Anti Quitting Features

User avatar
Just_Ice
Grand Master
Posts: 2918
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 8:51 am
Location: Ozarks

Post by Just_Ice » Thu Apr 29, 2004 2:25 pm

Another temporary fix is to open the percentage up to 15 or more, for now, to accomodate some of the older lingering legitimate quits. Knowing that it will be closed up in the furture would still give people reason to not quit, knowing they wouldn't be able to join soon.

But, I like the idea to only show the last 50 games the best. Maybe when that comes on-line they can drop it back to 10% or less.

User avatar
Cadienne
Active Poster
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 2:33 pm
Location: Louisiana

Post by Cadienne » Thu Apr 29, 2004 3:11 pm

This is the only site that I personally have seen that most tourneys are rated. Other sites that I've played tourney's or ladders and hosted most are non rated. The rated ones are mostly full games. Sometimes there were some alternate formats and the ones that didnt' want an incomplete didn't play those tourneys, some did play and enjoyed the format but they had to live with the incompletes. Rated tourneys should NEVER have a fill in till the regular player gets there. In my humble opinion
If you want the rainbow, you have to pass through the rain.

Razler
Grand Master
Posts: 1322
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 6:54 am
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Post by Razler » Thu Apr 29, 2004 3:24 pm

Of course, if you don't like the new system, Hardwood could always reinstated the old. Now let me see. 25 points per uncompleted game equals 2450. Current rating is 1671. Minus the points that would have been forfeited, means you now have a rating of -779. Congratulations!

Cheap Seats
Active Poster
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 11:43 am

Post by Cheap Seats » Thu Apr 29, 2004 3:28 pm

Only 392 more games to go. Played a PROV game in Smoots.

Lost the game. Lost 15 ranking points. Now 1656. At this rate, by the time the 392 games are played should be well below 1500.

Seems very fair for someone that never quit a game in Smoots. Seems very fair to someone who played in a HW League.

Up the % to start out at 15%. That helps.

Lower the % to games played in the last 100, 50, or even 25. That helps.

But to penalize those who played in leagues and used the same nic in Smoots is hardly fair. To say, League should have done this, or should not have done this, or I should have had a seperate league nic, is all hindsight.

I have not quit a game easily in the last 100 I bet.

Were we the players you were trying to penalize ?

User avatar
Cadienne
Active Poster
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 2:33 pm
Location: Louisiana

Post by Cadienne » Thu Apr 29, 2004 3:49 pm

Were we the players you were trying to penalize ?
Definately not.
You just happen to be one that got caught in the fix. Is it your fault? No Is it anyone elses? No. Unfortunately it's the only way to get it fixed
If you want the rainbow, you have to pass through the rain.

Cheap Seats
Active Poster
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 11:43 am

Post by Cheap Seats » Thu Apr 29, 2004 4:02 pm

Unfortunately it's the only way to get it fixed
No, there have been a few other suggestions.

1. Base it on last 25, 50, or even 100 games.

2. Up the % to allow time for a chance to recover certain nics.

Plus a few others that were not implemented. But if this is the path HW has decided to go down, modifying the above would be the easiest.

Razler
Grand Master
Posts: 1322
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 6:54 am
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Post by Razler » Thu Apr 29, 2004 4:06 pm

Cheap Seats wrote:
Unfortunately it's the only way to get it fixed
No, there have been a few other suggestions.

1. Base it on last 25, 50, or even 100 games.

2. Up the % to allow time for a chance to recover certain nics.

Plus a few others that were not implemented. But if this is the path HW has decided to go down, modifying the above would be the easiest.
:D You forgot my favorite. :D

8) Reinstate the penalty. 8)

:twisted: Retroactively!! :twisted:

Visionary Artisan
Active Poster
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2003 2:54 pm

Post by Visionary Artisan » Thu Apr 29, 2004 4:08 pm

All I can say is THANKS AGAIN! The difference is remarkable. It is fascinating to watch someone who has a habit of quitting games realize that it is a habit they will have to break if they want the complete choice of games from which to choose to play. Maybe a league tournament director could give some insight into how many games due to league play is reasonable.
Image

Cheap Seats
Active Poster
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 11:43 am

Post by Cheap Seats » Thu Apr 29, 2004 4:13 pm

Was I the person you were after Razzler or Visionary ?

Is basing the % on the last 25, 50 or 100 games reasonable ?

Is uping the % and then lowering it a reasonable approach ?

Razler
Grand Master
Posts: 1322
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 6:54 am
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Post by Razler » Thu Apr 29, 2004 4:38 pm

It seems to me I remember being in situations before the ‘abandon’ button was added that there were times when all four players at a table where game had started, decided to remake table as settings were undesirable. As each person left the table the host would sit a bot, finally leaving game him/her self. When this happened no one was penalized, and no one had a ‘left game early’ on their web profile. This worked fairly well in smoots, with no assistance from staff.

Now in league rooms, with TD’s HTD’s and Admins to supervise, would would not the same hold true. If all 4 players leave, then the game is null and void. There is no game recorded, so there is no incompleted game recorded either.

Is this correct?

Razler
Grand Master
Posts: 1322
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 6:54 am
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Post by Razler » Thu Apr 29, 2004 4:40 pm

Cheap Seats wrote:Was I the person you were after Razzler or Visionary ?

Is basing the % on the last 25, 50 or 100 games reasonable ?

Is uping the % and then lowering it a reasonable approach ?
No.

No.

No.

User avatar
omni_555
Grand Master
Posts: 2946
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 11:32 pm
Location: South Carolina

Post by omni_555 » Thu Apr 29, 2004 8:58 pm

Cheap, your feelings are understandable and very reasonable. The only problem here is that we all knew that there would be SOME innocent people temporarily caught in the crossfire in this battle against the quitters, and this was generally accepted. Personally, I do not like having 41 incomplete games show in MY profile, as I think it may give SOME people the wrong idea about my playing, BUT if that number were 500 and put me over the 10% incomplete game limit I would STILL be in favor of it - not LIKE it maybe, but STRONGLY SUPPORT it...

You said
No, there have been a few other suggestions.

1. Base it on last 25, 50, or even 100 games.

2. Up the % to allow time for a chance to recover certain nics.

Plus a few others that were not implemented. But if this is the path HW has decided to go down, modifying the above would be the easiest.
Other solutions ARE being worked on, even some of the ones you mentioned, but MOST people were getting very impatient waiting for SOME solution to be implemented, and THIS was the BEST that could be done given the time constraints. To modify these "fixes" will take time, but I am sure that SCE is working on them.

One thing that I am having difficulty understanding is the claim about the nicks that have HIGH percentages of incomplete games on them as a result of leaving games set up with hand limits. Unless SOMEONE stayed behind and FINISHED those games after the other three had left, there is NO WAY that the games would have been recorded as incomplete... Quite simply, once all the players have left the game before it is completed, the game is wiped out of existence!!!

I recall once a few months ago when I was in a game that the host didn't realize had been set for Suicide with No Pass. We had all bid and it wasn't until the first card was ready to play that we realized that there was NO PASS set up for this game. NO ONE wanted to play it out like this, and so we all agreed to just leave and set up a new table. By the time we had discussed and agreed to this, the first hand had been played, both nils getting set, and we were losing by a small margin, so there WAS a score to base "winners"/"losers" on if that was to be done.

My partner was the first to leave, and the usual server message popped up. The host then left, and I became the new host. I left next, and got the message that I was in a rated game and would still be included in the rating calculations, even tho I was one of the last two remaining.

I watched the game in the list in the lobby for a few seconds until the final player left. There was NO adjustment to my rating, and NO server message popped up saying that the game I had been in was now finished. My online profile did NOT show the game AT ALL.

So, I am at a loss to see what all this fuss is really about. I STILL sympathize with anyone who has incompletes listed as a result of being booted, power outages, computer problems, etc, as I have a number of these MYSELF, but they are a part of the SMALL sacrifice that we must accept in order to do our share in helping to solve this problem.

AND the BOTTOM LINE here is the simple fact that there are reports coming in from all over about people who are seeing a HUGE POSITIVE IMPROVEMENT in the quitting situation. No, it has NOT been ELIMINATED, but it is GREATLY REDUCED!!!

Just another little anecdote from last night. I was in the lobby lookinf for a game and checking out some of the player profiles when I saw a game that I was about to join. Just as I clicked, it disappeared, and I was told that "That game is now full." Curious, I went to the table for a few minutes as a watcher. I didn't say anything, just watched as the game played. It was an interesting game, but the point I am getting to is that the fourth player who clicked in ahead of me had something like 8% incomplete games on his nick. His partner messed up on a play and set them on a big bid, and he got upset and left!!! Everyone waited for a few seconds, and lo and behold, this guy CAME BACK!!! When he was asked "Why?" he replied simply that he wasn't about to get another quit added to his record!!!

THIS one occurence made the WHOLE THING worthwhile for me!!! He stayed and finished out the game, and actually ended up winning!!! 8)
Playing games should be FUN - seek out your own level! Don't frustrate others unnecessarily. 8)

Fiery Jack
Active Poster
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 7:53 am

Post by Fiery Jack » Thu Apr 29, 2004 10:42 pm

I sympathise with anyone who's become a victim of the new changes through no fault of their own.

What baffles me, is why so many "limited hand" and other "special rules" tournies were played at rated tables. I played tournies here back when (to the best of my recollection) there was only ONE tourney room.... and continued to play in them while a handful of other tourney rooms were established. (I gave up playing in them when, as soon as the tournies attracted 20 - 30 people ANOTHER room would spring up and players, inevitably, dispersed). Point being.... in EVERY tournament I played in... TDs were careful to instruct players to SET TABLES TO "SOCIAL". Somewhere along the way.... that one-time DEFAULT setting ("social") seems to have been abandoned.

It's not news to anyone who's been reading this forum for some time.... but I came here from a "dedicated tourney" site. Tables there were ALWAYS set to "social". You WOULD get peeps who wanted to rate tables.... and they's either be told "NO!" - in no uncertain terms - or, they'd be allowed to rate the table on condition that all 4 players agreed to it. Rating a table sans that permission would result in an automatic DQ. Players who WANTED their tourney games rated were a very small minority.... and there were plenty of them who played rated when not entering tournies. I'd find it hard to believe then, if informed that tourney players here DEMANDED that their games be rated.... esp. if playing "limited-hand" and other "special rules". Again then.... what happened to that (unspoken) "default rule" that tourney tables ALWAYS be set to "social"?

Admittedly..... this is all rather pointless since what's done is done.... but ANY direct accusation or insinuation that Cheap Seats is in any way at fault for his/her current dilemma is completely UNREASONABLE. "Quitting" is the USUAL way of ending a "limited hand" tourney... since the +/- settings are seldom, if ever, reached. At a stretch, one COULD blame the TDs for not adhereing to the "default rule".... but, until the other day... it DIDN'T MATTER.

As for possible solutions.... while only counting the last 25 or 50 games might restore Cheap Seats to "legality".... what about those who's last 25/50 games have been rated tourney games? What restores Cheap Seats COULD make a currently-legal player a victim of the same percentage rule.

Am I right that a LOT of those tournies are ladder-related? If so.... MAYBE affected players could provide evidence (i.e. their ladder page & stats) to SCE via e-mail and if they've played 50 tournies here perhaps staff could remove 50 "incompletes" from their stats. That might be impossible to do..... or it might be HARD WORK.... but what's right is right. IF injustices can be undone.... they SHOULD be.

Meanwhile.... ALL tourney players and TDs need to return to the "default", SOCIAL settings for their tourney tables.... unless they're a "group" who PREFER their tourney games to be rated.

Razler
Grand Master
Posts: 1322
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 6:54 am
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Post by Razler » Fri Apr 30, 2004 1:42 am

Thxs Onmi, I thought so. (re- the all 4 leaving game thingie)

As for the 'Subing for another player at start of game til they showed up' defence :shock: . If the player can play on time, then they should be dq'd.
If this is allowed in league play, then the beef should be with the league that allows it, NOT Hardwood.

This player thinks the percentage should be raised to 15%. Seems pretty selfserving to me since their % is 13. How bout 20, or 25 %. I sure there would be others that would want the percentage moved higher, all for reasons they feel are legit. Only the last 25, 50 or 100 games? Ok, but should not the win/loss also be based on the same? How many of those wins where won by someone else when they could not, for whatever reason finish.The percentage is based on all rated games played.

User avatar
American Beauty
Grand Master
Posts: 3163
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2002 5:57 pm

Post by American Beauty » Fri Apr 30, 2004 9:34 am

I think 10% is a pretty fair amount. It gives room for legitimate disconnects, but is not so slack that it would eventually become obsolete.

I'm sorry that it has been damaging to some that were not deserving, but
on the whole, I'm pleased with the results.

Post Reply