#35239: "Make "Skip Turn" / Expel a Timed-out player a Concensus Decision of All Remaining Players."
這是關於哪方面的案件？
發生什麼事? 請從下方選擇
發生什麼事? 請從下方選擇
請檢查是否已有同課題案件
若肯定，請「投票」給這樁案件。最高票的案件將「優先」處理！
| # | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
|---|
細節描述
-
• 如果可以的話，請轉貼螢幕顯示的錯誤訊息。
In a multi-player game, when a player has timed-out on their turn, make it a majority consensus decision by the remaining players whether or not to "Skip" the player's turn, thus expelling them. This would be in keeping with the "Abandon" game choice, or turning a real-time game to turn-based, which already both require group agreement to proceed.
This would prevent one impatient and/or less experienced player from deciding for everyone else, and potentially prematurely end a game, perhaps costing a known reliable player from being unfairly punished and deducted elo and karma points. -
• 請說明你當時想做什麼，你做了什麼，然後發生了什麼事
• 你的瀏覽器是什麼？
Google Chrome v88
-
• 請轉貼未翻譯的英文字句。 建議將此錯誤的螢幕截圖上傳到 Imgur.com 並轉貼連結。
In a multi-player game, when a player has timed-out on their turn, make it a majority consensus decision by the remaining players whether or not to "Skip" the player's turn, thus expelling them. This would be in keeping with the "Abandon" game choice, or turning a real-time game to turn-based, which already both require group agreement to proceed.
This would prevent one impatient and/or less experienced player from deciding for everyone else, and potentially prematurely end a game, perhaps costing a known reliable player from being unfairly punished and deducted elo and karma points. -
• 這些文字存在於 翻譯系統 中嗎？若為真，其是否已被翻譯超過 24 小時？
• 你的瀏覽器是什麼？
Google Chrome v88
-
• 請簡明精確地解釋你的建議，以便讓人一目了然。
In a multi-player game, when a player has timed-out on their turn, make it a majority consensus decision by the remaining players whether or not to "Skip" the player's turn, thus expelling them. This would be in keeping with the "Abandon" game choice, or turning a real-time game to turn-based, which already both require group agreement to proceed.
This would prevent one impatient and/or less experienced player from deciding for everyone else, and potentially prematurely end a game, perhaps costing a known reliable player from being unfairly punished and deducted elo and karma points. • 你的瀏覽器是什麼？
Google Chrome v88
-
• 當你不能動作時，螢幕上顯示什麼？（螢幕全黑？部份遊戲介面？錯誤訊息？）
In a multi-player game, when a player has timed-out on their turn, make it a majority consensus decision by the remaining players whether or not to "Skip" the player's turn, thus expelling them. This would be in keeping with the "Abandon" game choice, or turning a real-time game to turn-based, which already both require group agreement to proceed.
This would prevent one impatient and/or less experienced player from deciding for everyone else, and potentially prematurely end a game, perhaps costing a known reliable player from being unfairly punished and deducted elo and karma points. • 你的瀏覽器是什麼？
Google Chrome v88
-
• 遊戲規則的哪部分在 BGA 版本有所錯漏？
In a multi-player game, when a player has timed-out on their turn, make it a majority consensus decision by the remaining players whether or not to "Skip" the player's turn, thus expelling them. This would be in keeping with the "Abandon" game choice, or turning a real-time game to turn-based, which already both require group agreement to proceed.
This would prevent one impatient and/or less experienced player from deciding for everyone else, and potentially prematurely end a game, perhaps costing a known reliable player from being unfairly punished and deducted elo and karma points. -
• 這項違反規則之處可否在遊戲重播中看到？若可以是在哪步？（重播時左上角資訊）
• 你的瀏覽器是什麼？
Google Chrome v88
-
• 你當時想採取哪個遊戲行動？
In a multi-player game, when a player has timed-out on their turn, make it a majority consensus decision by the remaining players whether or not to "Skip" the player's turn, thus expelling them. This would be in keeping with the "Abandon" game choice, or turning a real-time game to turn-based, which already both require group agreement to proceed.
This would prevent one impatient and/or less experienced player from deciding for everyone else, and potentially prematurely end a game, perhaps costing a known reliable player from being unfairly punished and deducted elo and karma points. -
• 你想觸發這個遊戲行動時做了什麼？
-
• 當你試著這麼做時發生了什麼（錯誤訊息、遊戲狀態條訊息...）？
• 你的瀏覽器是什麼？
Google Chrome v88
-
• 問題發生在遊戲的哪一步？（目前遊戲指示是什麼）
In a multi-player game, when a player has timed-out on their turn, make it a majority consensus decision by the remaining players whether or not to "Skip" the player's turn, thus expelling them. This would be in keeping with the "Abandon" game choice, or turning a real-time game to turn-based, which already both require group agreement to proceed.
This would prevent one impatient and/or less experienced player from deciding for everyone else, and potentially prematurely end a game, perhaps costing a known reliable player from being unfairly punished and deducted elo and karma points. -
• 當你試著進行遊戲動作時發生了什麼（錯誤訊息、遊戲狀態條訊息...）？
• 你的瀏覽器是什麼？
Google Chrome v88
-
• 請描述顯示問題。 建議將此錯誤的螢幕截圖上傳到 Imgur.com 並轉貼連結。
In a multi-player game, when a player has timed-out on their turn, make it a majority consensus decision by the remaining players whether or not to "Skip" the player's turn, thus expelling them. This would be in keeping with the "Abandon" game choice, or turning a real-time game to turn-based, which already both require group agreement to proceed.
This would prevent one impatient and/or less experienced player from deciding for everyone else, and potentially prematurely end a game, perhaps costing a known reliable player from being unfairly punished and deducted elo and karma points. • 你的瀏覽器是什麼？
Google Chrome v88
-
• 請轉貼未翻譯的英文字句。 建議將此錯誤的螢幕截圖上傳到 Imgur.com 並轉貼連結。
In a multi-player game, when a player has timed-out on their turn, make it a majority consensus decision by the remaining players whether or not to "Skip" the player's turn, thus expelling them. This would be in keeping with the "Abandon" game choice, or turning a real-time game to turn-based, which already both require group agreement to proceed.
This would prevent one impatient and/or less experienced player from deciding for everyone else, and potentially prematurely end a game, perhaps costing a known reliable player from being unfairly punished and deducted elo and karma points. -
• 這些文字存在於 翻譯系統 中嗎？若為真，其是否已被翻譯超過 24 小時？
• 你的瀏覽器是什麼？
Google Chrome v88
-
• 請簡明精確地解釋你的建議，以便讓人一目了然。
In a multi-player game, when a player has timed-out on their turn, make it a majority consensus decision by the remaining players whether or not to "Skip" the player's turn, thus expelling them. This would be in keeping with the "Abandon" game choice, or turning a real-time game to turn-based, which already both require group agreement to proceed.
This would prevent one impatient and/or less experienced player from deciding for everyone else, and potentially prematurely end a game, perhaps costing a known reliable player from being unfairly punished and deducted elo and karma points. • 你的瀏覽器是什麼？
Google Chrome v88
案件沿革
Table 151809156
Move 109.
The Dice Forge game became blocked and could not advance because "The First Titan" card had a bug. Brocconel informed the other players through the game chat that the game had glitched, and had attempted refreshing with F5 several times. Finally, Brocconel clicked on the suggestion to abandon the game, due to the block.
A less-experienced player (Tomsawer) chose to skip and expel Brocconel, rather than agree to abandon the blocked game.
Brocconel's ELO at the start of the game was 501. Because Tomsawer singularly chose to skip Brocconel's turn, rather than abandon the game (which the two other players were agreeable to). Brocconel lost 42 points in ELO. This was very unfair, as Brocconel was actively attempting to play the turn, and constantly communicating with the group about the blocked situation.
Especially in real-time games I don't like to be forced to wait forever.
If you want to avoid such situations then simply play with "slow" setting or "friendly mode". Why should anyone play normal or even fast speed when each player can play as slow as he likes? Imagine you have two buddies at your table, then it would effectively be a "friendly game" except you can't leave without penalty.
"Change to turn based" is a completely different matter. Everyone at a real-time table decided to play real-time. Therefore everyone must agree to change that.
Likewise, plenty of situations where people kick out a player out-of-time if it looks like they're about to lose, but they know that by kicking someone else out that can scam themselves a win.
Tournament with players from Australia, USA and Europe.
Turn-based.
I was expelled for a 16min delay.
In this case, it feels like downright cheating.
If one player breaks the contract for how long they are taking, they are breaking the contract for how long it takes to play and it should only take one player's opinion to say they are no longer interested in playing.
If you join a game, you play BY THE RULES of the given game, time limit per move being one of them.
If you go over your time limit, you are cheating (yes, even for one minute. Rules are rules: non-negotioable).
If you have a problem IRL, just use a time-joker.
If you know you're not gonna be able to play for a while, just don't join a game (a warning is displayed every time you join to estimate - generously - the time it's going to take).
So many players tag along games with a high number of moves per day and then go afk for 3 days.
So many players timeout SEVERAL times in just a couple of days.
So many players think they have the right to have more thinking time than others, while it's not fair.
Turn-based players plan their games in advance.
If I know I have time ahead of me, I won't skip someone.
But if I know that I cannot personnaly afford to wait one more day, then I need the ability to skip the douchebag who is not playing by the rules. Otherwise I'm going to ruin my schedule.
With this suggestion, if someone just plain refuse to expel another player, then what? The games drags on forever? You and your friend can now take hostage other players in a game, and then wait for you to be in vacations to skip them?
This suggestion makes absolutely no sense.
All I read here is people being mad for being late to play by the rules they had previously commited to play by.
I don't know how exactly, I ended-up with -36hrs (but I work on my computer and the window is always open).
Then I went back to -16hrs.
I only got kicked out when I started to win (Catan #540257492): that is the issue.
WHAT ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO KICK OUT THE PERSON WHO IS WINNING BEFORE REACHING -48hrs?
I only play fast past games. The social contract that you are agreeing to when playing is that you will take seconds per turn with a couple of minutes total contingency (need to answer the phone?). I'm choosing to play a quick game, I have other things to do when I'm done (maybe playing other games). I don't want to sit waiting, not knowing for how long, in my leisure time.
I played a 12 moves/day game of Caverna #614558035 where one player was in a different timezone, their time was negative for a while but it was clear they were still trying to keep up as best they could.
Player Bruyns kicked this player during round 10 of 12. Bruyns had the opportunity to kick this player much earlier, but waited until near the end of the game because they were losing terribly (live scoring) and it was too late to have a chance to catch up. The other remaining player and I both agreed that it was an incredibly poor-sport move. Meanwhile, Bruyns was awarded 5 gift points for his first "win" at Caverna.
So, yes. The current system needs to be changed somewhat because this was not fair. Seems like most of the people opposing this are referring to their experience with real-time games, which I understand. In a real-time game you are agreeing to be present until the games ends, so it should be easy to kick people who fail to do so. But the purpose of turn-based over real-time is that you don't have to be present, you can log off, do other stuff, and take your turns when you log back on. Real life happens sometimes. For this reason, kicking someone from a turn-based game is a much heavier decision, and should require input from more than one person.
If I play a game that should last 5 minutes, a player need to be certain that after 5 minutes the game is finished.
This is the very reason the option "fast game" exists.
A majority option on expelling slow players would make the"fast game" option useless.
Or to put in another way, it would force those you call "impatient players" that cannot play for more than the amount of time fixed at the beginning to quit as well, so basically it does not change the current situation of the game finishing earlier than expected, just make more player quit after the first has quit.
To avoid kicking out players too early, one possibility could be to change the time options to make them longer in non-fast game.
Or Maybe recalibrate the time, adding more initial time and less afterwards so that if a player has problems entering a game he has more time initially
Maybe a fix could be implemented just for these games. Or maybe all types of games should have a drop-dead completion time/date limit, with consensus based skipping.
"Social contract" doesn't apply when the game is blocked because of a bug. For the record, I prefer "fast" real-time games, too. The Dice Forge game in question that originated my suggestion about needing a majority concensus to skip a player (in a multi-player game, not a two-player game) was blocked on my turn because of a programming glitch. I was immediately communicating with the other 3 players via the chat that no matter what I tried, the game wouldn't let me proceed. I and two experienced players agreed to abandon the game, but one inexperienced player instead chose to unfairly "Skip" me.
Aside from my situation, I have seen skipping to avoid losing happen a lot in turn-based tournaments, too -- as mentioned by others here.
I just roll my eyes at these "social contract" comments. I see where you're coming from, but I think you've all missed the point.
Because an unanimous decision is rare I would prefer a 50% majority among the remaining players who are within their time limit. This means actual voting to give a player extra time or not, with the possibility to start voting again 48 after a voting did not result in a 50% majority.
But most important for me is the possibility to finish the game and play for the spots in the next round of the tournament with the remaining players who have not exceeded their time limit.
For those that want to play games with a time constraint, play Real Time.
The point of this proposal is to prevent innocent players' game from being ruined because someone else missed a turn.
為本案件添加內容
- 其他同樣狀況的桌號／步數
- 按 F5 是否解決了這個問題？
- 問題是否發生了好幾次？每次都發生？時好時壞？
- 建議將此錯誤的螢幕截圖上傳到 Imgur.com 並轉貼連結。
