.

hex_colin
08-27-2013, 10:04 PM
Well, I hope you've heard me promote you on there. I told several people in the Hex league line about you. I thank you for what you're doing for the community as much as Cory does. You're a good man and I know a lot of us wish we could be in the financial position you're in so we could do the same. We all just want a great community and I'm starting to worry about the free to play aspect of it. When the ability to make an account at no cost is presented it usually brings out the worst of the internet.

I do listen to the podcast (thus the meth joke...). Actually, I basically listen to/watch/read everything that people are creating. :) Everyone who's trying to build a positive community, no matter what or how they contribute, are all on the same playing field and get a resounding "thumbs up" from me.

I worry about FTP too and what happens when the worst of society decides to screw with the community we're building. But I've seen too many cases of innocent folks being caught in the dragnet. I'd support any method of reducing "griefing" that would guarantee that no innocent folks could get inappropriately punished. I just think that's an exceptionally hard goal to achieve. What's easy is to just ignore the "griefer" and move on to the next game (either by just quitting and starting a new game in casual play, or waiting for the timer to expire in competitions).

I don't particularly agree with some of the filters that have been suggested in previous posts (DC counts, "slow play" metrics, etc.) but I could get behind a "only match me with opponents who've paid any amount of money to play the game" filter. Even just a single booster. Because at least then you're selecting out the true FTP folks. I probably wouldn't use it that much, but it would at least allow people to exclude the folks who have absolutely nothing to lose because they're playing a free account.

zadies
08-27-2013, 10:16 PM
You would have to change the filter to people that have bought plat from cze or possibly currently have a VIP subscription ppl will likely be able to pve for play either through rates or gold exchange. I was fine actually debating the numbers but most MMOs go for a one strike penalty then say you can't request for x time so five per month was rather forgiving. Also once you play 20 games you would need 5 afk loses to be flagged in a percentage based system and most reasonable ppl will conceede before taking an afk loss.
You know you wouldn't need to actual ban either group from competitive play, what would be more effective is if the que system tracked such behavior and auto matched ppl that had 5+ disconnects a month with each other And had a tiered system to deal with people who had percentages of afk loses. It was not something that could be opted in or out of, but the dissconect count would decrease by 10 each month and you had t work your way out of the ark percentage you dug yourself.

Xtopher
08-27-2013, 10:32 PM
In terms of casual play, the reasoning behind the filters is it allows players to be responsible for their own happiness, rather than looking to CZE to ding people. I really don't see a downside to a disconnect filter. All things being equal, no one wants to waste time playing against someone that disconnects a lot, whether it's intentional or their ISP's fault. Same thing regarding players that concede and a concessions filter. There are without a doubt players that see conceding a game as rude behavior, whereas I consider it polite behavior if they're in a hopeless position.

What's more, these filters won't stop players that disconnect a lot or concede a lot from finding an opponent. There are plenty of people that don't care enough to bother filtering them out.

Slow play filter... it would be okay, but disconnect and concession are at the top of the bitch list for a lot of people on these forums. Anything that removes the onus from CZE to take punitive action to keep people happy is a huge plus.

In tournament situations, I can understand wanting to report someone for poor sportsmanship, so I'm not going to continue to argue against it, even if it's something I'd never do. I understand everyone has a different tolerance level for that sort of thing. There's a lot of dumb people out there and plenty of them will type something to incriminate themselves before pulling the plug, so it wouldn't be too difficult to make a strong case against repeat offenders.

Mathaw
08-28-2013, 02:58 AM
If there's a 30 minute timer it's their prerogative to use it (otherwise what would be the point in having it?). If it's an untimed game then they can take as long as they want - the intention at least with SolForge is to have multiple untimed games on the go at once, i.e. asynchronous play.

Also keep in mind that SolForge only JUST fixed their iPad client; if you were playing anyone on an iPad the game would have broken halfway through each match anyway, making it appear as though they were holding out for a quit. Who'd do this anyway? Who has 30 minutes to waste for an empty win? I've never experienced it in MTGO, I'm not sure why it'd be a problem for hex. I've certainly never seen anyone trolling the timer during a game of chess.

tldr; Timers work as intended.

Mathaw
08-28-2013, 03:05 AM
I just hope this system can't be abused for easy wins. For example by bringing your opponent's lifepoints below your own and then going AFK so you win once the timer is over since the opponent had less life or something like that.

That's not how TCG timers work. If you run out of time you lose.

Mathaw
08-28-2013, 03:11 AM
I'm still actively making a point staring at a screen for 20 mins is time better spent doing something else. Also no one really addressed my concern as to why it is OK for someone to do the equivalent of pick up their deck and leave the tournament space possibly repeatedly.

In which case why are you signing up to tournaments that already have a fixed time?

If it's wasting your time, it's wasting their time too. This illusion that there are scores of people out there trying to waste your time is verging on delusional.

ossuary
08-28-2013, 03:30 AM
I have a minor bone to pick here. It is an issue for me - I actually want to spend time playing, not buffing my win/loss ratio. I may not have a real preference on how I earn my wins, but I would honestly enjoy the game more if I played all my matches out, rather than sit for 12 odd minutes of timer.

Fair enough. This is actually a reasonable statement (so rare these days!). My point was not to suggest that waiting around is fun, but that it's also not an impending meteor strike.


All the squabbling is not pretty.

Over the past month, these forums have degenerated in a most appalling way. It seems like there's nothing left except for haggard normies desperately trying to engage in rational conversation with a tide of dickish reprobates masking their indefensible nonsense behind gross (and sometimes offensive) hyperbole, and pseudo-intellectual name-calling dressed up like rational discussion.

I've basically given up at this point. I haven't seen a thread on page one worth the time of wading into and attempting to respond with meaningful conversation in days.

jimmywolf
08-28-2013, 04:54 AM
Fair enough. This is actually a reasonable statement (so rare these days!). My point was not to suggest that waiting around is fun, but that it's also not an impending meteor strike.



Over the past month, these forums have degenerated in a most appalling way. It seems like there's nothing left except for haggard normies desperately trying to engage in rational conversation with a tide of dickish reprobates masking their indefensible nonsense behind gross (and sometimes offensive) hyperbole, and pseudo-intellectual name-calling dressed up like rational discussion.

I've basically given up at this point. I haven't seen a thread on page one worth the time of wading into and attempting to respond with meaningful conversation in days.

i disagree, i check back everyday an even with bitter or misguided thoughts, i enjoy reading them for their insight on things. even when the game comes out it will be the same forums, an will have the same random people bickering about X card, X deck, X players, if you want post too have more substance, help spread the information if not ignorance will rule.

blakegrandon
08-28-2013, 05:59 AM
So it isn't a non-issue, but I agree, it is less of an issue than people are making of it. I would like to be able to report people who were making real nuisances of themselves, or blatant cheaters, and an AFK timer would be a nice addition, but none of those things are required.


This is exactly why I'm against self-reporting.

I play SC 2 a LOT. (Masters League 4v4, 1v1/2v2 bore me nowadays) Pretty much at least once a day I get accused of "maphacking" because I use scouts liberally and have been playing SC since the day it came out. People that will lose will assume their opponent is hacking and will report them as such.

*Full disclosure I did use maphacks when I used to play Warcraft 3, but it was in a controlled LAN environment where my friends and I would all use maphack while playing DOTA so that we could study each other's moves in real time. It beat having to go back and watch the replay.


Self reporting opens up a huge can of worms because people are always going to think the worst about their opponents.

Slow play? Obviously he's intentionally playing slow to grief.

AFK? Obviously he does this over and over, it couldn't possibly be a one time thing where he just got called into work because he's a paramedic or a doctor.

Lose to someone? Clearly he's hacking, better report him just to be on the safe side.

The thing about a three strikes law(as cali has proven, /rimshot) is that it doesn't take into account intent and can lead to people getting severely punished for a "crime" that is out of line with what happened.

Self-reporting relies on the community all being honest, and it's a griefer's paradise because here's the thing about griefers, they're not going to go the most obvious route to grief, and they're not going to leave just because of a reporting system or even a punishment system. They're going to take whatever rules you build and then use them to their advantage, just like lawyers.

No one likes griefers(or lawyers...) and in an ideal world we could get rid of them, but in the real world "griefers" aren't going anywhere and knee jerk reactions don't help anything.

Anyone that thinks it would be "easy" for Cryptozoic to investigate EVERY reported instance of "abuse" or even every person that "afk's more than say even 10 times a month, doesn't understand just how often it will happen.

Internet in the US is terrible, we're not even in the top 10 countries with the best internet access; and homes are not a controlled gaming environment(for the most part). The majority of people(Hex_Collin excluded because he probably has a Hexcave) don't have safe rooms where with a T-1 line that they can play in that is impervious to family/friends/work interfering.

For those saying we should have a 3 "strikes" policy I hope you don't get pulled away from your computer more than 3 times a month.

I'm a business owner and I've had months where everything's gone wrong and I've had to drop what I'm doing and jump in a cab immediately, by your guy's logic I shouldn't play Hex just because of my line of work, and neither should paramedics, police officers, EMS, doctors, and others that might have to leave at a moment's notice.

If I CAN I will consciously try to remember to exit what I'm doing, but anyone that knows how adrenaline works knows that isn't how the brain works.

I'd love to see where on the kickstarter or the main page it states we're required to be committed to every game and have great internet, or risk getting banned/limited to our play styles.

Need another situation that happens AT LEAST one month a summer? We lose internet access due to storms randomly and sometimes up to 3 times a month for hours on end.

Face it' US infrastructure sucks, our power companies suck, our internet companies suck, and in a game with hundreds of thousands to millions of players some of them are going to have incredibly bad strings of luck, it's all a probability game.

I have a feeling most people will ignore the vast majority of what I stated and will attack a few points or repeat the same bullet points they use when presented with a logical argument... Le sigh.

"Eliminating" Griefers will also "eliminate" lots of honest and good players that just drew a short straw.

But I guess it's worth griefing a few players to "protect" the "majority" from having to sit there for 30 minutes because they don't have anything else they could possibly do, right?

I sincerely hope those calling for punishments never get caught on the other side and get treated like a criminal, because "proving" you're innocent is the hardest thing you'll ever have to do in life.

Mathaw
08-28-2013, 06:18 AM
This is exactly why I'm against self-reporting.

Self reporting opens up a huge can of worms because people are always going to think the worst about their opponents.

Slow play? Obviously he's intentionally playing slow to grief.

This very thread is a perfect example of this phenomenon.

It was started by a SolForge player; as I noted a few posts up SolForge had a serious iOS bug that rendered almost every single iPad initiated game to bug out after a handful of turns, rendering the game in a state of limbo that would have appeared to the other player to be someone rage-waiting (I'm coining the term!). Every single person that attempted a game on the iPad client for the period of about a week would have caused this situation for someone.

Not that the above necessarily changes any argument, but worth noting as an example.

I do think that the game would need some kind of reporting tools though. It can be helpful for genuine trolls too; especially in a F2P game. I don't want to have to turn the chat off permanently after playing for a couple days to silence offensive 12 year olds.

All of these things are big question marks though - no one knows what the playerbase is going to be like yet, or what problems it will face.

Mathaw
08-28-2013, 06:22 AM
Over the past month, these forums have degenerated in a most appalling way. It seems like there's nothing left except for haggard normies desperately trying to engage in rational conversation with a tide of dickish reprobates masking their indefensible nonsense behind gross (and sometimes offensive) hyperbole, and pseudo-intellectual name-calling dressed up like rational discussion.

I know where you're coming from. I've had a bad couple of weeks IRL and I don't think I've self moderated myself very well on the internet, likely introduced a few pockets of bad discourse myself!

But worth keeping in mind that currently the forums are primarily KS backers and the like, people with a heightened investment (emotional as well as financial) in the game. We're likely to be a bit entitled and opinionated :)

zadies
08-28-2013, 07:04 AM
Interesting that the talk is still about bans and community reporting when the last proposal had neither self reporting nor any ban in it but suggested that the game auto filter people based on the percentage of a behavior exhibited so that they end up playing against each other.
I understand that some individuals believe that others should have the right to express any behavior that they would like. So I am not proposing that said behavior given in some people's view is perfectly alright be directly punished but be self filtering if you are OK with doing the behavior you should play with a group of like minded individuals so you experience the same behavior from the other side. If said behavior is not an issue then this should be seen as non punitive because you are self selecting to be in this group by exhibiting the given behavior. Now if you find after experiencing it repeatedly that this is in fact a behavior that you do not like experining from the receiving end you will likely stop doing it yourself and eventually get beck into the Que's where it is not happening.
Also if the sol forge bug was a known outstanding big where the community knew that x happens when you do y and y is the game crashes then I won't excuse the behavior now if it was a bug that the developers didn't tell anyone about them it was excusable.

OutlandishMatt
08-28-2013, 09:43 AM
It was started by a SolForge player.

It was started by a person that played SolForge. I'm not a SolForge player. I'm not a fan of SolForge. To me, it's a bad game. It ends up boiling down to whoever draws more Level 3 cards in the late game. If you're drawing Level 1 cards and they're drawing Level 3 cards, it's stupid and not strategy anymore.

I note now that I should have stated more about my SolForge experience when I first started this thread and that's my fault.

Here are a few screenshots of the game along with my personal thoughts on it to a friend of mine via Twitter.

I think my opponent quit on me. :'( Sorry I was beating you so badly with my pre-constructed starter deck? http://pic.twitter.com/PReUbFNGZN

Such a good first experience. /sarcasm Really wish they would penalize people for this type of behavior. #SolForge

Nice! I waited and look where it got me! Lovely beta guys. #SolForge http://pic.twitter.com/FwMkHEncp9

.@OutlandishBeats you would love this game! Look at how snowballed it gets! http://pic.twitter.com/XF6UqJcONz

.@OutlandishBeats Weeeeee! When you win you win big! Yah for games that snowball! http://pic.twitter.com/a7sLsIcBbN

Yes, I am still waiting for that game to end. He's sitting at 00:00. What's the point of a timer if it doesn't work? http://pic.twitter.com/3FT4iWu02I (This, by the way, was still sitting at 00:00 the next day.)

I know it's beta, but that bug shouldn't exist past alpha. I'm talking about a win condition. To me it's equivalent to your health being reduced to 0 or below and not winning, it just freezes. And that's where all of this come from. It brought back my memories of playing Magic Online and people dropping out and me having to wait with no repercussions to the opponent.


Interesting that the talk is still about bans and community reporting when the last proposal had neither self reporting nor any ban in it but suggested that the game auto filter people based on the percentage of a behavior exhibited so that they end up playing against each other.

I can only get behind a filter system in a casual environment. A filter system should not be in place for tournament play as it can be misused so that people won't have to play higher skilled players. My only big concern is with tournament play.

I keep harping on the self reporting feature because I believe you could program in certain criteria so that the option to report will only present itself when a reason to report happens. Such as a match loss due to timeout.

I also don't think the problem will be THAT frequent which is why I also don't believe it will be a strain on CZE's resources.

I know Colin thinks it could impact him but I don't believe so. I think at most, his account gets flagged, his games get reviewed, and as long as it didn't look like he disconnected on purpose (ie. the game states weren't him sitting at below 5 life with lethal damage coming at him), his record would get wiped, all without him even knowing.

I look at these discussions like politics. Everyone wants what's best for humanity. We just end up taking different approaches to get to it.

Mathaw
08-28-2013, 10:00 AM
I didn't mean to imply any particular experience when I said you were a solforge player, just that you'd played solforge; I was giving context :)

I agree 100% that the bug was unexceptable, but that doesn't have anything to do with reporting mechanisms.

And the player does have repercussions if they drop out, they lose :p

In all honesty though I don't have a problem with a turn-based timeout. Anyone taking more than a 5 minutes for a turn shouldn't have a problem with their turn being skipped. That doesn't solve the problem of intentional griefers, but I maintain that they're a fringe case and don't need losing any sleep over. Automatic systems can be in place watching for that behaviour anyway and dealt with as necessary.

I have a feeling that the small percentage of games that involve a timeout, a large percentage of those are due to unavoidable afk and similar. People just aren't as devious as people are making out. Who has time for that shizzle?

OutlandishMatt
08-28-2013, 10:33 AM
I didn't mean to imply any particular experience when I said you were a solforge player, just that you'd played solforge; I was giving context :)

I understand. I just wanted it on the record that I am NOT a SolForge player. I have a reputation to uphold. :D


I agree 100% that the bug was unexceptable, but that doesn't have anything to do with reporting mechanisms.

Well, it stems to the fact that I do not want others to be subjected to it. I had to sit through it and I would like that account prohibited from doing it again.


And the player does have repercussions if they drop out, they lose :p

No, that's not a repercussion. The opponent was already going to lose. I have seen people state this time and time again. And I keep saying it time and time again. This is not a repercussion. It's simply them delaying the defeat and inconveniencing other players.

Imagine if Hex said, "When you win a game you must wait 10-15 minutes before starting another game." To me, that's the equivalent as if my opponent disconnects when I'm about to win.


People just aren't as devious as people are making out. Who has time for that shizzle?

It's the internet. There are tons of people that have time for it. Wait until Hex is released and then summer comes around.

Turtlewing
08-28-2013, 10:34 AM
The solution to the "idle player hoping you'll rage quit rather than win" problem is not a report system, it's an alternate timer system.

Have the timer give a small amount of time (say 5 minutes) and an additional block of time (say 2 minutes) at the start of your turn. That way your maximum theoretical wait on an idle player in (in this case) 7 minutes.

Then have options for the timer settings when the game is created. That way you can set a more leisurely pacing if you want and you can choose not to join games with timer settings you don't like.This solves the problem in casual games.

In competitive games the "official" timer settings will be used but as others have said you should expect "playing the clock" as part of the meta in a competitive environment, and since you get the reward for winning when their timer runs out the issue should resolve itself.

zadies
08-28-2013, 10:46 AM
Disconnecting and/or going afk is not playing the clock.
And you could easily do a filtering system in tournaments that are behavior based.
If someone really really wants to win because their opponents have a much higher probability of doing or losing to afk it doesn't matter to me they waste so much of their own time getting and staying in that pool given they can't always win or they get moved to the pool of people who actually play the game that it is inconsiqental and if the pool of abusers is so large that it does become an issue with cze giving away boosters due to dcs/ afk timers then that would be indicative of people not wanting to actually play the game which is a separate matter and perhaps they would want to take harsher actions against them but in the mean time anyone who is not engaging unsportsmen like behavior does not need to interact with them, and anther penalty that could in theory be implemented is giving less qualifying points for people who win a tournament due to afk/DC wins do they can't get into the major matches easily.

nicosharp
08-28-2013, 11:15 AM
Disconnecting and/or going afk is not playing the clock.
And you could easily do a filtering system in tournaments that are behavior based.
If someone really really wants to win because their opponents have a much higher probability of doing or losing to afk it doesn't matter to me they waste so much of their own time getting and staying in that pool given they can't always win or they get moved to the pool of people who actually play the game that it is inconsiqental and if the pool of abusers is so large that it does become an issue with cze giving away boosters due to dcs/ afk timers then that would be indicative of people not wanting to actually play the game which is a separate matter and perhaps they would want to take harsher actions against them but in the mean time anyone who is not engaging unsportsmen like behavior does not need to interact with them, and anther penalty that could in theory be implemented is giving less qualifying points for people who win a tournament due to afk/DC wins do they can't get into the major matches easily.

Behavior based filtering for people paying to play in tournaments? Sounds smart.
Further limiting the pool of active players for paid tournaments. Punishing those with external hardships.

I'm not against reporting a player for verbal abuse or potential botting, but reporting for 'time' is another 'forum pet peeve' scenario, and has nothing to do with the way the game is intended to function.'

Also, to those in favor of "Filtering" for normal games. Imagine this:

#1 - Starter Deck only Queue (self-explanatory)

#2 - A list of all players hosting a game (Custom-games) - Their Wins, their Losses due to DC, and maybe 1 or two more applicable stats, maybe top 3 favorite champions and win rates with them, and top 3 most played cards. (You can join which ever you want)

#3 - Normal ELO based Queue - Sorry no filters bro.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-28-2013, 11:30 AM
How on Earth has this reached 16 pages? Do people seriously have an issue with:

30 min timer per player for the match (similar to chess); if your timer expires you lose (so you can't play too slowly or go afk for too long)
5 min afk-concession
General reporting system (similar to other online games), leaving it up to the GMs if they think action should be taken or not

IMO, that pretty much covers everything for a game that matters (ie. tournament game, ranked game, anything for prizes). For games that don't matter (ie. casual), either player has the right to quit at any time, so if you find yourself playing against a jerk who is going afk or not playing and just taunting you, you can quit and play against someone who wants to have a genuine game. Yeah, suddenly having to quit mid-game sucks, but what are the alternatives - it's not like you can force them not to be a jerk. You can report their behavior, but most online communities deal with jerks by shunning the kind of activity that they engage in.

At the *most*, if people are unsatisfied with that, I'd suggest an option where you can give your opponent a thumbs up or thumbs down (not visible to the public), and enough thumbs-downs and they get added to a list for GM contact, where they'll get asked to behave in a more social way. But I honestly don't think that's necessary. There should be more than enough people playing Hex that if you encounter one jerk in a casual game, you can quit that match and quickly find another, friendlier person to play with.

zadies
08-28-2013, 12:10 PM
If you feel the behavior is jerk like what is wrong with forcing them to play against others that do it. Either you end up with an extremely toxic pool that doesn't interact with the community at large or guess what they learn not to do it because not doing it gets you out of that pool of players.
What is wrong with a system that says if you have 25%-50% afk loses it forces you to play with others that also have 25%-50% afk loses so that the behavior is limited in scope to those that think it is the norm. If you play 100 games a year this means you would have had to walk away from the computer 25 times to be penalized at all and if your saying the behavior is not bad then it isn't a real penalty at all for people who feel the behavior is acceptable but doesn't inflict it on the community at large. All it really does is acknowledge that the behavior is not sportsmenlike. Someone playing the cloak is not going to get an afk/dc loss.
Time is not a pet peeve, if I sit down at a magic table I expect the person across from me to also be playing the game, if get up and don't tell the score keeper that they are dropping from the tournament 100 times they will get some sort of punishment... Do you know why people don't do it in person it'd because it is an established norm that it is unacepctable to sit there and stare at the wall instead of playing. Just because it is online does not mean that you HAVE to drop that norm just because it is acceptable in games like LoL that have already shown to have toxic communities that donot even attempt to delineate what is unsportsmen like end up like that. It is likely the abandonment of what is unacceptable in the real world to be acceptable online that leads to that level of toxicity and once you accept it it becomes hard to try to and reverse course.
Automatic behavior filtering will do one of a few different things. If you don't participate in the behavior enough to cross over the threshold you have a very pleasant experience. If you do exhibit the behavior you end up seeing what is like for others. This either leads to
a) you not doing it anymore so you can get bellow the threshold in games played that show the behavior
B) you continue the behavior along with the people you are qued with
C) you quit playing the game.
Now let us examine case c if the behavior was acceptable why would it drive someone who exhibited it to quit? This is a question I want someone who is defending the behavior to answer.
Now if someone wants to present a case d that would be an alternative that I didn't list I,d be happy to see that as well.
Only real issue is that it could possibly increase the length of someone's que but really I'd rather get into a game that will be played rather then getting in faster then ending sitting and waiting for the game to end due to a DC/afk player.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-28-2013, 12:20 PM
Imo, I'm not a fan of it being automatic like that as it assumes intent. I'm sure there will be people who have to randomly afk quite a few times for various valid reasons, and to negatively impact their future gaming experience is not the positive environment that Hex should be about.

Honestly, that last post seems like you're really worried about something that, IMO, probably won't be nearly as significant as you're making it out to be. A large, large majority of players will not afk in a casual game they've lost. They'll just leave. In the rare casual game that someone does just afk for whatever reason (maybe they're annoyed, maybe they get an urgent phone call, who are we to know?), you can just quit and find a new match with someone that will, in all probability, not go afk. In the rare competitive match where someone goes afk, the 30 min/5 min clocks take care of that.

Edit: to your edit:


if I sit down at a magic table I expect the person across from me to also be playing the game, if get up and don't tell the score keeper that they are dropping from the tournament 100 times they will get some sort of punishment... Do you know why people don't do it in person it'd because it is an established norm that it is unacepctable to sit there and stare at the wall instead of playing. Just because it is online does not mean that you HAVE to drop that norm just because it is acceptable in games like LoL that have already shown to have toxic communities do not have it delinatated as unsportsmen like and guess what it is likely the abandonment of what is unacceptable in the real world to be acceptable online that leads to that level of toxicity.
Actually, beyond being dropped from the tournament if that player that didn't show doesn't report to the head judge before the end of the round, there's no further penalty. The DCI doesn't suspend people who repeatedly drop without telling anyone.

People don't 'not play' in real life because the chess clock system isn't used in live Magic, so one player playing too slow affects both players, and can be used to gain an advantage (if a player is a game up, the end of the round is approaching and they look like they'll lose game 2, then slow playing to a draw in that game means they win the match). Online, with the chess clock system, one of two things happens - either the match is completed and results in one player being the winner, or one player runs out of time on their 30 min timer, and they lose the match. Essentially, not using a chess clock system IRL is why they include slow play penalties in the infraction procedure guide.

Basically, online if they slow play they're just hamstringing themselves. IRL, if they slow play they're affecting both players and could even be gaining an advantage, so there are provisions in the tournament rules to issue penalties for this.

Once again, the 30 min/5 min timer, at this point, looks like it will work very well for dealing with the occasional afker.

blakegrandon
08-28-2013, 12:23 PM
Disconnecting and/or going afk is not playing the clock.
And you could easily do a filtering system in tournaments that are behavior based.
If someone really really wants to win because their opponents have a much higher probability of doing or losing to afk it doesn't matter to me they waste so much of their own time getting and staying in that pool given they can't always win or they get moved to the pool of people who actually play the game that it is inconsiqental and if the pool of abusers is so large that it does become an issue with cze giving away boosters due to dcs/ afk timers then that would be indicative of people not wanting to actually play the game which is a separate matter and perhaps they would want to take harsher actions against them but in the mean time anyone who is not engaging unsportsmen like behavior does not need to interact with them, and anther penalty that could in theory be implemented is giving less qualifying points for people who win a tournament due to afk/DC wins do they can't get into the major matches easily.

The heck did I just read?

You know what a period is right?

At this point we're just rehashing arguments and I have a feeling you're not even reading other people's arguments.

Disconnecting and/or afking is not playing the clock but it isn't always griefing.

You can't penalize players without proving intent, and even the best software in the world isn't going to be able to prove intent, because real griefers would just work within the systems to avoid being proven as "griefers"

Not that this will get read, in b4 wall of text

zadies
08-28-2013, 12:36 PM
I would call exhibiting a given behavior over 25% of all your games intent.

Also if the behavior is acceptable as you defending it call it putting you with others that also exhibit the behavior is non-punitive.

If you believe it is punitive then you are saying the behavior in question is wrong.

It is rare but people do get suspended rule 2.10 as quoted previously allows for it. Typically it doesn't get taken that far because guess what ppl attempt to avoid that punishment.

If it is someone afking occasionally unless the end up doing it in their first five games the system proposed would not effect them, and guess what there is always the option to concede before going afk.

What is the issue with creating a rule that never gets used as a means of establishing a norm. The cut off could even be 33% of all loses.

Also no one gave a forth prediction of someone's actions.

The idea here isn't a perminate penalty once you lose enough games by playing them to conclusion you end up playing with people without an inobinate amount of afk loses...

You can't call this overly punitive because it groups like minded players together unless you are willing to say that the behavior itself isn't something that should be exhibited.

And if you are going to say that the behavior should not be exhibited what should be done about it?

Just allowing it to go unchecked is not an acceptable response if you actually feel something is unacpectable. People should be held responsible for their actions.

nicosharp
08-28-2013, 12:54 PM
I would call exhibiting a given behavior over 25% of all your games intent.

Also if the behavior is acceptable as you defending it call it putting you with others that also exhibit the behavior is non-punitive.

If you believe it is punitive then you are saying the behavior in question is wrong.

It is rare but people do get suspended rule 2.10 as quoted previously allows for it. Typically it doesn't get taken that far because guess what ppl attempt to avoid that punishment.

If it is someone afking occasionally unless the end up doing it in their first five games the system proposed would not effect them, and guess what there is always the option to concede before going afk.

What is the issue with creating a rule that never gets used as a means of establishing a norm. The cut off could even be 33% of all loses.

Also no one gave a forth prediction of someone's actions.

The idea here isn't a perminate penalty once you lose enough games by playing them to conclusion you end up playing with people without an inobinate amount of afk loses...
This game isn't E-Harmony. You don't get to find your companion based on 29 dimensions of compatibility.

Behavior based filtering is a pipe-dream service for picky people with emotional issues while gaming.

zadies
08-28-2013, 12:56 PM
And feelings like that are what allow toxicity to thrive.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-28-2013, 01:06 PM
No; just because we don't agree with this idea does not mean we are promoting 'toxicity' in the slightest.

I propose the following system for the rare occurrence or a player that, with the intention of being a jerk, does afk in casual games (again, this is almost a non-issue in competitive games as the 'victim' gets a free win in an event that gives more prizes for getting more wins - effectively, the offending party has paid the 'victim' to allow him to afk; while one can make the argument that some players may play in competitive matches for other purposes such as sharpening their skills within a draft environment or wanting to decktest in constructed on-demand tournaments for experience, they're still getting paid to let the other player AFK).

In my system, there would be a group of employees within CZE - they would be known as, let's say, "Game Masters". If there was an issue that required further attention - for example, a player reports that another player has been afking in a few casual games, or their daily odd-behavior report comes in and they see a player that goes afk in matches an awful lot of the time, they can investigate further. The upside to this system is that they can also handle other tasks such as helping out players who encounter bugs in the game or have an issue with part of the game, and because it's not automatic there's no snap-blind-assumption of negative intent.

My idea probably doesn't have any merit though, seeing as no other games implement it.

blakegrandon
08-28-2013, 01:08 PM
And feelings like that are what allow toxicity to thrive.

How so?

Behavior based filtering doesn't work because then people will complain that matchmaking takes too long.

Toxicity occurs when you start punishing innocent people for crimes they aren't committing based on flimsy proof of "griefing".

Get over it, expect to play the entire clock and be happy when games end soon.

Real griefers are going to be the ones manually dragging out every clock.

Xtopher
08-28-2013, 01:19 PM
Behavior based filtering is a pipe-dream service for picky people with emotional issues while gaming.
I think that's an unfair statement. I wouldn't use it, but it's a common enough request from other TCG's I've played. I agree that people that over-report others for perceived infractions have some sort of personal issue, but a filtering system would hopefully cut down on the amount of reports filed. I really don't want CZE wasting their time, wading through a bunch of complaints about player behavior, when a filter system would probably be sufficient to cut down on a lot of the narking.

Doubtless there will be very real issues that CZE will have to deal with in terms of player behavior and I'd rather they concentrate their efforts there.

Miwa
08-28-2013, 01:52 PM
Really? That long? In Pokemon TCG Online, you get TWO minutes.
Adults can't dedicate 4 hours with no breaks longer than 2 minutes for unexpected things...

Xenavire
08-28-2013, 02:09 PM
We are getting replays as a stretch goal, right? Assuming the replay can record timestamps for player interaction, you can easily record people who are intentionally griefing and are doing it often. When it reaches a certain amount of offenses, CZE steps in and does what they think is needed to resolve the issue.

No reporting players, but possibly linking replays to some sort of report system? You only get 3 games against a player per match, which is not a pattern, but if multiple replays show the same behaviour, something should be done.

zadies
08-28-2013, 03:41 PM
So we have ten pages dedicated to why reporting players is bad and won't work and come back to reporting as being a great idea. I don't mind player reporting in the slightest. But with gm reporting I would expect a tournament ban on griefers who are found out as opposed to you can still play the game but with ppl who think like you do.

But really what is the penalty in a filter system for a behavior that you are stating is perfectly legit to have to play with like minded individuals. Because if you are saying no we shouldn't filter them because I would hate to be in a que where 25% of my games were basically guaranteed to be afk wins then you are admitting that afk wins aren't good for the game you just don't want to look like the person calling it out.

I would rather have five more mins of queue time if it basically guaranteed that when I sat down and the game started I would not be sitting there for a ten minute afk win. A liile more time up front to prevent a lot more time when I SHOULD be playing because I known when I'm in que I'm not playing but when the que pops it is game on.

Did not say not agreeing with a proposed solution was prompting toxicity but saying behavior a is bad but ignoring it promotes toxicity, and if behavior a is not bad in your mind what is wrong with behavior filtering with a realituvely high cut off that most ppl won't approach unless they make it a goal to exhibit the behavior. If they make it a goal to exhibit the behavior what is wrong with basically ensuring that they play together. I would even go with the idea that it isn't a hard que, let's say after 10 mins of waiting in que that person merges into the ppl that don't exhabit it que.

Turtlewing
08-28-2013, 04:13 PM
So we have ten pages dedicated to why reporting players is bad and won't work and come back to reporting as being a great idea. I don't mind player reporting in the slightest. But with gm reporting I would expect a tournament ban on griefers who are found out as opposed to you can still play the game but with ppl who think like you do.


Mostly the disagreement appears to be that you think "waiting out the clock" is griefing whereas others are arguing that "you can't grief someone by handing them an easy win", or "if afk griefing is so bad than a system which can put someone in the afk griefer's league unjustly is clearly a bad system"

If you don't take it as written that you can grief someone by going afk than it doesn't make sense to punish the behavior at all. And if you do take it as written that you can grief someone by going afk, than a system that can unjustly put a non-griefer in the griefer league seems like a target for abuse and will likely have some unintended consequences.

Either way your solution doesn't really address the problem you want it to very well.

Nicalapegus
08-28-2013, 04:31 PM
And feelings like that are what allow toxicity to thrive.

I think zadies is a master level troll. He willfully ignores the well-argued opinion of others, focuses in stubbornly on his points even when they've been disproved time and time again, and contributes nothing to this thread. He also has constant grammatical and spelling mistakes to the point of it being hard to read his posts.

zadies
08-28-2013, 05:10 PM
I disagree with the idea that playing out the clock is equivalent to sitting there waiting for time to pass not PLAYING the game twiddling my thumbs.
Also no one has addressed the question as to why if in your opinion the behavior is fine is it bad having likebminded ppl be forced to play in the same group if the behavior is not considered bad by you wouldn't you be perfectly content to be in a que where you are handed such free wins regularly as opposed to playing the game.

OutlandishMatt
08-28-2013, 05:23 PM
He willfully ignores the well-argued opinion of others...

If I had a dollar every time someone ignored another person's well-argued opinion... well, I'd be able to make this entire forum a producer of Hex.

No one even touched my example of, "If what people are arguing is okay (People spending their time however they want and just be happy you're getting a 'free win'.) then would it have been okay to do it at the Hex League at Gen Con."

No one can sit here and say it would have been okay, at Gen Con, at CZE's special event, to sit there for 30 minutes doing nothing while your opponent got a "free win". Heck, even the exact same rules they'll have in place when it launches, a 3 minute timeout. Even though it's the exact same argument everyone has been praising on here.

zadies
08-28-2013, 05:50 PM
Yes well that is why there as acpectable use cut off in say it is griefing you say it isn't . If someone goes afk once in a blue moon they aren't going to end up in the afk que... And if they do end up in said que once they lose in the que once or twice without going afk they are out of the que and realize hey if I'm going to go afk long enough that the timer might be an issue perhaps I should concede so I don't end up in the afk que again.

Unless people WANT to be in the afk que, afk grief, or don't have any clue at all how to manage their time they won't end up being in the afk que. Being in the que is a choice. If you don't afk above a certain threshold you don't get in the que. If you do afk above said threshold thus denoting that you find such behavior acceptable you end up in the que.

Someone who afks a bunch can't sit there and say they find afk to be griefing unless they are going to say hey I am a griefer unless they are hypocrites.

The optimal solution is to ban griefers but player submissions of behavior can be used to grief others as had already been pointed out in the thread.

Smoking is something that is acceptable to do but we make smokers go to designated areas to smoke. If someone lights up a cirgerette near you once and you don't smoke you ask them not to do it again. If they continue to do it 50% of the time they are around you anyway you take further steps to ensure it doesn't happen around you.

HyenaNipples
08-28-2013, 06:37 PM
I did some legwork and tried to find where the League of Legends Tribunal system was mentioned in this thread and my browser search feature hasn't ferreted it out. It's rather surprising that no one has mentioned it, as it is a working model of 'player reporting' being effective. I've been a a judge on over 200 cases, and every claim that the system is unworkable always comes from someone who was banned and deserved it.

The cases are built automatically, but the decision to punish is in the hands of a rather large council of volunteer players. Cases of 'grief' reporting are obvious, and these people are pardoned. I've seen it happen. I've even voted on those cases.

zadies
08-28-2013, 07:00 PM
It has worked in LoL but people seem to hate player reporting, they also seem to hate the idea of the system looking at behaviors.

So they would rather do nothing until we actually have a toxic atmosphere due to allowing behaviors.

Once a behavior is allowed it becomes the norm, once it is the norm punishing it becomes harder.

Its easier to make punishments less harsh after they are there then it is to implement them after you have said it is OK. Great example is the two year old who throws temper tantrums. If you give them what they want the first few times you reinforce the behavior while if you were harsh to begin with it is less likely to happen in the future, but once the course is set one way or the other going the other way is hard.

ossuary
08-28-2013, 07:49 PM
No one can sit here and say it would have been okay, at Gen Con, at CZE's special event, to sit there for 30 minutes doing nothing while your opponent got a "free win". Heck, even the exact same rules they'll have in place when it launches, a 3 minute timeout. Even though it's the exact same argument everyone has been praising on here.

Here's the thing, Matt. Your two scenarios are not comparable. That's the crux of it.

Of course it would be unacceptable to sit there right in front of your opponent, and stare off into space for 3 minutes with a nasty little smirk on your face. You would be either thrashed to within an inch of your life by all the rabid fans all around you, or at the least escorted from the event.

But playing a game online that is set up to function like a free to play / casual game is not the same thing as sitting face to face with someone across a table. In an FLGS, or waiting in line for your turn to play at GenCon, there are no other distractions or things you have to be doing. That situation simply cannot be compared to playing a casual-style game in your home, with real life distractions around you.

I assure you, 98% of the time there is some kind of delay in play, it will be because of real life concerns encroaching on the other player's time unexpectedly. I can't sit down at my computer for 10 minutes without one of my kids coming up to interact with me, ask me to get them a sandwich, let me know the cats (or the kids!) peed / barfed on the floor, or for my wife to call down asking me to put on a load of laundry. You know what? I bet I could be a really excellent opponent for you if I locked myself in a steel box and hooked up a catheter so I never had to leave my seat... but the real world doesn't work that way, and nobody should ever be penalized for that.

If you have a suggestion for an anti-griefing system that won't accidentally harm innocent players with real life problems or occasional connection issues, doesn't take a huge amount of time to implement (that could be better spent on real development), and doesn't cost CZE a fortune in terms of development / implementation / staffing, I'm sure everyone would be thrilled to hear about it.

Until then, the system we have (which, to be fair, we don't even know all the details yet - they may already have this covered!) is going to have to be good enough. I know you've had negative experiences with griefing (we all have), but don't paint every game delay with the same brush.

zadies
08-28-2013, 08:02 PM
The PvP in this game is not free to play and given there is a prize I would not call it casual either.
The issue I have is if you exhibit the behavior you cannot say that the behavior if inflicted upon you is griefing. Yes you can go afk occasional but if you are going afk 25% of time why should you expect people who only go afk 2% of the time to be happy with it. Why should you not play with people who share you inclination?

You cannot sit there and tell me it is OK for you to go afk and lose and waste someone else's time but if it happens to you it is griefing.

Also nick in regards to me ignoring posts I at least respond to direct questions an have moved from people self policing given the fact that griefers could use it to grief, you on the other hand seem to continuously deflect the conversation into semantics and grammar.

It seems like most people don't want to actually think about the actions they are endorsing but would rather say we must defend the innocent. Great noble goal but really there comes a point where a behavior if done often enough moves from accidental to habitual and if it is a habit as opposed to inadvertent then you should hang out with those who share the habit, and if the habit is harmless where is the harm in grouping them together.

It is a self selecting group.

You cannot say it is not self selecting because you have the option to either
A)play the game you qued for(which gets you out of the que if you en up in it and keeps you out of it)
B)leave your computer unattended(which may put you in a group that habitually make this decision)
C) concede the game before leaving your computer unattended (see note from a)

Metryn
08-28-2013, 08:23 PM
I assure you, 98% of the time there is some kind of delay in play, it will be because of real life concerns encroaching on the other player's time unexpectedly. I can't sit down at my computer for 10 minutes without one of my kids coming up to interact with me, ask me to get them a sandwich, let me know the cats (or the kids!) peed / barfed on the floor, or for my wife to call down asking me to put on a load of laundry. You know what? I bet I could be a really excellent opponent for you if I locked myself in a steel box and hooked up a catheter so I never had to leave my seat... but the real world doesn't work that way, and nobody should ever be penalized for that.

If you can't tell your kids/wife to wait until your match is over or someone else can't clean up said mess, then that is your problem. If I join a match for something, my girlfriend knows she can ask me to do something and after my match, I will take care of it. My son is the same, he wants something, I will tell him to hold on. He has no problem waiting a few minutes.

Your real life issues are YOUR issues. Maybe my real life issues are only an hour to play before work and instead of getting more matches in, I get stuck waiting on YOUR problems. Your need to go AFK does not take priority over my choice to get more play time in and vice versa.

There needs to be a well balanced design to force people to play at a decent pace or be removed from the game. I forget what game it was, but there was a timer that at 5 minutes you could send a warning to your opponent that was basically a "tired of waiting" button. They had a minute to respond and play before they forfeited. That keeps players from an extended AFK period as well as giving your opponent an option to allow you to afk if you ask them to wait.

I have zero problem with getting timed out of a match if I am wasting someone else's time. I don't think there should be any permanent punishment based on it though, unless it is happening in 50% (or some other ridiculous amount) of your matches.

I had wireless internet (much like satellite, not as in wireless router) and it was quite unreliable, but disconnects did not take 5 full minutes to recover from. If you are using satellite and trying to play during a storm or during a bad reception period, that is your choice....other players should not be punished for it. I doubt a large percentage of players have internet that is so unreliable anyways.

TL;DR - Your AFK takes no priority over another players wish to play. If your connection is unreliable, then upgrade/play during more reliable periods/move on. Harsher punishment is bad except for repeat offenders, but a timer definitely needs to be implemented at launch with adjustments if needed.

Miwa
08-28-2013, 08:37 PM
Since one of the things Cory stated was they needed a game that adults could play, real life issues are real. If I wanted to play a game where I can't take breaks, I could go back to dota2. (Which I gave up because 30-60mins non-interruptible time isn't something possible for people with limited time at night)

It should be like MTGO, run multiple games if you are so ADHD that you can't wait 5 minutes every once in a while for someone to tank some wife aggro.

The damn counter is 30mins. If there's a 10 minute activity timer, that's ok, but 3 minutes? That would even kill off being able to play multiple drafts at once.

If I wanted to grief you over the timer, I could just hit the pass priority button no more than once per minute. That will kill a lot more time than someone needing to take 5 once an evening...

zadies
08-28-2013, 08:42 PM
What would you call a repeat offender?
If you lose 100 games you have to afk lose 25 times having wasted 43 hours of other peoples time assuming 15 mins before the game ends and it was in the first round of one of the common 8 player tournament types.

Even losing 10 times with 3+ of them would mean you wasted 5 hours of peoples time.

The question posed how is it a punishment to group ppl that afk together you are saying it is an acceptable practice, so what is your argument that after some point you should be forced to play against others that will not mind you going afk and not agitating those that do mind... Other then you feel it is your right to annoy others.

Question miwa how are you playing multiple drafts at once if you can't have more then 10 mins of uninterrupted play time... I would think playing multiple drafts would make it more mandatory to have uninterputed time.

Also as to your priority pass inquiry that would be something exceptionally easy to track for habitual abuse.

Also haven't said anyone should be banned for the behavior in quite awhile I have said let them go play in the room where everyone finds it acceptable to afk because hey everyone over there has done it habitually.

Also an activity timer won't come up on someone who is interacting with the interface because guess what the game knows you aren't afk most MMOs have inactivity timers that are about that long.

Miwa
08-28-2013, 09:07 PM
Question miwa how are you playing multiple drafts at once if you can't have more then 10 mins of uninterrupted play time... I would think playing multiple drafts would make it more mandatory to have uninterputed time.
I wouldn't play multiple drafts, but I'm sure there will people who will want to.


Also as to your priority pass inquiry that would be something exceptionally easy to track for habitual abuse.
If you must make all decisions in less than a minute, might as well go straight to the awful DotP system then. There would also need to clearly be stated in the TOS what acceptable behavior is. Much as I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end, someone pushing the button every minute paid the exact same amount as you and is sitting there playing the same game as you. They aren't AFK.

zadies
08-28-2013, 09:13 PM
Hrm no I was saying literally pressing the priority pass button literally every minute would be easy to track.

Never in this entire thread have I called for a slow play penelety of any sort.

There really is no need to have the ability to muliplay if through nonafk behavior you ensure the fact that the games at least one that you are playing are being played. Muliplay just enables poor behavior by avoiding addressing it.

Other issues can be addressed with replays or other tracking mechanisms.

You didn't address the more pertinent question how if you say that afking is acceptable is it punitive to group people who are all agreed that afking is acceptable through their own actions together in a que that rejoins the normal que after 10 mins if it doesn't fill?

Miwa
08-28-2013, 09:23 PM
Multi-play helps mitigate downtime between matches in a draft.

What's the difference between playing once a minute and slow play to you then? Magic ability to discern intent?

OutlandishMatt
08-28-2013, 09:27 PM
But playing a game online that is set up to function like a free to play / casual game is not the same thing as sitting face to face with someone across a table.

Everyone needs to quit looking it like it's a "casual game" when it comes to TOURNAMENT play. I don't think anyone honestly puts much concern in the Casual PvP aspect of afk/disconnect unless it turns out Casual PvP tracks statistics and what not for cards. In tournaments, prizes are at stake, there's nothing casual about it. I honestly don't care if your kid spills ketchup on your keyboard or a dog trips over your power cable and you shouldn't care if it happens to me. You're in a tournament, playing for prizes, possibly money. It's not my problem, it's not your problem. What is OUR problem is OUR game time being wasted, repeatedly. When a person signs up for a tournament, they should have a tournament mindset. You wouldn't go to a game store and think, "I can bring a kid with me and take care of them." So why do people think it's okay online? Because it's online? Yes. Because people don't have to face one another. Because there's anonymity and we don't have to face another person.

Take out the face to face interaction at Gen Con. Would it now be acceptable? Let's say people are put behind partitions and no one knows who's playing who. Now acceptable? Put them 100 yards away? Now acceptable? It's NEVER acceptable. People just get it in their heads that we should be more forgiving for whatever reason when we shouldn't. People are wasting our time and being inconsiderate.

Everyone can acknowledge people are doing it on purpose. Everyone can acknowledge it's a bad thing to do. But for whatever reason, people are against punishing them. This is me getting fed up with everyone constantly defending/pushing the idea that we shouldn't punish people for repeatedly wasting other people's time for spite.

I went on a rant there and I'm sorry. I want people to have fun. I want people to play complete games. I'm sorry if you have other obligations. I don't think online continuous tournament play is for people that have those type of obligations like family. There will be other tournaments though that could be up your alley like Marathon or League play. Something that's not time restrictive and is more play at your leisure.

zadies
08-28-2013, 09:30 PM
I posed my question first but I'll answer yours first.

I would rather play someone who is actually playing the game even at a purposefully slow pace then win due to an afk because guess what I am at least PLAYING the game albeit slowly. Would I want to be on the receiving end of such behavior no, but they are playing a game of chicken with their clock but at least they are playing.

I don't have a suggested solution for that particular form of griefing but that does not mean that we should ignore those forms of behavior that are more easily identified.

I have not been trying to determine intent of the afk behavior only trying to determine a point where it goes from occasional to habitual and if it is habitual it is a bad habit like smoking and either you break your habit or else you go play with people who share your habit. If you feel the behavior is acceptable how can you feel that being grouped with like minded individuals is punitive given you still get to play all forms of the game.

the only way such a system would be punitive is if they were not enough people that agree with your point of you and thought that going afk was acceptable. Thus not having enough people To que with.but it's even one percent of a million people are doing that then you have 10,000 people to play with.

Your turn.

Miwa
08-28-2013, 09:53 PM
Oh boy, response eaten, I'm not typing that again.

We are talking past each other. Pressing pass every minute isn't being AFK. You can't stop someone for using their timer, and you can't tell if it's just a complex deck or not.

OutlandishMatt: you can turbo out a match, but you still have to wait for everyone else for the next round. The 30 minute timer will be what determines the pace of the tournament or draft. The bigger the tournament, the more each player would be allowed to use their time I would expect.

In the end I trust they have already implemented this and are following their design goals, not a bunch of threads on some forum. I'd hope that it works out to something very similar to MTGO's system.

OutlandishMatt
08-28-2013, 09:59 PM
In the end I trust they have already implemented this and are following their design goals, not a bunch of threads on some forum. I'd hope that it works out to something very similar to MTGO's system.

I trust them as well but they do need our feedback. They've asked for it on several occasions. I feel the forums are the best way to see how everyone wants something. We've had lots of interesting discussions about the economy, guild functions, authentication, and other "Hot Topics" that Yoss was keeping up with. Some people say there's nothing of interest on these forums but I think everything is of interest. We are the community. Every one of us matters to Cryptozoic.

zadies
08-28-2013, 10:07 PM
Given the responses to this thread people seem to feel that they will end up in the category of people who have at Least 25% of their loses caused by their need to go afk so I highly doubt such a que would be made up by only 1% of the population. It just by default makes a casual que not based on skill level but by behavioral presence

. And you nor anyone saying we should ignore the issue still haven't answered my question-

Nicalapegus
08-28-2013, 10:10 PM
No one can sit here and say it would have been okay, at Gen Con, at CZE's special event, to sit there for 30 minutes doing nothing while your opponent got a "free win". Heck, even the exact same rules they'll have in place when it launches, a 3 minute timeout. Even though it's the exact same argument everyone has been praising on here.

I'll say it. Those are the rules of the game. Regardless of where it is when it happens. I choose to play you, you go afk or disconnect. The timer winds down. If you don't return, I win. THAT IS THE POINT OF THE TIMER. There is a timer in Chess as well. Where's the giant outcry about that?


I am going to attempt to break down this inane post by zadies. Wish me luck, ladies and gents.


Yes well that is why there as acpectable use cut off in say it is griefing you say it isn't .

What?


If someone goes afk once in a blue moon they aren't going to end up in the afk que... And if they do end up in said que once they lose in the que once or twice without going afk they are out of the que and realize hey if I'm going to go afk long enough that the timer might be an issue perhaps I should concede so I don't end up in the afk que again.

Again, what? And there is no "afk queue," never has never will be.


Unless people WANT to be in the afk que, afk grief, or don't have any clue at all how to manage their time they won't end up being in the afk que. Being in the que is a choice. If you don't afk above a certain threshold you don't get in the que. If you do afk above said threshold thus denoting that you find such behavior acceptable you end up in the que.

There is no such thing as "afk griefing" in a game like Hex. I will simplify this down for you:

I play you, zadies. I start to win. You close the game in a rage. I win. THE END. There is no griefing there!

Let's use another example: League of Legends.

I play you zadies. You lose lane to me and ragequit. The rest of your team is now affected as it being a 4v5, and lose. THAT IS GRIEFING.

You seriously have no idea what you're talking about.


Someone who afks a bunch can't sit there and say they find afk to be griefing unless they are going to say hey I am a griefer unless they are hypocrites.

Unless they use the word unless too much and dont use periods adn then make grammr and splling mistakes unelss and then unless unless


The optimal solution is to ban griefers but player submissions of behavior can be used to grief others as had already been pointed out in the thread.

QUICK! EVERYONE THROW AROUND THE TERM GRIEF LIKE WE KNOW WHAT IT MEANS! (hint, you don't)


Smoking is something that is acceptable to do but we make smokers go to designated areas to smoke. If someone lights up a cirgerette near you once and you don't smoke you ask them not to do it again. If they continue to do it 50% of the time they are around you anyway you take further steps to ensure it doesn't happen around you.

This has been a Public Service Announcement from Zadies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pele5vptVgc

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-28-2013, 11:20 PM
Wow, go to bed, wake up, 3 more pages. People; the sky is not falling. There are both multiple answers to this like the timers and being able to report to a GM, and in addition, very few people will actually intentionally grief (and those that do should be able to get around any automatic systems).

ossuary
08-29-2013, 04:23 AM
Everyone can acknowledge people are doing it on purpose. Everyone can acknowledge it's a bad thing to do. But for whatever reason, people are against punishing them. This is me getting fed up with everyone constantly defending/pushing the idea that we shouldn't punish people for repeatedly wasting other people's time for spite.

Actually, I think you'll find I very specifically said that I am fine with punishing people (and believe me, I dislike intentional griefing too), so long as you can 100% separate it from occasional / accidental delays. I don't want normal, innocent behaviour lumped in with intentional griefing. That's my point of contention (plus development time, plus money).


I went on a rant there and I'm sorry. I want people to have fun. I want people to play complete games. I'm sorry if you have other obligations. I don't think online continuous tournament play is for people that have those type of obligations like family. There will be other tournaments though that could be up your alley like Marathon or League play. Something that's not time restrictive and is more play at your leisure.

So I think we're still talking about 2 different scenarios here. If I am playing in an officially sanctioned tournament, you bet your ass I'm going to clear my schedule and tell the family to give me a couple hours of peace. If I'm sitting in the game client and decide, "Hey, I think I'll do a draft," that's a completely different environment. The fact that it's designed so you can load up and join a draft tournament any time you feel like is fundamentally casual.

Are you suggesting that single people with no pets or friends should have a competitive advantage over a family man, by virtue of the family man getting booted out of a draft tournament due to real life concerns? Sorry, I will never agree with you on that. Now if you want to separate the casual draft tournaments from officially sanctioned, CZE run tournaments that happen at a specific time, yes absolutely I will agree with you that people have to play in a timely fashion during those events, or forfeit (and yes, repeat offenders should be punished by being excluded in future, assuming their poor performance doesn't just prevent them from qualifying for those sanctioned events in the future anyway).

Arbiter
08-29-2013, 07:02 AM
So let me get this straight.

If a person wants to improve their chances of prizes in a tournament that matters, they just AFK / DC their way through a heap of casual games.

That sounds like it will encourage good behaviour to me! A well thought out and articulated policy idea.

zadies
08-29-2013, 07:22 AM
Actually given way way back I stipulated a large penalty on qualifying points for larger tournaments to prevent competitive players from doing just that.

The individuals who provide afk wins frequently are going to provide the free packs anyway.

If someone feels free packs are worth never actually playing their cards in a game with a live opponent then I am perfectly fine with letting them play in those conditions.

I think another reason folks are against the idea is that they inherently want the ability to get an easy win.

And really me and Matt have been focusing on tournament play CZE has never indicated any movement on creating a casual no prize game que.

If going afk is thought to be a acceptable behavior by some and habitually going afk is not thought to be acceptable by others is it a punishment to the ones that think going afk is acceptable to have those with high rates of afk play against each other in the minds of those who feel going afk is acceptable.

Basically you are saying that those who find high afk rates unacceptable should be punished for you belief that going afk all the time is perfectly fine, while if it is perfectly fine why can't you go do it over there. If it takes you too long to find a group come over here but start by looking for people that agree with you.

OutlandishMatt
08-29-2013, 09:50 AM
THAT IS THE POINT OF THE TIMER. There is a timer in Chess as well. Where's the giant outcry about that?

I don't have a problem with people using the timer. I have a problem with the malicious intent and repeat offenders. Also, there have been several instances of people complaining about this in Yahoo Chess.


There is no such thing as "afk griefing" in a game like Hex. I will simplify this down for you:

I play you, zadies. I start to win. You close the game in a rage. I win. THE END. There is no griefing there!

Let's use another example: League of Legends.

I play you zadies. You lose lane to me and ragequit. The rest of your team is now affected as it being a 4v5, and lose. THAT IS GRIEFING.

You seriously have no idea what you're talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefing

"A griefer is a player in a multiplayer video game who deliberately irritates and harasses other players within the game, using aspects of the game in unintended ways. A griefer derives pleasure primarily or exclusively from the act of annoying other users, and as such is a particular nuisance in online gaming communities, since griefers often cannot be deterred by penalties related to in-game goals."

I'm pretty sure ANY example you give where a person purposely caused another person's experience to be ruined would be considered griefing. In the first example the person is KNOWINGLY disconnecting because someone is winning. That's malicious and unsportsmanlike and should be penalized for it in tournament play to discourage that type of behavior. And don't say him getting the loss is him being penalized because it's not. He was getting the loss no matter what. Rather than concede he's now made me wait X more minutes for the win and possibly everyone else and delayed the start of the next round.


QUICK! EVERYONE THROW AROUND THE TERM GRIEF LIKE WE KNOW WHAT IT MEANS! (hint, you don't)

I've defined it so you know how we're using it.


If I'm sitting in the game client and decide, "Hey, I think I'll do a draft," that's a completely different environment. The fact that it's designed so you can load up and join a draft tournament any time you feel like is fundamentally casual.

We'll differ on this. I don't think my expectations of tournament play should be lowered because I can get into a draft whenever I want. I just think that's added convenience and is in the best interest of anyone doing an online TCG so it can cater to the masses.


Are you suggesting that single people with no pets or friends should have a competitive advantage over a family man, by virtue of the family man getting booted out of a draft tournament due to real life concerns?

I'm not suggesting they should, I'm stating they do have a competitive advantage. Less distractions.


Now if you want to separate the casual draft tournaments from officially sanctioned, CZE run tournaments that happen at a specific time, yes absolutely I will agree with you that people have to play in a timely fashion during those events, or forfeit (and yes, repeat offenders should be punished by being excluded in future, assuming their poor performance doesn't just prevent them from qualifying for those sanctioned events in the future anyway).

I think I've derailed this topic from my original, first post intent. All I want is for CZE to have some sort of system and punishment in place for repeat offenders of malicious and unsportsmanlike behavior such as disconnecting when they're about to lose.

Zomnivore
08-29-2013, 10:09 AM
The one major problem I have with DTCG is that you can ban someone, and they lose their property.

You can kick someone out of a store, you can ban them from a tournament but you can't take their crap.

Its why I think this needs to be one if not thee major issue they discuss as openly as possible. So people don't justifiably say they were screwed and scammed.

Miwa
08-29-2013, 10:15 AM
I'm pretty sure ANY example you give where a person purposely caused another person's experience to be ruined would be considered griefing. In the first example the person is KNOWINGLY disconnecting because someone is winning. That's malicious and unsportsmanlike and should be penalized for it in tournament play to discourage that type of behavior. And don't say him getting the loss is him being penalized because it's not. He was getting the loss no matter what. Rather than concede he's now made me wait X more minutes for the win and possibly everyone else and delayed the start of the next round.
Though I guess the 3 minute timer fixes that too, just like the 5 min discon in dota... plus there's always starting another game.. (and discon isn't an issue if you can't reconnect back into the same game)

And in a tournament/draft? Feel free to abandon all day against me, I'll take the win. The next round wont come any quicker anyway.

zadies
08-29-2013, 10:26 AM
Never suggested a permanent ban on anyone to just possibly a temporary ban but I changed my mind about that recently and was going for the if you think a certain way and act a certain way you should play a set of individuals that agree with your Philosopy of how a game should be played.

If you truely believe that losing due to afk is not griefing the winner you can not say putting you in a que that encompasses people who do that is actually a punishment at all for you.

Now if you think the behavior is only acceptable for yourself then I can see how you would think that putting you in a que with people who exhibit that behavior could be construed as a punishment, but at that point you are a hypocrite and are just defending your own right to grief people. by saying I can do it to you but don't ever do it to me. Do as I say not as I do.

No one has actually presented any sort of argument indicating why they would think it would be a punishment to put someone in said que who is not also saying the behavior is unacceptable.

If you don't want to be in the que make sure to concede games where you think going afk might cause you a loss.

So I am not seeing where it is a punishment at all to be subjected to the behavior you are endorsing. I would love to read a non hypocritical defense as to why the que would be a punishment when you don't feel afk going is bad.

OutlandishMatt
08-29-2013, 10:55 AM
Though I guess the 3 minute timer fixes that too, just like the 5 min discon in dota... plus there's always starting another game.. (and discon isn't an issue if you can't reconnect back into the same game)

And in a tournament/draft? Feel free to abandon all day against me, I'll take the win. The next round wont come any quicker anyway.

The 3 minute timer doesn't weed out the unsportsmanlike behavior, it just gives people peace of mind that the win won't be delayed for very long. I love the 3 minute timer. What I don't love is the fact that over the course of the game someone could do it 2,000 times and never suffer any repercussions. I want to weed out the bad behavior, not see nothing happen to it.

zadies
08-29-2013, 11:09 AM
Point in fact they have only said they are implementing a disco timer while an afk timer has been suggested in this thread we cannot operate under the assumption that they will/have implemented one...
Unless someone at gencon saw one.

nicosharp
08-29-2013, 12:10 PM
they are implementing a disco timer
http://homegirllondon.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Disco-Clock2.jpg
^

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-29-2013, 12:35 PM
Really, they don't even need an afk timer. It wouldn't be a bad feature, but it's not required.

I can't believe I'm having to sum up again. This thread should just die:

For competitive games, a 30 min timer means that a player who is intentionally slow playing or goes afk or dc's is hurting their chances, and if their timer expires you get a free win. While you might have ulterior motives for entering into an on-demand queue such as wanting to decktest for a big upcoming tournament, your opponent is effectively paying you to let them afk in this scenario. Furthermore, there are more reliable ways of testing before tournaments, so you should probably be doing those instead if that is your primary goal. Having said that, I'm not against a 5 minute afk timer, as needing more than 5 minutes for a single turn is a bit much. Though it's not necessary.

In a casual game, you have the option to leave the game if you're not satisfied with how it's playing out - that includes if your opponent goes afk, or starts being a jerk or what not. If we have so many players in the community that you end up getting a string of this happening, then we have bigger problems to deal with (that is, too many negative players within the community).

However, most importantly - this won't even be a big problem. The sky is not falling people. You will rarely come up against players who dc or go afk. I can't remember the last time it happened on MTGO where I actually cared about it. And if a person is acting with an actual intention to grief, they'd still be able to find ways to do it even if some big-brother style automatic systems were put in place.

My suggestion is this - take a chill pill, go read a book or watch a show or go out on the town, and when Hex the alpha/beta comes out if this does prove to be an (unexpected) problem, start a new thread then. If it actually is a problem, you'll undoubtedly get plenty of support, and CZE will be very keen to fix said problem.

nicosharp
08-29-2013, 12:43 PM
I can't believe I'm having to sum up again. This thread should just die:
You didn't, and yes, it should. It doesn't even need 4 extra paragraphs. fixed^

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-29-2013, 12:48 PM
:-P

I think these forums, and a few other places around the net are starting to drive home the fact that you just can't convince everyone.

nekoangel
08-29-2013, 12:53 PM
:-P

I think these forums, and a few other places around the net are starting to drive home the fact that you just can't convince everyone.

always remember the internet is mainly a place for opinion.....the opinion that someone else is wrong.

i dont bother trying to convince everyone its futile, just say your piece and mosey on out of there.

nicosharp
08-29-2013, 12:58 PM
always remember the internet is mainly a place for opinion.....the opinion that someone else is wrong.

i dont bother trying to convince everyone its futile, just say your piece and mosey on out of there.

Forums are the tiniest soapboxes in the world. You can still stand on em', but don't expect to become president from your speeches there.

That is why I value information on the internet, not opinions. Although sometimes it is very hard to decipher which I am reading. Specially if I am fairly close-minded about a particular subject/topic (which are few and far between)

nekoangel
08-29-2013, 03:09 PM
Forums are the tiniest soapboxes in the world. You can still stand on em', but don't expect to become president from your speeches there.

That is why I value information on the internet, not opinions. Although sometimes it is very hard to decipher which I am reading. Specially if I am fairly close-minded about a particular subject/topic (which are few and far between)

same here, accurate info is an amazing tool and something i endeavour to find every day even if its for the smallest thing.

BTW before i wasnt stating from my point of view about peoples opinions being wrong that just what most others seem to think is right, you cant get to hung up on a place like this life is so much more =) .

Facilier
08-29-2013, 04:11 PM
Personally I have played with two types of timers online: the Solforge one where each player has 30 minutes for the match, and the HearthStone one where a few minutes into a turn to you get a visible 40s timer, on the expiry of which the turn passes back to your opponent (giving a total of about 3-4 minutes or so for a turn, haven't really timed it).

The first type ends up with a weird situation where somebody leaving/gaming the timer puts one into a weird situation where you get locked out of a game for the 30 mins (you can start a second game, but there is no mechanism to do so in another window so it's tricky to keep an eye on the other game). I think something like this is better suited to an environment like drafts and tournaments, where it can be very important to give people a chance to get back if they are having connection issues, and there is a round length in place anyway (though even there 30 mins is way too much, as it would make best-of-three rounds take up to 3hrs), so you could go do something you sort of pay attention to, while checking on the game (like watch a Dolphins game or something: they could be surprisingly decent this year).

The turn timer seems like it works better in a casual setting, though may not really work with the response timers. The big advantage from it is that it drives the game towards a conclusion. Perhaps have some optional thing where after X minutes of inactivity the other players gets an option to terminate the game, which triggers a timer on the "AFK" player's screen for Y minutes before awarding the latter a loss.

Mostly this whole discussion makes me wish that they make sure you are able to have multiple games running. Now that ye got me convinced to upgrade to 4 monitors, I wouldn't mind in casual testing trying to have 2-3 games going at a time.

nicosharp
08-29-2013, 04:22 PM
The turn timer works in Hearthstone because there are no priority windows and games are only 10 minutes long. Sol Forge could easily get away with the same thing.

Hex, by design, can not. There are going to be so many interactions in Hex. A lot of small decisions to be made. Its sad to say, but the decision making process in HearthStone and SolForge are very simplistic in comparison. Time and flexibility need to be built into the system.

zadies
08-29-2013, 05:57 PM
Given you are all avoiding the question of how what i suggested is actually a punishment and I and others saying it could well be a problem I am wondering if you are actually attempting to convince anyone of anything.
Also jax since you said that i am going to be paid for my wasted time I will be sending you the bill at the 34.75 an hour i make.
I would argue that you just admitted it would be a problem period jax but it is much easier to take the american way of all kids get their gold stars then it is yo actually think about an issue.

stiii
08-29-2013, 06:04 PM
:-P

I think these forums, and a few other places around the net are starting to drive home the fact that you just can't convince everyone.

If by everyone you mean anyone then yes

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-29-2013, 06:16 PM
Given you are all avoiding the question of how what i suggested is actually a punishment and I and others saying it could well be a problem I am wondering if you are actually attempting to convince anyone of anything.
What was your suggestion? My main argument was that there likely wouldn't be an issue, and that even just the 30 min timer for competitive games is fine. Your suggestion was something along the lines of automatically tagging people as repeat afkers, and then only letting them have games of people with that tag, correct? Firstly, there shouldn't be enough people within Hex that that sort of system is necessary (and if there are enough people we need to take a cold hard look at our community and shape it up). Beyond that, automatic tagging runs the risk of punishing an innocent player who happens to get a streak of afks for a legitimate reason (such as tending to a child or answering an important phone call or something). If any system were implemented, I'd rather it be manual, but let me ask you, why do you actually think this will be such a big problem that we even need to implement a system for it?


Also jax since you said that i am going to be paid for my wasted time I will be sending you the bill at the 34.75 an hour i make.
I would argue that you just admitted it would be a problem period jax but it is much easier to take the american way of all kids get their gold stars then it is yo actually think about an issue.
Erm, assumptions much? Firstly, I've said from the start that I don't think there'll be a problem. If you want to try and stretch whatever I've said to mean I think there is a problem, go ahead, but I can tell you right now that's never been my intent in anything I've said. Beyond that, I'm Australian, so if that "American way" comment was directed at me, swing and a miss. Beyond that, I'd think about an issue if I actually believed there was one, or was going to be one.

If you want my constructive advice as to this issue-that-I-don't-think-will-be-an-issue, a reporting system where you submit a ticket to GMs, coupled with reports those GMs get daily/weekly (whatever's more feasible) of players with strange activity like large amounts of afks and disconnects. If after a few weeks into alpha we see it actually is a problem (I doubt it), we can talk about ways to fix it then, and I'm sure CZE will have noticed too and be more than happy to implement them.




If by everyone you mean anyone then yes
It's posts like these which made me call you out for being aggressive in the other thread. You don't need to sulk just because people don't agree with your viewpoint. As snappy as your insult is, do I need to point out that, from what I'm seeing, in both these threads I appear to share the majority view? So much for no-one agreeing. :-P

zadies
08-29-2013, 06:23 PM
What would you call a large number of dissconects compared to games played?
Your saying there won't be an issue at the same time admitting you feel there is a threshold to cross where it would be bad form.

OutlandishMatt
08-29-2013, 06:28 PM
The problem is you can't use alpha and beta phases as testing ground because the majority of accounts will be people that paid money. The problem will start occurring more frequent once the game is launched and it becomes a popular free to play TCG. I doubt LoL started off having a toxic environment. I know I don't remember the MTGO beta being as bad as it is now.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-29-2013, 06:31 PM
I don't know what I'd call the figure. More than 5%? 10%?

Of course, like in other threads going on atm, this is all just a matter of opinion. However, it is mine that from online games I've had experience with, this isn't an issue that Hex isn't already equipped to handle in a perfectly fine way (the timer for competitive games, and the ability to find a new game for casual). I'm happy to change this opinion if I see evidence that it actually would be an issue in Hex, but at this point, I don't see any reason to think that would be the case.

I also have no problem with a system being implemented it as long as they're careful with it. Doing anything to improve the game is great. It'd just be disappointing if some innocent players got caught in the crossfire, or they took things too far and made certain things too restrictive (like introducing a 2-min afk timer or something), so they need to be very careful.

zadies
08-29-2013, 06:37 PM
You do realize I have been suggesting 25% of losses its there as a deteriant and high enough not to get the innocent. Which was why I keep asking how is it a punishment
Also I figured it would be easy to adjust to lower if needed but having one originally says this is not a feature to be abused.

stiii
08-29-2013, 06:41 PM
It's posts like these which made me call you out for being aggressive in the other thread. You don't need to sulk just because people don't agree with your viewpoint. As snappy as your insult is, do I need to point out that, from what I'm seeing, in both these threads I appear to share the majority view? So much for no-one agreeing. :-P

Yeah you are utterly reasonable and everyone who disagrees with you has the problem. You use loaded words people who disagree with you are sulking and aggressive, while you are open minded and logical. And yes you do need to point it out because I see no evidence you share the majority view. This is all part of your world view where you are the reasonable one who is still always right. You say thing with no support and when called on it your repeat yourself still supplying no support.

You also don't seem to know what words mean (I'm sure you will paint this as aggressive in minute too). The word you used is convince which implies a change of opinion. so who exactly have you convinced? This has nothing to do with sharing the majority view either.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-29-2013, 06:45 PM
How about a middle-ground - 25%, but players are given a warning period (ie. 3 days) before it takes effect, during which time they can talk to a GM and plead their case, just in case they did have some sort of legitimate reason that explains the amount of afks/dcs. No contact or the GM isn't happy with their reason, they get the flag (which flags them so that they get lower priority in matchmaking queues than people without the flags if I'm understanding the proposal, correct?).

zadies
08-29-2013, 06:51 PM
I can see a warning period but really doesn't need one just say you get back out of the que when you get the behavior to 20%. Never said it was perminate my goal was to teach people why the behavior was bad when abused so they stopped. See no reason not to reward good behavior.

Though if you habitually go into the que you get flaged for review.

Lower priority in ques works too but really having a look here first if you don't find a group in five mins pull from normal que

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-29-2013, 06:52 PM
Yeah you are utterly reasonable and everyone who disagrees with you has the problem. You use loaded words people who disagree with you are sulking and aggressive, while you are open minded and logical. And yes you do need to point it out because I see no evidence you share the majority view. This is all part of your world view where you are the reasonable one who is still always right. You say thing with no support and when called on it your repeat yourself still supplying no support.
I'm not the one who came into a thread that wasn't the one where we were debating, then made a snarky comment about no-one agreeing with you. That's aggressive IMO. You seem unhappy with our interaction and as such have acted out. While I'm not going to wade through every last page of this thread, I'm pretty sure that the only person I've seen frequently post in favor of the need for a system to be implemented is Zadies, with most of the other posters saying it isn't required. If someone actually tallied up who was for and against, and it turned out that most people were in favor of the idea, you know what I'd do? I'd admit I was wrong and apologise. That's what being open-minded and logical is about my good man; looking at the evidence you have on hand, making the best judgments you can, but being able to change those judgments if you get more information at a later point that steers you in a different direction.

I'm not always right. Never said I was. I tend to be more reasonable than most though, which I think is a good quality. I'm also willing to change my mind if given a reason to. The fact that I haven't been given a reason to in the other thread doesn't mean I'm closed minded.


You also don't seem to know what words mean (I'm sure you will paint this as aggressive in minute too). The word you used is convince which implies a change of opinion. so who exactly have you convinced? This has nothing to do with sharing the majority view either.
Well done sir. You have gotten me on a technicality. If we look specifically at how many people have been convinced by anything in this thread of the other (and have actually come out and made it clear they were), then no-one seems to have been convinced by anyone, so I guess we're just as effective as each other on that front.

stiii
08-29-2013, 07:01 PM
I'm not the one who came into a thread that wasn't the one where we were debating, then made a snarky comment about no-one agreeing with you. That's aggressive IMO. You seem unhappy with our interaction and as such have acted out. While I'm not going to wade through every last page of this thread, I'm pretty sure that the only person I've seen frequently post in favor of the need for a system to be implemented is Zadies, with most of the other posters saying it isn't required. If someone actually tallied up who was for and against, and it turned out that most people were in favor of the idea, you know what I'd do? I'd admit I was wrong and apologise. That's what being open-minded and logical is about my good man; looking at the evidence you have on hand, making the best judgments you can, but being able to change those judgments if you get more information at a later point that steers you in a different direction.

I'm not always right. Never said I was. I tend to be more reasonable than most though, which I think is a good quality. I'm also willing to change my mind if given a reason to. The fact that I haven't been given a reason to in the other thread doesn't mean I'm closed minded.


Well done sir. You have gotten me on a technicality. If we look specifically at how many people have been convinced by anything in this thread of the other (and have actually come out and made it clear they were), then no-one seems to have been convinced by anyone, so I guess we're just as effective as each other on that front.

I like how you waffle about how mean I'm being to you then at the end admit I was 100% right. Words having meanings you can't use them however you want and expect to get away with it. You claimed to have done something and I pointed out you hadn't done it at all.

And you continue to use loaded words all over the place. I am acting out and you are busy explaining how open minded and reasonable you are. If those things were true you wouldn't need to bring them up a bunch of times they would be self evident. Much like not changing your mind doesn't mean you are closed minded, saying you are open minded doesn't make it true.

The best thing about all of this is my comment wasn't aimed at attacking you at all. It was just a general statement about internet "discussions" no one is ever convinced of anything by anyone. The fact you took it instantly as some huge attack says a lot about you.

OutlandishMatt
08-29-2013, 07:06 PM
It'd just be disappointing if some innocent players got caught in the crossfire, or they took things too far and made certain things too restrictive (like introducing a 2-min afk timer or something), so they need to be very careful.

I agree but I think far more innocent people will get caught in the VIP program crossfires than they ever would in systems I would like to see built. So that's why I have no problem with innocent people getting caught in the crossfires. It's already going to happen probably in more than one automated system they'll have setup.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-29-2013, 07:10 PM
I like how you waffle about how mean I'm being to you then at the end admit I was 100% right. Words having meanings you can't use them however you want and expect to get away with it. You claimed to have done something and I pointed out you hadn't done it at all.
You were technically correct (well, insomuch that no-one actively came out and said I had convinced them, so we can assume you were correct). Kudos to you. Do you want a cookie?


And you continue to use loaded words all over the place. I am acting out and you are busy explaining how open minded and reasonable you are. If those things were true you wouldn't need to bring them up a bunch of times they would be self evident. Much like not changing your mind doesn't mean you are closed minded, saying you are open minded doesn't make it true.
How does this not come across as an attack to you? I have clearly made the point that I consider myself open-minded (and I haven't seen anyone put forward a good case that I'm not); it should be obvious by now that it is something I feel is important. You then insinuate that it is not the case. As a person of intelligence, you should be able to see how one might take offense to such a remark.


The best thing about all of this is my comment wasn't aimed at attacking you at all. It was just a general statement about internet "discussions" no one is ever convinced of anything by anyone. The fact you took it instantly as some huge attack says a lot about you.
Your comment was entirely unnecessary. You didn't need to come into this thread and say anything about the comment I made. It was entirely reasonable for me to interpret it as an attack.

I am more than happy to let this banter die now; cease-fire?

stiii
08-29-2013, 07:26 PM
You were technically correct (well, insomuch that no-one actively came out and said I had convinced them, so we can assume you were correct). Kudos to you. Do you want a cookie?


How does this not come across as an attack to you? I have clearly made the point that I consider myself open-minded (and I haven't seen anyone put forward a good case that I'm not); it should be obvious by now that it is something I feel is important. You then insinuate that it is not the case. As a person of intelligence, you should be able to see how one might take offense to such a remark.


Your comment was entirely unnecessary. You didn't need to come into this thread and say anything about the comment I made. It was entirely reasonable for me to interpret it as an attack.

I am more than happy to let this banter die now; cease-fire?

Offering a cease fire after you complain about me is rather annoying feel free to take after I get to reply to you.

So what kind of correct were you? I mean my technically is better than your not correct at all.

I don't see how me saying you aren't open minded simply because you say it is an attack, unless you think the posts where you called me aggressive and sulky are also attacks. I say something negative about and it is an attack and you say something negative about me but that doesn't count? Unless you admit you did attack me at which point you have no reason to complain.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-29-2013, 07:29 PM
Did I say I was correct when I told you you were technically correct? Way to drum up your minor victory. :-P

I did attack, but I'm pretty sure it was retaliation. I'm not going to wade through the crap of the other thread seeing how long it is now, but it's my impression that we disagreed on certain things, then you started being aggressive, and after trying not to be for a while I broke and responded in kind.

stiii
08-29-2013, 07:31 PM
Look, I want to respond, then you want to respond, but if we both try and get the last word in there'll never be a last word. Let's just end it there.

Feels like you could have ended it by just not posting this.

(I'm aware of the irony)

zadies
08-29-2013, 07:50 PM
No most people who agree with the idea it could be a problem were one off folks like me, Matt, Mr.funsocks, ofiach, keldrin, vickrpg, Kami, Deepdigger, ramsetheory, xenavire, grumph,.

xtopher proposed an opt in system similar to what I suggest as a non optional solution.

I'd say it was about 40% for some sort of deterinat 60% against

Also early in the thread there was a lot of talk about poor internet connections and not wanting to penalize slow play and not wanting to deferentate between DC/afk/slow play all use the clock but way different ways. And I don't think many of the early I have kids/life posters really stopped to think about how many afk games 25% of loses is.

I think a number of ppl think I don't like this becuase it might affect me but if you are worried about a 25% system affecting... Perhaps you should be polite and concede before going afk.

I think some of the individuals would say my proposal is to soft while others will say it is harsh I actually tried to think of a middle ground deteriant. Nor am I indicating of the above agree with my proposal only that they agreed it was an issue.

Also a number of arguments were against player reporting mechanisms which this isn't.

Hex_Colin was afraid of inadvertantly banning the innocent which I can defiantly get behind he hasn't responded since nica and nico have been trying to derail the thread so unsure if he has seen my current proposal.

ouphie
08-29-2013, 07:58 PM
Something I haven't seen mentioned is simply telling your opponent that something has come up. "AFK, house on fire", or "BRB, bio". Just basic courtesy.

zadies
08-29-2013, 08:02 PM
I'm not saying going afk and coming back gets you marked only losing while afk due to a timer.

And it is only considered an issue at what I feel is a very generous 25% of loses due to being afk.

There are a number of other potential griefing situations behavior tracking could in theory manage but I wanted to get what I saw as the easiest one to I'd and I thought would gather concencous.

I also feel after dcing 5+ times a month there should be on infraction 6 a 15 min request timer that gets longer on each additional DC for the month and given most games have reque timers quite surprised by the animonisty directed to that.

Nicalapegus
08-29-2013, 09:17 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefing

"A griefer is a player in a multiplayer video game who deliberately irritates and harasses other players within the game, using aspects of the game in unintended ways. A griefer derives pleasure primarily or exclusively from the act of annoying other users, and as such is a particular nuisance in online gaming communities, since griefers often cannot be deterred by penalties related to in-game goals."

I'm pretty sure ANY example you give where a person purposely caused another person's experience to be ruined would be considered griefing. In the first example the person is KNOWINGLY disconnecting because someone is winning. That's malicious and unsportsmanlike and should be penalized for it in tournament play to discourage that type of behavior. And don't say him getting the loss is him being penalized because it's not. He was getting the loss no matter what. Rather than concede he's now made me wait X more minutes for the win and possibly everyone else and delayed the start of the next round.


This is beyond stupid. HOW ARE THEY GRIEFING YOU BY HANDING YOU A WIN!?>!?!?

No one has answered this question because IT ISNT GRIEFING. Im seriously done you kids are ignorant as hell

funktion
08-29-2013, 10:48 PM
This is beyond stupid. HOW ARE THEY GRIEFING YOU BY HANDING YOU A WIN!?>!?!?

No one has answered this question because IT ISNT GRIEFING. Im seriously done you kids are ignorant as hell

Now, not to contradict myself here... (I do still think that this is a problem who's solution will more than likely be a net negative) but... it's definitely griefing when someone does it intentionally, there's no question.

Conceding takes less effort than making your opponent wait 10 minutes. The tangible in-game result is the same whether you concede or just rage quit, but the out of game result is very different and creates a negative play experience for the opponent as well as to a lesser extent anyone else in the tournament who has to wait past the time that it would have otherwise taken for the round to finish.

The yahoo chess example really is one of the closest ones that I think you can equate to this. It's definitely the reason I quit playing yahoo chess (which I would have otherwise enjoyed greatly).

OutlandishMatt
08-29-2013, 11:02 PM
This is beyond stupid. HOW ARE THEY GRIEFING YOU BY HANDING YOU A WIN!?>!?!?

How are they HANDING ANYONE A WIN?!?!

Player A is at 18 life.
Player B is at 5 life.
Player A starts his turn. Draws a card. Casts a basic action that does 5 damage to Player B's champion.
Player B disconnects when he gets priority to respond to Player A's Basic Action.

Player B doesn't give Player A a win. Player A was already going to win! Player A now has to wait X minutes to win his game when he should have won it -X minutes ago instead. Player B caused Player A intentional grief by purposely disconnecting.

I've answered this time and time again but you keep ignoring it.

THE OPPONENT THAT DISCONNECTS IS NOT HANDING ANYONE A WIN! THEY WERE ALREADY GOING TO LOSE BEFORE THE DISCONNECT!


Now, not to contradict myself here... (I do still think that this is a problem who's solution will more than likely be a net negative) but... it's definitely griefing when someone does it intentionally, there's no question.

Thanks, funktion.

ossuary
08-30-2013, 04:54 AM
As a parent, I can't help but feel this whole thing is like the 2 kids sitting in the back seat taunting each other. "I'm not touching you!" one says gleefully as he waves his fingers near the others' face.

Hey, you know what? It's a totally dickish thing to do. But it's only upsetting because you let it be. Trolls and griefers do what they do to get a response. They rejoice in your agitation. Maybe try not letting it get to you, instead? Is sitting there for 10 minutes while the timer runs down REALLY such a big deal? Really? If your biggest complaint is "I had to sit and do nothing for 10 minutes to claim my win," maybe life is pretty good, no?

Xenavire
08-30-2013, 05:38 AM
As a parent, I can't help but feel this whole thing is like the 2 kids sitting in the back seat taunting each other. "I'm not touching you!" one says gleefully as he waves his fingers near the others' face.

Hey, you know what? It's a totally dickish thing to do. But it's only upsetting because you let it be. Trolls and griefers do what they do to get a response. They rejoice in your agitation. Maybe try not letting it get to you, instead? Is sitting there for 10 minutes while the timer runs down REALLY such a big deal? Really? If your biggest complaint is "I had to sit and do nothing for 10 minutes to claim my win," maybe life is pretty good, no?

Very nicely put. While I would rather play the time out, it is a fairly petty complaint when you could fill those minutes with something, like getting a beer, making a snack, finding something good to watch on TV, get a little extra work done, or get some pages written for your book. So many things you can do, and none require you to eyeball the timer.

Assuming there are sound effects, just tweak the sound so you can hear if they suddenly make a move, then put your attention elsewhere. Enjoy your break from the game, walk around a bit. Do something healthy. I mean a timer is not as frustrating as most MMO's, where people will camp your corpse for hours, even if you log off (in extreme cases.)

Maphalux
08-30-2013, 05:38 AM
That is exactly the point, Matt. Yes, you were already going to win. Add that to the fact that there will already be a time out timer, so you can only wait so long, and there is no need to create some system to flag or punish people. There certainly isn't any need to go on a witch hunt that will surely net innocents along with the jerks.

In the end you end up waiting five or ten minutes for the game to declare you a winner. Big deal.

Get over it and move on, guys. Enough with the drama.

zadies
08-30-2013, 06:31 AM
Everyone defending the behavior has not answered the question how is it a punishment to increase the likelyhood of playing against someone who will afk.

Ossuary it happening once fine having it happen +25% of the time NOT OK if I have to spend +20 extra mins every single draft because +25% of the time I win this happens we have an issue.

You are saying on one hand going afk is fine, but on the other no no If someone is going to make me wait it isn't.

If you like free wins like you are saying you do you should be like hell yes sign me up.

My suggestion lets you play the game how you want to, does not lock any content.

If you make enough people waste 5-10 minutes of their time I can't see how you can moan about having to either
a) play against people like yourself
B) wait an extra 3 minitues to get In a game

Unless when people go afk on you it is griefing but when you waste everyone elses time it is legitimate.

In which you are either a hypocrite or you don't think it will be a wide spread issue.
But if it is not a wide spread issue then NO ONE should get to 25% afk loses.

And if it is as widespread that people are going afk that much how is it a punishment for those doing the behavior to play others who also go afk for whaterver reason. It isn't a ban and they get to play in conditions that are perfectly accepctable according toy your viewpoint.

Arbiter
08-30-2013, 06:54 AM
Posting large chunks of text in all caps is rude.

Bold all caps is very rude.

The height you have that text at better get you a forum ban because that is way more offensive than having to wait 3 minutes for a win credit. If it upsets you that much, find another game. It does not seem that you can cope with this one, and all you are doing now is turning people off the game.

The funny thing is that it is highly likely that you have spent more time on these forum posts than you will ever lose to trolls in game. People are frustrating enough when they aren't trying to get you upset. Really the best thing you can do if somebody is trying to frustrate you is to spite them by staying calm and collected.

If it is a tournament, just accept the win. Stay calm, or you'll get put off your game in the next round (and if your opponent has friends in the tournament that may be exactly what he wants). If it is a casual game, do something else and note the name (and guild if he has one) down. Ignore if possible. Then you can just opt out of any other casual game that he is in. If he has a guild, make a calm reasoned complaint to the guild leader. If the guild leader abuses you, you know then to avoid the guild.

We can shape the community we want to play in. I'd rather not have an automatic system that can punish people caught up by real life that are not being unsporting as that will drive them off. And forcing additional monitoring by CZE requires staff and expenditure, the money for which has to come from somewhere (that would be features and designs for us). Put all this effort into building a good community in game rather than shouting for the devs to fix things because you can't control your temper. We end up with a better game (and a better set of fora).

zadies
08-30-2013, 07:06 AM
Shaping a community involves putting limits on things that are acceptable in moderation but when abused get you punished. Speed limits, drinking, designated smoking areas.

Saying it may take a lot of development time is just an excuse to avoid the issue it shouldn't take more then 20 lines of code to implement.

Also everyone keeps saying who is defending doing nothing that the behavior is acepctable but refuses to address the question of how is it a punishment at all for the individuals to be filtered in this way.

OutlandishMatt
08-30-2013, 07:14 AM
That is exactly the point, Matt. Yes, you were already going to win. Add that to the fact that there will already be a time out timer, so you can only wait so long, and there is no need to create some system to flag or punish people. There certainly isn't any need to go on a witch hunt that will surely net innocents along with the jerks.

So you're fine with say having 1,000 players within the community that every time they lose it's because of unsportsmanlike behavior and they disconnect. You're OKAY with someone having an X-100 loses record, 90 of those loses being from AFKs. You do not think a person that has that record should be punishable? You do not think there should be a system in place to punish people with those type of records?

The problem I see why saying there shouldn't be any punishment is that it starts to spread. If it's known that nothing happens to people when they do that, people will start to do it. If one person encounters it enough times, they'll probably start picking up on that behavior and do it to others. All I'm wanting is there to be a punishment, in place at launch, that will stray people away from this. They're going to have systems in place for exploits, and the VIP program, so why not sportsmanlike conduct like player reporting with an automated system? None of us have to know the specifics, like number of reports before it's brought to a GM's attention.

The whole reason I started the post was because I wanted to open up discussion about it. The problem with forums is that the topic can get strayed and we can latch on to something that isn't even the problem. The timer. My problem isn't the timer. My problem is the behavior and it not being punished.

I think we're too dismissive of common courtesy when it comes to the internet. Over the years of the internet it's become degraded with anonymity. I just want all of us to play in a nice environment with common courtesy and sportsmanlike behavior. I don't want any of us to play against people that throw tantrums, curse at their opponents, and then leave 90% of their losses. It wouldn't be acceptable in real life, it shouldn't be acceptable in a game we all pay to have fun.


Posting large chunks of text in all caps is rude.

Bold all caps is very rude.

The height you have that text at better get you a forum ban because that is way more offensive than having to wait 3 minutes for a win credit. If it upsets you that much, find another game. It does not seem that you can cope with this one, and all you are doing now is turning people off the game.

I would consider calling people ignorant children as being rude. I would consider someone typing in all caps in response to that person, trying to drive home a point that they do not understand.

I do apologize if you take offense to my use of caps and large font but we've had 24 pages of discussion and probably at least 10 pages of it is the same thing. That "you're given a free win, take it and be happy." No, the player earned the win. Nothing was given. It's equivalent to if a player walked away from a match in real life. He would get a game/match loss. The winning player sat there, played the game, and for his troubles is now forced to wait.

Prodygi
08-30-2013, 08:05 AM
A: Bad behaviour should be punish.
X: You already got the win.
A: But it's bad behaviour and it makes the game less fun and so it should be punish.
X: Well... Just wait 10mins. You got your win anyway.
A: But it's bad behaviour and it makes the game less fun and so it should be punish.
X: Seriously, it's just 10mins. Go do something. You got your win anyway.

Rinse and repeat.

@Matt: I can literally feel your frustration. How can something so blatantly obvious be so difficult to bring across. Bad behaviour should be punished. So simple!
You've made your point. In fact, you've been repeating it, each time with more frustration. But perhaps it's time to let go and accept that different people have different views.(Regardless of how straightforward you think your views are.)
I agree with your points. I feel that bad behaviour(afk/stalling/dcs) should be punished. I do not know why people are against it. What I do know is that repeating over and over will not change anything.(except increasing your blood pressure)

ossuary
08-30-2013, 08:41 AM
I don't know why "people" can't get that "we" are not "against" punishment. We are against wasting resources on something that isn't as big of a deal as "people" are making it out to be. If a solution can be found that 1) doesn't cost a ton of money, 2) doesn't take a ton of time to implement, and 3) doesn't punish innocent people, hey, go nuts.

Don't accuse "us" of not listening, when you're not listening either. I've said this exact same thing, like, 4 times in this thread. :p

HyenaNipples
08-30-2013, 08:45 AM
Brick walls are more inclined to shift position than this forum community is.

ossuary
08-30-2013, 08:55 AM
Preach.

Turtlewing
08-30-2013, 09:19 AM
This is beyond stupid. HOW ARE THEY GRIEFING YOU BY HANDING YOU A WIN!?>!?!?

No one has answered this question because IT ISNT GRIEFING. Im seriously done you kids are ignorant as hell

The case where it can be griefing is where the other player holds priority for a long duration because they are hoping you'll rage quit rather than wait out the clock, or just out of spite to make your win take as long as possible.

That said:

In a tournament setting it's not likley to be a problem, and in a casual setting it's only really an issue if for some weird reason you can't drop the game yourself and put the "griefer" on ignore.

It's also a difficult thing to punish people for because it's not easy to distinguish between "brb the baby is crying" and "lol Y not 4fit" in the real world as proving intent is difficult, and the behavior of running out of time and loosing is not, absent intent, enough to pass the "reasonable person" test for harassment.

MoikPEI
08-30-2013, 09:59 AM
So anyways, I just noticed that this is 25 pages.
Is there a TL;DR/Yoss post?

Vibraxus
08-30-2013, 10:08 AM
So anyways, I just noticed that this is 25 pages.
Is there a TL;DR/Yoss post?

Prodygi did post #241

MoikPEI
08-30-2013, 10:16 AM
That's sad if 241's an accurate tl;dr for 25 pages, but after the Comprehensive AH Proposal/Collect Every Merc megathreads, I can see it.

What I'd be looking for in a TL;DR is:
What is gained by not having repercussions for disconnects?
What is lost by not having repercussions for disconnects?
What is gained by having repercussions for disconnects?
What is list by having repercussions for disconnects?

My gut says having repercussions are a net good.

zadies
08-30-2013, 10:38 AM
@turtlewing I agree that doing it one or two times that it doesn't pass the reasonable person teat for harassment as you put it, but someone who does it 25% of the time isn't doing this one or two times unless they have lost less then 10 games total. So where is your cut off for unacepctable?

Would you agree with the concept of the que if it didn't trigger until after 15 losses?

@ossaury if you do something wrong repeatedly you are not innocent. You can not tell me that someone who has lost 20 games with 10 of em being for afk is innocent at least SOME of those games they KNEW before going afk that they were not going to back in a reasonable amount of time to finish them and before departing should have conceeded.

Not having a system in place that addresses unspotsmen like behavior is endorsing that behavior and makes us as much to blame as the griefers because we allow them to go free.

You can't complain about the murder rate if you are not willing to do something about the murderers.

Also still no one has addressed why a sub que would be a punishment at all for those who believe the behavior acceptable.

And you can't tell me that someone that WILLINGLY goes afk +25% of the time finds such behavior unacceptable, because if they did they wouldn't go afk that often to begin with and would conceede the game when having to go afk for longer then a few min.

Turtlewing
08-30-2013, 10:40 AM
That's sad if 241's an accurate tl;dr for 25 pages, but after the Comprehensive AH Proposal/Collect Every Merc megathreads, I can see it.

What I'd be looking for in a TL;DR is:
What is gained by not having repercussions for disconnects?
What is lost by not having repercussions for disconnects?
What is gained by having repercussions for disconnects?
What is list by having repercussions for disconnects?

My gut says having repercussions are a net good.

Disconnects are actually a red herring in this discussion, because once you DC you forfeit the game immediately (there's peobably some sort DC timer, but we're not talking about the same scale of time as for deliberate time waisting).

The real discussion is not about people who pull the network cable, but about people who keep the connection live but stop playing so some noticeable amount of time passes before they are declared the loser.

The upside to punishing people who do that is that hopefully the number of times someone says "well, I've lost but I'm petty enough to sit on priority until my clock runs out and all you can do about it is forfeit" will decrease.

The down side is that the punishment system will probably cats some people who went afk intending to return and finish the game but didn't manage to do so, and may have other further reaching negative consequences depending on what the punishment actually is.