The Problem

[i]I wrote this 3 days ago. I was not in the mood to post it anymore really. My main purpose here is to play and have fun, but I made some accusations recently in another thread and it is due now that I give some explanations.[/i] [b]The general problem: the ruined games[/b] Caused by: cheaters, teamers, players leaving the game, kamikazes, suiciders, personal revengers and crazy players. This problem is old but now has grown a lot. Once in this site the rank of a player was the representation of his skills. Now it represents how he is lucky on getting easy wins. I personally saw, in my very last games, a Warrant Officer wasting 10 troops in the 1st round in order to take a card, and a Major (!!) leaving his own capital with only 3 troops, at the 2nd round, in order to conquer a region. I am not lying. Ranks and points have lost all their value. This is sad. And this is mostly caused in my opinion by the increased percentage of ruined games. When a game has been ruined, everybody can be the winner, it's just a matter of luck! I think we have to act. We have to do something. We need more moderators I guess. Somebody who monitors the games. The problem is mostly about live games and many times there aren't any admins or moderators available. And when the game is finished, it will be hard to find real proofs! Ending a game is the smallest thing you can do. We have to report the player's names. After a player has been reported 2 or 3 times punish him. I don't know, forbid him to join any games for 2 days or 1 week, points subtracted... something! A game ended is nothing. It's like a policeman that says: "I saw you passing the cross when the light was red, now you must come back and pass the cross when the light is green". Wow what a fear! I'm interested on keeping this site clean from game-ruiners in order to keep up its professional touch, as I knew it in the earlier. Rules are there! "Play-to-win" overall. I don't want to change any rules. I only want theme respected. As I said in the other thread: I have no problem to be punished when I do something wrong, but I would like the same for everybody here. Can Dominating12 do something to solve this problem, please?

[b]My personal case[/b] I have played about 800 games here. I guess about 200 was poor games. I'm not used to always call an admin, just a few times in the very extreme situations, specially when the player which ruins the game has already done it other times. I guess I asked an admin's intervention about 10 times as total. I don't remember exactly but I guess the times that I really got an admin's action in my favor are a number very next to zero! Maybe one. I usually received answers like: "the only thing you can do is don't play him anymore" or "he will learn" or something similar. And this is disappointing really. Keep in my mind that I am not that kind of person which says: "I want this game ended because it's unfair!", usually I ask something like "A player ruined the game, may you please take a look into it?" Then I saw that guy which accused 2 players of cheating and he got a game review. Really!? I didn't know that game reviews existed for real! I never got such a privilege! I can't understand now... All the admins act in the same way with all the users or there are differences? Tell me please. The last of my cases was really emblematic. It was a 3 player capitals long-term game. Who would be in the mood to play such a game, when one of the opponents kamikazed you at the beginning of the second round? Plus, if you end a game at the beginning of the second round is nothing, it's like a game never started. Probably it was just a bad move, but the suspect of a teaming move was very high. I asked that player why such a move and I waited 2 days for an answer. He didn't answer. Then I decided to call an admin and... Look the dialog please: [spoiler][quote=The_Bishop said: 03:21 AM, 26 November 2013]Crazy (or teaming?) action in a 3p game at the second round. Could you look at that please? More details are in the chat box.[/quote] It was deep night in Europe and she was sleeping. Then in the afternoon: [quote=Fendi said: 03:02 PM, 26 November 2013]Well it's hard to say since I don't usually end up in those situations. But I definitely think you should follow what has been said.[/quote] Really unclear for me... What has been said?? By who?? [quote=The_Bishop said: 03:14 PM, 26 November 2013]Really I would have more fun to continue the game, but I would like also to give him a lesson, useful for the next time...[/quote] [quote=Fendi said: 03:22 PM, 26 November 2013]Yeah, sometimes you have to allow yourself to lose or almost ruin a game in order to teach someone a lesson but it's good to not do it every time someone makes a bad decision.[/quote] Really!? That way is the lesson? That is far from my attitude really. ----------------------------------- The day after someone suggested to me to be more clear and to specify that the game has been ruined and I want it ended. Ok... [quote=The_Bishop said: 01:38 PM, 27 November 2013]Hi Fendi! Maybe I wasn't so clear. Could you please end that game because of Vodkamike's suicidal move? http://www.dominating12.com/?cmd=game&sec=play&id=216987 Lifeinpixels also commented on it in the chat. Thx for everything! :)[/quote] [quote=Fendi said: 01:40 PM, 27 November 2013]I unfortunately need everyone's approval, or at least Nate66's approval in order to end the game[/quote] [quote=The_Bishop said: 01:48 PM, 27 November 2013]Well, Nate66 will win that so I'm not sure he will agree. But, doesn't matter, it was just a game, a wrong game really.[/quote] No reply. ----------------------------------- The day after arrived unexpected Nate66's approval. I was glad, I thought: "Now I can request the end of the game!" [quote=The_Bishop said: 02:56 PM, 28 November 2013]Nate66 too asked to delete the game. Everything is clear reading the chat.[/quote] 5 hours later... [quote=Fendi said: 07:04 PM, 28 November 2013]Sorry I am at work.[/quote][/spoiler] [b]In few words:[/b] [i]<<Don't disturb me with your games please. Menage yourself. If someone suicides on you, you can suicide on him and the problem is solved>>[/i] Why that? Did I do something wrong to deserve that? Note. There was a complete agreement to end the game (except the player that ruined the game which never answered in the chat box), we just needed an admin's intervention but the admin's intervention never arrived... And this is not the first time that happens. I think things should not be so hard... Every time I ask to end a game it seems like I'm asking money! Have the other users the same problem? Or it's only me? Tell me please. I really can't understand. [i](If you think for any reasons that I have not to put names or dialogs, just delete theme)[/i]

It might be a little bit off topic, but I assume those messages from fendi were sent using the PM system. I see a lot of people just posting the content of those messages publicly. I can not vouch for her, but I would not want my messages to get to the forums. I am not hiding anything or something, but messages are sent in a whole different environment than a public forum post. Other than that. Sure, this is a problem. More moderators might help in some cases, but this is a race you can never win. You also can't just make anyone a moderator. Moderators are part of the staff; they represent the website; they have privileges other members don't have. I'd rather have a few good moderators than a bunch of bad ones. I agree with your setting. I don't see why this is a problem right here, right now. It has been and will always be an ongoing battle between these kind of players and the team. It is really hard to get on top of these kind of things, especially if the site is run by volunteers. There are several features (report button, friend/block list and that kind of stuff) on the todo list but there is just not the capacity to get those implemented, especially because in the meanwhile other features are requested as well. So, from my personal opinion (even though I have a blue badge, I am not trying to represent the staff at all with this post) I would like to say: come with [i]real[/i] solutions. "Hiring more people" is not something that just works. My personal advice: this is the internet. These things will always keep happening. Ignore them and move on. You say 25% of your games is ruined. That is really a lot and sounds a bit out of proportion to me. Even if one in four games is poor, the other three aren't. Enjoy those :D (man we really need smileys on this forums).

Thanks Cireon, I appreciate your answer. I guess "report player" and "block player" would be fine, 100 times better than having a lot of moderators. As for the PM. I wanted to show theme to ask the other players if they also receive those sort of "no answer" from the admins.

I've felt for months now that the quality of live games is far lower than long term games. Like The_Bishop said there are a lot of players who get cheap points from players who don't finish games and do stupid things like suiciding. A Lieutenant who gained his rank by only playing long term games is sometimes twice the player than a Lieutenant who earned his rank playing live games. The site has grown beyond our ability to manage it with our current tools. We certainly do need "report player" and "block player." But until we can get that implemented I think it would be a good idea to slow the growth of the site, especially live games. Players who play 20 live games a day but no long term games usually don't support the site by buying premium. If we were to limit live games to 3 a day for non premium players then players might take each of those 3 games more seriously. On other similar sites you can't play any live games unless you pay. Our site has many more live games going on than those sites. But if the quality of our live games is poor than what does it matter how many we have? I do think the quality of the live games would go up if there was a daily limit though I'm having a hard time explaining exactly why that would be the case. Maybe it's just a hunch.

It's not hard to explain Vexer; if a player can only play a small number of games, he will try much harder to win because he won't get any second chances later. I think that idea makes sense and agree with the current state of our live games. Most live games I play these days, unfortunately, are password protected.

Then also if we go back to the old rule? I do feel your pain The_Bishop and that is one of the reasons I quit playing...ever once awhile is ok, but I have been having problems getting to the forth turn ... so how is that fun? And I have the abilty to end games...but I just suck it up as "No Thank-you ... till the rule changes"

I completely agree with you Bisshop, but there is a big problem. This site is run by volunteers, ppl that maintain it because the love it. Apart from small changes, new featurs (like password games), alot of what I program is in a moderator panel. Before it was there admins had to do everything manually in the database - which means its not only more work, but also more tiring, as you have to pay attention (enter one wrong number, and you are ruining something random...). I know some of the admins wuite well, and sometimes they are pretty stressed (because of private life, and sometimes also because of the players here). Making things like 'being able to end games in a copy-paste and a click', reduces the stress a bit. The problem is that I cannot program faster than that new players arive, so some things just have to wait a little bit longer. It will never be fair. And we can't just accept every guy that wants to program something and give him full acces and full rights - one of the ppl that 'wanted to help' turned out to have 10 other well hidden accounts... So on [i] Can Dominating12 do something to solve this problem, please? [/i], yes we can, and yes we will. But only when we have time, and knowing the internet (and myself), that will be after some new problems have arrived... Sorry, I too have to password protect my live games.

I am glad to see all your agreements. This give me the feeling that a general problem exist for real and I am not alone to fight against it. About my last case I will consider it like a personal case, irrelevant for the site. Considering every admin or moderator is doing his best and knowing they are volunteers I renew my "thanks" to theme all. [u]About Vexer's idea.[/u] Yes, if I have to vote, I vote for less growth and more quality games. Plus if the site grows less but the premium members are more, then it's a benefit for everybody. Only 3 live games per day looks a bit too extreme to me, but the idea sounds smart. [u]About Thorpe's "old" idea.[/u] I would like the new rule for deathmatch and the old one for capitals. If it is not possible, then Yes, I vote for the old one, that reducing the percentage of lottery games. [i][I will argue better in the dedicated thread.][/i] I have respect for your strike Thorpe but I don't think it's [u]only[/u] a problem regarding the turn-in rule. In my opinion [u]3-minutes option[/u] doesn't help the strategy and shouldn't be encouraged. But unfortunately this is very popular, proving that people like fast games. I think this option should be for premiums only. The others, if they really like the fast-playing they will pay for it. For example, the last time I accused a player to suicide he answered me that it was a play-to-win suicide because it was the only thing he could do. More or less it was true, but I'm sure with 2 minutes more he could find a different plan. I miss the old good times, when Fendi was used to say "Bishop if you need more time to think, just ask". Nobody wanted a fast move by his opponents, everybody wanted you to make the best move you could find. [u]Those were Games![/u] And it's only 1 year half ago, but now all looks different! I forgot to mention the movie-watchers: people that play and at the same time they do other things like watching a movie. They sometimes forgot to take his turn and this is bad. Well, 5-minutes time is more suitable for theme. I prefer to wait 2 minutes more rather than an opponent that misses his turn. I am also very critical about [u]same-time option[/u]. I don't think those games don't require skills, but just the skills required are so different from the standard game that it's impossible to make a comparison between a rank gained playing sequential and rank gained playing same-time. I think it should be turned pointless or at least put a strong limitation on the same-time games one can play, premium or non-premium. I say this also considering that is "beta" and there are glitches. By the way I guess it's funny and people would play it even pointless. Another matter correlated with the ranks devaluation is the over-saturation of points. In few words everybody is ranking up as long as new players arrive, one day we'll be all generals! The more you play, the more you will benefit of this process. I have an idea how to slow it, but I will open another thread for that.

3 live games a day would be extreme if it included 2 player games. I think two player games are unrelated to the problem so they should be unlimited. Although it may be easier to get the middle ranks with so many points out there from the influx of new players it is still hard to get general because you lose so many points when you lose. Considering the site has been around 4 years and there are only 4 generals I don't think it's quite the problem you suggest it is.

@Vexer Everything will be decided to improve the quality of the games will be good for me. And, yes, 1v1 games cannot be ruined.

I am unsure about making 1v1 games different from the rest. Maybe they should be called differently: "duels" or something. That way you have a clear distinction between the two which makes it more natural to also distinguish them in how the rules work.

First off, I understand your frustration The_Bishop, I am also frustrated with myself due to the fact that I can no longer give people the help they want/deserve because of the rapid growth. Adding live game limitation might solve both our problems, you get more quality games and we get more time to help those who need help and catch those who need to be caught. My only concern is that 3 is a bit low, people might end up playing with the same members over and over again, I suggest it be 5 or more.

Thanks Fendi. I agree 3 is too low. Also I fear it might be a 'boomerang' for the staff... I mean a player has only 3 games per day, let say he has already played 1, in the next game he suffers a suicidal move, ok no problem, he starts another one (the last) and again... another suicidal move! It would draw him crazy and it would bomb the staff with messages: "That stupid guy kamikazed me 2 times! Now i can't play anymore! You must ban him! I want my 2 games restored!". But, I think 5 or 6 games can be okay. Plus, the problem is not only in live games. There are people playing 60 long-term games at once. I'm sure they don't delay more then 10 seconds to decide a move and they don't mind to ruin games. Can we put a limitation also to premium members? I don't know, something like 20 or 30 games? By the way for the moment I solved the problem by myself. I play only long-term games protected by password. I suggest it to everybody. If you invite 20 or 30 players you like to play with, you will see your game to start in 1 hour or so. At some point game-ruiners will be isolated because nobody will invite them anymore.

I also agree and I would like to point out that I try to do my best when it comes to dealing with a complaint. I have also been working on a more definitive guideline for breaking the rules and diciplining those players that do with the help of all the other staff, but it is a huge task. I know you might not have noticed, but there has actually been a much better crackdown lately on the rule breakers by all of the staff and slowly but surely it will get better. It is an uphill battle but not one that we are giving up on! I have personally drastically reduced the number of games I play in just to dedicate time to dealing with problem players. I, however, do not regret this as I believe in the end we will have a better site. (I would like to play more games, though...)