|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Attacking an absent player - etiquette? |
Mon, 14 June 2004 07:02   |
|
|
|
There is also a reliability index in the ranking schema of our forum.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Attacking an absent player - etiquette? |
Mon, 14 June 2004 09:32 |
|
|
|
| mazda wrote on Mon, 14 June 2004 08:42 |
| donjon wrote on Mon, 14 June 2004 12:02 |
There is also a reliability index in the ranking schema of our forum.
|
Aye, but we're all on zero.
I suspect all you hosts/mods must have some idea of players who regularly drop out in a bad manner.
|
Yep. I don't believe in a "public" blacklist since it's open to abuse. (Reliability factor in ratings is different.) However, I do keep a personal list of those who drop games without warning. And they need one heck of a good explanation at a later date to get back in my good graces. [That due to the fact I was lenient to someone once and got bit a second time.]
And I've seen a few of those names appear in other games and then pull off a similar stunt - thus making me suspect the excuse I got after the fact...
- Kurt
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Attacking an absent player - etiquette? |
Mon, 14 June 2004 10:40 |
|
 mlaub |
 | Lieutenant |
Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA | |
|
| overworked wrote on Mon, 14 June 2004 08:32 |
Yep. I don't believe in a "public" blacklist since it's open to abuse. (Reliability factor in ratings is different.) However, I do keep a personal list of those who drop games without warning.
|
How do you feel about players that pull up all their pop, and scrap all their designs? I think their is a line there. Just dropping out is aggravating and stupid IMO, and I agree with not giving those players first choice in a game that I host. However, I don't try to publically humiliate or mark them.
Players that maliciously attempt to hurt other players, or destabilize the game, should get the recognition they deserve. A public service message warning other hosts of what that/those player(s) have, or attempted would be helpful.
Just my 
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Attacking an absent player - etiquette? |
Mon, 14 June 2004 11:52 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
How do you feel about players that pull up all their pop, and scrap all their designs? I think their is a line there.
|
I am guessing that one depends on the full situation, never seen it happen in my limited experiance.
In theory a person not doing so well may still try to win through diplomacy. He may threaten a course of action that will ruin others chances as well unless they help or quit harming... If they refuse then he may carry out his threat.
In such a case he may really have been trying to win in his own bizarre way, then wanted to keep his word.
But...
In simply trying to destroy a game like a Greg V., there I would draw line too.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Attacking an absent player - etiquette? |
Mon, 14 June 2004 12:16 |
|
|
|
| mlaub wrote on Mon, 14 June 2004 10:40 |
| overworked wrote on Mon, 14 June 2004 08:32 |
Yep. I don't believe in a "public" blacklist since it's open to abuse. (Reliability factor in ratings is different.) However, I do keep a personal list of those who drop games without warning.
|
How do you feel about players that pull up all their pop, and scrap all their designs? I think their is a line there. Just dropping out is aggravating and stupid IMO, and I agree with not giving those players first choice in a game that I host. However, I don't try to publically humiliate or mark them.
Players that maliciously attempt to hurt other players, or destabilize the game, should get the recognition they deserve. A public service message warning other hosts of what that/those player(s) have, or attempted would be helpful.
Just my
-Matt
|
Race suicide is sort of double-edged. If they self-destruct than no one has an opportunity to gain tech from invading them (flipside is there is absolutely no resistence to invasions.) In any case, a drop-out basically creates a power vacuum in that sector since even if you aren't immediately planning on attacking them you know they aren't going to attack you. It's a safe flank while you concentrate elsewhere.
I've not made any public remarks yet on any specific players who have dropped from games I've hosted without any explanation. It's simply that I'm going to be very wary of letting them into further games that I host. I give much greater credit to those who play out the string and go down fighting.
The only time I've contacted a host in that sort of situation was for a team game I was joining where the host was making the teams up. I requested *not* to be teamed with a particular player given their previous behavior. (And later found out that another team leader had made a similar request for the same reason.) And fortunately/unfortunately we proved to be right since the player in question dropped from that game as well before 2420.
- Kurt
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Attacking an absent player - etiquette? |
Mon, 14 June 2004 12:21 |
|
| wizard |
 | Officer Cadet 3rd Year |
Messages: 279
Registered: January 2004
Location: Aachen, Germany | |
|
Hi,
I think that you should always draw a line between in-game and out-of-game. This means that things like other players missing turns should not effect your in-game plans. I just don't like these things mixed together, as it is just a game. Perhaps, it's part of my role playing background, but I always try not to allow out-of-game information to have influence on my in-game decisions, and, maybe stupid, I expect this from other players too. Of course, it doesn't work all the time (i.e. I look in the list if other players missed their turns), but I try to do it, and I try not to make use of out-of-game knowledge. This means, if I am preparing to attack another player, I won't stop it if that player becomes absent, and if attacking a player which is not sensible in normal circumstances, I won't do it when he is absent.
Andreas
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Attacking an absent player - etiquette? |
Mon, 14 June 2004 12:24 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
It is quite common practice to have 2 sets of orders prepared for a player that's often missing turns: one normal and one that takes the advantage of him being absent. In games played on AH I used to wait till 5 minutes before the turn would be generated and then submitted the other set of orders.
|
in other words, when playing against Iztok it is useful to intentionally miss a turn in a safe manner, then submit the second year with 2 minutes to go knowing he'll fall into the ambush
[Updated on: Mon, 14 June 2004 12:25] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Attacking an absent player - etiquette? |
Tue, 15 June 2004 12:49 |
|
| Strat |
 | Petty Officer 1st Class |
Messages: 62
Registered: March 2004 | |
|
| iztok wrote on Tue, 15 June 2004 00:09 |
Hi!
| multilis wrote on Mon, 14 June 2004 18:24 |
in other words, when playing against Iztok it is useful to intentionally miss a turn in a safe manner, then submit the second year with 2 minutes to go knowing he'll fall into the ambush
|
This you'd pull out only once. The next time you'd try that I'd make sure you'd pay an awful price. Playing against me isn't simple at all, you know  .
BR, Iztok
|
hehehehehehehh
[Updated on: Tue, 15 June 2004 12:49] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
), but then again the attacker surely isn't expected to park his fleet a turn away and wait indefinitely for his opponent to return to the game? If it makes a difference to how it'd normally be handled, this wasn't a surprise attack - hostilities have been ongoing for some time.
)
