i think players waiting to get booted cause they are loosing should be penalized more than just surrendering all should agree

+1

Read what was my first post http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/895/Boot_vs_Surrender

Note that the automatic acceptance of a surrender has now been implemented. From what I can see more and more players use it (also because the number of surrender is not on your profile no more ?).

Could be workable - another option for a penalty is not being able to join a new game for a period e.g. 1 day).

tom wrote:

Could be workable - another option for a penalty is not being able to join a new game for a period e.g. 1 day).

1 day?! I think it should grow exponentially so that first boot is 1 day, second is 2 days, third is 4 days, etc... that way after 6ish boots the player will never be able to play on WG again.  MWAHAHAHAHAHA!

For the record...that's a joke  and I'm not a fan of the being unable to join a new game for a certain period.  Perhaps unable to create a public game/tournament, perhaps, but not really sure this solves the "problem".  I'd just vote against restricting players, or maybe put a better threshold before a penalty is dealt, ie 1-5 boots = nothing, 6-10 = 1 day total, 11-15 = 2 days, but always resetting after 3-6 months, but I dunno.

I'm not sure losing more points is a good way to go either, as you don't want the winner to hope for a boot rather than an actual win since he would get more points, and not sure if throwing the points into an Abyss works does it?

Yertle wrote:

I'm not sure losing more points is a good way to go either, as you don't want the winner to hope for a boot rather than an actual win since he would get more points, and not sure if throwing the points into an Abyss works does it?

Maybe just the person who got booted loses more points.  But the winner still receives a normal number of points.

This discussion seems well and good but pretty much un-enforceable.  How will you be able to tell if a player gets skipped/booted because they're a jerk vs. a situation outside their control?

Beastlymaster wrote:

Yertle wrote:

I'm not sure losing more points is a good way to go either, as you don't want the winner to hope for a boot rather than an actual win since he would get more points, and not sure if throwing the points into an Abyss works does it?

Maybe just the person who got booted loses more points.  But the winner still receives a normal number of points.

If it's a points penalty then the extra points should be transferred from the loser to the winner otherwise the ranking system stops being zero sum.

Boots are annoying in general, but for the games I play (about 20 of the 2day/3day timers mixture of sizes) they don't effect my overall enjoyment of the site.   I still get enough turns per day to get my fix even with the occasional skip/boot.  And I don't see any penalty really correcting that behavior for people who do that in those games - my guess is the majority of boots is for people who aren't coming back anyways.

The bigger deal may be in lightening games (that I don't play, so correct my if I am wrong).  Having to sit and wait for the timer to run out sounds really annoying.  So, perhaps the penalty should run there - if you get booted in a lightening game then some prohibition about creating/joining more of them.  Details to be worked out.

edit: I see groundforce (the originator of this thread) plays a lot of lightening games.

Maybe in lightning games, if you get skipped, your turn timer is cut in half from there on out?  So you only have to wait 5 minutes the second time.

Yertle wrote:

1 day?! I think it should grow exponentially so that first boot is 1 day, second is 2 days, third is 4 days, etc... that way after 6ish boots the player will never be able to play on WG again.  MWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Ha!

This thread was sounding pretty familiar so I tracked down the previous discussion on this.

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/1720p1/BootingSurrender

Amidon37 wrote:

The bigger deal may be in lightening games (that I don't play, so correct my if I am wrong).  Having to sit and wait for the timer to run out sounds really annoying.  So, perhaps the penalty should run there - if you get booted in a lightening game then some prohibition about creating/joining more of them.  Details to be worked out.

 

edit: I see groundforce (the originator of this thread) plays a lot of lightening games.

Perhaps Lightning games should have a 1 and done skip/boot policy.  Meaning rather than the player must get 2 consecutive skips to be booted, if he misses 1 turn then he's booted.  Seems more harsh, and I'm not sure I'm even a fan of that type of system, but does seem like it could mean Lightning games would help stay more "Lightning-y".

I don't think waiting 20 minutes would be the worst thing in the world, maybe create another game? People have kids and dogs and people breaking into their kitchen (that last one might just be me).

I haven't ever been booted from a lightning, but I think the 2-turn policy is still legit.

I do like the idea of limiting them from creating/joining for a little while, since they obviously have some stuff going on around the house/office.

Some people get booted to avoid the game counting in a comparison of wins vs losses... a penalty would be nice

Gimli wrote:

Some people get booted to avoid the game counting in a comparison of wins vs losses... a penalty would be nice

I don't understand. A boot counts as a loss, right?

M57 wrote:

Gimli wrote:

Some people get booted to avoid the game counting in a comparison of wins vs losses... a penalty would be nice

I don't understand. A boot counts as a loss, right?

If it doesn't, it should.

AttilaTheHun wrote:

M57 wrote:

Gimli wrote:

Some people get booted to avoid the game counting in a comparison of wins vs losses... a penalty would be nice

I don't understand. A boot counts as a loss, right?

If it doesn't, it should.

Yes, of course!

sorry... to expand... when you got to head to head tab... if they were losing and got themselves booted, the game does not show up in H2H, or your win record vs that player... so it isn't counting as a win in some areas <sorry for the very late explanation>

Gimli wrote:

sorry... to expand... when you got to head to head tab... if they were losing and got themselves booted, the game does not show up in H2H, or your win record vs that player... so it isn't counting as a win in some areas

Aha. Good one, fixed 

I'm not sure how this is going to turn out, but if my two cents is worth anything, I'm neither in favor of losing more points for booting nor joining restrictions.  I've posted before about my preference for booting vs playing it out in no-win situations.  In general, booting takes fewer turns to end the game.

But my main reason for this post is that if any change is implemented, I have 2 requests, please:

1:  I request that an announcement be emailed to all players about this change, and not just posted in the FAQ.  If I hadn't happened to read this thread I wouldn't have had any idea a change to scoring or joining was even being considered, and I spend very little time reading the forums.  I'm mainly just here to play.

2: If a change does get implemented, I respectfully request that all current boot records get reset to zero, so that if anyone (especially me, I guess) needs to change their play behavior, they won't be extra-penalized for a past record while a different policy was in effect.  This is analogous to the no "ex-post facto" legal statute, which exists for good reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

Thank You.