Please share your thoughts regarding players who are compelled to send a public message upon their elimination in fogged games thus announcing the elimination to the remaining players. In a fogged game eliminated players are not indicated as eliminated anywhere until the game is concluded and yet certain players insist on affecting the ongoing game and defeating the purpose of fog. Yes the player receives a notification of their elimination but they will also receive a notification at the conclusion of the game affording them the opportunity to send the obligatory "gg".

So, thoughtless? Rude? Vindictive? How do you feel?

My opinion?

• It's bad form for a player to announce their elimination in a fogged game
• If the player is eliminated in a 3+ team game, it's still bad form, since one team will still be in the dark, so to speak.
• If the player is eliminated in a 2 team game, it doesn't matter if they announce their elimination, since both teams are aware of it :-)

• it's bad form for a player to surrender in a tournament game. Period.

As long as public comments are enabled during the game...

I used to play Hearts a lot on the ancient Internet Gaming Zone. At some point they disabled chat during a game, which I thought was a good thing.

Also, as someone pointed out in a thread I don't recall, you can see how many players are left even in a fogged game by offering to surrender. There will only be a number of checkboxes shown for still active players.

lx260 wrote:Also, as someone pointed out in a thread I don't recall, you can see how many players are left even in a fogged game by offering to surrender. There will only be a number of checkboxes shown for still active players.

I did not know this; If true, I think it needs to be fixed and someone should bring it to Tom's attention.

Knowing how many players left is useful but not often game-changing. (and certainly don't risk fake-surrendering if there is a chance there is only 1 other player left.)

Also, you can figure this out (and usually more) by scrolling through the history.

As to hootz72's original post - I do find such pronouncements out of place sometimes (i.e. giving info in a fogged game) but usually appreciate the effort (i.e. a GG is always nice.)

Which is how I feel about messages in general - A big part of me wishes that there was no way to message during a game, but I really enjoy the camaraderie I have with many players largely built by doing such.

Most of the time I see the "gg" message in a still active game, the game is all but won for the player currently dominating the map. He/she usually only needs 1 or 2 more turns to clean up the scraps.

I cannot think of an incidence where I saw a GG message turn the tide of the game by alerting a player that it was time to unleash whatever they had been building up against the dominating player, but I suppose the situation could arise. Even then, I doubt it would be intentionally vindictive by the player sending the message.

The ones I've seen are not vindictive, just from a player who assumes the game will not be revisited later.

I do not give any myself unless the game is clearly over in favour of one player, and even that is rare.

agwyvern - concur across the board

lx260 - was neither love nor war nor thoughtful. Also the surrender thing should be fixed and Amidon is correct regarding risk v reward

Amidon - in a totally fogged game you can't always "figure this out" in the history, there might be a couple of clues depending on circumstances and turn order, but I don't agree.

Abishai - knowing a player is gone might affect tactics, for instance you might not go all out searching for a weak player to eliminate trying for their cards and consolidate your defenses or attack territories of an opponent who has been revealed via attacks shown in the history, I'm sure there are other scenarios as well. Establishing who is the dominating player in totally fogged games is guaranteed.

Litotes - I agree most are. I have seen vindictive public messages though..... one comes to mind from a player who whose stats included play on only one map - Invention, lol. No way he had a different account, huh?

My thoughts anyway, thanks for yours.

If it is a fogged game, I will send a message to the player that eliminated me and wait until the game is over for a public message.

hootz72 wrote:agwyvern - concur across the board

Abishai - knowing a player is gone might affect tactics, for instance you might not go all out searching for a weak player to eliminate trying for their cards and consolidate your defenses or attack territories of an opponent who has been revealed via attacks shown in the history, I'm sure there are other scenarios as well. Establishing who is the dominating player in totally fogged games is guaranteed.

I agree, I just don't usually see the GG message occur that early in a game. The times I see the message the game's outcome is already decided, and the victor only needs to clean up the scraps. In these situations, I have no problem with the message being sent before the game is officially over.

If it is a fogged game, I will send a message to the player that eliminated me and wait until the game is over for a public message.

Note to self to occasionally just say GG in fogged games for no reason at all.

BTdubs wrote:Note to self to occasionally just say GG in fogged games for no reason at all.

Ha! (Technical foul!)

BTdubs wrote:Note to self to occasionally just say GG in fogged games for no reason at all.

:-)

I had actually considered mentioning that tactic in my initial reply, but decided not to stir the pot.

https://www.wargear.net/games/view/81402519

*hides*

SMARTARSE!

:-)

That was a literal laugh-out-loud for me. Thanks!

I'm not so sure that was wise thing to do. Now everyone is attacking me.

bwahahahahahaha!

Of course, it's still a viable strategy -- you just have to hide a big pocket army somewhere inconspicuous and leave a trail of singletons leading to it, to suck your opponents in :-)