I believe some players, when they know they have lost a game, prefer being booted rather than surrendering. This is a bad practice as you have to wait too long for nothing.

I suggest that you get minus 20 (for example) when you are booted. Thus it will encourage players to surrender more often.

Also, to encourage surrendering, it should be automatic when there is only one other player left.

Sorry for my english.

Toto wrote:

I believe some players, when they know they have lost a game, prefer being booted rather than surrendering. This is a bad practice as you have to wait too long for nothing.

I suggest that you get minus 20 (for example) when you are booted. Thus it will encourage players to surrender more often.

Also, to encourage surrendering, it should be automatic when there is only one other player left.

 

I haven't seen this necessarily, but haven't paid too close of attention to it.

I'm not a fan of the minus 20, since I'm sure some of them are just accidental boots.

I'm not a fan of the automatic surrender, I'd rather eliminate my opponent than allow him to surrender automatically (unless that goes down as an elimination for the winner).  Would have to be aware of the accidental hitting of the surrender button as well.

Of course the minus 20 could be minus 10 or even 5. It should not apply for the lighting games where accidents happen (even to me). If it's not too complicated to set, a credit could be gained : for exemple you are allowed to be booted once without any minus for every 10 victories.

The automatic acceptance of a surrender is just to ease things, it should not change elimination accounts. Of course, Yertle, you are right that the accidental hitting should have to be confirmed.

Hey Toto, don't worry about your English... it's very good! In fact, I've heard much worse from someone in England... much, much worse... it's all over my profile!

Yertle, is there an actual score difference if a player leaves a game by boot vs surrender? As best I know, there is no incentive to get booted... you still lose championship points/standing. and rather than surrender, people should just play it out unless it is a pointless game and taking up game space (ie limited to 10 games). Is there any benefit to having a fast turn time, like there could be in warfish? (ie setting up games for faster players)

I think it is likely an idea with some merit, but too much work for little gain.

Gimli wrote:
Yertle, is there an actual score difference if a player leaves a game by boot vs surrender? As best I know, there is no incentive to get booted... you still lose championship points/standing.

No difference if you are booted or surrender or just plain eliminated.  (Other than the winner doesn't get to get the +1 on his/her Eliminations stat if the other player is booted or surrenders.)  Boot/Surrenders are kept as a stat on the profile, but there isn't any other current consequence of a boot or surrender.

Gimli wrote:

Is there any benefit to having a fast turn time, like there could be in warfish? (ie setting up games for faster players)

Not currently, there has been some discussion that perhaps there could/should be, but nothing too firm that I've seen.

Sorry to reopen this thread. I just found it through a google search.

This actually seems to be becoming an issue in realtime games. Certain players repeatedly allow a the "boot" to trigger whenever they expect to lose. I'm assuming this is just to keep the other player from getting points for the elimination.

One example... check out the list of complaints on Freemason's wall:
http://www.wargear.net/players/info/Freemason (I'll paste them below, just in case they get deleted)

I think a fair solution to this problem would be to trigger some kind of point deduction for the person being booted.

Or possibly, creating a trigger that blocks them from joining or creating a game for 24 hours after the boot.

I know it's a silly/minor thing to worry about, but it would really help relieve some of the stress between player, if this rude behavior was punished, especially on leach (non-paying) accounts.

These are the complaints posted on his wall: Message from terryroe
Don't join my games anymore.
#25 of 25
22nd Apr 2012 19:32
Message from terryroe
What a lame ass. When you're winning you play right away. When you're losing, you bail like a little kid that can't have his way.
#24 of 25
22nd Apr 2012 19:23
Message from terryroe
This guy is losing, but he took his turn and doesn't finish it. Some people like this guy and 'heil' are extremely lame. I wish there was some way to report them or not allow them to join your games if you don't want to play against douches like them.
#23 of 25
18th Apr 2012 23:26
Message from gazz
lol,LUV the comments,lol,all true is my gss
#22 of 25
11th Apr 2012 21:00
Message from Number Sharks
Like others listed below, I also had my turn disappear when playing this guy. I got an error message "I/O Error" just after I traded in cards. I lost the cards, lost the bonus troops, lost my normal continent troops, and then my turn times out. I strongly suspect hacking... in particular IP packet flooding. I am not a premium member, so I could not replay to a cheating complaint post. I cannot reach the admins. If any premium member launches a complaint please mention my game with him as well as the others below.
#21 of 25
9th Apr 2012 23:22
Message from Adolph
Hell , you are a slow player , one would tjink that a freemason would move faster and smarter
#20 of 25
7th Apr 2012 16:05
Message from belcharlie
FM, please stop joining my games if you just keep walking away.
#19 of 25
31st Mar 2012 18:31
Message from belcharlie
Don't play. When he's losing he'll take his turn and let it expire in a quick game. Will walk away and not finish or surrender. DO NOT PLAY!
#18 of 25
16th Mar 2012 14:36
Message from PawThorn
That game I was winning totally disappeared! Are you some kind of hacker? :-) watsupwidat?
#17 of 25

I clicked through his list of Boot games, and there seems to be a pattern.

I've looked through a few other people's (with high boot #s) boot lists and found the same.

ADMITTING:
I know I've been in games where I've gotten screwed and shutdown the computer in rage, instead of surrendering. I'm SURE that if there was a point penalty for boots, people would be more friendly about continuing to play, or surrendering.

If you're worried about the people who genuinely get booted because they miss a turn or their computers are too slow... I don't think it's a worry.
If someone finds that they are getting booted too often and loosing points, they will likely start picking games with a longer turn time (as they should).

I didn´t know if I had to open a new post or reopen this. Now, you know what I´ve chosen

I think there should be a big SURRENDER next to board; at least to minimize the games that are ruined for people who doesn´t know how to quit without booting (I hope there would a lot, because the other option is much worse).

I hope you understand what I mean

Muzuane,

This has been discussed here often.  Surrendering in games with more than 2 people is often unfair to some players in the game depending on the position. For this reason surrendering is only allowed when ALL other players agree, which as you know is unlikely precisely for the above described reason.

Getting booted puts a black mark on the player -- as it should because booting can also have the same effect on a game.  Recently we have been discussing the possibility of having a recorded boot expire after a certain period of time ..or after a certain period of "good behavior".

M57, what I meant is to MOVE the surrender buttom next to board without changing the rules (all the players should accept the surrendering), but at least there won´t be any excuse for those players who make us wait just because they don´t like losing - me neither ;) but we have to respect the other players-

Another option it wolud be create games for players wha has a rate (boots/games played) smaller than X

Muzuane Askari wrote:

M57, what I meant is to MOVE the surrender buttom next to board without changing the rules (all the players should accept the surrendering), but at least there won´t be any excuse for those players who make us wait just because they don´t like losing - me neither ;) but we have to respect the other players-

Right.  Gottcha.

Another option it wolud be create games for players wha has a rate (boots/games played) smaller than X

This has been discussed - who's going to NOT use this feature?  This would effectively black-list players from just about all games   ..permanently.

..unless there's a way for players to shave their boot count down (for instance with good behavior).

M57 you´re right. Everybody would use this option, but it could be limitated to 5 players games (or more); at least in "crowdy" games you may think you are playing with "honest" players.

I´d reather be waiting on the lobby than on the board

..so once you get more than X boots you can never play in games with more than 5 players?

No they need to age off or be a percentage (probably both).

I was reading other threads and you were talking about the consequences of having many boots; this could be one of the consequeces. And it shouldn´t be permanent, as you said, "good behaivor" can change their situation.

This suggestion can be read as a punishment for boot-players but also as a reward for those who finishes their games: they can play 5 (or more) players games with people who will repect their time.

Why not, every week one of their boots stops counting towards their ban? So if they build up too many boots they have to chill their heels a while.

I like the idea that boot# > _____ leads to a negative consequence......perhaps one consequence could be that after more than ________ blank boots have been reached, each missed turn from then on receives a penalty.  Perhaps a combination of penalties should be implemented.  Also, I think some marketing efforts can go a long way to improve the attitude toward being booted.  For example, perhaps a mandatory email should be sent to booted players (and missed turns) describing the future consequences of their inaction.

Ideas for penalties (some are not new):

1. missed turn =auto boot
2. missed turn = minus points
3. restricted site access --> can only access games in which it is their turn (longest turn time first)
4. Cannot join new games
5. Cannot create new games
6. In tournaments, their armies will be neutralized at the start of each new game.
7. Cannot join new tournaments
8. Reduce the number of games an account can play simultaneously
9. Changing their home page to include marketing message regarding the effect of their inaction
10. Option asking other players in the game if they would like to auto-boot player regardless of turn time.
11. In tournaments: missed turn or boot = auto tournament DQ (not able to join future tournament games).

there are probably more......

Aiken Drumn wrote:

Why not, every week one of their boots stops counting towards their ban? So if they build up too many boots they have to chill their heels a while.

I think this is a really good idea.  

I've been noticing a lot of people choosing to boot rather than surrender.  Two people are doing it in the game I'm in now.  It's very frustrating...it holds things up for everybody, and is making the experience of this website less enjoyable.

I really like the idea of being able to screen people with more than X-number of boots when you're creating a game.  To the criticism "then everybody would use that option"...if it's an option with that much appeal, isn't that a reason TO do it?  Also, if I purchase a membership, can I adjust the boot options to eject people after a single missed turn?  Does that exist?