How would your methodology cope with players who have disabled chat?
Game Abandonment Fix?
Sort:
System messages still be displayed even when you disable chat. This isn't a peer-to-peer communication. It's peer-system-peer. Or a pop-up.
On one hand, I understand your frustration. However, I would probably oppose this change
1. A pop-up is annoying when you're taking a long time to move because you are calculating real hard-it's an important move.
2. It's true that I don't play live chess as much as I used to, but this was never a huge problem. In my 400+ games, this has only happened some 5-10 times-that's 1-2%.
3. Is this really such a huge problem? Open chesstempo in an alternate tab, or fetch a book. When I sit down to a 2x20 min game, I set aside 40 minutes for the game and am willing to spend that time.
Note: What changes suggested in the forums have actually been implemented?
How about the fact YOU JUST DID THAT IN OUR GAME TROLL. dude sits there and says "sucks to have to wait 6 min doesn't it". WHAT A LOSER.
How about the fact YOU JUST DID THAT IN OUR GAME TROLL. dude sits there and says "sucks to have to wait 6 min doesn't it". WHAT A LOSER.
You mean when you insisted I resign the second you took my queen. Followed by the comment that you're too good for me?
Yeah. I retorted that you would have to actually WIN the game. Oh. And then we rematched. So I never walked away. Stop trolling and get a life, Tim.
(PS - 1250 does not make you a grand champion. It makes you average).
jkholzsager wrote:
I've noticed several times, that instead of players conceding or disconnecting, they simply seem to walk away from the game. Meaning the remaining player must wait the allotted time to get his/her win.
It's cowardly and it would be nice if we could do something about it.
My thought:
A "ping" button. Lets say Player A has the upper hand, and Player B simply walks away instead of resigning as you should. Player A waits a few minutes, and, seeing no moves from Player B, realizes that B has abandoned the game without actually disconnecting. Player A presses the "AFK?" Button, and B gets a pop-up saying
"If you would like to continue this game, click OK. Otherwise, you will automatically resign in 60 seconds [Maybe the counter could count down, or provide more time for bathroom breaks, etc.]."
If B doesn't return, A gets the win. If B does, they click the button, game continues. No harm, no foul. Possibly make the timer an extension of the game length. Ie. 30% of time per player? 15 minutes gets 4 1/2 minutes to respond. 8 minutes gets 3 minutes, 12 seconds. Don't know coding that well, so it may be difficult to enact that kind of situation. Maybe something tiered? Under 10 minutes you have 2 minutes, 10-20 you have 4 minutes, 20+ you have 8 minutes?
Also, a limit on the number of "Pings" should be enforced per game to prevent "griefing" by immature players. Say 2 or 3?
Just a thought. I know its rather annoying when a losing player sees a non-premium member and knows he or she can just walk away, forcing the "winner" to sit for the remainder or sacrifice the win.
This dbag just did the same thing he's whining about to me. What a joke.
now he's deleting my posts...baaaahahahaha....what a LOSER.
I've noticed several times, that instead of players conceding or disconnecting, they simply seem to walk away from the game. Meaning the remaining player must wait the allotted time to get his/her win.
It's cowardly and it would be nice if we could do something about it.
My thought:
A "ping" button. Lets say Player A has the upper hand, and Player B simply walks away instead of resigning as you should. Player A waits a few minutes, and, seeing no moves from Player B, realizes that B has abandoned the game without actually disconnecting. Player A presses the "AFK?" Button, and B gets a pop-up saying
"If you would like to continue this game, click OK. Otherwise, you will automatically resign in 60 seconds [Maybe the counter could count down, or provide more time for bathroom breaks, etc.]."
If B doesn't return, A gets the win. If B does, they click the button, game continues. No harm, no foul. Possibly make the timer an extension of the game length. Ie. 30% of time per player? 15 minutes gets 4 1/2 minutes to respond. 8 minutes gets 3 minutes, 12 seconds. Don't know coding that well, so it may be difficult to enact that kind of situation. Maybe something tiered? Under 10 minutes you have 2 minutes, 10-20 you have 4 minutes, 20+ you have 8 minutes?
Also, a limit on the number of "Pings" should be enforced per game to prevent "griefing" by immature players. Say 2 or 3?
Just a thought. I know its rather annoying when a losing player sees a non-premium member and knows he or she can just walk away, forcing the "winner" to sit for the remainder or sacrifice the win.