SpielByWeb

[Brontoceratops]

There needs to be a way to exclude specific players from a given game.

I'm in several games with one player who takes forever to take his turns. Fine...some folks are going to play that way, and I don't mind having a few games with them.

But I'd like to be able to play a few games at a reasonable pace, as well. So I created a new game mentioning in the descriptive line that that particular slow player was not invited to join this one...and yet, he did.

Sure, I could password all my games, but then I'd be stuck playing only with people I already know. I'd prefer to be challenged by new opponents...but not constantly stonewalled by individual known sluggards.

[Big Bad Lex]

Seeing how you have only been registered for 5 days and have finished one game already, I think you may have an unrealistic attitude to how long a game can take here. To finish a game in less than a week is exceptional and you will have to accept that some players can't access games all day. I currently have a Wallenstein game in year 2 which started in January and two games dating back to March

Ironically in the game where you tried to exclude your nemesis he (she?) is waiting on you my friend.

It is perhaps a little premature to be dictating terms (IMHO) and if you know players with all day PC access like you and speed is so important then get them in passworded games. If you truly want an open forum then an open mind and attitude needs to be adopted.
_________________
It's not the winning, it's utter annihilation of your opponant that matters.

[Asterix]

In fairness to Brontoceratops, his request to be able to play a game without a specific player is not that unreasonable. The same could apply to any passworded game if someone was able to guess the password. The "speedy" password game players would get upset if someone with an average turn time of 29 hours joined their game too.

[milksheikh]

Well, yes, I guess it is a fair request. But I don't think a system to allow game creators to hand-pick users they don't want to play against is in enough demand to justify the time it would take to implement (and I'm not aware of any other site that does this -- please let me know if I'm wrong).

But I also have to wonder -- the original poster first played in a game with the "slow player" two days ago, and in that short a time decided that the "slow player" plays too slowly. But rather than any sort of friendly communication in the messaging function he/she creates a new game with the comment "A [slow player's username]-free zone".

If I was the "slow player", I might also have been tempted to join the new game. Spite is a powerful thing.

Would it not have been better to make the comment "Players able to make 3 moves a day" or something like that, rather than singling out one person you don't actually know (and ignoring the 1500+ other users who probably can't keep up with your pace)?

This is supposed to be a fun place to play games. That takes some understanding, some consideration, and some patience from all sides. If someone isn't meeting your expectations, explain that to them, politely.

One day I will finish my work to allow games to be restricted to players with a proven history of fast play. Until then, patience, please!

[Brontoceratops]

I would actually be pleased with an option to provide a short paragraph describing what's sought for a particular game.

In terms of speed, I don't mind having games going at an assortment of speeds, I just don't want every copy of a game that I try to play bogged down to the same rate by the same player (certainly, previously unencountered players could prove just as unavailable or moreso, but at least they'd be new experiences).

[Onceler]

I think an exclude option is critical. I have played several games here, and I love the site. Thanks for all the hard work.

My guess is that most people use a public site to find people with whom to play. For example, I never use passwords when I start a game, because I don't know that many people who will play all the games I want to play. Such open forums need some sort of mechanism to control negative behavior. Thins like exclude tools help to make the community stronger.

I have found a few instances of players abandoning games when they are clearly losing. Here's a specific example of a game that I should win, but it will be added to my incomplete games because the current player is clearly losing, and seems uninterested in finishing the game 4318 Reef Encounter 4 STARTED Fri Feb 24, 2006 4:23 am
LAST ACTIVITY Sun Mar 12, 2006 8:27 pm alkyla Round 8

This type of behavior makes me less likely to play at spielbyweb.

If you enable a block feature, then these users will eventually be blocked from most games, and there will be a consequence for the rude behavior. Even better, you could include a statistic that shows how many users are blocking any given user.
_________________
Who's turn is it anyway?

[Golux13]

Instead of an "Exclude Player" feature, I would prefer to see a system that gives people a "sportsmanship" rating based primarily on the number of games abandoned during their turn. Other player feedback could be included, but that has the potential for abuse. Basically, everybody would start at a sportsmanship rating of 100%, and lose points with abandonment, possibly other factors. When you create a game, you can then decide what rating is required to join the game, e.g., 80% or higher. Eventually, the rotten apples will fall out.

You'd probably want some mechanism for getting your rating back up, but in my view, people who play won't drop off, people who screw up games will.

The mechanism needs refinement, but I think it's somewhat less pissy than excluding specific people.

[laevus]

Seems to be a hot topic. The opposite to an "exclude" feature would obviously be an "approve" feature. What I mean by this is I suggest that game organizers have, as an option, the right to approve or deny players who join their games. If they select this feature during game setup, then they would be required to either approve entry, or deny entry, to all players who join. Only after enough players have been approved can the game begin.

I would also suggest, if this feature becomes a reality, the game organizer have a short comment line to add to the auto-reply for denials so that they could politely explain why they were denying entry. Most people are pretty understanding, especially since this mechanism would dramatically minimize the necessity for password protected games.

Just my thoughts. Thanks for making this great site and forum.

[Onceler]

Hmmm, reading the comments, I like something like Golux13 suggested. Maybe a direct "exclude" feature is too targeted.

To have a filter based on objective stats, like number of games abandoned, or some sort of approval rating, gives game organizers the opportunity to set the standards for the game (like abandoned games less than some percent).

It seems that alot of this tracking data is already a part of the profiles, it's just not implemented in a way where a game organizer can look at the data, and make choices based on what they read.

If you opt for a subjective measure, like a sportsmanship rating, then you should also allow users to give positive feedback about a user so that someone with a checkered past can work their way back up to the max approval rating by demonstrating good behavior.
_________________
Who's turn is it anyway?

[sbszine]

A timeout option would be good. When creating a game, set a time limit -- say, 30 days for each player, with each move by a player adding one day onto that person's clock. Make the clock only run down on that persons turn, just like a multiplayer chess clock. Then when someone's clock runs out, you freeze their position as is, reduce that person's score to zero, and skip their turns from then on. That way the game can end, and the offender will take a loss.

Another option is just to set a maximum amount of time between your turn beginning and the time you make your move (say 7 days). If you don't submit a move within that time, penalties are applied as above.

The former system is used at www.dragongoserver.net and the latter at itsyourturn.com , so there's a precedent.

[eratos]

But I believe that precedent only works with 2-player games.

Surely there are many cases in 3+ player games where skipping a players turn has a kingmaking effect?

Trying to think of a simple example. Along the lines of Player A would like to attack into Player B's territory, but in doing so would be vulnerable to an attack by Player C from the opposite direction. Thus B doesn't reinforce the area, knowing that it is in A's best interest not to attack.

Suddenly C is removed from the game due to timeout and the whole dynamic of te game has changed - C's turn will be skipped so A can attack with impunity, does so an thus wins an otherwise tight game.

I'm sure you can think of your own examples applicable to games on this site.

[craw-daddy]

Well, yes, how does this work with a game like Amun-Re for example? When you're auctioning provinces, this would affect the results if you suddenly have four people bidding for five provinces (say, in rounds 4-6). The competition for biggest pyramids can now be drastically out of whack when a player gets dropped.

This just doesn't work when you're in a game with more than two players as the whole dynamics of the game suddenly shifts when I player is "dropped" in the manner you describe.

[Golux13]

[Llama]

I also think an exclude option would not be worth the time it took to implement it. Ludagora handles slow players and players who drop games by doing two things:

1) set expectations for moves/day or moves/week. Their options range from mulitple moves per day to 1 move per week. I usually play in the 2-3 moves per week games, and we all have a good time.

2) they have a system of levels, and you can set a minimum level target for people to join the games. I don't know how the levels are determined, but it does have something to do with the number of games you've completed, I think. Personally, I almost never set a target level; I'll play anybody.

Finally, and I think this is being worked on here, too, there is a provision for finding replacement players for games where people have abandoned them. It works quite well, IMHO.
_________________
--
Regards,


joe
Joe Casadonte
jcasadonte@northbound-train.com

[Onceler]

Hi all. I never go on like this. It’s just that I feel pretty strongly about this issue . The reason why I care about some sort of way to control negative behavior, is because negative behavior has already affected my desire to play at SBW.

I really like this site, and the play by mail format. To me, SBW is the best in its class, and certain games . . . like Reef, are simply better played by mail (games with extensive downtime per player turn are ideal for SBW).

It because of my appreciation of the site, that I offer my last opinions in favor of some sort of filtering mechanism.

Re whether it's worth it - I am not sure how long it would take to implement a filter. It seems to me that the system already tracks abandoned games, and creating a percentage of abandoned games for each user seems easy. How hard can it be to have a check box when creating a game that allows user to invoke the filter? It's an if/then check on this stat? It just doesn't seem very complicated, particularly when compare to implementing Caylus. . . but maybe I'm wrong.

Personally, I'd pay some amount to have the ability to filter abusive users, so if the issue is difficulty, then just make it a premium package option. More complex for sure, but those who care would likely support the effort.

Re rehabilitation, as long as you've posted the rules clearly, I don't think you'll need a way to rehabilitate, but I understand the desire to not punish the naive, or the troubled. If players know that they might get kicked, then they will be less likely to abandon in the first place, or more likely to use the "out of town" or "travel" options that already exist. The possibility that someone has a work deadline, needs to travel, or encounters whatever unexpected event, can already all be handled in a fair way. If the site managers want a way to grant a "second chance" then it's possible to only use the percentage of abandoned games for the past 6 or 12 months, thereby giving each abuser a clean slate after some length of time.

Re the fixes mentioned so far, the first, setting expectations, is already used at SBW, and it doesn't work. Those with bad behavior do not care what the expectations are.

The second, the "level" indicator seems like an amalgam of many stats? and it seems like a far more complex suggestion than something simple, like a filter for abandoned games. It also seems odd that user are willing to recommend something that they don't use, and that they aren't quite sure how it works or what it is. If one person doesn’t get it, then others probably don't, and how useful can it be?

My comments are nothing personal. I respect these user’s opinions. I just think my bad luck with people leaving games has just made this a far more important issue to me.

My best to all, and I really do appreciate all the hard work and effort that people put into making this site great.
_________________
Who's turn is it anyway?