Two things

Post Reply
spades Beybi
Noob
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:59 am

Two things

Post by spades Beybi » Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:08 pm

Would it be possible to add a feature that you can exclude watchers. If someone wants them they could use the feature to yes watchers but if you dont want them you could block them. Its very distracting sometimes when watchers come in and talk and talk or keep coming in and saying ugly things or sometimes they will just come in and say something mean then poof. The other nite we kicked and banned a watcher and she kept coming back so the ban was not working.

Second There is a 2000 player that just waits in lobby to sub if one is needed but he doesnt play to often and its not fair for him to join with that level and we not be able to get his points should we win. He even has in his profile no invites just call if you want a sub.

Thank u

User avatar
Sailing_Away
Guide
Posts: 878
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:44 am
Location: Perth, ON

Re: Two things

Post by Sailing_Away » Thu Jun 14, 2012 6:03 am

You could always put watchers on ignore.... especially if they are chatty. But what sounds like a good idea for an enhancement is a checkbox for "ignore watchers". That way you don't have to manage your own ignore list, and you can choose to be oblivious to the things a watcher would say while other players can leave it on if they choose.

Put the idea in on Ideascale.... I'd vote for it.
-Brian

"Come Sail Away with me...."

spades Beybi
Noob
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:59 am

Re: Two things

Post by spades Beybi » Thu Jun 14, 2012 9:33 am

Yes I realize can put them on ignore but this one in particular kept changing names coming in saying ugly things then poofing. So if you could exclude them from your game totally that would stop the craziness when your trying to like cover a nil or something. Sometimes I do enjoy watchers but not the riff raff that cause trouble. Three different games yesterday a watcher would come in and say something ugly to one of the players.

User avatar
Sailing_Away
Guide
Posts: 878
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:44 am
Location: Perth, ON

Re: Two things

Post by Sailing_Away » Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:30 am

I hear ya... and that makes the case stronger for the Ideascale enhancement to chose whether to ignore watchers or not.
-Brian

"Come Sail Away with me...."

User avatar
Galt
Grand Master
Posts: 1484
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 10:57 am
Contact:

Re: Two things

Post by Galt » Thu Jun 21, 2012 10:01 pm

The problem of subs with ratings that are much higher than the players whom they replace has always existed.

It would not really be much of a consideration except for the remarkable level of quitting that goes on here.
Image

User avatar
Midnightguy
Big Poster
Posts: 540
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 12:32 am

Re: Two things

Post by Midnightguy » Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:55 pm

Muting a watcher won't prevent the game from lagging when the other player or player(s) are still talking to that muted watcher. I agree with Galt you should have an option where you can allow the host to exclude watchers from coming into a game.

User avatar
Candy911
Guide
Posts: 791
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 9:12 am

Re: Two things

Post by Candy911 » Mon Jul 23, 2012 9:49 am

Maybe an "invite only" or a "lock button" once the game is full? That would exclude everyone else from the lobby and assure the host they would not be bothered with chat during the game. If you like this suggestion or you have a better suggestion you could submit it to Silvercreek via they idea scale web site which follows.
http://silvercreekentertainment.ideascale.com/

Spadesomniac
Active Poster
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:05 am
Location: Boston

Re: Two things

Post by Spadesomniac » Mon Jul 30, 2012 7:55 am

Yes, it's hard to miss the fact that overall the subs in the lobby are a huge cut above the players that are leaving!

The positive to this is that it often creates a fun competitive game where one did not exist before. Your pard leaves when things seem hopeless, then a good sub and you get an exciting game and maybe even a win. Yay for that.

The bad part is that some poor players exploit this by leaving so a sub can take their place and give them (their only) chance at a win. In one case, a player was obsessively avoiding bags and my partner and I took the opportunity to set her nearly every hand. Instead of adjusting her play, she claimed she had to go make lunch for her family and left. A superb player came in as a sub. The original player who was supposedly too "busy" to play then returned as about a dozen different watchers (each one of which we kicked) and admitted that she left because she knew a sub was her only chance of not losing points.

It ended up being a close game with a photo finish on the last hand. Our team lost and the quitter got positive points for a game she could never have won on her own without switching her strategy, which she seemed unwilling to do.

I don't think we should limit skilled subs as they add to the fun! But I do think someone who leaves the game should not get any positive points for a win. Perhaps it could be adjusted so that if you leave you get negative points if you lose, but gain nothing if your team wins without you?

Post Reply