Who skipped?

[Squirrel5555]

Nope indeed, I complemented saying that it does not apply only to you, this is a public post after all.

Well you quoted something I said, and you were clearly replying to it.

Is it my fault that you see the word "seens" not as it is? If you don't know it is used for assumptions, guesses, not affirmations or statements as you think they are... Don't misunderstand the things next time ok?

I didn't say that they are affirmations or statements, and that doesn't change the fact they are insulting (like you seem to think, because you keep telling me I misunderstood) Guess you think you can say anything you want without consequences because it was an assumption. I guess you don't recognize people take things differently. Ironic, though I won't hold it against you.

Your point was about the main chat

I added to my point.

[Dagravian]

Well you quoted something I said, and you were clearly replying to it.

Bruh , dude, lets go back a bit, you totally missed the point here:

Me - I asked about what did you think about the suggestion.
You - You said that i could guess what do you think since what i was saying was not convincing you.
Me - I replied saying that i was not trying to convince you and complemented saying that also applies to everyone else aswell.
You - Then you asked when did you said that. (<- here you already got lost.)
Me - I replied with your text that you asked.
You - You already start dodging telling that you said that i was trying to convince you, and you said that you didn't mentioned anyone. (<- which implies that you have no idea what a "complement" is on a reply).
Me - I replied telling you that you really did not, so i told that complement was to make the statement that i made on that reply to you be extended to everyone else, since this is a public post.
You - Lastly, you tell me that i quoted you, so i was clearly replying it. (I'm pretty sure what was your guess here after reading that last reply)

I didn't say that they are affirmations or statements.

So, if you say that you didn't consider that way to begin, you admit that your complain about it being a insult to you is false? Or you will try to flex again like above?

and that doesn't change the fact they are insulting (like you seem to think, because you keep telling me I misunderstood) Guess you think you can say anything you want without consequences because it was an assumption.

Well i can answer for what i say, but not for what you did understand. As i said before, it is not my fault if you get the things wrong... Also if you feel opressed by Fact and Hypotesis, little you know but facts and logic don't care about feelings. You might not like that, but it is what it is.

I guess you don't recognize people take things differently. Ironic, though I won't hold it against you.

Ironic is you saying that. Or did you forgot the purpose of this post? You want names, and i want that people who know names don't use it to make mess around. You mentioned that i don't measure consequences earlier, it is pretty clear that what i did on this post was just that, the whole time, even under this conflict of interests between us...

[Squirrel5555]

You already start dodging telling that you said that i was trying to convince you, and you said that you didn't mentioned anyone.

Read again. I said "I" was trying to convince. I never mentioned that you were trying to convince me, I know you weren't. In my original post, I did not say that you are not managing to convince me. I was referring to MYSELF trying to convince YOU.

even though you are clearly too far gone to convince.

As you can see, what I say is that I can not convince you. Please reread(like i said multiple times) before making a large problem out of something, and trying to pass yourself off as correct(you try this every time, mostly referring to completely unrelated things btw).

You know, sometimes even you can be wrong.

So, if you say that you didn't consider that way to begin, you admit that your complain about it being a insult to you is false? Or you will try to flex again like above?

Once again, you ignore my point of view. You answer this from your own perspective. As I said earlier, I see an insult as an insult, it doesnt matter if it is hidden behind a "seems" or as you like to call "hypothesis", though you answer me as if your opinion is undoubtedly correct. You also seem oblivious to the fact that considering something is different from saying it, even though both may coexist.

facts and logic don't care about feelings

Ah of course, facts and logic which were just your judgements of my character based on a few phrases I made (and I think you misunderstood them if this is the conclusion you came to, or are exaggerating for effect).

Ironic is you saying that

Well if you think about it we can both say this about each other, like we just did, so we aren't really getting anywhere here .

[Squirrel5555]

Maybe I will compile this, so you can see it from my perspective more easily, regarding your unjust judgements.

1) I said that you are overreacting, and that the consequences of making names of player's who skip show would not be as severe as you imagine. You then hypothesize that I like harassment, and would ignore it.

Btw, it seens you like harassment, and it seens you will ignore when seeing it happening

Doesn't seem a little bit over the top or insensitive to you?

2) I fail to mention that I have lied in the past, while making an argument about people breaking promises. Why did I do this? Because I thought it was too obvious to mention that I have lied in the past, we all have, and as Phoenix elegantly explained previously, it wouldn't have had any effect on the credibility of my argument. You see this and hypothesize that I think I am superior to EVERYONE else.

without firstly admiting that you never had lied at least once in your life surelly implies that you think you are somewhat superior to everyone else and have a moral highground over the person

Once again, doesn't seem a bit over the top and insensitive to you?

[Dagravian]

Read again. I said "I" was trying to convince. I never mentioned that you were trying to convince me, I know you weren't. In my original post, I did not say that you are not managing to convince me. I was referring to MYSELF trying to convince YOU.

even though you are clearly too far gone to convince.

As you can see, what I say is that I can not convince you. Please reread(like i said multiple times) before making a large problem out of something, and trying to pass yourself off as correct(you try this every time, mostly referring to completely unrelated things btw).

You know, sometimes even you can be wrong.

Ofc i know i can be fail, i'm children of God aswell.

But man you were really wrong, if you were meant to say that, you could had avoided a lot of this mess if you just had writen ~ "even though you are clearly too far gone to BE convinceD" ~ , "to convince" contradicts your said intentions from above as the person of reference in the context is the one you were talking (me).

Once again, you ignore my point of view. You answer this from your own perspective. As I said earlier, I see an insult as an insult, it doesnt matter if it is hidden behind a "seems" or as you like to call "hypothesis", though you answer me as if your opinion is undoubtedly correct. You also seem oblivious to the fact that considering something is different from saying it, even though both may coexist.

Well sorry if what i said sounds intense or insensitive for you, but it is what it is, you and me can't change the fact it already happened in the past, i just don't want to see that happening again like it did with a some good players that were on this comunity.

But one thing is the opinions that one person say about something, another thing are the facts that happen. I think you are mixing both. You can control what you can say, as i stated several times, but not the all the facts that happen, one guess about a person is not an fact unless you prove the point of that assumption. So the opinion that one person has about something is one thing, while the fact of harassment and its consequences is another. So let's recap my said "insults" to settle this:

Do you really see yourself as superior to anyone?
Yes or no?
Do you really like harassment?
Yes or no?
If you see harassment happen, would you let it keep happening?
Yes or no?

If any of your answers were yes, my guess about it is proven, if all your answers were no, can you tell me why are you exaggerating about it again? Or we can go back to the topic and discuss a solution for it? Because i'm not worried with the "insults" you adressed to me.

Ah of course, facts and logic which were just your judgements of my character based on a few phrases I made (and I think you misunderstood them if this is the conclusion you came to, or are exaggerating for effect).

I believe that this was answered above.

Well if you think about it we can both say this about each other, like we just did, so we aren't really getting anywhere here .

I openly agree here.

So what do you have to say about tamtam alternative?

[Squirrel5555]

BE convinceD

Well this is also grammatically correct, so no worries, glad we sorted it out

Yes or no?

No to all of them. I see you did not mean to offend, still I think what you said was a bit unjust, and i'm sad that was the impression you got. Some people could see it differently, and as you said, reputation is important here.

So what do you have to say about tamtam alternative?

I think it is good. Still, imo, unnecessary, but better than enforcing the grace period on everyone. Choice is good

[TheSenate-_-]

No, just show who skipped who. It is up to the people playing to reconcile/ provide reason for their actions. We shouldn't pay just to enjoy a multiplayer match, that will get annoying very quickly.

[phoenixffyrnig]

OK - to begin with, yes, the idea put forth by tamtam is agreeable to me. As I have referenced, I am not a dictator, I don't wish to instruct everyone in their behaviour - just to control who I interact with. (ie - if I can keep certain behaviours out of my games, that is enough for me, that is all I have wanted from the outset).

To begin, both of us aren't on his match, I'm pretty sure that is more suitable for you and let me tell you why, on every story, there are 3 or more sides, side A, side B and what really happened, you choose to believe side A with phoenix version, i choose to not take sides with the fact is that skips happened and none of us will know the sides of the other 5 players and their reasons to skip or not.

@DoomsdayDragonfire - this, and a few other comments/implications I do not like! If you wish to play devil's advocate or speak for all points of view, then do so WITHOUT calling into question my honesty! You are implying I am putting forth a version of events to suit my agenda - I am not. I am telling everyone exactly what happened! Please, DO NOT accuse me of lying, fabrication, fudging, exaggeration or false reporting, even by implication. This is not me being insulted by hypotheses, but by your repeated refusal to believe that what I have said is true, despite my offer to provide evidence.

Little would be changed. As he would be complementing his side of the history. What i would like to hear is the version of the other players aswell.

But you disregard my evidence out of hand before it is shown because it would only serve to corroborate my story!?! Again, your logic is backwards. You would dismiss my evidence because it proves a version of events you disagree with, rather than accept that, by definition, evidence is proof! I can count to six! EVERYONE agreed!

But man you were really wrong, if you were meant to say that, you could had avoided a lot of this mess if you just had writen ~ "even though you are clearly too far gone to BE convinceD" ~ , "to convince" contradicts your said intentions from above as the person of reference in the context is the one you were talking (me).

No, sorry. Although either version is grammatically correct in English, the way Squirrel worded it first time is the generally accepted and used way, and means exactly what he says it means. I appreciate that English isn't your first language, (same with Squirrel) but your argument on this point is based on a misunderstanding.

Re other points...

As to why I am the only person out of six complaining...well, you told me to consider other variables and explanations earlier...perhaps I am the only one of the six who is on the forum. I have seen no sign of the other five on here.
You say anonymity isn't the problem, but people are... you miss the point entirely. Anonymity gives "problem" people a cloak to hide behind and carry out their actions. It is just as correct to say "no anonymity, no problem" as it is to say "no people, no problem "
You give the example of a firearm, which is a weapon, a tool to do harm. A person without said weapon cannot use it do to do harm...neither can a person without anonymity use it to hide from the consequences of their actions. I agree, the gun or the anonymity is not the root problem, it is the choice to use it that causes the problem, but it is the gun or anonymity that enables the harm. Remove the "enabler", or the tool, and you remove the problem.

I'm not sure if the opinion of a suspected liar counts for anything when talking about an accused bully or harasser, but Squirrel is not the type to go giving aggro to anyone and everyone . Admittedly, I only know him from this game, but from our interactions, I would trust him more than most people I know in real life. I really don't see how you can claim that it is necessary to maintain anonymity for protection of reputation, whilst at the same time repeatedly making insinuations and implications against the reputation of two known persons, accusing them of dishonesty, lack of integrity, desire to harass and bully, or a lack of intelligence, just because we happen to have different opinions to you.

[Dagravian]

Ok, looks like there is an agreement about the tamtam solution.

About the rest, Tldr, i may or not answer them in the following days. (Hope this doesn't offend anyone, bcz i'm just busy atm).

[phoenixffyrnig]

I have an idea. Why don't we add a checkbox sth like "Show who skip you/others in this game" (function like map visiblity) when a player open the table. (If it is possible...)

(To quickly put into context, should we be able to see who skipped Vs protection of anonymity for fear of retribution/abuse. The above suggestion being a tickable option during game creation)

@Stratego (dev) , @Endru1241 - to save you guys a whole load of time, this appears to be the general agreement. Is such a thing possible or desirable from the powers that be?

[phoenixffyrnig]

About the rest, Tldr, i may or not answer them in the following days. (Hope this doesn't offend anyone, bcz i'm just busy atm).

As and when, or not at all - no worries from me. Enjoy being busy (I do - inactivity is a sin! ).Many points were raised, many tangents were taken, but we arrived at an agreeable solution for all, which is, after all, the whole point of an intelligent debate.

[phoenixffyrnig]

Revisited and Necro-ed

Please, whichever sad acts who have the desire to skip, flip off from my games! I'm trying to create an environment where EVERYONE, noob or vet, can be safe to balance playing the game we all love with the demands of real life.

If you can't accept that some people have a life beyond AoS then that is something you need to address personally.

As I have said several times in this debate, I don't want to fight or kick off against certain people, I just want to know who is not trustworthy. Is this possible please?

[phoenixffyrnig]

For the record, this is not, has never been, and never will be, a knee-jerk reaction against me getting skipped. Every single post of mine on this topic is independently against the (for some people) skip culture that enables people to seek out any advantage in the hope of winning.

This is a strategy game. If you can't beat your opponents by tactics and skill then don't rely on a few minutes of lateness to determine the outcome!

[Hyuhjhih]

will you believe there are players joining some bet games and purposefully waiting till the opponent's moment of skip. Its been a bad experience for my games. I cant say 1 or 2 names, but its a common practice among many newcomers.

All i have to say that skipping (kicking) other players should cost something.

[Badnorth]

I just want the "a player skipped notification " to reveal the player that skipped. Its as simple as that. The Skip option needs a player to blame in 3+ player games.

If i knew people who skipped me or other friendly players, i won't play with them again in an another game.

[phoenixffyrnig]

Yes. A lot of thought and effort has gone in to making this game balanced, and games can be on a knife-edge for a long time. All the time and thought that goes into playing the game, setting yourself up, planning your strategies, recruiting your army, many many hours in big games....and it can all be ruined by one impatient skip.

Let the skippers skip eachother in a skip-happy skip-fest if they want, and let us passionate players be able to avoid them and play in safety please.

[phoenixffyrnig]

If i knew people who skipped me or other friendly players, i won't play with them again in an another game.

Bingo! Exactly that. That's all most of us want. No pitchforks and fire-torches, no witch-hunts and angry mobs, no bullets in the post, we just want to play a game we enjoy with decent people.

[Badnorth]

I hope @Endru1241 would agree on this.

[Endru1241]

I skipped ...
this topic, as it's clearly about engine workings and not AoS design.
I tried to read briefly what it's all about.
And I don't really see any problem about skipping.
IT IS WORKING AS INTENDED.
So that's probably why stratego avoided this topic as well.
And I haven't seen here solution I came with the moment I understood what is the exact problem.

Don't you just need longer maximum time to set in game?
Like 4 additional options 36, 48, 72, 168.

I know real life can make things previously agreed on different, but skipping is just natural part of time limit to the turn.
If this option would be in any way limited by hardcoded way (gem cost, badges requirement etc.) then it wouldn't really work for newer players.
If it was made limited socially (visible who skipped or even worse - skipping history or skipping symbol on player) it would only be used by players unafraid of social exclusion (but why would they play multiplayer then?).
Both ways just defeat the purpose of such option.
And I have to remind that skipping being an option is already a grace, because players can be convinced not to use it in case of non-standard situation.
The alternative is just automatic skipping made by the engine in the exact second the timer goes off.

The only other thing that came to my mind, that could solve games being lost because of real life occurrences, would be an option to change turn timer during the game, for example only by game creator and ONLY if all players still in game agrees (of course provided that longer limits would be added).
Then grace/agreement could be just formalized by the engine.

[Hyuhjhih]

If this option would be in any way limited by hardcoded way (gem cost, badges requirement etc.) then it wouldn't really work for newer players.

will you believe there are players joining some bet games and purposefully waiting till the opponent's moment of skip. Its been a bad experience for my games. I cant say 1 or 2 names, but its a common practice among many newcomers.

All i have to say that skipping (kicking) other players should cost something.

Well may be u r right, but kicking should be after 5 skips, i presume. And even if they skipped, the AI should be a bit more intelligent to fill the space. And 48hrsand 72 hrs wont be bad, and greater time would be annoying.

[Squirrel5555]

I just want to know who skipped

The mechanic itself is fine.

[phoenixffyrnig]

The problem is one bad apple can spoil the barrel, and the barrel in this case can be the fun of 5 other people who've been putting in hours of game time.

I'm in regular playing contact with dozens of players, and they must be in contact with dozens more, who are all prepared to show a bit of patience on the rare times someone is late because real life has intervened. Infact, the community of regulars seems to be getting very vibrant indeed of late.

But we don't want to make a closed shop, some secret elitist group with everything password protected or friends only. We want to bring new players in and help them on the way - but we would like some protection from those who repeatedly skip for their own gain and ruin our games.

[phoenixffyrnig]

...meanwhile, on AoS chat...
the whole page and much more is taken up by a debate re skipping involving many players brought about by me making a "moralist" judgement by calling out two skips against two respected players, made in the first hour of overtime on Boxing Day! That is not what skip is for....these guys could be with their family for the first time this year!

This is a division, a difference of opinion that leads to two completely different expectations of behaviour. If the cut-throat players wish to exercise their immediate right to skip (a right I have never denied) then the chevaliers could do with a way of ensuring they are playing amongst fellows.

[AzorTuga]

I think Endru said it all.

All other options will ruin the game for new players. The rules are set and it's easy for new players to understand.

Real life can complicate to any of us and for that the simple and effective solution is to add 48h turns up to even 1 week turns.

This is an issue that even if we had 1 year turns, and got skipped, players would still complain with "I had a complicated year... who skipped me?"

If we enter a game and agree to a turn timing, we should respect other players and do it. If I can't, that's my problem. If I get skipped, it's my problem and i understand players are just following the rules.

If i want leniency, i just message other players asking for understanding and time. If they skip anyway, it's their right.

[phoenixffyrnig]

How will a message box that says who skipped, instead of a message box that says someone was skipped, ruin it for new players?

[Endru1241]

Imagine, that you are living in rented apartment or dormitory of some sort. Along with few barely known people.
There are rules forbidding being loud after 10pm.
The only one watching rules being respected is old security guy, who won't even notice until someone calls him.
But you come with an idea to agree not to call security guy.
All tenants/students agree.
But in reality one (or more) of them wasn't really happy with that.
That person agreed only because of peer pressure.
Around 4 a.m. somebody called the security and you were busted listening to loud music. You'll have to pay some fine, that was agreed in the contract (or have problems in school/college/university).
Maybe that person, which called really wanted to sleep.
And called anonymously, being afraid of becoming an outcast.

How will making public who called ruin anything for that person?

Also, the owner/manager could have security guy, that reacts on his own for the same salary, but decided to let people call the shots.
Would he make information who called public?

[Squirrel5555]

You extrapolated to a point where relevance was lost, but I think it is clear what your stance is on this

No point arguing with the design lead.

[Hyuhjhih]

but kicking should be after 5 skips, i presume. And even if they skipped, the AI should be a bit more intelligent to fill the space. And 48hrsand 72 hrs wont be bad, and greater time would be annoying

can this point out something endru. Or atleast remove the kicking part so the players can again continue. Well my exact thing is

will you believe there are players joining some bet games and purposefully waiting till the opponent's moment of skip. Its been a bad experience for my games. I cant say 1 or 2 names, but its a common practice among many newcomers

this

[phoenixffyrnig]

And imagine too, that this building has a second wing, and by knowing identities and preferences, people would be able to sort themselves out into different groups which share the same attitudes and behaviours.

Then the party-goers could have their fun, and the ones who want to call the watchman at 10:01 are free to do so.

[Endru1241]

You extrapolated to a point where relevance was lost, but I think it is clear what your stance is on this

No point arguing with the design lead.

Well, to be honest - it's not that I have any decision over multiplier part. Maybe a little more influence on trying to convince the dev, but that's all. It's all in the engine.

but kicking should be after 5 skips, i presume. And even if they skipped, the AI should be a bit more intelligent to fill the space. And 48hrsand 72 hrs wont be bad, and greater time would be annoying

can this point out something endru. Or atleast remove the kicking part so the players can again continue. Well my exact thing is

will you believe there are players joining some bet games and purposefully waiting till the opponent's moment of skip. Its been a bad experience for my games. I cant say 1 or 2 names, but its a common practice among many newcomers

this

AI is very hard to change. Some of it's faults lie in assets, so maybe I'll manage to make it a bit better.
As for extending number of skips - I don't think it's good solution.
Engine assumes few things to manage inactive players.
It's mainly because there were a lot of games just left alone.
I still believe additional time options and ability to change it during the game is better.

And imagine too, that this building has a second wing, and by knowing identities and preferences, people would be able to sort themselves out into different groups which share the same attitudes and behaviours.

Then the party-goers could have their fun, and the ones who want to call the watchman at 10:01 are free to do so.

Such sorting is just social exclusion.
You actually pointed exactly what I wanted to present as a danger.
Two wings. Two groups.
That is the point.
When anyone who skips will have "snitch" tag - no normal person would ever do it.
Even when the party would last weeks.
Because when you do it - you are excluded from party people forever (or for a long time).
And you have to hang out exclusively with those who called.
Many of which can call every single time at 10:01.
Then after months of such impasse owner/manager would finally just hire more cautious guard.

Making skipper public would eventually lead to making skip automatic.