Galactic Magnate logo  
   
 
Forums Home Register FAQ Website  
 
 

Forums home Report cheaters, and other complaints Unsporting conduct
Display posts from previous:   
      All times are GMT  
Post new topic  Reply to topic

Thu Mar 12, 2009 5:23 am
Author Message
MrCrabbs
Guest





Post subject: Unsporting conduct Reply with quote

I have just finished a 4p with daante, lucky_bugga, toon and me as MrCrabbs_2p.

I took a gamble on green - I gave dante all 4 of my blacks, and he gave me 1300 and the final green. It was a massive gamble, and had it failed I would have come last. It left me with only 1500 with go on about 75 and most of the board fully upgraded.

But the gamble did not fail, it worked. And as soon as this was clear, lucky_bugger quit, followed a few seconds later by toon. In doing this, they robbed me of income I would have got from them, and directly handed the game to daante.

Daante gets 18k, I get 2k.

This is extremely unfair, and it eliminates the incentive to try to gamble.

I would like the community to discuss solutions to such problems. I suggest a code of conduct that players can voluntarily sign up to that commits players in multiplayer to play to the end. It can be given a new name, for example "last man standing". If players play a multiplayer and agree it should be a last man standing game, then quitting early would be a punishable offense, whereas not quitting early would not be punishable if players have not stated prior to the game that it is a Last Man Standing.

In fact I would like to go further and say that, as long as all players understand the Last Man Standing rules (ie: that quitting is illegal) then a majority vote of the players who are to play the game is enough for that game to be judged by Last Man Standing rules.


EDIT: I do not think that lucky_bugga or toon were deliberately helping Daante against me. But by quitting, because they had little hope, they inadvertantly changed the outcome of the game. I hope the comminity can find a solution for the future.


Last edited by MrCrabbs on Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:42 am; edited 2 times in total
      Back To Top  

Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:13 am
Author Message
lotta1980
Moon


Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 214
Location: Sweden

Post subject: Reply with quote

Very clever idea from you MrCrabbs.
Really that what we need.
Many problmes happen on 4/5 games when players resign from the game.
Its not fair to change the game from 4/5 game to 2P game as what happen on that game above.
I also suggest that to put new icon for this clever idea(last man standing) like the icon of rated and unrated game.
So players can choose to play last man standing or not.
Good idea MrCrabbs
      Back To Top  

Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:14 am
Author Message
MrCrabbs
Guest





Post subject: Reply with quote

Glad you like it Lotta!
      Back To Top  

Thu Mar 12, 2009 7:45 am
Author Message
palabra
Ex Moderator


Joined: 05 Feb 2009
Posts: 376
Location: right behind you

Post subject: Reply with quote

I have been in several situations like yours where I bought properties and upgraded, thinking that people would actually stay, and then I did worse because they quit.

I wish people could just be more honorable, and not quit unless they genuinely have to leave. In situations like this, where people just quit and then go to the lobby to wait for another game, I find those people shameful.

Last Man Standing would not have to be required, but as an option, it would be a great addition. This just gives people security for game decisions. Then a player would not have to consider, "Hmm, well if someone quits, will this be good?" Having to worry about people being poor sports and quitting ruins the integrity of the game.

Thank you Crabbs for the idea. I am fully behind it.
_________________
if seeing is believing, then believe that we have lost our eyes
      Back To Top  

Thu Mar 12, 2009 11:45 am
Author Message
Magflag12
Moon


Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Posts: 373

Post subject: Reply with quote

I will say this about your idea.

I do hate it when such a thing happens and people quit at bad times and it kind of screws up the game. However, I do not think it is punishable, its just lame. You can't punish a player for leaving a game, even if you think he left to spite you.

HOWEVER. I think Crabbs might be onto something. I think in high point multiplayer games this will be a great addition, of course the decision must be UNANIMOUS before the game begans. Or perhaps RIGHT when you get in the game and are choosing your peices. I think doing a majority rule type thing is unfair, because a player has no set obligation to promise to a code of conduct that is otherwise not really punishable UNLESS he wants it to be.
If a player won't join under Last Man Standing conduct, then don't play with him. Just wait for him to join a different game.

I do have a problem with it, because what happens if a player needs to leave a game due to some emergency or something?
_________________
If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them.
      Back To Top  

Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:09 pm
Author Message
Fort
Planet


Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 1603

Post subject: Reply with quote

Well how many times have u lost the game coz of bad connection? And i know there is no CONCLUSIVE way to tell if the person got disconnected or he quit. Even if u get such a way, its not at all difficult to pull out my internet cable and claim that I got disconnected.

I would take this as part of game.
      Back To Top  

Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:33 pm
Author Message
trace567
Guest





Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with everything fort has said.

I don't think this could be enforceable.
If players quit the game at a position where by they lose points themselves, yet you gain points as your placing has increased in the game. I'm really not sure how this could be workable.

Not to mention if a player genuinely had to leave for a reason. How could it be proved, disproved they had to quit suddenly for an emergency. These things can happen. It would be like penalizing someone for something out their hands.

If the player was deducted points, how could we justify it when they already lost by quitting anyway. Each player who quits adds points to the pot, so to speak.
      Back To Top  

Thu Mar 12, 2009 7:34 pm
Author Message
CYN
Admin
Admin


Joined: 14 Oct 2006
Posts: 1407
Location: United States

Post subject: GAME PLAY Reply with quote

I dont like this idea, (no offense mr crabbs) players are free to quit at any time. i try to finish every game no matter what and have had people get upset with me because they state that i have lost and am wasting their time. you never know what may happen and you take chances with what you purchase or trade. Penalizing someone for quitting would not be justified. IMO
_________________
CYN

ITS ALL GOOD
      Back To Top  

Thu Mar 12, 2009 7:54 pm
Author Message
MrCrabbs
Guest





Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you for your replies to this. To CYN, playing on in a 2p when you have clearly lost is indeed a waste of other players time. But not playing on in multiplayer has a distortionary effect, and in the absense of Last Man Standing (LMS) rules is a method of easy cheating.

To Magflag, I thank you for raising the question of unanimity vs majority vote. I would argue that, since if you lose the majority vote, you are still free to play, and abide by majority verdict, or not play in that game (since the vote takes place before the game starts), means that a majority vote would be sufficient. Indeed, since players ultimately get to decide whether to play and abide by the rules that have been voting for, all players who enter the game are still unanimously agreeing to PLAY BY those rules, even if they did not VOT FOR those rules.

However I would understand if it is thought unanimity should apply.

DC/emergency problems that players have raised are probably the most potentially troublesome to the idea of voluntary LMS rules. CYN and Trace have also raised the related issue of fairness of punishment under LMS. But I would like to explain how the nature of the idea overcomes these problems to a large degree, and I do so now:

Fort wrote:
Well how many times have u lost the game coz of bad connection?...I would take this as part of game.


Magflag12 wrote:
I do have a problem with it, because what happens if a player needs to leave a game due to some emergency or something?


trace567 wrote:
If the player was deducted points, how could we justify it when they already lost by quitting anyway.


CYN wrote:
Penalizing someone for quitting would not be justified. IMO


If players vote for the rules, they are each saying, "Yes I want everyone to stay to the end, and I have no problems with my internet and don't foresee any emergencies that will call me away."

If their preferred option doesn't win, but they still agree to play, they are saying, "I can accept the terms of the rules (Normal or LMS) that have been voted for, and am happy to be bound by them."

There is thus no injustice in holding them to rules they have agreed to. Indeed since LMS rules are require a vote, whereas the normal rules are there by default, it is in fact easier to justify holding someon to LMS rules, if they have been decided on as outlined.

If you are having internet issues that you think could cause you to lose connection you would vote no to the LMS rules. Or if there are server issues at the time, all players would rationally vote no, since any one of them could face a fine when they hadn't cheated. And even if the vote did result in a yes to LMS rules, you wouldn't play if you had a dodgy connection or were experiencing server issues.

The vote solves most major enforcement problems. In the event of the server playing up, all players would notice and can declare in-game or afterwards, by another vote, the LMS rules to be null and void. In the event of dispute over whether there were server issues at the time, there is usually a mod online who can verify whether or not there were server issues at that time. But by accepting LMS rules, you are saying that any DC that happens at your end through your computer, and does not happen at a time of server problems, is your responsibility. But you are not taking responsibility for server crashes.

So in summary, this idea requires little more than for the mods to agree that IF Last Man Standing Rules are voted for by players of a game, THEN they will be implemented, and IF they are not voted for, THEN they will not be implemented, and normal rules apply. Furthermore, in the event that no vote on rules is held prior to the game, Normal rules will be applied, rather than LMS.

I encourage further fruitful discussion of this, but not simply of the form "I don't like it" please. I have responded to all criticisms levelled and put considerable thought into this, which solves a genuine problem. Hopefully I have shown that the objections raised are not insurmountable, and I tried to in-build solutions to them as I devised the idea. Please come back with more thoughts on this. If it works out it could be made into a full-blown part of the game with a Last Man Standing Option to tick when selecting a game, as Lotta suggests.


Last edited by MrCrabbs on Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:48 pm; edited 11 times in total
      Back To Top  

Thu Mar 12, 2009 9:20 pm
Author Message
lotta1980
Moon


Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 214
Location: Sweden

Post subject: Reply with quote

4P game
Started about 9:05 Sweden time on 12-Mars-2009

Players :
AddyD
Monopol_ace_2
veneshborg (me)
agentW


Player Monopol_ace_2 leave the game and didnt roll - so the game was changed from 4P to 3P to meet 2 players do a cheat on me.


Must come to an end for players who leave the game and changed the strategy.
      Back To Top  

Thu Mar 12, 2009 9:57 pm
Author Message
MrCrabbs
Guest





Post subject: Reply with quote

One more point which I want to keep separate from my already rather long post above, is this:

Fort wrote:
...there is no CONCLUSIVE way to tell if the person got disconnected or he quit. Even if u get such a way, its not at all difficult to pull out my internet cable and claim that I got disconnected.


Now, in my post of a little while ago I showed how this is not a problem in one regard since all players have been bound to the LMS rules if they agreed to play under them by entering a game where the majority wanted them.

However there is a related point. If the server were acting up, you could unplug your connection, and hide behind the known fact of a dodgy server at that time, and thus avoid the punishment you have supposedly signed up to.

However, this is largely a moot point, since you would still lose the points you would have lost under Normal Rules. No harm is done by using LMS rules rather than Normal Rules in this scenario.
      Back To Top  

Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:32 pm
Author Message
MrCrabbs
Guest





Post subject: Reply with quote

Idea 2:: Points for lasting.

Another idea to solve the problem of early quitters might be to provide an incentive to play on, for example in addition to (NOT as a replacement for) the usual points calculation, we could have an extra component that gives you points for how long you last relative to the winner.

So, if you only lose by one roll you get almost as many "bonus" points as the winner does (if the winner gets 100% of the max possible bonus points, you get 99% for example). Whereas if you crash out half way through the game, you only get half the bonus points that the winner gets.

This idea is inferior really to LMS rules IMO, but has the advantage of requiring no effort from mods. But it would require a programming change from Kreso, and would I think not solve the problem as effectively. It would heve the disadvantage of punishing quitting at the start heaily, when it is most likely to be by accident (because you are AFK) and punishing cheats that occur at a crucial point during the game less heavily.
      Back To Top  
Post new topic  Reply to topic

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


      Back To Top  

Page 1 of 1
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Avalanche style by What Is Real © 2004