Should Real Time be disabled for solo games?

[nik592]

You, and everyone else who encounters those messages, seem to understand what happened. If you think it is that much of an issue, go raise a bug about it. Once again, you seem to be the only person who thinks this is an issue worth arguing for. As I do not, I will not continue.

[tbhp]

If you think it is that much of an issue, go raise a bug about it.

The funny thing is the "bug" label is badly used by the site too. A bug is a unintentional mistake that makes something not work the way it was intended to. Disagreeing on a change or a feature is not a bug report, neither is calling out something that they know they are doing wrong. Those complaints should be labelled as suggestions, not bugs.

[Jellby]

Those complaints should be labelled as suggestions, not bugs.

Yes, they "should"

[tbhp]

Wow, looks like they actually listened to me this time...

To my credit, people on the forums usually talk of the feature as "bug" report, even when the topic is actually about suggestions. So it's understandable that I would be under the impression that the site only makes mentions of bugs, not suggestions.

[BarnardsStar]

To my credit, people on the forums usually talk of the feature as "bug" report, even when the topic is actually about suggestions. So it's understandable that I would be under the impression that the site only makes mentions of bugs, not suggestions.

This is rather rich, coming from the person who wrote (in another thread):

Also, you and Ceaseless are criticizing my comment even though you understood it perfectly, on behalf of OP who supposedly would be confused by it, but OP hasn't even replied anything to me. You are the only ones apparently taking issue with it. So it comes off like you are being willfully obtuse.

So when you omit something that you think should be obvious to everybody even if you didn’t actually say it, that’s fine and doesn’t deserve any criticism, but when other people do it “it’s understandable that [you would be under a misapprehension]”?

[FrankJones]

So, my question is, should real time be disabled for solo games?

[nik592]

If you think it is that much of an issue, go raise a bug about it.

The funny thing is the "bug" label is badly used by the site too. A bug is a unintentional mistake that makes something not work the way it was intended to. Disagreeing on a change or a feature is not a bug report, neither is calling out something that they know they are doing wrong. Those complaints should be labelled as suggestions, not bugs.

My job is literally analysing support requests. We use the word bug interchangeably with suggestion (or actually, new feature/enhancement) as do many in the industry. All of these designations have slightly different meanings and do determine how they are handled. But for the sake of reporting? It's the same system. Go report the issue in the system designed for reporting such issues. Those who analyse them will make a designation of where it belongs. Quit wasting everyone's time by arguing semantics when you understood perfectly well what was intended.

So, my question is, should real time be disabled for solo games?

I would have said yes, definitely, but someone in this thread I think pointed out that a user may want to use it as some kind of time trial/training with a clock to improve their skills. So from that POV, maybe it has worth? But when they removed the ability to have ranked, non-timed games because some people were getting stuck in a real-time game where someone just vanished, and were then blocked from starting another RT game, many among us said, maybe just ditch "RT" untimed (friendly) games. Because if it's untimed, then it shouldn't matter if it's RT or TB from the server's POV and shouldn't block you from running another (actual) RT game.

This suggestion did not happen as far as I'm aware. It might have got implemented with the introduction of the new lobby, but at the time, that suggestion, which would have solved the problem they were reportedly trying to solve was completely ignored. And then they brought up some other thing about how people were abusing untimed games by not quitting when losing. Except if your opponent doesn't kick you, you can do the same. And given that untimed ranked games were only available with Friends, I think it's quite likely that if you're trying to abuse the system, your friend is probably ok with helping you with that (or if not, they probably wouldn't play untimed ranked games with you many times either).

So... maybe? I guess I can see why someone might want it? But maybe the "table will be abandoned after 4 hours without any moves" needs to be clearer?

[FrankJones]

Right. I mean, I hear you. As some may know, I'm a "developer" here for Terraforming Mars. As such, I often set up friendly mode or solo games to test things. I could do this in Studio, but I don't.


Point is, for a friendly mode game (hotseat or solo), there is no reason to set it to real time. It just makes no sense to set a friendly mode game to real time. I didn't even realize this was even an option until my friend and colleague noticed it.

One of the benefits of playing solo or friendly is: no timers. So why set it to real time and have it end after 4 hours of inactivity?

[tbhp]

To my credit, people on the forums usually talk of the feature as "bug" report, even when the topic is actually about suggestions. So it's understandable that I would be under the impression that the site only makes mentions of bugs, not suggestions.

This is rather rich, coming from the person who wrote (in another thread):

Also, you and Ceaseless are criticizing my comment even though you understood it perfectly, on behalf of OP who supposedly would be confused by it, but OP hasn't even replied anything to me. You are the only ones apparently taking issue with it. So it comes off like you are being willfully obtuse.

So when you omit something that you think should be obvious to everybody even if you didn’t actually say it, that’s fine and doesn’t deserve any criticism, but when other people do it “it’s understandable that [you would be under a misapprehension]”?

It is not obvious at all that the site would acknowledge the distinction between bugs and suggestions. They've been known to do way more head scratching things than that.

Also, a user describing what is a suggestion as a bug is a factually wrong statement. In my comment you reference, I didn't make any inaccurate statement, simply something that could be interpreted the wrong way if the user has low reading comprehension.

[BarnardsStar]

It is not obvious at all that the site would acknowledge the distinction between bugs and suggestions. They've been known to do way more head scratching things than that.

Also, a user describing what is a suggestion as a bug is a factually wrong statement. In my comment you reference, I didn't make any inaccurate statement, simply something that could be interpreted the wrong way if the user has low reading comprehension.

In that case you answered a newbie’s question in an extremely misleading way, deliberately as you acknowledged. Now, you can engage in name-calling against all of us who have complained (and I do take offense to your insult, I am putting you on notice), but remember the old adage: when everyone is against you, consider that it may be you who are wrong, not them.

In this case, it is completely obvious they make this distinction. It even says so on the main community page, and I am extremely surprised someone who’s been around and as active as you wouldn’t know this. Astonished, even. Which makes this a completely different case from giving misleading responses to newbies. It’s not factually wrong to anyone who knows better, which you should have.