Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]
- Tour of Generals Forums
- →
- Game News & Discussion
- →
- Gameplay Discussion
- →
- Poor Sportsmanship
| Welcome to the Tour of Generals forum. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Poor Sportsmanship; Starting quick games w/ players offline | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 5 2010, 12:11 AM (795 Views) | |
| Beavers | Jan 5 2010, 12:11 AM Post #1 |
|
Greetings all, I was thinking and making this post on and off for a while, but two events happened today and I decided in response to make this as a result. First some imagery, so you know what I am talking about: Posted Image Posted Image What we have here are two examples of people (one of which is a rather experienced player) who have started quick turn games without all the players being online. Most players know that they shouldn't stay readied in short-turn games if they aren't online, but new ones don't know this, and so may rack up a few early losses without learning anything about the game. I know that if this happened to me, it would be frustrating and discouraging, and would cause me to not enjoy the game and perhaps quit. Needless to say, this kind of behavior is unsportsmanlike, unfair, and detrimental to the game community. I suppose the only things that can be done is to either shame the people who do this into stopping, or by displaying that they are unsportsman, "blacklist" them - reducing the number of people who will play with them and thus cause them to cease playing. I hope that a project like this would get the forum moderators blessing. If it does, I'm sure we'd all welcome knowledge of who is trustworthy and fair, and who is not - so people can do as I have done and upload shots of players behaving badly in this manner. Thanks for your time. (Not sure if other players want their participation in these games revealed, so I blacked out as seemed appropriate) |
|
|
| Comrade Jaques | Jan 6 2010, 10:37 AM Post #2 |
Hater of politicizing.
|
I found this to be a major problem in V1. Indeed, back when I played many of the top people did this. I would love to see a "Blacklist" appear but I can see problems with it getting out of hand. Perhaps if only moderators could add a check (or however it would work) to the offending player it would be best. With only mods having the ability to blacklist people, vendettas and arguments would not get out of hand. -Jaques |
|
|
|
| Beavers | Jan 14 2010, 06:25 PM Post #3 |
|
No response yet from someone in authority it seems. I've got a couple more examples, but I'm just going to post a player that really should know better. Please welcome someone else sporting two full stars: Posted Image Now then, it really would be great if people would develop a sense of fairness in short order. |
|
|
|
| Beavers | Jan 15 2010, 05:58 PM Post #4 |
|
Another example: Posted Image My contention is that repeated use of this tactic violates the spirit of the terms of service (if it is against the actual working might be contested, but I would urge the admin to make a judgment on this behavior and correct the ToS as he sees fit). The exact section I refer to is:
To launch a game with short turns and other players offline denies them the chance to play, it denies a competitive game (as a single 2-soldier unit can achieve victory in only a few minutes), and it does improve the perpetrator's player records in an unfair way (not all parties get a chance to even try to win - they don't even get a chance to make a unit before being eliminated). I would not want a one-strike policy, people can make a mistake, but if it becomes a repeat offense (as this post and the one above shows some allow it to be), I would think punishment is needed - whether an expulsion of the wins/losses from the appropriate players' records or a downright removal from the game. |
|
|
|
| Patton | Jan 15 2010, 06:39 PM Post #5 |
|
Niels brings up a good point. According to the ToS, starting a game without others online constitutes a move that artificially inflates records 'through unfair means.' I seem to remember that victories earned from blitzes (games that ended on 1 turn) were expunged because they were deemed as unfair. In my opinion, a move like that is less deserving of scorn than starting a game with opponents offline. If a standard like that is going to be set, it should be applied to all circumstances of perceived misconduct. I like the way the current system is set up, though. A player has to acknowledge they are ready before the game can begin. The problem is that players leave without changing their status to 'PENDING.' Perhaps this can be rectified with an alteration to the Demo video; the idea of changing the status before getting offline. I think that might have some effect. As of right now, noobs probably don't know they can do that. |
|
|
|
| admin | Jan 15 2010, 07:47 PM Post #6 |
|
Administrator
|
You guys are free to create your own blacklist but as for as the game rules are concerned they really aren't violating anything. Everyone (if they have the option turned on) gets and email when a game launches so who knows, maybe the game hosts launched those games in order to get that email dispatch out to bring those players back online? The only real solution to this would be to remove the short turn limit games. Make the fastest game turns 6 hours and higher. But I don't think many players want to see that. |
|
|
|
| Beavers | Jan 15 2010, 10:41 PM Post #7 |
|
I'd like to request verification as to what exactly this means. Is it: 1. No violation of the spirit of the terms of service are being committed. or: 2. A violation is being committed, but persecution won't be done as the motive is unknown and the solution of banning short-turn games is worse than the violation? If (1.), then I respectfully disagree, although you are the judge, jury, and executioner, and your decision is final. If (2.), then perhaps there is another solution that deals with those concerns. I don't advocate a one-violation then removal solution because someone could make a mistake, someone could have the motive of wanting to bring their opponents back online to play. Perhaps a better solution would be a 3-strikes method, where someone captures a screenshot as I have done above, presents it, a message explaining the violation is sent, if it happens again, this is repeated, and if it happens again, then the 3 instances are presented to you or another person with the power to terminate player accounts. Certainly this is not foolproof, but it addresses the problem of mistakes and good motives, it provides warning, and it provides official oversight in that you make the final decision if the three instances are indeed violations. As I have done here, I have no problem capturing the moments for posterity and sending a message regarding them to the offending players. I don't suspect that there would be many cases of this for you to deal with, so it really doesn't add to your burden as game admin substantially. Thoughts? |
|
|
|
| VxXjimmyXxV | Jan 16 2010, 12:56 AM Post #8 |
|
That should answer. Admin is right anyways. If a player joins a game then leaves, without putting their status as "pending", then they should know that the game could be started with or without them online. I agree that it is poor sportsmanship. But, the newer players need to learn to change their status. |
|
|
|
| Sandboxbob | Apr 20 2010, 06:22 PM Post #9 |
|
yea i just just realized that all of Ecoodyse only plays unfairly, all his games are set up and he will only launch them when every 1 is offline, this has gone on for over 15 games now. i have a Picture. this is what all of his games are like. (trying to upload) (u can also view his profile and view all his games.) Posted Image is it possible to change it so that u cant start a game that is 30 min or under, unless all the player in the game are online and able to have a fair start and a game. CHanging to pending does nothing Ecoodyse has kicked me over 3 times for setting to pending, just so he can start. Edited by Sandboxbob, Apr 20 2010, 06:31 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Beavers | Apr 22 2010, 08:40 AM Post #10 |
|
Sandboxbob, If you read through the thread, you'll see that admin has no desire to take any corrective action on this as he doesn't see it as a rule violation. If you look at my last post in this thread (#7), you'll see I tried to come up with a method to deal with this situation that wouldn't have required removing short-turn games or putting undue restrictions on them and would only have required admin to occasionally review evidence of repeated foul-play and then decide whether it deserved termination of the account (and blocking of the IP address for some people of time I think as well to prevent a new account from being made immediately) for being sufficiently poor sportsmanship. As you can see ... no response was made nor any action yet taken to curb this kind of unfair play. Which, I suppose is a main reason why I stopped playing the game. But yes, Ecoodyse appears to be a most unsportsmanlike player. And, how exactly is it any fun to just move your armies around the map for 10 minutes never having to fight, collect taxes, hope for a good battle outcome, or build an army larger than 2 soldiers? |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Gameplay Discussion · Next Topic » |
| Theme: Tour of Generals | Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
 10:37 AM May 20
|