banlist

[sun-e]

I guess we need a banlist. For example, the player MJÖLNIR get out of the implies5x game pretty early and now he signed up to rouge9y and dropped too in turn 5. Player like him shouldnt sign up to a game anymore. Myself I have a big list of players (roundabout 200-250) who dropped on our banlist and cant signup to any games of our portal. A banlist should able to be import to any game.

[drwr]

The game server already implements a reprimand system: if it sees that you have recently dropped out of a game, it makes you click through a page that says "No, really, I won't do that this time" when you try to sign up for the next game.

Unfortunately, it's impossible to make it stronger than that. I could forbid the user from signing up altogether. But accounts on RSW are free, so a malicious user would just make a new account for himself, and there's nothing I can do to prevent that. The best I can possibly do is to ask people not to be malicious. Either that, or I have to start charging something to create an RSW account.

I'm open to other suggestions.

David

[sun-e]

Okay, thats sound good enough. I can't understand why anyone signup to several games and dont play again and again. Accounts like that should be banned.

[Gorf]

player "Status"

I understand that player drops are inevitable; at times it is not possible to continue play due to life circumstances, etc.
But once a player has completed a RSWgame perhaps they could have "Credits" and/or "RSWMember" Status on their profile.
(?)
...

Also, I'm throwing out a new game type/classification idea: Tournament (or "RSWMembers"). It would only be open to players with "Credits" and/or "RSWMember" status.
So I guess it would be a semi-private game type..
May be a way to gain some sort of player status, reputation, etc.

Is it possible to give "Credits" and/or "RSWMember" Status to players that adhere?

Not sure what the coding realities/implications are & probably makes everything more complicated.. But since RSWGame is free, it's just an idea.

[drwr]

It sounds like a good idea. I'll toy around with it and see what I can do.

David

[Gorf]

Hi David

i think after a player has completed a game they should be given "RSWMember" status

"Credits" are probably not a good idea

maybe there could be some sort of index in addition to being an "RSWMember"; reflected on player profiles.
(?)

Games completed: x

Games not completed: y

Percentage of play: z


Regards,
Gorf

[drwr]

Hmm, but number of games completed means little, if we are trying to differentiate between honest people and griefers. A griefer could easily complete a dozen games in an hour.

David

[Gorf]

yea, that is the quandary in a free game

Regards,
Gorf

[sun-e]

The problem are the NMRs. There is no problem, if anyone give up his position, because the position would be communicate to the players and can be taken over by a standby player. But if an player miss 2-3 turns, the position ist ruined...

[drwr]

OK, RSW now supports the concept of "RSW membership". You become an RSW member after you have played 2 games to completion, and at least 45 days have elapsed since you created your account. If you abandon a game, your RSW membership is revoked, but you can get it back by playing another 2 games and waiting another 45 days.

When you create a game, you can declare it a "members only" game.

I'm not 100% sure this new system will work. One possible problem is we might end up with a bunch of "members only" games, and no general public games--that will defeat the purpose, and prevent new RSW players from learning the ropes. I don't want to promote an atmosphere of exclusivity. So, I reserve the right to remove this system in the future if I think it isn't doing the right thing.

Let me know what you think!

David

[Gorf]

Hi David

Thanks for the concept consideration!

I agree that RSW should never promote exclusivity. Everyone is a newbie
to RSW or any other game at one time or another & new players are always what matters
most.

thoughts about "RSWMember" games:

Could Game Names be made to be described ?; or Tongue-in-cheek ?; example: "Pretzel & Beer", etc. ?

I still think the idea or "Tournament" games should be considered too. With some sort of player index ?

Regards, Gorf

[drwr]

Could Game Names be made to be described ?; or Tongue-in-cheek ?; example: "Pretzel & Beer", etc. ?

This request comes up from time to time. So far I've resisted--I like the democratic way that arbitrary names are assigned. And it's nice not to have to deal with non-unique or untypeable names, and it's nice that the naming pattern is consistent across all games. But I'll think about it some more--there is some appeal to allowing a bit of creativity there.

I still think the idea or "Tournament" games should be considered too. With some sort of player index ?

I have always intended to make some kind of a Tournament system. A full Tournament game would be a standard game (no custom game options), to make player boards meaningful; though I guess there could also be a different category of Tournament game that allows for certain kinds of customizations. I've been waiting for the RSW population to rise high enough to justify this kind of thing; perhaps it's time now.

David

[Arioch]

In addition to the idea of a banlist... should we consider a limit of games any player can play the same time? I am now in 4 games (one i have taken over as standby but i think i will be eliminated soon) and in ALL these there is always ONE player we have to wait for... maybe he is in too much games and cant get ready with orders in time...

[drwr]

I don't think I have any way to judge how much available time any one person has. Some people might have time to play ten games effectively, some no more than two.

But the "I always have to wait for just one person in all my games" is a fairly common complaint, and we tend to assume that it's always the same one slowpoke. In reality, it tends to be a different person each time--a different person is often the last person in each game, at each turn. But when all you see is "waiting for 1 player", the tendency is to call that 1 player your nemesis.

Maybe if I instituted the earlier proposed "you're the last player" reminder email it would help--then perhaps the 1 player for a particular turn would be more motivated to get his/her turn in quickly.

But let me point out: each player has a right to wait until the very last minute to put in his turn, each turn. That's the rules of the game. If all players happen to put their turns in sooner, then there's no point in waiting around longer; but there's no reason to rush either. If you signed up for a game whose turns are scheduled once per week, you should be prepared to wait a full week between turns. If you want to play faster games, you should propose a game with a faster schedule.

David

[Arioch]

okay okay you're right... but i am so hppy to find this server that i am eager to play SW fast, its the first time after nearly 20 years or even more for me to play it again...

but i won't complain any more about slow players for as i said already, you are right

Arioch