Multiplayer Tournament Games Are Flawed
Thu Jan 13, 2005 8:59 am
Ok - I need to vent, so bear with me. This is the 3rd month in a row I've been paired up against players who don't seem at all interested in finishing the games. This goes for my Kacheekers, Geos, and Armada games. They wait until I've hit the 24-hour notice button, then they'll come and make a move. And disappear once again into the Neopian ether.... Another 24 hours goes by, they haven't made a move, and I send another notice. Same thing over and over. Why do they even bother signing up to play? And why don't they just forfeit the game if they don't want to bother showing up? I've tried neomailing them - no response. My Kacheekers partner is under 13, so I can't even neomail her...
It seems to me a more logical way of conducting these monthly tournaments would be to implement some type of automatic 24-hour rule: If you don't make a move within 24 hours, you automatically forfeit the game. It would be a lot more fair to those of us who really want to continue the tournament.
It seems to me a more logical way of conducting these monthly tournaments would be to implement some type of automatic 24-hour rule: If you don't make a move within 24 hours, you automatically forfeit the game. It would be a lot more fair to those of us who really want to continue the tournament.
Thu Jan 13, 2005 9:11 am
This is the 3rd month in a row I've been paired up against players who don't seem at all interested in finishing the games. This goes for my Kacheekers, Geos, and Armada games. They wait until I've hit the 24-hour notice button, then they'll come and make a move. And disappear once again into the Neopian ether.... Another 24 hours goes by, they haven't made a move, and I send another notice. Same thing over and over. Why do they even bother signing up to play? And why don't they just forfeit the game if they don't want to bother showing up? I've tried neomailing them - no response. My Kacheekers partner is under 13, so I can't even neomail her...
This is a problem i get. I want to play but my opposition doesn't. I suppose they can't play and hope we forfeit the game or miss a day and so they get the 'I win' button. Maybe there should be a maximum number of 'move or win' notices you can receive, say Two 'move or lose' - then it moves to an automatic 'I win' button.
I am playing someone in geos with neofriend requests and neomail turned off. Great for trying to play a two person game!
Thu Jan 13, 2005 9:29 am
What I absolutely detest are the players who intentionally hold things up, just to make the other player miserable. These are the players who don't move for 24 hours, and when they receive their "move or lose" notices, they wait another 22-23 hours before moving. They have their Neomail blocked, so you can't try to arrange playing times.
I read recently that the gaming world has a word for players such as these: griefers. You know the kind: the ones who start flame wars, the scammers, the ones who like to cause other players grief for no reason other than self-gratification.
In the end what usually happens is that neither of us move forward in the tournament. TNT needs to change how the Multiplayer Tournaments are conducted....
I read recently that the gaming world has a word for players such as these: griefers. You know the kind: the ones who start flame wars, the scammers, the ones who like to cause other players grief for no reason other than self-gratification.
In the end what usually happens is that neither of us move forward in the tournament. TNT needs to change how the Multiplayer Tournaments are conducted....
Thu Jan 13, 2005 9:42 am
I think there should be a rule that says you cannot receive the "move or lose" message more than twice. Then the most games will be finished in a week.
Thu Jan 13, 2005 9:45 am
This always happens to me as well. Every week I actually write to both the Ideas and Editorial parts of the site asking that if someone has to press the Move or Lose button twice in one week, that player should automatically lose. I think a 24 hr automatic forfeit is a bit harsh because one can be busy for a full day, but have every intention of finishing the game.
Thu Jan 13, 2005 9:52 am
I agree, actually I am pitted against such a person this month. I have pressed the move or lose button twice already. But this is a gallery account and I cant help but feel that some people enter in on more than one account to try and get other people out of the game so they can get a better trophy on their main account.
I would like to see a new rule too, maybe you could count the first "move or lose" message as a warning and then if you dont move again for 24 hours after your move it should be automatic win for the other player.
I would like to see a new rule too, maybe you could count the first "move or lose" message as a warning and then if you dont move again for 24 hours after your move it should be automatic win for the other player.
Thu Jan 13, 2005 10:05 am
Oh man. Not to sound like a stick in the mud, but gallery accounts shouldn't be allowed to play. (the end) Wouldn't it technically be put under the making np on more than one account category? I always get irritated when people don't think that rules apply to them (and then complain when they get warned and/or iced) because in the end, it is always those that play by the rules that end up paying.
Thu Jan 13, 2005 10:12 am
count me in on the 'annoyed as heck' crowd... I've been trying to complete a Kacheeker's game for the longest time, but (almost) always I run into one person that doesn't want to coordinate a time or move fast.
I would have some suggestions to make the games more fun/fair/balanced:
1) Add a checkbox next to the 'I moved' button that would send an automagic neomail to the opponent. This would bypass the friends-only and no-parent-permission neomail blocks.
2) Group opponents in age categories ... this way you're less likely to battle someone outside your age range (whether you attribute experience or bratiness to an age group is your choice).
3) Remove the 1-week-per-opponent script. Instead, have a queue of opponents that have beaten a certain level and the next person gets a challenge when someone comes available.
4) Impliment the move-or-lose warning as mentioned above. Then, after one move-or-lose an automatic 24 hour cap goes into effect.
I would have some suggestions to make the games more fun/fair/balanced:
1) Add a checkbox next to the 'I moved' button that would send an automagic neomail to the opponent. This would bypass the friends-only and no-parent-permission neomail blocks.
2) Group opponents in age categories ... this way you're less likely to battle someone outside your age range (whether you attribute experience or bratiness to an age group is your choice).
3) Remove the 1-week-per-opponent script. Instead, have a queue of opponents that have beaten a certain level and the next person gets a challenge when someone comes available.
4) Impliment the move-or-lose warning as mentioned above. Then, after one move-or-lose an automatic 24 hour cap goes into effect.
Thu Jan 13, 2005 10:37 am
I've never really participated in these tournaments. Dunno why actually, but anyway, this seems to be another one of those things TNT seem to overlook by accident. Just like that whole reporting issue.
A friend of mine was caught up in the same problem. She kept on complaining to me about it for days
A friend of mine was caught up in the same problem. She kept on complaining to me about it for days
Thu Jan 13, 2005 11:15 am
Argh! Multiplayer opponents are sooooo annoying!!!
I've had the breed that won't move until you Move Or Lose them too, and I agree that it should be twice and then you lose automatically.
My opponent this month played well for a while, but then stopped, so I mailed her to ask if she'd forgotten about it, and she said:
And now she won't play! Neither will she give up the game. How unfair.
I've had the breed that won't move until you Move Or Lose them too, and I agree that it should be twice and then you lose automatically.
My opponent this month played well for a while, but then stopped, so I mailed her to ask if she'd forgotten about it, and she said:
I haven't but what's the point. I'm losing anyway.
And now she won't play! Neither will she give up the game. How unfair.
Thu Jan 13, 2005 11:55 am
I so agree with you!
Thats what most of my opponents do, but after 14 months of entering each time, I finally won the 1st place trophy in kacheekers.
But like I said, I agree with you on the part were they automaticly lose of they don't move after 24 hours.
Or maybe cut the warning time to 12 hours, and if no move 12 hours later, then the I Win button shows up.
Thats what most of my opponents do, but after 14 months of entering each time, I finally won the 1st place trophy in kacheekers.
But like I said, I agree with you on the part were they automaticly lose of they don't move after 24 hours.
Or maybe cut the warning time to 12 hours, and if no move 12 hours later, then the I Win button shows up.
Re: Multiplayer Tournament Games Are Flawed
Thu Jan 13, 2005 1:04 pm
SierraRaven wrote:Ok - I need to vent, so bear with me. This is the 3rd month in a row I've been paired up against players who don't seem at all interested in finishing the games. This goes for my Kacheekers, Geos, and Armada games. They wait until I've hit the 24-hour notice button, then they'll come and make a move. And disappear once again into the Neopian ether.... Another 24 hours goes by, they haven't made a move, and I send another notice. Same thing over and over. Why do they even bother signing up to play? And why don't they just forfeit the game if they don't want to bother showing up? I've tried neomailing them - no response. My Kacheekers partner is under 13, so I can't even neomail her...
It seems to me a more logical way of conducting these monthly tournaments would be to implement some type of automatic 24-hour rule: If you don't make a move within 24 hours, you automatically forfeit the game. It would be a lot more fair to those of us who really want to continue the tournament. :(
I totally agree, because it would be annoying enough if we lost to someone who does that method. Did you already suggest this to TNT?
Thu Jan 13, 2005 1:34 pm
I've suggested it dozens of times. I've even had "thanks for the idea" emails - but it's made no difference :/
Thu Jan 13, 2005 1:56 pm
HollyPop wrote:I've suggested it dozens of times. I've even had "thanks for the idea" emails - but it's made no difference :/
Don't be discouraged. I once suggested to TNT that they change the trade system so that stagnant trades are withdrawn after a fortnight and 1 month later they implemented it, right down to the time limit of 2 weeks.
Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:30 pm
Qanda wrote:HollyPop wrote:I've suggested it dozens of times. I've even had "thanks for the idea" emails - but it's made no difference :/
Don't be discouraged. I once suggested to TNT that they change the trade system so that stagnant trades are withdrawn after a fortnight and 1 month later they implemented it, right down to the time limit of 2 weeks.
Yay, go you!! I've had some of my ideas implemented too but they just don't seem to want to take this one up. I reckon it's because they know the coding for the MP games is bad (there are sooo many glitches, esp. with the high score table) and don't want to mess with such a.. well, mess.
Also, my Geos opponent has just further enraged me - you remember she said there was no point playing because she was losing? I asked her to give up and she didn't, just didn't play - so I move or lose'd her and she's just moved, an hour before I could win. She still says she won't play the game properly though "because she'll lose". Sigh.