6 new updates for lobby and turn-based

[fackstrote]

Wery well. Thank you. But, i have one question: why if my opponent lose a time for move even on 2 days and longer, i can get rating only for % of a game (not 100 %)? This rule, imho, let bad people using it, and if they lose from the start of the game, save rating points: not move again and lose 10 % of points, for example - this is not fair, how do you think? I think that a time - is the part of a game, and if the player doesn't fit the time - he must lose 100% of rating points, whatever phase of the game...

[7decoeur]

One (unrelated) suggestion:
When there are invited players in a table you host (for example after clicking "rematch") the "[expel player]" button should be renamed to something like "[uninvite player]" for the invited (but not yet joined) players. Functionally, when clicking the button, that player should be removed from the table but still be able to join. When removing them from the table I always want to free up room for any player (including them, if they decide to show up).

I agree, I too don't like that it says I don't want to play with them when I expel them after clicking rematch, as clearly I did want to play with them! I only realised today that they then come under the same category as someone you boot and you can no longer send suggestions to them or they join a game. Some people are just slow, and I mean very slow, to respond to the accept rematch button. I wonder if it is possible to have them removed but still let them join once they'd finished checking their email or whatever it is that was holding them up.

I know you might say, well don't expel them in the first place but then how long is an acceptable wait time before you decide they are not coming back?

[sprockitz]

Wery well. Thank you. But, i have one question: why if my opponent lose a time for move even on 2 days and longer, i can get rating only for % of a game (not 100 %)? This rule, imho, let bad people using it, and if they lose from the start of the game, save rating points: not move again and lose 10 % of points, for example - this is not fair, how do you think? I think that a time - is the part of a game, and if the player doesn't fit the time - he must lose 100% of rating points, whatever phase of the game...

the player loses 100% of points (+10 extra as a penalty) regardless of what % of the game is complete. The percent only impacts how much others gain. So you can never benefit yourself by quitting a game you expect to lose (but you can prevent your opponent from gaining as many points.

[Liallan]

(sorry if I understand the word wrong) Is "managed to reproduce" supposed to mean to make the bug disappeared? If it supposed to mean it... then I am afraid the bug is still there.

The generic definition is to produce again. (Like re-rolling in a game is to roll again.) In this context, looking at bugs, it's meaning the person "testing" the bug is able to produce the bug themselves (hence, reproduce what was reported as a bug), so they see for themselves what this bug is doing, rather than just reading a report from a user who says it happens.

So being able to reproduce it is a good step, but no, it doesn't mean they made it disappear. They still have to try to fix the cause, without breaking something else.

[fackstrote]

the player loses 100% of points (+10 extra as a penalty) regardless of what % of the game is complete. The percent only impacts how much others gain. So you can never benefit yourself by quitting a game you expect to lose (but you can prevent your opponent from gaining as many points.[/quote]

This is not fair too... I can understand why this rule is used? Other players is not guilty that one player lose his time!