why on line gamers are so impatient?

[Fuchur]

Do I have the right to stay in bed for more than 4 hours ? Should I bring my laptop (+ personal internet connection) to work to be able to make some moves during lunch break ?

You should not play at those tables if it's a concern for you.

I don't understand what you're arguing for here. Are you saying those tables shouldn't exist? I'm sure plenty of users are able to play at those tables and not exceed their turn time. Not every game setting needs to be for you, and that's okay.

So you are saying that there people willing to stay less than 4 hours in bed just in case it might be their turn on some BGA-table and otherwise they might be kicked ?
If this is what you want to say, than yes, indeed, this seems really unhealthy to me and this type of table shouldn't exist (in my opinion).
I suppose i didn't understood correctly what you wanted to say. And yes, I'm fine with the fact that a lot of tables don't suit me.

[nik592]

So you are saying that there people willing to stay less than 4 hours in bed just in case it might be their turn on some BGA-table and otherwise they might be kicked ?

A table with 4 hours per turn (actually 3 hours per turn is the closest thing there is) has playing hours, which should be chosen to suit the player's waking schedule. So no, I don't think so.

Even in the case where it's 6 hours per turn with no playing hours, I suspect most people (like myself) still sleep normally and play turns when they wake up. That's what the buffer is for. Theoretically, you will play additional turns in less than 6 hours at a time during the day and catch up your buffer anyway.

[Jellby]

I don't often play turn-based games. But when I do play 4-moves-per-day games, it's not uncommon for me to find myself with 12-15 hours left of my time when I first check a table in the day (i.e. it's been my turn for 9-12 hours, but I was asleep, or just not using BGA). I make my move, and when it's my turn again (maybe a few hours later) I have 21 hours left (15 + 6 more hours for my new turn). Since I'm now at my computer, I can make my move almost immediately, or maybe in a couple of hours. Next turn again have my full 24 hours back. Even if that happens when I just log out for the day, the next day I have 12-15 hours left again, and so on.

In a table with 4 or more players, it could happen that times align badly and I don't get to play more than 1 move per day. In that case, my time will eventually run out. But this is, I believe, very uncommon. And I could prevent it by making a move at inconvenient times once every few days (for that particular table with bad time alignments).

[Suoivax]

So you are saying that there people willing to stay less than 4 hours in bed just in case it might be their turn on some BGA-table and otherwise they might be kicked ?
If this is what you want to say, than yes, indeed, this seems really unhealthy to me and this type of table shouldn't exist (in my opinion).
I suppose i didn't understood correctly what you wanted to say. And yes, I'm fine with the fact that a lot of tables don't suit me.

I dont think you grasp how the system works. I play on those tables all the time. I get 8 - 8.5 hours of sleep most nights and very rarely run out of time.

[Fuchur]

So you are saying that there people willing to stay less than 4 hours in bed just in case it might be their turn on some BGA-table and otherwise they might be kicked ?
If this is what you want to say, than yes, indeed, this seems really unhealthy to me and this type of table shouldn't exist (in my opinion).
I suppose i didn't understood correctly what you wanted to say. And yes, I'm fine with the fact that a lot of tables don't suit me.

I dont think you grasp how the system works. I play on those tables all the time. I get 8 - 8.5 hours of sleep most nights and very rarely run out of time.

Well, I used also to play this type of table. And usually it worked out fine -- until a few days ago. I'm not quite sure what happened. Perhaps i was less online because of the good weather or i had less patient co-players.

[Trouncing]

Should the remaining players be forced to play with you again if they disagree with your decision?

Nope, and currently they aren't. If Player 1 ejects Player 2 from the table for running out of time, then players 3 and 4 are free to finish the game without player 2, or leave the game without penalty and red thumb player 1 as "personal opinion" so they don't have to play with them again.

Any of the proposals I've seen to prevent Player 2 from being removed from the game for exceeding their time limit is forcing Player 1 to keep playing with someone they don't want to play with.

I guess the only question left to ask would be if you think it is ok to boot as a non winner for ELO purposes in a game where the out of time player is clearly playing and player 3 or 4 are about to win.

[Cile]

Should the remaining players be forced to play with you again if they disagree with your decision?

Nope, and currently they aren't. If Player 1 ejects Player 2 from the table for running out of time, then players 3 and 4 are free to finish the game without player 2, or leave the game without penalty and red thumb player 1 as "personal opinion" so they don't have to play with them again.

Any of the proposals I've seen to prevent Player 2 from being removed from the game for exceeding their time limit is forcing Player 1 to keep playing with someone they don't want to play with.

I guess the only question left to ask would be if you think it is ok to boot as a non winner for ELO purposes in a game where the out of time player is clearly playing and player 3 or 4 are about to win.

Player 3 and 4 get credited for a win anyway, they don't lose any ELO. It's unfortunate that they don't get to finish their game because player 2 couldn't play within the turn limit but I haven't heard any solutions that don't involve just letting player 2 further abuse their time, or trapping player 1 in a game that is going slower than what they signed up for.

I could see an argument for not not allowing ejecting a player if they took an action in the last 5-10 seconds, but it would have to be coded carefully to not allow a malicious user to cycle repeatable actions all day.

The only other option I could think of is pause the game when a player is ejected and have all remaining players choose to leave now or keep playing, those that choose to leave have the same result as now, if atleast 2 choose to keep playing they continue and get scored accordingly at the end of the game. But that could unfairly give someone more ELO/Arena points than they deserve. I think the current system is the most reasonable compromise.

[Trouncing]

Nope, and currently they aren't. If Player 1 ejects Player 2 from the table for running out of time, then players 3 and 4 are free to finish the game without player 2, or leave the game without penalty and red thumb player 1 as "personal opinion" so they don't have to play with them again.

Any of the proposals I've seen to prevent Player 2 from being removed from the game for exceeding their time limit is forcing Player 1 to keep playing with someone they don't want to play with.

I guess the only question left to ask would be if you think it is ok to boot as a non winner for ELO purposes in a game where the out of time player is clearly playing and player 3 or 4 are about to win.

Player 3 and 4 get credited for a win anyway, they don't lose any ELO. It's unfortunate that they don't get to finish their game because player 2 couldn't play within the turn limit but I haven't heard any solutions that don't involve just letting player 2 further abuse their time, or trapping player 1 in a game that is going slower than what they signed up for.

I could see an argument for not not allowing ejecting a player if they took an action in the last 5-10 seconds, but it would have to be coded carefully to not allow a malicious user to cycle repeatable actions all day.

The only other option I could think of is pause the game when a player is ejected and have all remaining players choose to leave now or keep playing, those that choose to leave have the same result as now, if atleast 2 choose to keep playing they continue and get scored accordingly at the end of the game. But that could unfairly give someone more ELO/Arena points than they deserve. I think the current system is the most reasonable compromise.

I really like the part about not allowing ejecting if they took an action in the last 5-10 seconds. Literally just played a trade heavy game of CATAN where I suspect the last place player tried to skip someone who was leading midgame. He was never afk or slow on his turn... just the trade counter withered his timer... a lot of players don't know about it. The culprit never fessed up to it or I would be certain.

[dizzymisslizzy17]

[/quote]
I really like the part about not allowing ejecting if they took an action in the last 5-10 seconds. Literally just played a trade heavy game of CATAN where I suspect the last place player tried to skip someone who was leading midgame. He was never afk or slow on his turn... just the trade counter withered his timer... a lot of players don't know about it. The culprit never fessed up to it or I would be certain.
[/quote]

I 100% agree that it is rude to eject someone who is actively playing their turn. But, if there were some mechanism created that prevented ejecting players whose time had expired but were actively playing the game, there would be players who would abuse it and sorta hijack a game. They could just keep clicking on different options to keep their clock active, forcing their opponents to wait until eventually their opponents would quit.

I'd hate to solve one problematic behavior by introducing a different problem.

[Jellby]

Perhaps, at least for real-time games, it should be the opposite: As soon as a player is overtime, the other players are offered a (secret) vote on whether they'd like to wait longer. If any player says no, or if any player fails to reply within a reasonable time (e.g. 20-60 seconds), the player in red is automatically expelled.