However: If the player asked for leniency, so be it.
One well-known opponent need not ask for more time, and I will give it regardless.
| Massive Assault http://www.massiveassaultnetwork.com/forum/ |
|
| TIME OUT Etiquette http://www.massiveassaultnetwork.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=5032 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | ravermeister [ Tue Oct 17, 2006 7:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | TIME OUT Etiquette |
I have a question to the regulars.... What is the general ettiquete when it comes to time outs. I have a general rule of thumb.... If the time runs out - then I can claim the win.... unless I get a request for an extension of time. (ie someone is going on holidays and needs an extra day or 2 - or a week - what ever. I am more than happy to give it.). The reason I ask is that I feel a bit guilty for finishing games on people. But on the other hand - I am sick off people not surrendering and just letting the game run out.... And sometimes I don't know which one is the case. Anyway - just wanted to know what the general feeling was in the comunity. |
|
| Author: | Brewer [ Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: TIME OUT Etiquette |
ravermeister wrote: I have a question to the regulars....
What is the general ettiquete when it comes to time outs. Vs. trial player = end immediately < 5 turns = wait a day or two >6 turns = wait a week or so If the game is particularly compelling (not neccesarily my win), I've let them slide upto 30+ days. |
|
| Author: | Bokkie [ Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I send a message to the player to ask if he/she needs more time, and if so, to send me a message. Then the next time I play, I see if the person has been online yet, therefore had the oppertunity to send me a message or not. If he/she has been online and didn't reply on my message then I end the game. |
|
| Author: | ravermeister [ Wed Oct 18, 2006 8:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thanks - I may take a more lenient approach in the future - the idea of looking up the last time the player loggen in is a great idea. |
|
| Author: | Bokkie [ Wed Oct 18, 2006 1:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yeah, I check that because maybe the player had some problems to come online, and couldn't send a message to ask for more time in the first place.. |
|
| Author: | CSW [ Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I pretty much end them within 48 hours of the time limit. The time limit is clearly posted at the beginning of a challenge, if you accept a challenge, then you're agreeing to play the game within those limits. After that, it's a matter of luck, skill, experience, ex cetera. There are dozens of ways to loose a battle: leaving a capital undefended, making a half hearted invasion, loosing a full transport, AND not taking your turns in a timely fashion. Most of the games that I've ended have been games that were in my favor, so I don't really feel guilty. Only on a few occassions have I been the underdog with a 'time out' game. In those cases, I'll usually give the opponent a bit of extra time, but if I see that they've been active recently, I'll take the win. How difficult is it to see that you're out of time? |
|
| Author: | Bokkie [ Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
CSW wrote: In those cases, I'll usually give the opponent a bit of extra time, but if I see that they've been active recently, I'll take the win. How difficult is it to see that you're out of time?
Ok for the "they've been active recently" thing, but when the other isn't been active for a while? It could happen that someone has problems accessing the internet for some reason.. Or broken pc or something, hard to warn the other player then .. |
|
| Author: | Rextrent [ Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
After timing out a "capable player", and one which I've seen around: I also have felt some guilt. I have agreed that if I don't look at that list (Of ongoing games), I will not be tempted! I might look at that list every week or so, and can give most players a break...but woe to the player who was winning!!! |
|
| Author: | Rextrent [ Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
However: If the player asked for leniency, so be it. One well-known opponent need not ask for more time, and I will give it regardless.
|
|
| Author: | storm440 [ Sat Oct 28, 2006 4:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
everyone has their own, ideas but the fact of the matter is that the turn limit is part of the game and if you let the time expire, you really have no bitch if you are timed out. That said, if someone ask for time I give it or if it is made know at the start of the game that there will be times when turns can not be sent in a timely manner, or if the person you are playing is one of your regular opponents (or member of your clan)--all of these things are reasons, for me, not to time someone out. |
|
| Author: | Big - 0 [ Sat Oct 28, 2006 5:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Just to back up Rextrent. I was off line for over a month and he didn't time out 2 of our games. 1 of which I was clearly losing and 1 of which I was winning. He didn't have to wait, but I appreciate it. |
|
| Author: | artmax [ Sun Oct 29, 2006 10:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Use chess clock - and don't feel guilty. The game will end automatically. |
|
| Author: | Rextrent [ Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Please explain the chess clock. I think it does not serve my desires, because it requires ceaseless turn-taking, but I really would like to hear the exact function. |
|
| Author: | storm440 [ Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
a game played with a chess clock ends at whatever time period that was choosen at the start. Whoever has the advantage at that time wins. For example, you are playing a 3 week chess clock, you have made 3 turns and your opponent has made 4, the % is -1 against you as the 3 week period comes to a close--you lose! This option seems to be popular with the old soviet block players who, I imagine, liken it to playing a game of speed chess. If you chose to play a game like this, don't make any long term stratigy unless your chess clock reads in months and not weeks 
|
|
| Author: | Rextrent [ Sun Oct 29, 2006 4:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The chess clock sounds like an advantage for players who are taking their turns quickly, and not fiddling around like me! |
|
| Author: | storm440 [ Sun Oct 29, 2006 6:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
if you want to play a fast game and have the time i guess that this forces the issue, but for many of us with families, kids, elderly parents, jobs, ect ect it is difficult to find the time to devote to a game like that. but, to each his own! |
|
| Author: | CSW [ Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Bokkie wrote: CSW wrote: In those cases, I'll usually give the opponent a bit of extra time, but if I see that they've been active recently, I'll take the win. How difficult is it to see that you're out of time? Ok for the "they've been active recently" thing, but when the other isn't been active for a while? It could happen that someone has problems accessing the internet for some reason.. Or broken pc or something, hard to warn the other player then .. If they haven't been active for a while, it's more likely that they've lost interest in your particular battle or the game in general. PC problems? Yes they happen, but not that often, at least in my experience. I usually juggle about a dozen games at any one time. I prefer playing against opponents who take their turns within 3 days; I usually reply in similar fashion. The majority of my games are 14 day limts, which gives a certain amount of leeway. After that: C’est la vie |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|