<< Back to General Forum   Search

Posts 1 - 25 of 25   
Annoying Player: 10/21/2011 18:46:18

Qi 
Level 55
Report
Player: http://warlight.net/Profile.aspx?p=982570409

Game: http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=1564351

I've been in at least 10 games with this guy in which he refused to surrender for 3-10 turns even after his teammates have already surrendered. Wasted time. I've heard from others that he boots right at 5 minutes. That's hearsay. But he just refused to vote to end a game on the second turn in which my teammate got booted (computer issues or emergency). He then booted me at 5 minutes. He's played over 1000 games. This is his nature. He is the only player I have ever BL-ed for booting.


If you like sportsmanship, don't play with this guy.
Annoying Player: 10/21/2011 18:48:08

BishesUpInErr (AHoL)
Level 4
Report
Was already on my BL, I've had similar problems with him.
Annoying Player: 10/21/2011 18:51:03

Qi 
Level 55
Report
It's too bad too. He always joins the other team and I almost always beat him.

Roman Empire 3 v 3 (SurrenderAccepted)
Austro-Hungarian War (EndedByVote)
European Warring States (Won)
European Warring States (Won)
European Warring States (Won)
European Warring States (Won)
European Warring States (RemovedByHost)
Europe. (Won)
Europe. (Won)
Europe. (Won)
Europe. (RemovedByHost)
Europa Cities. 50 Game Min. 8% Boot Max. No Cards. (Won)
Europe. Cards to Fit a HHH Tournament's Settings (Won)
Europa Cities. 50 Game Min. 8% Boot Max. No Cards. (Won)
Europa Cities. 50 Game Min. 8% Boot Max. No Cards. (SurrenderAccepted)
Europa Cities. 50 Game Min. 8% Boot Max. No Cards. (EndedByVote)
TIA (Won)
Europa Cities. 50 Game Min. 8% Boot Max. No Cards. (Won)
Europa Cities. 50 Game Min. 8% Boot Max. No Cards. (SurrenderAccepted)
Europa Cities. 50 Game Min. 8% Boot Max. No Cards. (EndedByVote)
Europa Cities. 50 Game Min. 8% Boot Max. No Cards. (SurrenderAccepted)
3 on 3. Europe. No Cards. (Won)
3 on 3. Europe. No Cards. (Won)
3 vs 3 ( min. 500 games played ) (Won)
3 on 3. Europe. No Cards. (Won)
3 on 3. Europe. No Cards. (SurrenderAccepted)
3 on 3. Europe. No Cards. (Won)
3 VS 3 (Won)
3v3 europe no card (Won)
Europe 3v3 no card (Won)
Europe 3 vs 3 5 min boot (Won)
Europe 3 v 3. 5 min turns. 10 min boot. (Won)
warrrrrrrr (SurrenderAccepted)
AFRICA: 2 v 2 v 2. 10 Min Auto Boot. 5 Min Turns. (SurrenderAccepted)
Annoying Player: 10/21/2011 19:15:16


Dariush
Level 24
Report
I subscribe to the complaint. In this game - http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=1558257 - by turn 18 both his allies have surrendered and me and my ally have repeatedly asked him to surrender. Instead, he started to drag out the game.

Seriously, WHY CAN'T WE BAN PEOPLE LIKE HIM?! They are a stain on the Warlight community and deserve to be removed.
Annoying Player: 10/21/2011 19:45:44


TRUMP 
Level 59
Report
lot of hearsay up in this thread. Is this forum really the place for such negativity?
Annoying Player: 10/21/2011 20:17:04

Qi 
Level 55
Report
I think it is. Though your negative comment about our negative comments are really just too negative for me.
Annoying Player: 10/21/2011 20:34:25


denzyman 
Level 5
Report
http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=1235342
Thats the way you have to play with him.
Annoying Player: 10/21/2011 20:47:16

Qi 
Level 55
Report
Cool game.
Annoying Player: 10/21/2011 23:54:25


TRUMP 
Level 59
Report
Excuse me Phillipe. You started a thread called "annoying player," outlined several grievances against said player, then listed several reasons why he should be blacklisted. Then you advertised your games in which you've beat him. Congrats, champ, you rock.

This is a public forum, and I think private grievances should not be aired. It brings all of us, especially you, down.

If all of us publicly aired every single grievance we had with another player, this forum would be chock full of personal grievances and hardly anything else.

If you want to equate my "negativity" with yours, go ahead. I think most objective members of this community will see the difference between your complaint against mbohn and mine against you.
Annoying Player: 10/22/2011 00:01:50


TRUMP 
Level 59
Report
If the Mbohn is really such a menace, email Fizzer, or make an official report. DOn't come whining here.
Annoying Player: 10/22/2011 00:17:31


devilnis 
Level 10
Report
Why not, everyone else does!
Annoying Player: 10/22/2011 01:01:34

Qi 
Level 55
Report
Mercenary, I have no desire to explain myself to you, some random person who jumped on a thread to negatively criticize everything about it and say how bad and base I am for warning others about a certain player. Bother someone else.
Annoying Player: 10/22/2011 13:32:43


BumbleBee :) 
Level 14
Report
I told you about mbohn2 long before. think several months ago.
Annoying Player: 10/22/2011 13:48:26


BumbleBee :) 
Level 14
Report
Dariush: Trust we couldn't ask Warlight to ban a player with reasons for boot to win/ holding a game when losing.

Though within our group, we try our best to play clean games with sportsmanship, trust on another side of warlight people do play boot to win/ hold a game when losing as a normal practice.

I believe what only we can do is to blacklist anyone we don't wanna play with. That's all.
Annoying Player: 10/22/2011 15:38:30

Qi 
Level 55
Report
Banning a player is not possible (Darisuh). Telling Fizzer about mbohn (who plays within the settings but who disregards the unwritten rules of the game) would be a waste of time; the very idea of running to Fizzer like he is our father is funny (Mercenary).

If it was some average Joe, I'd just blacklist without saying anything. I expected more from mbohn:

- he should know better (1700+ games)
- he is the best decent player to so egregiously disregard the unwritten rules
- I've defended him to others, saying he is courageous to join certain games
- I've played with him in 25+ games and haven't seen him boot anyone, though he's had the chance

In any case, he is on my invite list and blacklist, the only such player. I will still invite the scoundrel to tournaments I make, since I can manipulate the rules and thereby control his actions in multi-day games: with human and auto booting both at the same time, he would only be able to annoy people with delayed surrenders, which isn't too bad.
Annoying Player: 10/23/2011 20:56:58

Tacticus 
Level 28
Report
I think you need to relax a bit dude, some people play and in enjoy the game in different ways to you. I for one tend to fight to the last unless someone asks me to surrender. I do this because victory and defeat are not absolutes, they come in shades, and i feel that holding out as long as i possibly can is both more fun/interesting for me (hence why, in order to avoid being selfish, i will surrender if my opponant asks) and presents a sort of semi-victory or at least a lesser degree of loss.

I agree with you that booting to win the game and refusing to vote to end are both things worthy of blacklisting (although complaing on the forums is a bit far) but insulting and (supposedly) blacklisting someone (as you did to me in our last game) when they dont give up until you ask puts you below even him in my books.
Annoying Player: 10/23/2011 22:22:02

Qi 
Level 55
Report
Tact, your team had absolutely no chance of winning. In an 8 vs 8, 2 spots per player, 32 total bonuses on the map, we controlled at least 20 of the 32 bonuses with troops in every other one we didn't hold, save your team's lone bonus (given to you by our teammate, the traitor), which I bust the next turn with 50 vs a handful. 101 troops per turn vs 29, 435 vs 151 total armies on the map (and that's counting the 70+ our teammate gave you - the one who started attacking us with his 75+ armies because our entire team disliked how he was talking and he wanted to show us how special he is). Half your team was eliminated. Someone on my team asked your team to surrender. Your response: "we could, but dont you think its much more interesting this way?"

Who knew that response meant: "If you debate me on the pros and cons of surrendering and the nature of winning versus the nature of playing the game for the sake of playing [which you later explained], I will likely surrender, but we must first have a very meaningful debate about the matter."

Before you new players came, very few people played this way. Very few talked the way my teammate talked: in three games with that guy his first words on turn 0 were always "Hurry up or I'll boot you."

It's an insult to the game. That's all. There are unwritten rules and etiquette. Patience is one (saying "Hurry or I'll boot you" breaks that). Surrendering when the game is obviously over is one. People have lives and have things to do; maybe they want to squeeze in a game before going to work, going to bed, eating, going to the airport, etc. Playing to the last man on a big board when you are 25% the strength of the enemy wastes time. It is not fun. It serves no purpose. It is one guy (or team in your case) annoying the opposing team for no other reason than to be annoying.

If you like to endlessly wage war for no gain, make your own single player games against 5 AIs. Give them 500 troops to your 100. Give them 100 in bonuses to your 30. And, for your entertainment, see how many turns you can last. Do it over and over again until you can last longer and longer. Maybe you'll enjoy that. You won't bother anyone.
Annoying Player: 10/23/2011 23:03:25


KniFe 
Level 9
Report
chill dude. yes, these people are annoying.

BUT IT'S NOT AGAINST THE RULES!!!!

I honestly don't think that just because they don't play nice or are just being plain jerks, that they should be black listed. but that's just me.

Also, you call it an "unwritten rule". if it's a rule is not written down, then why should I follow it? Just because some people think it's better to surrender?

I for one some times enjoy playing with people that don't surrender. I shows me that they are dedicated to the game and don't easily give up.


He definitely is a warlight veteran, and has developed a play style. Why can't a person's play style be "fight to the end". just because other ppl don't like it doesn't mean I should comprise on my own personal play style.

but that's just me.
Annoying Player: 10/23/2011 23:04:58

Tacticus 
Level 28
Report
actualy, if you go back and check the history of the game you will find that just before turn 19 ended your teammate said 'you people could surrender already'.

Then i returned and saw it so replied 'we could, but dont you think its much more interesting this way?'

I then clicked surrender as soon as the turn ended (having already made my moves).

My teammate was the one who carried on, i just spent the next 7 turns discussing it whilst i waited for him to die.


Put simply, i will surrender under the following conditions;
-ive clearly lost and just finishing off my territories will take ages
-someone asks me to and i agree ive lost
-i have to go
-im playing a team game we are losing and my teammates have all surrendered


I agree with all your rules except the surrender one, ive had games where a team has surrendered at the start because a teammate was booted, this just makes for a wasted game. Ive also had games where someone has come back from 2 territories to win or where a lone played (vs a team) has won. If i had been in your position i would have wanted my opponants to carry on fighting, ive asked people to do it before.
Annoying Player: 10/23/2011 23:16:25

Tacticus 
Level 28
Report
sorry for the double post but i wanted to add something:

My style of play and attitude is probably a product of the way i play. I tend to sit down for an extended period of time and play a load of games rather than play them quickly before going somewhere....this is why ive played nearly 150 games despite joining only on the 17th of this month.
Annoying Player: 10/23/2011 23:42:16

Qi 
Level 55
Report
Plain jerk, no, I've never blacklisted one. ''Don't play nice,'' not sure what that means exactly. I blacklist people who win less than 45% of their 3 v 3s, with a minimum of 50 such games played, with two exceptions, mbohn and one of Tact's teammates. I removed Tact from my blacklist. All his talk (after he surrendered) made me think he was arguing why he shouldn't surrender (since he was discussing the virtues of not surrendering).

But honestly, playing an additional 10-20 turns when the game is obviously over, Knaeve, you enjoy that? Every now and then (once every 200-300 games), and I used to think it was cute. But lately, with all these new players, it's happened at least 10 times in one week (less than 100 games). And many like to draw the time down, to extend the game even longer.

Thus, a game could be

- 5-10 turns played before the game is obviously over (3-5 minutes per turn)
- 5-10 turns in which a player or team refuses to surrender (7-10 minutes per turn)

That is not an enjoyable game. It's like a bad marriage of 20-60 years (watching your wife get old, fat, hairy, obnoxious) following a good romance (with a sexy, sweet young girl) of 1-5 years.
Annoying Player: 10/24/2011 05:50:27


sasha grey
Level 2
Report
same here
Annoying Player: 10/24/2011 20:20:19

mbohn2
Level 59
Report
I have every right to play as long in a game as I like. I have won plenty of games that I was behind in just because I stuck it out and turned the odds in my favor. NO ONE has the right to tell me when to quit. If you don't like being booted, then don't be a jerk in game I only boot rude players or those who have booted in other games with no warning. I have voted to end games over 200 times so that complaint is horse puckey. The black list is for the players you don't want to lose to or play against. Use it freely but don't cry about playing a game to the end or getting kicked when YOU YOURSELF exceed the time limit.
Annoying Player: 10/24/2011 21:29:26

Qi 
Level 55
Report
- "If you don't like being booted, then don't be a jerk": I was a jerk? I've been rude to rude people before, but in that game I was not. In fact, all the people I play with don't like you and have told me as such for months. I have always defended you (which is partly why you made me so upset). You were the jerk in that game: no vote to end on turn 0 and then booting me on turn 5 (at exactly 5 minutes when I had a wireless issue and missed taking my turn by 10-30 seconds).

- "I only boot rude players or those who have booted in other games with no warning": I booted you or your teammate in another game? No, never. Try to focus on what actually has happened.

- "I have voted to end games over 200 times": So why didn't you vote when my teammate was autobooted before even picking his territories? He got booted exactly 3 times before. 1% boot rate. Obviously it was a connection problem. If you don't vote to end in the most obvious of situations, among your 200 votes to end, when did you do it?

- "I have won plenty of games that I was behind in just because I stuck it out and turned the odds in my favor": So has every good player, and usually against weak or average players. If you play a team with 1-3 pros, I seriously doubt you (not a pro, but a decent, above average player) are going to overcome the odds. So in the 10+ games you have done that against my teams, I just think you look naive, not courageous or clever.

- "The black list [sic] is for the players you don't want to lose to or play against": I don't want to play you in real-time. That is true. You have a long and bad history of booting and not voting to end. But you are on my invite list. I make tournaments. The more decent, above average players, the better. When I set autoboot and direct boot to 3 days, how can you exploit the settings to get an easy win? And in tournaments, there is no vote to end, so that doesn't matter either. I hope you join my tournaments. But I will never again play a real-time game with you.
Annoying Player: 10/24/2011 23:15:05


x 
Level 58
Report
so, what does everyone think about the republican primaries?
Posts 1 - 25 of 25