SpielByWeb

[craniac]

My only complaint is the occasional slow player. It would be awesome to be able to have the fast players kick someone off the island if they a) didn't meet the criteria set forth in the creation of the game, and b) didn't tell anyone when they were going to be offline for three days.

disclaimer: I was that player for a couple of games of reefer encounter, and it would have saved me the shame of making this confession and the games if that option had been in place.

It would also be useful, if, when setting up a game, you could formally (i.e. with a form) indicate when players were expected to be available and turn frequency. No matter how many times I label a game with "three turns a day" they end up attracting the one person who can only play for 15 minutes a day at 2:00 a.m. If the game were formally configured as a faster game, then it would be easier to justify booting that person and taking a replacement player.

Yes, yes, passworded games. But then I would have to develop social skills and friends, and if I had those would I be playing online?

[docaction]

Here it goes again........

[hagin]

And once again we have further proof that something more is wanted/needed by a large group of players... in spite of the alleged egalitarian utopia the naysayers seek to perpetuate with promises that anything else would result in the end of Western civilization as we know it.

[Rebelslayer]

Aarrrgh!

Can we please set up a DIFFERENT forum for this perpetual argument ... then it could just continue under the same heading indefinitely and those of us who are sick of rediscussing the rediscussed, already discussed, previously discussed, aforementioned, above topic could ignore it?

I'm about to set up a poll ... hope everyone takes to thie to vote!

[stargate]

[spearjr]

I'm not worried about it. I create many non-password games and don't see slow players joining my "fast game please" ones.

As I voted in the poll, I'd rather the admins spent what time they have for coding on new games.

[lindalait]

my theory is - if you play enough games, then you don't really notice if one or two of them have slower players.

unless of course you're really unlucky and live in the middle of the Antarctica (or somewhere) and your time zone doesn't match anyone else's.

[craniac]

I have a hard time, mentally, keeping track of five games of Wallenstein at once. That's my only problem with the distributed losers strategy.

[smlait]

[craniac]

I bet that emergency surgery scenario comes up all the time.

[smlait]

Or the cable company decides to kill your internet/TV for a week for no apparent reason

Or you just get bedridden with bad flu for a week

Or you're in a car accident and have to be away from home for a week (which may or may not involve internet access depending on where you're stuck)

Stuff happens, and it's not always predictable. To boot someone just because they go missing for a few days (assuming they don't do so on a regular basis) just isn't necessary or even reasonable.

[Mooslander]

Just because someone has been reliable or fast in the past doesn't guarantee that they're going to do so in the future. Let's say someone had a track record of fast play over the last 70 years, chances are pretty good that they're not going to be able to finish their games some day soon.

Seriously though, I often wonder if this is US-centric thinking that ignores time zones. How do people expect to get 2-3 turns done per day in a 5-player game where people are spread across the globe? If I play someone from Australia, there's only a few waking hours of overlap between our daily schedules (assuming a normal day rhythm which might not be the case for a lot of geeks here... ). Even if I'm online all day (here in Europe), I might still just be seeing that it's my Australian opponents turn during all that time. When she gets up in the morning she does her turn, but I'm not going to notice until 12 hours later. By that time, the next player from Japan will have gone to sleep...

I'm always in awe when a game actually moves at a swift pace, and I always advertise the time zone frame for turns when I want a quick game (which are always open games).

[Bkruppa]

Or you get tied up in senseless debates and forget to check your games.
Having been here for less time then our geriatric friends (sorry Bob, I know its been said too many times) but a fair amount of time, and played a variety of games many times, seeing this discussion in several threads constantly/consistently, there is one phrase that comes to mind spoken by the great orator Rodney King "Can't we all just get along?" People are going to play slow, people are going to play fast, problems occur for some, others never have any personal issues that affect their playing , but remember THIS IS A GAMING SITE -- the last time I checked death does not enter into any requirements for playing and losing. Then again, maybe the administrators in their wisdom could program some code...hmmm

[craniac]

[quote="Mooslander"]Just because someone has been reliable or fast in the past doesn't guarantee that they're going to do so in the future. Let's say someone had a track record of fast play over the last 70 years, chances are pretty good that they're not going to be able to finish their games some day soon.

Seriously though, I often wonder if this is US-centric thinking that ignores time zones. How do people expect to get 2-3 turns done per day in a 5-player game where people are spread across the globe? If I play someone from Australia, there's only a few waking hours of overlap between our daily schedules (assuming a normal day rhythm which might not be the case for a lot of geeks here... ). Even if I'm online all day (here in Europe), I might still just be seeing that it's my Australian opponents turn during all that time. When she gets up in the morning she does her turn, but I'm not going to notice until 12 hours later. By that time, the next player from Japan will have gone to sleep...

I'm always in awe when a game actually moves at a swift pace, and I always advertise the time zone frame for turns when I want a quick game (which are always open games).[/quote]

That's a good point, but what if you advertise the time zone and plays per day, and that information is ignored by someone playing 58 games at once, slowing the game down for the 4/5 players who bothered to pay attention?

I'd like to have the option of disinviting that person, pending the vote of all the players of the game. But you are probably right, judicious use of passwording is probably the easiest solution. But then you end up with a private club instead of an open site.

edit: booting someone out of a game means that their slot could be filled by someone else, if you can find someone willing to enter an already completed game. The boot doesn't need to be tracked or recorded.

[Early_10]

When I started the "Early Morning East Coast" games, this was my reasoning. I wanted players that played more turns in that time frame. No complaints here. Most every EMEC game finishes in less than 3 weeks. Thats a fast pace for 30 some turns by 3 or more people. Just specify your time frame when starting a game. Works better than you'd think.