<< Back to General Forum   Search

Posts 1 - 9 of 9   
Fate worse than booting: 10/1/2010 08:55:45


Braveheart 
Level 5
Report
I got into a team game with a player who simply quit playing for several days, and has gone on to creating new games. None of the players in the game want to quit, but there is no option that will result in a fair game. This is unfair to his team mates as well as his opponents, all of whom are vested in the game at this point. I wish there were a way to systematically exclude players that abandon team games.
Fate worse than booting: 10/1/2010 13:47:26


agaynondanishprince 
Level 45
Report
Hey Bravy! It's called "blacklisting". Go to settings > Manage black list. You can also do this in any player's profile.

*kiss on cheek*
Fate worse than booting: 10/1/2010 15:33:10


Braveheart 
Level 5
Report
Blacklisting hides games that I create from the other player. A couple of points about this.

1) It doesn't mean I'll never end up in a game with him, just not a game I create.
2) It's hardly a disincentive for that kind of behavior since he would have to individually piss off hundreds of other players before he would really feel the effect of being blacklisted.
3) For me to see a reduction in this kind of behavior, all of the people creating games would have to be individually pissed off by every player who behaves like this. I don't think that's ever going to happen since new players are coming along all the time.

If somebody abandons one game and continues playing in others, that's an objectively measureable behavior. I think there should be a way to systematically exclude them.
Fate worse than booting: 10/1/2010 16:08:12


agaynondanishprince 
Level 45
Report
Sorry Bravy, i have never blacklisted anyone, so I thought it prevented them from joining ur games.

There is a thread called "Biggest douche" where u can talk shit about him, o other players will be warned against him. I don't think "banning him forever" is a fair measure for quitting some games.

I understand u are upset, but when u create a game, u can wait until it fills before joining, so u make sure no trollish players and/or quitters will quit.
Fate worse than booting: 10/1/2010 20:53:30


Braveheart 
Level 5
Report
We don't need to ban anyone forever, but some kind of reputation rating might force them to go back and play a few beginner games, and think twice before screwing up somebody's game. It's not just about getting even. It gets to the more practical matter of preventing this situation from occurring over and over again so people can enjoy the game more.
Fate worse than booting: 10/1/2010 21:11:59


Braveheart 
Level 5
Report
I posted a new feature request on warlight.uservoice.com.
Fate worse than booting: 10/2/2010 03:09:59


Perrin3088 
Level 44
Report
If someone stops playing a game ya'll are in, it would be the same thing as him surrendering because he feels the game is over or him, which would result in the same thing as a booting, or a force-booting situation, which is still unfair to his teammates no matter what situation you're in, but some people quit games once it's clear to them that they've lost, rather then playing to the end.

As if they don't understand that they still have an affect on the game, due to where the opponent looks...
Fate worse than booting: 10/2/2010 03:35:20


Braveheart 
Level 5
Report
That's why a surrender has to be accepted by your teammates, and there is a message making it clear that you are expected to continue playing until your surrender is accepted. I think it's rude to put a surrender out there in a team game without coming to some kind of team concensus first, but it is certainly not the same as abandoning the game and making everybody wait several days before booting you.
Fate worse than booting: 10/2/2010 17:52:14


Perrin3088 
Level 44
Report
it has a similar game effect.

I agree it is exceptionally rude, and i generally won't accept surrenders in team games unless it's a full side surrender.

the other day, in a tournament game, i surrendered turn 1, merely because one of the opposing teammates didn't show up for 5 days straight, 3 days after he said he'd be on, says his teammate, to make it into a fairer game. 1v1 as opposed to 2v1


Randy could even implement so that only team Surrenders would be accepted, as a setting in games.. IE, each member has to select surrender as per usual, but It'd require all votes of that for it to show up to other players....

but i think my mind has gotten offtrack :)
Posts 1 - 9 of 9