For those of you who utilize the "enemies" feature, when do you use it and why? Particularly non-subscribing users?  Secondly, to the paying members when u see a player has deemed you an enemy do you respect that an avoid playing or do you ignore it?   (3rd question: if you play, rather than ignore, please explain why? what is the reasoning behind it?

Not sure how to find out who has marked me an enemy to be honest. I Probably play in some of their games out of pure ignorance. 

ratsy wrote:

Not sure how to find out who has marked me an enemy to be honest. I Probably play in some of their games out of pure ignorance. 

I don't think there's a way to know who has you tagged as an enemy. Really, other than a way to keep track of who you might want to avoid, there's not much use for it.  Anyone can join ranked games as far as I'm aware - even an enemy - as it should be.. Otherwise you could just mark anyone better than you as an enemy.  If there were unranked games, it would make sense that an enemy (of the game creator at a minimum) should not be able to join.

I've marked maybe 3 people as enemies in my time here.  And only then because I thought they were jerks and I didn't want to play with them.  So when I join games it warns me they are there -

There is no way to tell if someone has marked you as an enemy.

M57 wrote:

ratsy wrote:

Not sure how to find out who has marked me an enemy to be honest. I Probably play in some of their games out of pure ignorance. 

I don't think there's a way to know who has you tagged as an enemy. Really, other than a way to keep track of who you might want to avoid, there's not much use for it.  Anyone can join ranked games as far as I'm aware - even an enemy - as it should be.. Otherwise you could just mark anyone better than you as an enemy.  If there were unranked games, it would make sense that an enemy (of the game creator at a minimum) should not be able to join.

If you are a premium member (i.e., you've paid) and the player marked as an enemy is not a premium member, then that enemy can't join (or even see) a game you have joined. Obviously, this would only apply to non-tournament games.

So, ratsy, with all those people that have marked you as enemy, it's not having any effect on you.

Yes, the only way to know who your enemies are is if you are standard and then to do a little sleuthing work once you are barred from a game to see which player is causing it.  You can do this by looking at each players games list and trying to join each respective player's open games till the process of elimination leads you to know.  As a premium member, however, it is impossible to know.  Call this a standard player feature, if you like ;-)

I do believe you can still see the games smoke... Unless Tom changed that in the last year?

M57 wrote:

Really, other than a way to keep track of who you might want to avoid, there's not much use for it.  Anyone can join ranked games as far as I'm aware - even an enemy - as it should be.. Otherwise you could just mark anyone better than you as an enemy.  If there were unranked games, it would make sense that an enemy (of the game creator at a minimum) should not be able to join.

I have 6 players marked as Enemy and all of them are standard, so, there is some use for it as I don't have to see them in my games.  I thought one of them was premium, but, he seems to have let his account go standard recently.  Maybe he left WarGear for good if he's no longer premium?  One can dream.

Even if every player was standard, why would you just 'mark anyone better then you' simply to bar them from your games?  Seems like you're manufacturing another reason to bring up un-ranked games by suggesting that rank/skill might be a reason someone would want to enemy someone...  Everyone I have marked as enemy is a rude jerk, is erratic/untrustworthy in their game play, or is a cheat.  I don't consider any of them better then me I just don't like their company. 

I think that most of the good players are mature enough to respect another player's wishes if another player doesn't want to play them.  When I first started playing Iwo I asked Cona to refrain from entering my earlier games (I specified 10) because I wanted to get comfortable with the board before taking on the champ.  He didn't come along again till standard game number 45, or somewhere around there (not including tournament games).  So, he's a good guy and gave me the space I asked for to learn the board and become comfortable/instinctual on it before facing him.  Most good players are comfortable letting other players get to where they want to get to before facing them and are not lurking the join games list waiting to pounce on unsuspecting rookies.  I recently asked another player to refrain from entering my games on a specific board because I'm trying to experiment with different styles of play and his style forces me to play the same style repeatedly to counter his style.  I didn't specify a number for him because I don't think that that board has a useful strategy that can counter the one he forces. So when I'm done experimenting with other styles of play I think I'll stop playing that board unless one of my experiments opens my eyes to something new.  As it is, I understand the most successful strategy on that board, so far, but just don't like it and don't want to be forced to play it game-in/game-out.  It bores me.  I hope he respects my wishes too, and I think he will... 

I have also seen some games named specifically asking me, or another individual, not to join them.  In such cases that I am named I write the player and tell them that they can just ask me directly and I'll respect their wishes and that there is no need to write it in the game title.  I don't like it when game titles ask someone specifically not to join.  It can give the impression that the barred player is a jerk, or something, when the player is really just asking for space to learn a board before facing me or someone else, which is cool.  I don't mind, however, if the game title calls out someone to challenge them to a match or asks for other players to respect that you are reserving the game for someone else though.  Those are positive/competitive inclusions of a name in a game title and don't carry a negative connotation onto the named player.  Ok, I've written too much already... All I'm saying is that when it comes to friends/enemies and managing who you have in your games and at what point you want to play a certain player on a board they champion, that communication can be good too!

Happy gaming!

@b - I didn't say that I might 'mark' people as "better than me."  I was implying that one of the reasons that the Enemies feature is so 'weak' is it preclude players from being able to select their opponents and/or avoid foes.   Let me put it another way.  Imagine a high ranked (75% H-rating) player being able to keep extremely low ranked players out of their games as they consider the cost of losing on a dueling board where they think those players might have a 60% chance of winning - If it's not worth the risk/reward.. 

There are a number of players on this site who feel stalked/antagonized by other players. The ability to enjoy a game minus the company of certain individuals would be enhanced by having unranked games.

You ask better/experienced players not to join your games as you learn a board - presumably winning a higher portion than most as you learn and thereby maintaining your high stats?  Am I understanding you correctly here?

M57 wrote:

You ask better/experienced players not to join your games as you learn a board - presumably winning a higher portion than most as you learn and thereby maintaining your high stats?  Am I understanding you correctly here?

No, I've not always experienced it that way.  Invention was hell on my rank as I learned it.

M57 wrote:

There are a number of players on this site who feel stalked/antagonized by other players. The ability to enjoy a game minus the company of certain individuals would be enhanced by having unranked games.

I remember a case where two players were having a particular case of mutual antagonization and it spilled into the forums, Tom agreed to block them both from joining each others games...  If it's too serious a problem, this being stalked/antagonized by other players, then perhaps the enemy system should be limited in number but more severe in consequence such the the few people one selects are kept out of one's games regardless of standard/premium?  I still think sober communication works the majority of the time here though as most members here seem to have a head on their shoulders and listen to reason.

M57 wrote:

@b - I didn't say that I might 'mark' people as "better than me."  I was implying that one of the reasons that the Enemies feature is so 'weak' is it preclude players from being able to select their opponents and/or avoid foes.   Let me put it another way.  Imagine a high ranked (75% H-rating) player being able to keep extremely low ranked players out of their games as they consider the cost of losing on a dueling board where they think those players might have a 60% chance of winning - If it's not worth the risk/reward..

This argument doesn't work very well... If the opponent's h-rating is so low that someone will surely beat them every time, why the heck would someone want to block them from joining their games and not take the free points?  If a player is competitive then their rank/h-rating are higher and there is less risk/yet more reward so they should not be blocked either.  People get enemied for being dicks and they probably like being a dick and keep acting that way in hopes of getting their public enemy number one badge... ahh, achievements! ;-)

Also, you chose the wrong play type in your example.  There is a much greater chance of losing a lot of points to a low ranked player in a many players game.  If someone likes playing many players games and wanted to limit losses then such a tactic would be much more well placed there then with duelers.

berickf wrote:

M57 wrote:

@b - I didn't say that I might 'mark' people as "better than me."  I was implying that one of the reasons that the Enemies feature is so 'weak' is it preclude players from being able to select their opponents and/or avoid foes.   Let me put it another way.  Imagine a high ranked (75% H-rating) player being able to keep extremely low ranked players out of their games as they consider the cost of losing on a dueling board where they think those players might have a 60% chance of winning - If it's not worth the risk/reward..

This argument doesn't work very well...

Also, you chose the wrong play type in your example.  There is a much greater chance of losing a lot of points to a low ranked player in a many players game.  If someone likes playing many players games and wanted to limit losses then such a tactic would be much more well placed there then with duelers.

Fine, I'll go with the argument in the form that works well.

berickf wrote:

No, I've not always experienced it that way.  Invention was hell on my rank as I learned it.

then I must have misread this portion of your post..

berickf wrote:

When I first started playing Iwo I asked Cona to refrain from entering my earlier games (I specified 10) because I wanted to get comfortable with the board before taking on the champ.  He didn't come along again till standard game number 45, or somewhere around there (not including tournament games).  So, he's a good guy and gave me the space I asked for to learn the board and become comfortable/instinctual on it before facing him.  

M57 wrote:

berickf wrote:

No, I've not always experienced it that way.  Invention was hell on my rank as I learned it.

then I must have misread this portion of your post..

berickf wrote:

When I first started playing Iwo I asked Cona to refrain from entering my earlier games (I specified 10) because I wanted to get comfortable with the board before taking on the champ.  He didn't come along again till standard game number 45, or somewhere around there (not including tournament games).  So, he's a good guy and gave me the space I asked for to learn the board and become comfortable/instinctual on it before facing him.  

Again, you are not understanding me correctly no matter how you cut it.  To suggest I was 'winning more' by asking him for space you're making the assumption that I would have lost to Cona if he had joined.  Of all the players on that board I had really studied his histories and felt I knew his weaknesses.  Asking him to give me a break for ten games was not out of a fear I'd have lost to him but out of a desire to find comfort with the board before I jumped into the deep end.  I don't know if it's the same for you but I get to a point when I invest a lot into studying a board where I start to play by instinct and not have to boil my brain each turn.  I can still win by boiling my brain in those first ten games, but, against good players I find it's more fun to play instinctively.

I don't mind offering other players that same latitude and the point I was making was that communication goes a long way and not about winning or losing

berickf wrote:

Again, you are not understanding me correctly no matter how you cut it.  To suggest I was 'winning more' by asking him for space you're making the assumption that I would have lost to Cona if he had joined.

Yep.

M57 wrote:

berickf wrote:

M57 wrote:

@b - I didn't say that I might 'mark' people as "better than me."  I was implying that one of the reasons that the Enemies feature is so 'weak' is it preclude players from being able to select their opponents and/or avoid foes.   Let me put it another way.  Imagine a high ranked (75% H-rating) player being able to keep extremely low ranked players out of their games as they consider the cost of losing on a dueling board where they think those players might have a 60% chance of winning - If it's not worth the risk/reward..

This argument doesn't work very well...

Also, you chose the wrong play type in your example.  There is a much greater chance of losing a lot of points to a low ranked player in a many players game.  If someone likes playing many players games and wanted to limit losses then such a tactic would be much more well placed there then with duelers.

Fine, I'll go with the argument in the form that works well.

Fine, but now lets look at an example of being able to block players, but, with a limited number of enemy tags allowed.  I actually would not have a problem with it.  Like I said, I have six players enemied.  Two of them for making erratic dumb choices in large player games.  I want to be reminded that if I am again in a large player game with them to be wary and to keep them away from me so they can go be erratic and irrational in their play elsewhere and suicide someone else game.  Of course they are both standard players so can't join my games.. But, I can still decide to join a game they are in with full warning.  Now, lets say every player was only allowed ten enemies, but the enemies of premium players would not be able to enter their games regardless of if they are standard or premium... Would you waste your ten enemy tags on ten random low GR players for fear of losing points to them because of their low GR in the rare event that they might enter a game you were in and win!!! or would you use them on players that have a history of erratic play or because you just don't enjoy their company and want to keep them away from your games?  So, I don't really mind the principle of less enemies but with more severe consequences.  It would address the rare occurrence of harassment, it would allow nuclear players to be kept out of one's games and it would allow rude tasteless players to be kept at arm's length.  I don't mind a limited selection of enemy tags being able to block the lowest denominator of foes... 

As a disclaimer, keep in mind however that as I say this I am well aware that it would not effect me much at all.  I usually make the games I want to play and rarely join them.  So, I let people decide to play me and don't decide to play them... So while I wrote what I wrote, I also know that since I rarely join games I would virtually never be 'blocked' by such a mechanism.  So, take what I wrote with a grain of salt as I would be one of the few unaffected by it.  But, in principle, I don't see a problem with the concept.

I remember Ratsy stating that he usually sees no more than 10-12 open games, so he must have LOTS of enemies. ;)

M57 wrote:

berickf wrote:

Again, you are not understanding me correctly no matter how you cut it.  To suggest I was 'winning more' by asking him for space you're making the assumption that I would have lost to Cona if he had joined.

Yep.

Except the game he did join... My very first game... Where I asked him to refrain for the next nine... I won it and I made the request after I was already in the lead.  I just didn't feel comfortable as the board was not instinctual yet...  Hence the request.  You don't seem to get that such a request is not always about winning or losing.  There are many other reasons such a request can be made.

Thingol wrote: I remember Ratsy stating that he usually sees no more than 10-12 open games, so he must have LOTS of enemies. ;)

It's possible. My wife thinks I'm kind of a hose-beast most times. 

Turns out that I can still be in those guys' games though, so that's awesome! lol

Of course, I kid Ratsy...I doubt if anyone has ever put you on the enemy list.  I do remember being upset at a blind fogged rampage you did in one game, essentially making it easy for the eventual victor, but you'd have to repeat that many times over to even get on my enemy consideration list.