<< Back to General Forum   Search

Posts 1 - 30 of 36   1  2  Next >>   
Should the Costs of Getting Booted Go Up?: 8/13/2015 02:04:36


Dublin Warrior 
Level 49
Report
Should the Costs of Getting Booted Go Up in Games when there are more than 2 players,
or in Games when there are more than 2 players left?


I have been booted out of my share of games,
and I've also gotten more than my share of trouble
because of other people getting booted out of games that I am playing in...
(both FFA and team games.)


First, I think it's time to consider increasing the education of how getting booted affects other players, the community, and the game:

1) Everyone should be know their way around the entire menu in the lower left hand corner before they pass the final tutorial, especially the options for leaving the game.


Second, Perhaps the Rewards of having a Low Boot Rate Should be Increased?
( I like to use both a carrot and a stick approach. )
More on this after the introduction of the third option:


Third, I think it's time to consider increasing the costs of getting booted from games to include points that the player has already earned... and / or restrictions on joining games.

Since the stick option takes the most space, it will go last.


2) Carrot Option: Should the Rewards of having a Low Boot Rate be Increased?

Suggested Achievements:

Boot Rate Below 20% for X time or over the course of X number of games...

Boot Rate Below 15% / Boot Rate Below 10% / Boot Rate Below 5% / Boot Rate Below 2.5% ...


Finishes 5 Straight Games without a Boot...

Finishes 10 Straight Games / Finishes 15 Straight / Finishes 20 Straight ...

Goes 2 Weeks without a Boot... Goes 3 Weeks without a Boot...


3) Stick Option: I think it's time to consider increasing the costs of getting booted from games to include points that the player has already earned... and / or restrictions on joining games.

Something small enough to be manageable,
but noticeable enough that people reconsider joining a game when they know that life is probably going to get them booted?

>> Just one example, should a clan-mate who is (apparently) a busy college student in a difficult major, be joining a double-elimination tournament at the end of the Spring Semester?

( That's not really for me to judge, I don't know nearly all of what happened, but he wasn't completely inactive in this case, though he did not reply to my messages, which I kept as polite as I could.) <<



* Should said person, who gets booted partway through the first game, and booted from the second game, be restricted from joining tournaments for a couple of weeks on his return?

* Should said person lose some points, perhaps a few thousand?

* What if it causes said player to drop a level?


3.5) Should a player with a very high boot rate get to wear a Golden Boot next to their name everywhere they go until their boot rate goes below said very high boot rate?


Thanks for listening. :)

-- Dublin Warrior

Edited 8/13/2015 02:05:28
Should the Costs of Getting Booted Go Up?: 8/13/2015 02:08:15


Genghis 
Level 54
Report
when i get booted out of games, I'm usually right there in time 1 minute after I'm booted. In my opinion, we need to have a more mature audience of players, not make booting worse than it already is.
Should the Costs of Getting Booted Go Up?: 8/13/2015 02:16:19


Dublin Warrior 
Level 49
Report
How do we best encourage that?

I offered several options that do not punish...

Are they good ideas, or do we need better ideas?

Do you usually get booted out of Real-Time, or Multi-Day Games?

And what would help or persuade you to login soon enough that you don't get booted?

( I presume that we can get booted if we are at the computer trying to complete our turns...)

Edited 8/13/2015 02:19:30
Should the Costs of Getting Booted Go Up?: 8/13/2015 02:31:13

Uberpenpal
Level 56
Report
I would not say people with high boot rates are punished at all, save perhaps they are excluded from seeing available games because someone sets a minimum to % of boot rate. This community is largely self regulating in that regard.

I see booting someone as a perfectly legal tactic, and would not hesitate to use it in the majority of games that I play. In turn I don't mind being booted by others, because that is easily avoided by policing your games carefully.

I think booting requires no adjustment.
Should the Costs of Getting Booted Go Up?: 8/13/2015 04:50:21


shyb
Level 59
Report
i like the idea of low boot rate achievements. people should be rewarded for it.
Should the Costs of Getting Booted Go Up?: 8/13/2015 07:02:50


Ebin398
Level 56
Report
@Genghis Or you could take your turns on time. It's inconsiderate to go over the timer and assume people are going to not boot you.

That being said, I rarely boot anyone: in my own games I set autoboot to the same as direct boot to avoid the issue of people getting accused of tac-booting, and people consistently going over the timer while others have to wait.

Of course real life gets in the way; don't join a real time game if you're busy at the moment.
Should the Costs of Getting Booted Go Up?: 8/13/2015 12:50:16


shyb
Level 59
Report
if life happens and i go over time, i actually feel bad if i DONT get booted.
Should the Costs of Getting Booted Go Up?: 8/13/2015 12:58:11


powerpos
Level 48
Report
Short answer: no.

Long answer: settings settings settings.
If you create or join a game that can be easily ruïned by people getting booted,
make sure it has maxboot% as joining-prerequisite.

On the other hand, some games are made to boot;
both high and low boot-times can mess with a player's ability to commit orders,
certain games allow a player to come back after turning into AI 10 times
(thus enabling players to get a 1100% bootrate)
Should the Costs of Getting Booted Go Up?: 8/13/2015 13:31:46


knyte 
Level 58
Report
And as far as community norms go, those are best enforced by the community (players and clans) and not by Fizz himself. If you find someone playing unethically or being a horrible teammate, inform them so they know, blacklist them if they make no effort to improve, warn your ckanmates so they can avoid them too, and if they're in a clan, inform the leadership what they're associating themselves with so they can either fix their clan or choose to become the brand that others avoid (clans are a great player-sorting method- for example, if you could pick a 2v2 ladder teammate from apex vs. Mongols, the clan brand could easily tell you what each one might be like).
Should the Costs of Getting Booted Go Up?: 8/13/2015 13:41:45


AlternateHistoryGuy
Level 49
Report
In real-times, I've gotten booted about 50 times because people haven't accepted my surrender, hence why my own boot rate is 12.1%, much higher than I wanted. I have no idea how to force people to accept my surrender because I've usually left the game.
Should the Costs of Getting Booted Go Up?: 8/13/2015 14:01:30


Eklipse
Level 57
Report
It's inconsiderate to go over the timer and assume people are going to not boot you.

Depends on the situation. If someone has a valid reason to go afk for a short time and posts so in chat than booting them anyways is a serious jerk move.

Now, if someone is going over the timer every single turn than it's a different story.
Should the Costs of Getting Booted Go Up?: 8/13/2015 14:05:12


knyte 
Level 58
Report
^ A problem solved by banked boot times.
Should the Costs of Getting Booted Go Up?: 8/13/2015 17:57:47


Mercer 
Level 34
Report
More boot education is needed. We are aware of that problem. This is slated for development over the next few months. I have played with several players that are not aware they can surrender. They just close the tab when they are losing and walk away. Awareness to surrender is a big quality of game issue.

I like this thread, more ideas around carrots and sticks. Keep them up.
Should the Costs of Getting Booted Go Up?: 8/13/2015 18:12:15


Des {TJC}
Level 58
Report
Honestly, I've been booted when I -HAVE- hit surrender. People wont accept it. Its happened about good 50 times to me throughout my time playing diplos. Automatically accepting surrender is a good thing but, sometimes when you hit it and then you finally see something you could've changed is the worst D:

So maybe something inbetween autoaccept and forcing everyone to accept would be good.
Should the Costs of Getting Booted Go Up?: 8/13/2015 23:01:35


Ebin398
Level 56
Report
@Eklipse True, I would never boot someone if they said in chat "I have to go do something real quick, please don't boot".

@Des Personally I'd be in favor of getting rid of surrender accepting during any game that isn't a team game. I'd like to know I can opt out of a game without getting booted and simply accepting a loss. It's annoying as hell when people tactically don't accept someone else's surrender in a damn Free For All. Someone did that to me and I retracted my surrender and made a B-line for their territories with several large stacks, letting the other players take the stuff I used to own.

Edited 8/14/2015 06:07:34
Should the Costs of Getting Booted Go Up?: 8/14/2015 05:02:21


Dublin Warrior 
Level 49
Report
^^^^^ +1 to Ebin398's last post.

+1 Des...

actually, I think that most or even all of the issues that I see in this thread has happened to me at least once already... except that I never play Real-Time games...
too much risk of booting, especially in my situation of not actually owning a device that I can play WarLight on.

Events History : including going over my boot time and being shocked to find that I am still in the game; having a boot rate over 10% (not atm, thankfully); surrendering with my team mate in the second-round tournament game cited above only to find that because my team mate surrendered first, I got booted for not checking back, because I was a noob; etc. I don't think I've ever been voted out... but I'd have to check.

( I get around. :O )

However, I have not yet made my own multi-player game yet...
in part because I am a little bitty Level 17, and I lack money...
plus the procedure for starting my very own multi-player game is honestly a bit daunting...
So I don't much know what I'm doing there,
except to "steal" a template/map combo that I think I would like and host it...

Maybe for my next game. :)


AlternateHistoryGuy / Des :

If I were to surrender because I know that I will get booted otherwise, and I post in the game chat announcing my decision and reasons,
I'd be most inclined to block people who forced me to get booted...
I'd even be inclined to block someone if I trusted the story of someone who was in that situation...
and to some extent with cases of "I'll be right back, please don't boot", although it could be abused.

My clan has a voluntary clan-wide blocklist, started by knyte, which I love.
It is also piece-meal, in that you can block the people in cases 1, 2, and 5, and disregard cases 3 and 4, or however one likes.

Good reasons had to be given for nominations with tons of supporting evidence,
including detailed claims, game links, profile links and mitigating circumstances,
and are verified by knyte, before they appeared on the official list,
and not every claim made the list, which is again voluntary and piece-meal.
Further, those details are noted in the official list.
I also checked out the details of many of the claims on my own.

It's not the sort of thing I would suggest for the open game forums,
due to the obvious political/drama reasons,
but if other clans have block lists with the same protections,

I'd be very interested in swapping my personal copy of the list with clans that also have well-documented lists.

Edited 8/14/2015 06:31:18
Should the Costs of Getting Booted Go Up?: 8/14/2015 05:38:15


Master Ree 
Level 58
Report
Honestly, I've been booted when I -HAVE- hit surrender. People wont accept it. Its happened about good 50 times to me throughout my time playing diplos. Automatically accepting surrender is a good thing but, sometimes when you hit it and then you finally see something you could've changed is the worst D:

So maybe something inbetween autoaccept and forcing everyone to accept would be good.


Could it not be setup that if a player exceeds the boot time and has surrendered:

Their surrender is automatically accepted

OR

The boot does not count against them since they made a reasonable effort to not be booted?

Edited 8/14/2015 05:38:27
Should the Costs of Getting Booted Go Up?: 8/14/2015 06:00:51


Latnox 
Level 60
Report
Master Ree - there is a reason for "accept surrender" option. I agree, that in FFA's and 1v1's it is not necessary. But in team games it is annoying as hell, when your teammate surrenders, just because he's losing, but not the whole team. I'd have no regrets upon booting such a player.

From the other hand, I don't understand people, who "tactical" boots right after the clock runs out. Yes, you have right to do it, but what's the point of playing if you won all your games by booting opponent? I always thought, that point of this game is to have fun by playing with others. Not having highest lvl, or best stats. But well, I guess some enjoy stats more, than pleasure of playing..
Should the Costs of Getting Booted Go Up?: 8/14/2015 06:03:04


Genghis 
Level 54
Report
Well sometimes I like to play a game, but I have to do something. Usually I try to do things while I'm still in the lobby, but things happen and I come back and I'm booted by 1 minute. It's damn disgusting.
Should the Costs of Getting Booted Go Up?: 8/14/2015 06:04:55

Joh Embrey
Level 56
Report
I think there should be an option regarding surrenders that instead of either being automatically accepted vs requiring EVERYONE to accept, that you only require half + 1 or half rounded up of the other players to accept. That stops that one stubborn person from refusing to accept your surrender.
Should the Costs of Getting Booted Go Up?: 8/14/2015 06:07:02


Ebin398
Level 56
Report
@Genghis Not to say I agree with booting you, but you have to understand that when people have been waiting in the lobby for awhile they're pretty antsy and eager to start playing. To avoid this myself I make sure I leave a lobby if I'm going to leave the computer. Though that exact thing has happened to me, I make sure it's a pretty rare occurrence.

Edited 8/14/2015 06:07:55
Should the Costs of Getting Booted Go Up?: 8/14/2015 06:23:50


Dublin Warrior 
Level 49
Report
+1 to Ebin.

+1 to Master Ree for the idea on surrender+boot combos...
it should at least be an option.

+1 to Latnox with the caveat that even in FFA Games,

having people surrender / get booted is often a royal pain in the arse for at least one person who still has / did have a decent chance of winning... and I'm not sure how best to address it... :(

By the way, could someone explain to a noob how someone gets booted from a lobby,

and what the effects are of booting on that person's account?

Edited 8/14/2015 06:24:47
Should the Costs of Getting Booted Go Up?: 8/14/2015 06:25:37


Ebin398
Level 56
Report
I think he meant he joins a lobby, leaves the computer to go do something, then by the time he's back the game has already started and the clock has run out.

No effects as far as I'm aware besides having a higher boot % displayed on your account and you might get filtered from certain games if the host decides to only allow people who have a low enough boot rate.
Should the Costs of Getting Booted Go Up?: 8/14/2015 06:29:59


Dublin Warrior 
Level 49
Report
Oh, I see.

Yes, I can see how that would be an issue.

And I added tons of good info to my third post, my last post on page one.

I hope people find it useful. :)

Edited 8/14/2015 06:31:48
Should the Costs of Getting Booted Go Up?: 8/14/2015 06:46:48

Алексей
Level 62
Report
Finishes 5 Straight Games without a Boot

This "carrot" will really encorage noobs.
get to wear a Golden Boot next to their name

Good "stick" thing.
Should the Costs of Getting Booted Go Up?: 8/14/2015 06:53:30


muddleszoom
Level 59
Report
i was in a Team torneymentand the other guy got boot. i was anyod yes the cost of booting should go up
Should the Costs of Getting Booted Go Up?: 8/14/2015 07:07:21


knyte 
Level 58
Report
Simple idea: create an option that would let game creators make it impossible to boot players with an unaccepted surrender. That way all active players have to accept the surrender for the game to move on, and inactives get booted before those who've surrendered. One way this could go wrong is if two players who don't accept each other's surrender have both surrendered and then gone afk, but that could be solved by re-enabling boots for cases like that.

So an option to make surrendering players unbootable until all other players have either taken their turn or been booted.
Should the Costs of Getting Booted Go Up?: 8/14/2015 07:18:08


Krzysztof 
Level 66
Report

option that would let game creators make it impossible to boot players with an unaccepted surrender.


well, what's the point then? i can't surrender until everyone else accept this, but as they are forced to do it, this is effectively the same situtation as 'surrender happens instantly'
Should the Costs of Getting Booted Go Up?: 8/14/2015 07:23:49


knyte 
Level 58
Report
^ Not quite. They just have to boot all inactive non-surrendered players before they boot surrendered ones. This is because often the unaccepted surrenders occur because of inactives not accepting them and as booting them solves the problem without having to boot the surrendered players. This is mostly to make it easier to boot in the proper order because most people seem to miss that concept.

So if the surrender was just not accepted by an inactive, you can more easily move on while keeping the surrendered player still in the game (useful for FFAs where losing a player would imbalance the game).

The idea still needs refinement though because as of now it just adds convenience and keeps surrendered players bootable. Maybe combine it with the one to count boots of surrendered players as surrenders.

Edited 8/14/2015 07:27:22
Should the Costs of Getting Booted Go Up?: 8/14/2015 07:24:27


Latnox 
Level 60
Report
when people have been waiting in the lobby for awhile they're pretty antsy and eager to start playing.

That's even another reason for not booting someone 1 minute after game had started.
"Well, I've waited 30 min for this game to start, but I can't wait 3 min more to actually start playing. Instead, I'll ruin the game for everyone who waited along with me."
Sounds legit.

Also I like Knyte idea. And regarding Krzychu's comment, it's not exacly the same as "surrender happens instantly". The difference is, that if your teammate wants to surrender, you can still try to talk to him. While if he rage quit, it's game over.

Edited 8/14/2015 07:25:14
Posts 1 - 30 of 36   1  2  Next >>