Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Dominion Online at Shuffle iT => Dominion General Discussion => Dominion Isotropic => Topic started by: Yariv on January 13, 2012, 07:13:24 pm
-
It is the first time I encountered this as a problem, but it can be quite annoying and maybe something can be done (although I don't see what). In a game I played with JLock he announced on his 15th turn that he will deliberately play slowly because "I could and the game and I have a huge lead". Now, he was right that I could do it in my last two turns up to this moment (despite what I said in chat, I was mistaken), and I would have done so if I knew him to wish the game to end without resigning (though I see no reason not to resign). This was our conversation around this point:
yariv: hey, you there?
JLock: yep
yariv: ok
JLock: i'm just going to take 2 minutes between moves because
yariv: because?
JLock: you could have ended the game at any point in the last 10 minutes and didn't
yariv: how?
JLock: even though you had a huge lead
JLock: three tunnels
yariv: I didn't have the buys
JLock: you could have you had at least three buys each of the last two turns
yariv: well, enjoy
JLock: or could have easily
yariv: or resign, if you prefer
yariv: but in the future I recommend to suggest such a move to your opponent if you wish him to take it
yariv: and now I'm going to the forums, see if something can be done regarding such behaviour
Now, of course I waited and played when my turn arrived, then won as he resigned, but this can be extremely time consuming if he had an engine going, and during this time I can't even open another game on a different tab (unless doing something special), so it is quite annoying.
so, what can be done, if anything, regarding such behaviour? I would definitely try to remember not to play against him, but I might forget. will it be possible to implement an ignore-list in isotropic? do you find it reasonable?
-
That's pretty annoying but unfortunately it's going to be hard to do much about. You could imagine some kind of system where you flag people for objectionable behavior, and the log is stored and reviewed by a moderator, and violations would result in warnings/temporary bans/permanent bans. The enforcement would be linked by account, so if you're unregistered it would be easy to circumvent(but may also increase the likelihood of registered only play). But, this is a free system supported by Doug's free time, with an expiration date; and that's a lot to ask.
That said, I have been on the receiving end of a losing match against someone who built a scrying pool or spy deck, and takes 10 seconds per click and 5+ minutes per turn(no joke), and it is definitely rage inducing. I play fast and would prefer to play against people who play fast as well. I'm not saying that was the case here, but there is definitely a spectrum and getting paired with someone who's play speed doesn't match your own is annoying.
-
I've actually thought about how to build a Chrome extension to provide personal or community driven ratings of player douchebaggery. It's a pretty simple project - I hacked together a script to annotate peoples usernames with their leaderboard # in a couple of days with no previous extension programming experience, back in the olden days before iso showed ranks. The only complication is that usernames are not unique identifiers - however the gravitar which is shown when someone proposes a game is (it's linked to the email address they sign in with).
I'd suggest pitching the idea to the point counter author, for someone with his skills it would be pretty trivial and he already has the backend running. Or browse his code and do it yourself.
-
I had a similar experience yesterday. I played against someone (don't know if it is appropriate to name them) who would simply type "faster" during my turns, in an attempt to get me to hurry up. After a few turns this person simply typed "ok", and proceeded to play each of their turns with about 30 seconds between playing each card, and treasures individually. I didn't want to resign because this guy was about 3 levels below me, and I had a good chance of winning (and did win). The game went on for about 30 minutes, during which time I applied for a credit card.
There is a feature to force an opponent to resign if they are taking too long on an individual action, e.g. if they have just disappeared. But there is nothing in place to prevent this system being abused by players who are happy to deliberately drag their turns on one click at a time. You could even imagine that, because of the levelling system, you could increase your level artificially if you pulled this stunt on higher level players repeatedly and got them to resign out of frustration.
One solution would be a time limit that wasn't for a single action, as it is now, but instead a time limit per turn, or a time limit within which you have to play all your turns (I think there is a chess system like this...). A time limit per turn could still be abused, but if you only had say 10 minutes to play all your turns, then there is no chance that you could just drag it out almost indefinitely. Ultimately, it would still be down to your opponent if they want to make you resign at that stage.
-
Never encountered this. The very occasional dick I've run into just resigned in a huff. I'll avoid this guy!
-
Time limit for a turn is a bad idea, because it discriminates between strategies - someone playing Hamlet-Spy-Library might very legitimately and with no stalling take far longer than someone playing BM-Library.
I don't see a good solution besides just making yourself a text file with a list of players to avoid...
-
The problem mentioned wasnt about someone playing big chaining actions. It's about social behaviour.
Maybe there is some "Integrity-Button" like the "Like-Button" on Facebook, Ebay or Respect-Button here. So after each match, everyone can give the other player +1 for a good game, if they like to. Therefore some people don't make stupid things.
So there is no "Idiot"-Status for the players, just a "Integrity"-Status.
-
Yariv: apologising for not seeing it (being able to end the game) might have been the best way to get your opponent to speed up.
-
To be play devil's advocate, perhaps the other guy thinks the same thing about you (the OP) - it sounds like he could be thinking "sheesh, what a douche, why didn't he just end it?" A more typical example is if you're goons-ing the living daylights out of someone and aren't really fussed about ending.
-
This wasn't the point of the thread, but since two people suggested that I was somehow to blame (or should apologise, which is similar) I would like to point out that unless you force the opponent to have 0 cards hands he can resign on any turn, and that some players (me included) don't actively look for a way to end the game on each round that we lead.
Anyway, I guess I'll just go and write me an extension that will automatically reject games against a players from a given list. It would have been better (for me) integrated into the site, so I will get it even if I'm playing on some machine without the extension and won't have to install it on all the machines I play on, but since Iso has an expiration date (when?) I guess new features are not going to be implemented.
-
I wasn't having a go at you in particular, I just felt the other side of the story was a little under-represented is all.
some players (me included) don't actively look for a way to end the game on each round that we lead.
Why not?
-
I do think you should end it when you can for everyone's sake. I think that stalling is a much greater offense. And I don't think you should have to go particularly out of your way to figure out when you can end it or face the scorn of your opponent - sometimes it's tricky and unclear.
Furthermore, I don't know what the case is in the games here, but in those goons games, I pretty fully endorse 'running up the score' so long as there isn't a way to end the game in a win this very turn. Because you never know what your opponent is going to do...
tl;dr I can understand why he was upset, but he reacted very poorly.
-
I would like to point out that unless you force the opponent to have 0 cards hands he can resign on any turn
Actually, iirc, I believe it's any hand he has no actions or money in, not necessarily no cards.
-
RE: goons, oh yeah, sure, you don't know what's going happen, been even a really mediocre player like myself has been in a situation where my mate was saying "just end it already dude!" because I was so far ahead and just killing them, and it's just those times that I was referring to. If there's still strategic doubt then, yeah, it's still no holds barred for sure.
-
Back on the time limit thing, maybe the only thing that would work in that regard would be a total-idle-time limit per turn. So if you take 30 seconds between each click, it adds up, but it doesn't discourage mega-engine decks.
-
Back on the time limit thing, maybe the only thing that would work in that regard would be a total-idle-time limit per turn. So if you take 30 seconds between each click, it adds up, but it doesn't discourage mega-engine decks.
Thing I'm worried about here is that if it takes me two seconds to move my mouse to make the next action (okay, maybe this is even a little long, but let's say half a second), if I play 50 cards, that's going to take me a lot longer than if I play only 3. Also, there are some decks where you need a long time to make your decisions, because they're close ones.
-
Indeed, having more than one buy with a few Hinterlands on-gain cards on the table can cause some real tough choices in certain circumstances.
However, overall, one of the weird things about Dominion is that it makes me (and clearly others) so impatient. Waiting just two minutes for a turn is frustrating in Dominion all of a sudden and can result in much eye-rolling etc., but compare it to Scrabble where you can wait bloody 20 minutes for someone to come out with 'cat' or something pathetic!! 'Cat!??! Is that IT? Three sodding letters? We waited 20 minutes for THAT??!?!" :) Perhaps we should all just relax and consider quite how quick Dominion already is, and if we're really bothered then, hell, just open up your browser or read a book while it's going on.
Enforcing polite behaviour is, in my opinion, a bad way to go. Only rules should be enforced, along with the odd praciticality (eg the X min kick option is fine given that it's long enough, as they can lose connection/leave etc and you need to be able to end it properly - a situation not envisaged in the rules).
-
Ok, how about this idea (in the hypothetical dreamworld where improvements to iso will be made):
After 5 seconds of waiting for action, a button labelled "I'm thinking!" appears. If you don't click and hold down this button, after another 5 seconds your opponent can force-resign you. This wouldn't eliminate the problem, but it wouldn't hinder actual play much, and it would make it a lot more boring to delay the game, since they can't even tab away.
-
We are talking about 2 things now:
1. thing is social behaviour: You can't stop ppl being shitty with those time functions because ppl learn how to abuse it.
2. thing is downtime while others make their moves: Players have different opinions how to play the game: slow or fast. If one player likes to play slowly while watching tv or having a phone call and the other one wants a fast game, there is a collusion in interest. There must be some kind of indication of slow or fast game like now. If someone has "fast game" in their info, you should play fast, otherwise take some patience with you and don't hurry other people. That's simply said, but hard to managed, i know.
-
I don't think there is a practical way to handle stalling beyond what is already implemented and that won't punish some types of play over others. I was only looking for a personal ignore-list...
Regarding the problem of ending the game, I agree that ending when possible is the proper action, and usually try to do so. However, if I feel that my strategy works well I'm not going to search for ways to finish the game, I'll continue buying my colonies (and buying multiple colonies every turn is hardly stalling the game). If you wish the game to end, and you see a way for this to happen, and you don't want to resign for some reason, it's up to you to ask your opponent to do so. If the opponent clearly saw the game ending and still didn't go for it (stopped gaining cards of a type he gained many before, so as not to empty the pile), only then you might have a reason to be offended.
-
I think the problem is pretty simple. I have mentioned somewhere before; in principle one can have a total amount of "thinking time", say 10 minutes. Between each action play one has, for example, a 3 second countdown. (for action with choices, add some time for each choice.) After the three second, the thinking time starts to decrease. One loses if one uses up all his thinking time.
If one needs some longer time to think and does not prefer a time-limited game, there can be an option in game that he can ask permission from his opponent to "pause" to think. For sure, that time ends when he plays his next action, and he will still be prompted to resign if he takes too long.
Actually I feel no obligation to end the game as quick as possible, even though I will try my best to do so. I do expect my opponent to behave similarly; but if they didn't I would just resign next turn. The bigger problem for me is sometimes that when the match is boring and lopsided (due to whatever uninteresting reason) and your opponent just refuses to resign (and sometimes plays so slowly.)
-
Two things come to mind:
1. If a game is annoying you because you think they're behaving like an ass - regardless of whether you are winning or losing - just quit. It's just a random game with a random guy/gal on isotropic.
2. Why should I forcibly lose the game over some arbitrary time limit set by people with little or no patience? That's not in the rules of the game.
Note: I'm not a slow player, I'm often the one waiting for others (though not always).
-
Two things come to mind:
1. If a game is annoying you because you think they're behaving like an ass - regardless of whether you are winning or losing - just quit. It's just a random game with a random guy/gal on isotropic.
2. Why should I forcibly lose the game over some arbitrary time limit set by people with little or no patience? That's not in the rules of the game.
Note: I'm not a slow player, I'm often the one waiting for others (though not always).
Did you somehow miss the point of this thread?
It's about people who are purposely abusing the extensive time limit in order to punish their opponents or make the game so unenjoyable that they quit.
-
No I didn't miss that. My point is what is there to be gained in sitting there and taking the other guy's "punishment"? It's not fun or enjoyable, so stop doing it. If you're sticking in there because you're worried about your stats (one game in hundreds) then sorry, I have no sympathy for you.
Note that the other guy only did it because, rightly or wrongly, he thought the OP was doing something similar to him (by not finishing when he could) - my advice to him would be the same also. There's no winner here, both have coming away thinking the other person is an ass and now there's a whole thread about it. What a fuss over childish nonsense. Just quit, forget about it and move on if it's bothering you that much.
-
No. If it was common behaviour to just quit, letting the opponent grab a win he shouldn't get, the best strategy (in terms of winning games, not anything else) would be to do so every game, going for many cantrips and taking up to 3 minutes for every played card. Even more, this wouldn't lead to winning only, but be much more efficient, since the other player would resign pretty soon if he follows your advice, thus letting the douchebag get faster to another game where he can proceed to do the same.
This would result into many more douchebags doing this. You make them notice "hey, it works, so why not do it every time I'm losing?". Note that I'm not talking about the OP's special case, but about douchebag who do it regularly when losing.
-
Note that the other guy only did it because, rightly or wrongly, he thought the OP was doing something similar to him (by not finishing when he could) - my advice to him would be the same also. There's no winner here, both have coming away thinking the other person is an ass and now there's a whole thread about it. What a fuss over childish nonsense. Just quit, forget about it and move on if it's bothering you that much.
Baloney. There is a huge difference between not ending as quickly as possible and purposely taking the maximum time between actions.
In one case you're playing the game, in the other you're just being an asshole.
-
@def: No you misunderstand. I'm not saying "quit immediately at the first sign", I'm saying "if something really bother you that much then..." If you want to stay in, stay in, but this is the first time it's happened to the OP and he's already posted a thread about it. It sounds like it bothered him/her a lot.
Douchebags will be douchebags. This guy wasn't necessarily trying to get a free win, he was (as described) trying to "punish" the other player. In staying in the game, you're letting them grief you - that's what he/she wants. Why give them the satisfaction? Who cares if they get a free win? Whoopee-frikkin'-do. I like to win as much as the next guy, but not if it's a really irritating and frustrating game - that's not why I play dominion. Sticking it out in some kind of misguided idealistic stoicism isn't going to stop douchebags being douchebags. The other alternative is to not let it bother you, just open a browser and read some news while you wait.
If it did become common practice then well, maybe something should be done about it. But it's not right now. Yet already we're talking about wanting to do something about it. How about we wait until it's actually a frequently occurring problem (eg like drop-hacks in some games) before grabbing the pitchforks eh? People will be douchebags now and then, especially on the internet. Just deal with it.
@barsooma - I agree there is a big difference (though deliberately not ending it and toying with them is actually pretty damn obnoxious in my mind), but we've only had one side of the story. Maybe there were loads of opportunities? Maybe the other guy doesn't agree, maybe he finds it really really obnoxious to not end the game - who's to say our view is right? Why is it only us that gets to judge what behaviour is and isn't acceptable? Just because one guy posts a bit of chat from a game, I'm not going to instantly assume the accused is a completely reprehensible twat
-
@barsooma - I agree there is a big difference (though deliberately not ending it and toying with them is actually pretty damn obnoxious in my mind), but we've only had one side of the story. Maybe there were loads of opportunities? Maybe the other guy doesn't agree, maybe he finds it really really obnoxious to not end the game - who's to say our view is right? Why is it only us that gets to judge what behaviour is and isn't acceptable? Just because one guy posts a bit of chat from a game, I'm not going to instantly assume the accused is a completely reprehensible twat
I take your point that chat text is not exactly a high standard of proof, but if things did go as reported:
1) The person who is so annoyed at the game not being ended is presumably losing, so they can always resign or just close the tab with no change in outcome for them.
2) Active game delay is literally the worst thing someone can do in an isotropic game - I can't think of anything which the poster could possibly have done which justifies that level of douchbaggery.
3) Who else is going to judge what behavior is acceptable if not us? Since there's no admins or authorities on isotropic, the most we can do is shame and ostracize people who act like this.
-
If we saw the game log, we would also have a better idea as to whether or not the OP had plenty of opportunities to end the game. Anyway, if what the OP says is true, then, yes, the opponent was being a jerk.
-
game log:
http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20120113-155711-d8b7ad19.html
As you can see I could end the game on turns 14/15, bought 2 colonies+alchemist in both instead. The conversion were during his turn 15, and as a result I didn't end the game on my turn 16 (I probably would have bought the alchemist if I wasn't so angry with him). BTW, I won't resign in such circumstances, it seems morally wrong to me...
-
......morally wrong? .....what?
And you think deliberately antagonising him back by continuing to not end it is some how a morally superior choice? Please explain. This kind of bullshit of "Well he started it!" is where this stuff gets us - no-one's a winner, both people are pissed off. Just ignore it.
Also just to clarify - I do think he was being a douche, and I wasn't looking to excuse his behaviour, I'm just saying "a guy on the internet was a douchebag......more news at 10".
-
game log:
http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20120113-155711-d8b7ad19.html
As you can see I could end the game on turns 14/15, bought 2 colonies+alchemist in both instead. The conversion were during his turn 15, and as a result I didn't end the game on my turn 16 (I probably would have bought the alchemist if I wasn't so angry with him). BTW, I won't resign in such circumstances, it seems morally wrong to me...
How to handle people delaying games on purpose? I'd start with not being a superdouche myself, that way it's pretty unlikely the situation will come up. Can't figure out why you'd start a thread on this when you're to blame yourself. None of this makes any sense to me, why would you continue playing instead of ending the game after he announces he will slowplay?
-
Just what we need, a race to the bottom....
-
game log:
http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20120113-155711-d8b7ad19.html
As you can see I could end the game on turns 14/15, bought 2 colonies+alchemist in both instead. The conversion were during his turn 15, and as a result I didn't end the game on my turn 16 (I probably would have bought the alchemist if I wasn't so angry with him). BTW, I won't resign in such circumstances, it seems morally wrong to me...
How to handle people delaying games on purpose? I'd start with not being a superdouche myself, that way it's pretty unlikely the situation will come up. Can't figure out why you'd start a thread on this when you're to blame yourself. None of this makes any sense to me, why would you continue playing instead of ending the game after he announces he will slowplay?
Bullshit.
I have plenty of experience with this issue, being an accomplished asshole myself.
Slowplaying has happened to me on several occasions and each time the perpetrator has been on a hair trigger.
Stop blaming the victim.
-
What's worse?
Player A antagonizing B by taking an extra 20-30 seconds per action?
Player B playing 2-3 minute turns and extending the game (accidentally then purposefully)? Between the hamlet discards, embassy discards and 20 actions per turn. Those look loooooooooooooong.
I think Player A has just as much reason to be upset. How is he supposed to know you didn't see three piles and is lengthening the game on purposely? Was A's decision to stall a great one... probably not, but B's decision to extend the game some more wasn't heavenly either.
-
@barsooma - I agree there is a big difference (though deliberately not ending it and toying with them is actually pretty damn obnoxious in my mind), but we've only had one side of the story. Maybe there were loads of opportunities? Maybe the other guy doesn't agree, maybe he finds it really really obnoxious to not end the game - who's to say our view is right? Why is it only us that gets to judge what behaviour is and isn't acceptable? Just because one guy posts a bit of chat from a game, I'm not going to instantly assume the accused is a completely reprehensible twat
I take your point that chat text is not exactly a high standard of proof, but if things did go as reported:
1) The person who is so annoyed at the game not being ended is presumably losing, so they can always resign or just close the tab with no change in outcome for them.
2) Active game delay is literally the worst thing someone can do in an isotropic game - I can't think of anything which the poster could possibly have done which justifies that level of douchbaggery.
3) Who else is going to judge what behavior is acceptable if not us? Since there's no admins or authorities on isotropic, the most we can do is shame and ostracize people who act like this.
1. His intentions are to annoy, not get a win (which is wrong for different reasons)
2. Now what does it say about the opponent delaying the game? are they both guilty of high levels of 'douchbaggery'
3. Octo meant it isn't right to judge someone on one side of the story and a bit of evidence (the chat log) especially when the person isn't a third party (i added this last part myself but i can assume Octo meant this too)
-
@barsooma - I agree there is a big difference (though deliberately not ending it and toying with them is actually pretty damn obnoxious in my mind), but we've only had one side of the story. Maybe there were loads of opportunities? Maybe the other guy doesn't agree, maybe he finds it really really obnoxious to not end the game - who's to say our view is right? Why is it only us that gets to judge what behaviour is and isn't acceptable? Just because one guy posts a bit of chat from a game, I'm not going to instantly assume the accused is a completely reprehensible twat
I take your point that chat text is not exactly a high standard of proof, but if things did go as reported:
1) The person who is so annoyed at the game not being ended is presumably losing, so they can always resign or just close the tab with no change in outcome for them.
2) Active game delay is literally the worst thing someone can do in an isotropic game - I can't think of anything which the poster could possibly have done which justifies that level of douchbaggery.
3) Who else is going to judge what behavior is acceptable if not us? Since there's no admins or authorities on isotropic, the most we can do is shame and ostracize people who act like this.
1. His intentions are to annoy, not get a win (which is wrong for different reasons)
2. Now what does it say about the opponent delaying the game? are they both guilty of high levels of 'douchbaggery'
3. Octo meant it isn't right to judge someone on one side of the story and a bit of evidence (the chat log) especially when the person isn't a third party (i added this last part myself but i can assume Octo meant this too)
NO.
Delaying the end of the game (by continuing to play) is not the same thing at all as delaying the game (by purposefully slowing your actions).
-
@barsooma - I agree there is a big difference (though deliberately not ending it and toying with them is actually pretty damn obnoxious in my mind), but we've only had one side of the story. Maybe there were loads of opportunities? Maybe the other guy doesn't agree, maybe he finds it really really obnoxious to not end the game - who's to say our view is right? Why is it only us that gets to judge what behaviour is and isn't acceptable? Just because one guy posts a bit of chat from a game, I'm not going to instantly assume the accused is a completely reprehensible twat
I take your point that chat text is not exactly a high standard of proof, but if things did go as reported:
1) The person who is so annoyed at the game not being ended is presumably losing, so they can always resign or just close the tab with no change in outcome for them.
2) Active game delay is literally the worst thing someone can do in an isotropic game - I can't think of anything which the poster could possibly have done which justifies that level of douchbaggery.
3) Who else is going to judge what behavior is acceptable if not us? Since there's no admins or authorities on isotropic, the most we can do is shame and ostracize people who act like this.
1. His intentions are to annoy, not get a win (which is wrong for different reasons)
2. Now what does it say about the opponent delaying the game? are they both guilty of high levels of 'douchbaggery'
3. Octo meant it isn't right to judge someone on one side of the story and a bit of evidence (the chat log) especially when the person isn't a third party (i added this last part myself but i can assume Octo meant this too)
NO.
Delaying the end of the game (by continuing to play) is not the same thing at all as delaying the game (by purposefully slowing your actions).
Lets go by intent, Player A sees Player B isn't ending the game (he assumes purposefully), and decides to lengthen the game
Player B sees that Player A isn't ending the game and decides to lengthen the game.
Is one that much more wronger because we know with perfect information Player A was the instigator? From player A's eyes, Player B seems like the instigator.
-
Lets go by intent, Player A sees Player B isn't ending the game..
How can Player A ever be mad about this (even if it is purposeful)?
There are only 2 possible scenarios here:
'Player B' could have won, but didn't; giving 'Player A' a chance to win, or (more likely)
'Player A' has no chance to win and should therefore resign.
-
\
NO.
Delaying the end of the game (by continuing to play) is not the same thing at all as delaying the game (by purposefully slowing your actions).
Lets go by intent, Player A sees Player B isn't ending the game (he assumes purposefully), and decides to lengthen the game
Player B sees that Player A isn't ending the game and decides to lengthen the game.
Is one that much more wronger because we know with perfect information Player A was the instigator? From player A's eyes, Player B seems like the instigator.
We don't have to go by intent because they are doing completely different things.
One is continuing to play the game, one is refusing to.
Just because you can boil them down to the same bullet point ("Lengthening the game") does not make them the same.
-
Lets go by intent, Player A sees Player B isn't ending the game..
How can Player A ever be mad about this (even if it is purposeful)?
There are only 2 possible scenarios here:
'Player B' could have won, but didn't; giving 'Player A' a chance to win, or (more likely)
'Player A' has no chance to win and should therefore resign.
Exactly
-
Delaying the end of the game (by continuing to play) is not the same thing at all as delaying the game (by purposefully slowing your actions).
Agreed, it should never be acceptable to purposefully delay the game by slowing your actions. That's just rude. Not ending the game(while making legal plays) could be annoying, but as others have said, if you're that far behind and the other guy is dragging it out, just resign. One player may not have been tracking the points and thought they were behind(or it was close), or maybe didn't realize they could 3 pile(if they were intent on emptying provinces for instance).
In the end, it's just a game, give your opponent the benefit of the doubt and ask in chat if you really think they are screwing with you. It's not worth getting worked up over trolls and jerks.
-
Here's another example:
http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20120107-231529-4563f573.html
Look at the final turn. I played 5 Saboteurs and bought 2 provinces to end the game. I knew I was winning even without the Saboteurs. Was I a jerk to play them? You decide...
The problem is once you start declaring things like "you could have ended the game but made me play extra turns, you're a jerk," is that you quickly get into this morass where it's impossible to discern intent. Did the person make a mistake? Have they been counting wrong? Did they just want to see their deck get its mega turn? Maybe they've always dreamed of pulling off KC/goons/masq, and now they can finally do it. They're playing the game the way it's meant to be played, following the rules. That's ok in my book. Maybe annoying, but hey, you should have played better and you wouldn't be stuck in that situation. Or you could resign.
-
sjelkld, I think you're missing the point. Yariv was informed that he could have ended the game on previous turns, and then on his next turn, decided to again not end the game because he was mad at his opponent for playing slow, thus being just as huge a douche himself. It's very different from what you describe, which I agree isn't a very big deal either way.
-
sjelkld, I think you're missing the point. Yariv was informed that he could have ended the game on previous turns, and then on his next turn, decided to again not end the game because he was mad at his opponent for playing slow, thus being just as huge a douche himself. It's very different from what you describe, which I agree isn't a very big deal either way.
I don't think they're equivalent, but you're right that dragging out the game on purpose as "punishment" is not really any better than the behavior he was punishing.
Here's the thing I don't get. Wasn't player 1 mad that player 2 was playing slow? And the answer to that is you're going to give him more chances to play slow?
-
I don't get it either. It makes no sense to me at all. douches gonna douche I guess?
-
I don't get it either. It makes no sense to me at all. douches gonna douche I guess?
Makes sense to me. People like to be spiteful when provoked; I think that it was not a wise decision for Yariv to do retaliatory stalling, but I can certainly understand why he did it, and I don't really blame him too much for it.
Bottom line is that it's perfectly legitimate for someone not to end the game when he's ahead; if the losing player notices it, what doesn't make sense to me is why he would not resign. I mean, if I hypothetically missed the possibility of a 3-pile ending and got stalled out as a result, I would be hoppin' furious.
-
When you are winning in any game against a clear underclass or underskilled opponent, you just don't punish them anymore with all the great skills you have to fullfill some super-duper achievements you dreamt of, just end the game. Show some respect for your opponent and don't torture him. Those achievements when you already won against underskilled opponents are cheap shots of bad players.
There is something about Respect and Fair Play for the game, it's called sportsmanship. Show some love for the game!
-
Agreed, it should never be acceptable to purposefully delay the game by slowing your actions. That's just rude. Not ending the game(while making legal plays) could be annoying, but as others have said, if you're that far behind and the other guy is dragging it out, just resign.
unless i am missing something, the cases are very similar. you recommend that the losing player just resign, but it should be noted that the winning player can resign just as easily if they don't like the retaliatory stall tactics. if getting the win was that important they should take advantage of their opportunities to end the game.
-
Agreed, it should never be acceptable to purposefully delay the game by slowing your actions. That's just rude. Not ending the game(while making legal plays) could be annoying, but as others have said, if you're that far behind and the other guy is dragging it out, just resign.
unless i am missing something, the cases are very similar. you recommend that the losing player just resign, but it should be noted that the winning player can resign just as easily if they don't like the retaliatory stall tactics. if getting the win was that important they should take advantage of their opportunities to end the game.
AAAAAAAH!!!!!
I can't believe anyone thinks this way, let alone that there are at least 3 of you .... Editor's note: trying to avoid this thread being frozen. The case are not alike. Suggesting that people ought to give in to this kind of douchebaggery is asinine.
-
While I agree you shouldn't give in to jerks, and the having nice iso ratings shouldn't be a function of griefing opponents into resigning, some people just want to optimize for a fun playing experience. Resigning against hostile players certainly maximizes fun in the short term.
-
Looking at the game log, unless you discarded a Potion, turn 15 couldn't have ended on piles. However, you could have ended on turn 16 on piles. But, yah, I could see someone looking at the colonies and forgetting about the last Alchemist. It happens sometimes.
-
I'd side with the OP. Playing minutes between actions is a completely unambiguous in being antagonistic. Some players may be extremely deliberate in securing a win slowly and safely, or may not notice the solution. Their opponent should just exit if they can't stand it.
In any case I don't see why not have a Yahoo Games approach where you can set the timer to your preferences. Having only a few options (say, 30 second, 1 minute, 2 minute) would make it work well with auto-match.
If you want to get fancy with engines, have it be 1 minute +10 seconds per action, and no bonus for treasure.