Volume players timing out

[pilotlamp]

I play turn-based and more often than not when a player times out it's someone who's in 100+ maybe even 200+ other tables. I'll check their profile and see that not only do they have hundreds of tables, they've launched 10-15 more tables searching for new players. If you can't play within the time limit of your existing tables, you shouldn't be adding more! Is there a limit to how many turn-based tables a user is allowed to play? If not, there definitely should be for those that routinely time out.

The most I've ever seen was 238 tables and the user had dozens of recent time out and exit penalties, but surprisingly reputation was above 75%. I guess the volume of tables allowed them to recover quickly.

[JohnnyCyclops]

Agree on the pain some of these players inflict on others. The problem is that by completing the bulk of games they are able to keep their karma rep high even after being dinged for timeouts. A solution might be to cap maximum concurrent games at the karma levels below 100. It wouldn’t remove games in play but would stop them starting or joining new games until their karma improved.

Say at 90% karma they can’t open or join above 90 games until their karma goes back up. And, to curtail those who jump back up to 100 karma quickly, apply a one or two week lag to recovering the ability to join games above the cap.

A player persistently timing out on games and routinely hitting 80% or 90% karma most days would have an effective rolling cap of 80 or 90 open games at any time.

[pilotlamp]

Or just cap users to 100 tables. Does one really need to have more tables than that? I would think that at some point it ceases to be fun and turns into a full time job.

[nik592]

Just because you don't play with more than 100 tables, doesn't mean others don't, and meet their commitments to play their moves on time (I typically don't run 100 tables either, but I know there are people who do). I don't see an issue with penalising those who have high amounts of quit penalties, but it shouldn't just be a cap on everyone.

[GTSchemer]

I've seen this issue for a long time, anyone who plays tons of tables very quickly recovers any karma penalty, rendering it meaningless.

I think there would need to be special penalties where you get your limit reduced to 100 tables for X weeks or something, if you have a lot of timeouts.

[Andrew Hannay]

I've just played against someone who quit, and after looking at their profile, has quit over 50 games in over 1000 last 60 days, yet they are at 72%. They also have a 'forever' moderator warning. Maybe Karma shouldn't start to be recovered until some time has elapsed, or limit the amount of Karma that can be earned in a peroid of time to stop this potential abuse of the Karma system, which otherwise works very well!

[JoysJoy]

I've just played against someone who quit, and after looking at their profile, has quit over 50 games in over 1000 last 60 days, yet they are at 72%. They also have a 'forever' moderator warning. Maybe Karma shouldn't start to be recovered until some time has elapsed, or limit the amount of Karma that can be earned in a peroid of time to stop this potential abuse of the Karma system, which otherwise works very well!

I just scrolled through the last 45 days of your game and I can’t find any game you played with somebody quit. Can you put the link so I can understand what you’re saying?

[JohnnyCyclops]

I just scrolled through the last 45 days of your game and I can’t find any game you played with somebody quit. Can you put the link so I can understand what you’re saying?

Likely it was Clans of Caledonia around 10th Dec to give poster their first CoC win.

[nik592]

Which would be interesting because for one, that player has 35 timeouts (still a lot, but not 50) in the last 60 days, and does offer some explanation as to why they disappear for periods at a time. Again, not excusing it (interestingly enough, I appear to have already red thumbed that player), but this is better behaviour than some. Additionally, that player is also currently player 60+ games, which if they do have a high amount of idle time (which the comments in their profile may suggest) is not really that many. So I don't think this is an example of "those terrible volume players who always time out", just a case of a player who times out. Once you've learned the lesson that they're not someone you want to play with, red thumb and move on. Others may be more lenient, and that's their choice.

[JoysJoy]

I just scrolled through the last 45 days of your game and I can’t find any game you played with somebody quit. Can you put the link so I can understand what you’re saying?

Likely it was Clans of Caledonia around 10th Dec to give poster their first CoC win.

OP has never played that game. I can’t find it on your list either.