PDA

View Full Version : Guy playing two games at once



The_Lannisters
06-01-2014, 05:33 PM
Hello Hexers,

I've just conceded a pretty frustrating game. I was playing mill so the board was always quite clear and there was not that much to think about each turn.

Still, this other guy was taking an insane amount of time per turn. At first I thought he might have some computer or real life issues, anyway after a few turns I asked him if he was OK.

To my surprise he replied that he was playing two games at once. I do not know whether he meant two games of Hex or Hex and something else. Either way I find terribly disrespectful with others leisure time to do such thing.

Is this what people have come to these days? Not being able to enjoy any single activity unless you overload yourself multitasking on several other shenanigans?

/End of rant :-)

d00dz
06-01-2014, 05:40 PM
He's probably one of those guys who pledged multiple tiers and is trying to use up his free drafts in his available time.

funktion
06-01-2014, 06:09 PM
If it was just someone who was new and playing one game at a time very slowly instead would you have been equally as frustrated? The result is the same but my guess is that your response isn't. At some point the person playing multie tables will potentially become proficient enough that youd never know the difference. Ill probably take a stab at it eventually myself.

Just my thoughts... everyone has a reason for slow play. Theyre drinking, watching their kid, new to the game, watching tv etc...

YourOpponent
06-01-2014, 06:51 PM
He's probably one of those guys who pledged multiple tiers and is trying to use up his free drafts in his available time.

Yeah sadly a few of the people that purchased multiples of the $250+ tiers will be playing more than one account at a time. One drafting while the other is doing rounds in a tournament. I wish it was against the rules to do that when one of the accounts is playing in casual though... because that is annoying and will be that way for PvE of course too. Personally I'm fine with it for tournaments though...anything that causes my opponent's time to go down and isn't bug abuse I'm fine with :)

Thraeg
06-01-2014, 07:59 PM
If it was just someone who was new and playing one game at a time very slowly instead would you have been equally as frustrated? The result is the same but my guess is that your response isn't. At some point the person playing multie tables will potentially become proficient enough that youd never know the difference. Ill probably take a stab at it eventually myself.

Just my thoughts... everyone has a reason for slow play. Theyre drinking, watching their kid, new to the game, watching tv etc...

I think that's a false equivalency. The new player can't help being new, and learning the game is a necessary step toward becoming a proficient player. But anyone who queues up for two simultaneous tournaments (and isn't already a very fast player able to maintain a standard pace of play in two games at once) is making a deliberate, selfish choice to potentially waste the time of 14 people in order to reduce their own downtime by a bit.

Of course, it's obvious that there is a fair amount of downtime in tournaments, so it totally makes sense to have something else going on the side to keep you busy during that time. But it should be a book, a single-player game, a TV show, etc. -- that is, something that you can pause/put down the moment you have a priority window open in your tournament match.

And unplanned interruptions (phone ringing, baby crying, etc.) are also different because they are unexpected, and short in duration. A couple minutes for something that came up suddenly is very different than every play being slow because of a deliberate choice.

hex_colin
06-01-2014, 08:43 PM
I play 2 tournaments concurrently reasonably frequently. I wait until my first tournament is near the end of the first round before drafting in the second. Most of the time the gaps line up reasonably well. I still think I play pretty fast - can't remember using more than 15-20 minutes of my timer since Beta went live in any round except for one occasion (and I was only playing one tourney at that time).

It's definitely reasonably challenging though. ;)

Werlix
06-01-2014, 08:53 PM
Meh. People can do whatever they want within the rules of the game. I don't play on multiple accounts but I don't mind if others do. If they go over time they lose, so that's fine by me.

shocker455
06-01-2014, 09:03 PM
Eh, people can do what they want with the 30 minute timer they are given. If 30 minutes is to long your problem is with the timer not the other person.

Wasabe
06-02-2014, 12:31 AM
Yesterday was my first day playing, I played maybe 6 games, and I felt bad cause I was so slow. But it was necessary because I wasn't familiar with anything, so I needed to look at each card played, etc. But after a few games ofc I got quicker, and I was even thinking that the time limit was way too long. 30 mins per person seems to be excessive. But I guess if something happens in real life and you need to take 5 mins. . . idk

Cernz
06-02-2014, 01:02 AM
30 minutes / person is quite ok, "normal" games should be no problem, but there are decks / situations (stalling games) where 30 mins might be not enough... but thats part of the game, just try to be faster than your opponent and everything should be fine :D

and back to topic, everyone can do whatever the game allowes, multitasking, especially in turn based games is quite common.

Mike411
06-02-2014, 01:07 AM
It's their own disadvantage if they waste time, because certain matches you may need every second. Don't worry about slow players.

The_Lannisters
06-02-2014, 05:10 AM
Guys, I was talking about a game at the proving grounds.

Had it been a draft, well, once I enter a tournament I know I might be in for a few hours so whatever others do with their timer puts them at a disavantage.

For the record I think the 30 min timer in drafts is absolutely fine. If anything it can be a bit short due to some buggy time wastes the system still suffers from.

Edit. I'd never concede in a draft just because the other player is "slow" :-)

mach
06-02-2014, 06:19 AM
It's going to become even more of a problem once everyone can make multiple accounts. Multiqueuing slows down round times for everyone, which in turn increases the incentive to multiqueue, slowing round times even further.

The solution is really simple as well: asynchronous games wherever possible.

Xenavire
06-02-2014, 06:27 AM
It's going to become even more of a problem once everyone can make multiple accounts. Multiqueuing slows down round times for everyone, which in turn increases the incentive to multiqueue, slowing round times even further.

The solution is really simple as well: asynchronous games wherever possible.

How is asynchronous going to stop people from multiqueuing? I don't think you thought that one out. If anything, it as just as likely to promote multiqueuing as it is to stop it. If players can stop and start whenever they want, they could join 5 queues at once and play 3 of them at the same time, then jump to their other paused queues in the event of an elimination or a finish.

Asynch is a fine idea, but its hardly going to fix a behaviour like this.

mach
06-02-2014, 06:32 AM
How is asynchronous going to stop people from multiqueuing? I don't think you thought that one out. If anything, it as just as likely to promote multiqueuing as it is to stop it. If players can stop and start whenever they want, they could join 5 queues at once and play 3 of them at the same time, then jump to their other paused queues in the event of an elimination or a finish.

Asynch is a fine idea, but its hardly going to fix a behaviour like this.

The main reason for multiqueuing is to fill the gaps between matches. You finish your match then have a block of time before the round ends, so you join another queue.

With async, your next match begins nearly immediately, so there's no need.

Xenavire
06-02-2014, 06:42 AM
The main reason for multiqueuing is to fill the gaps between matches. You finish your match then have a block of time before the round ends, so you join another queue.

With async, your next match begins nearly immediately, so there's no need.

Thats only a portion of the reason to multiqueue (and something that will be fixed by PvE access during tournament downtime.) The main issue is people trying to cram in a bunch of playtime into a busy life (like getting several drafts into a short afternoon of gaming.) Especially those who have multiple accounts already with separate drafting perks.

There are also those people who think they are good enough to manage it (and only some of them are.)

mach
06-02-2014, 06:48 AM
Thats only a portion of the reason to multiqueue (and something that will be fixed by PvE access during tournament downtime.) The main issue is people trying to cram in a bunch of playtime into a busy life (like getting several drafts into a short afternoon of gaming.) Especially those who have multiple accounts already with separate drafting perks.

There are also those people who think they are good enough to manage it (and only some of them are.)

PvE won't fix the problem, since many PvP players won't have an interest in it.

Multiqueuing doesn't gain you much if there aren't gaps waiting for rounds to end. It may even make things less efficient for you, since things take longer when your concentration is divided.

Think about it: have you ever seen a player multiqueue Hearthstone, which is fully async?

Xenavire
06-02-2014, 06:53 AM
PvE won't fix the problem, since many PvP players won't have an interest in it.

Multiqueuing doesn't gain you much if there aren't gaps waiting for rounds to end. It may even make things less efficient for you, since things take longer when your concentration is divided.

Think about it: have you ever seen a player multiqueue Hearthstone, which is fully async?

To multiqueue Hearthstone you would need to have a second blizzard/battle.net account (which can be a hassle to manage) and there is no benefit to having multiple hearthstone accounts (due to there being no trading.)

Add trading, and you bet there will be multiqueuing.

mach
06-02-2014, 07:02 AM
To multiqueue Hearthstone you would need to have a second blizzard/battle.net account (which can be a hassle to manage) and there is no benefit to having multiple hearthstone accounts (due to there being no trading.)

Add trading, and you bet there will be multiqueuing.

There are plenty of people with multiple HS accounts (on different regions, generally). Even among these people, I've have not once seen a multiqueue when watching their streams.

HyenaNipples
06-02-2014, 07:02 AM
Doing PVE stuff during wait times in tournaments would be fantastic. As of now, I read books.

I think multi-gaming is rude if you are forcing one of your opponents to wait, but there are a lot of people who don't care about being rude on the internet. In the proving grounds, it would be nice to have control over the round timer. Then you could put yourself into 15 min games that will ensure a very snappy opponent.

Xenavire
06-02-2014, 07:14 AM
There are plenty of people with multiple HS accounts (on different regions, generally). Even among these people, I've have not once seen a multiqueue when watching their streams.

Why would streamers multiqueue? They have far more going on.

Another thing I just remembered, Hearthstone has a flat turn timer, while Hex has an activity timer. Hearthstone is harder to multiqueue purely for that fact. The more I think about it, the more it seems like you are comparing apples and oranges.

mach
06-02-2014, 07:19 AM
Why would streamers multiqueue? They have far more going on.

Another thing I just remembered, Hearthstone has a flat turn timer, while Hex has an activity timer. Hearthstone is harder to multiqueue purely for that fact. The more I think about it, the more it seems like you are comparing apples and oranges.

Have you ever watched MTGO steamers? The top ones all or nearly all multiqueue. Though some of them play Hearthstone in between rounds now instead.

Yes, HS has a flat turn timer, but it's generous enough that it would still be possible to multiqueue if you wanted to.

Xenavire
06-02-2014, 07:35 AM
Have you ever watched MTGO steamers? The top ones all or nearly all multiqueue. Though some of them play Hearthstone in between rounds now instead.

Yes, HS has a flat turn timer, but it's generous enough that it would still be possible to multiqueue if you wanted to.

So MTGO has skilled players multiqueuing - no surprise there. (It does surprise me that streamers can handle all of that though. Impressed guy sitting here.) Hearthstone, which gives no benefit at all to multiqueuing and is more restrictive, does not.

How do you not understand that it isn't the asynch alone that is doing this? There are multiple factors, of which asynch is only a part of. You still think that asynch would fix any multiqueue issues in Hex? I doubt it. It would help (and I never denied that - it could go the other way, but it would still stop some players who do it out of boredom) but it wouldn't be a fix like you claim.

mach
06-02-2014, 07:49 AM
How do you not understand that it isn't the asynch alone that is doing this? There are multiple factors, of which asynch is only a part of. You still think that asynch would fix any multiqueue issues in Hex? I doubt it. It would help (and I never denied that - it could go the other way, but it would still stop some players who do it out of boredom) but it wouldn't be a fix like you claim.

I'm not saying that it's just the lack of async. But it is the biggest factor by far. If Hex were completely async multiqueuing would be something which would only impact the average player very rarely, rather than on a regular basis.

Xenavire
06-02-2014, 07:53 AM
I'm not saying that it's just the lack of async. But it is the biggest factor by far. If Hex were completely async multiqueuing would be something which would only impact the average player very rarely, rather than on a regular basis.

Hex will never be completely asynch, so theres always going to be a risk. Access to PvE, card manager, profile, etc etc will be far better for mitigating this issue than asynch ever would be.

The_Lannisters
06-02-2014, 12:03 PM
Doing PVE stuff during wait times in tournaments would be fantastic. As of now, I read books.

I think multi-gaming is rude if you are forcing one of your opponents to wait, but there are a lot of people who don't care about being rude on the internet. In the proving grounds, it would be nice to have control over the round timer. Then you could put yourself into 15 min games that will ensure a very snappy opponent.

Best answer. Thank you mate, I was starting to think I was all alone in the anti-rudeness wagon.

cavench
06-02-2014, 12:16 PM
Best answer. Thank you mate, I was starting to think I was all alone in the anti-rudeness wagon.

I think all of us are anti-rude, but there is a wide scope of how rudeness is being perceived. For example, while you may think playing two games is rude, your opponent may think you are being rude for leaving the game prematurely; both of you may thought "what a waste of my time".

Also, I agree with Hyena to have some sort of speed mode in casual games.

Showsni
06-02-2014, 12:58 PM
I think nearly everyone is missing the point here - his opponent wasn't multi queuing, this was in the Proving Grounds. His opponent had clicked the "Find Game" button, and then was also playing another game at the same time. That, it seems to me, is rude. On the other hand, there's (currently) no penalty for immediately forfeiting if your opponent is taking too long. With the new plans to add prizes to the proving grounds if you win, then I can see some bad sports purposely starting as many games as possible then time wasting, so their opponents will drop and they get a free shot at the Gencon prizes - though I hope the staff will nip any behaviour like that in the bud.

In a non tournament environment, with nothing at stake, dragging out a match against another player because you're doing something else is pretty unsporting. If you have something else come up, or your draft round starts or whatever, rather then forcing them to wait for you it's probably better just to fire a "sorry, have to go" message and forfeit.

Zophie
06-02-2014, 05:21 PM
I play Hex when also mining/traveling in Eve Online or doing other trivial things in other games, but I'm certainly not making them wait ages before passing priority on one of their card plays or anything, I always give Hex first priority and my other stuff last. I just love to multitask and I am still finishing matches in good time, so I don't see a problem with it.

On the flip side I really don't mind if my opponent is slow at playing, I know that the maximum a game will last is 30 minutes + how long it takes me to play, never more than an hour. If the opponent appears to be particularly slow then I'll just multitask something else while they're taking their time. As long as they aren't exploiting the game and taking time off my own timer then they can do whatever they want with theirs.

cavench
06-02-2014, 05:27 PM
If the opponent appears to be particularly slow then I'll just multitask something else while they're taking their time. As long as they aren't exploiting the game and taking time off my own timer then they can do whatever they want with theirs.

+1

I hate waiting too. So majority of my games in Proving Ground are against AIs. But when I do play against a real player, I remind myself to bring my patience along for the ride.

Kroan
06-02-2014, 10:46 PM
Multie-queue while playing against a mill-deck? Sounds like a man after my heart! :D

Eierdotter
06-03-2014, 12:05 AM
multitasking a turn based game makes perfekt sence to me.
i prefer watching TV instead of starting hex 2 times
but i hope we get this option later in the game.

playing several prooving ground games without rewards does not feel alright to me.
Draft / PVE with prices is alrigth.

Also when we get the frequently requested and highly needed "pass all priority until opponent does something"-button, games will be so much quicker. With or without multiqueue.