...against a specific user? Play Speed

Something needs to be done about Alexander the Great. He is intentionally holding up our match which is holding up our whole tournament: 2v2 @ Galactic Conquest: Road to Redemption. He makes inappropriate posts in the game chat but will not take a turn or help us move the game along by getting rid of his partner who is inactive as well. By the way, why would anyone ever set up a tournament with the boot disabled? :(

I'm so agitated right now this post probably makes no sense but can someone help with Alexander or the tournament or both?

Can I get some help on this? This one person is intentionally holding up an entire tournament.

Unfortunately this is one of the dangers of selecting the "Never" boot option. If a game creator really wants their game to not have booting, they run the risk of having a game get stalled.

Grr. I'm in that tournament too. Should have known better.

i think the max time for direct boot should be 90 days

Well, at least we don't have a maximum number of games we're allowed to play at one time.

I made a game with no direct boot time but I set the vote to boot time. The only problem is the voting (and surrendering) has to be unanimous and since two players quit playing WL, evidently, I'll always have that game only my list. Fortunately, we have filters so it never has to clog up my game list.

Pinkbladder I agree wholeheartedly. The NEVER option is completely ridiculous.

Fizzer is there any way this can be changed retroactively? If not, this game and tournament will be active forever. And Alexander the Great should be banned for doing this intentionally.

Seems odd to have a game or in this case a tournament go on indefinitely because 2 players refuse to move. Especially when one of those players is flaunting the fact that their strategy is to no move and they do it with crude language.

In line with with Pinkbladder said there needs to be some functionality to stop this from happening.

Still waiting for this to get fixed.

Im going to complain here aswell :) Well i just want to post 1 thing here about the new Report on warlight i just got banned for 3 days from warlight and auto surrendered in 65 games and i dont know why Nobody told me what i did wrong i had no warnings about it and nobody asked me anything about it . I sent suport and randy mail got no answer. Absurd!

Ottarinn, I sent you an e-mail with the chat that violated the WarLight rules. As a reminder, we can always view the rules here:

http://warlight.net/TermsOfService.aspx

So you can ban people and not fix stuck games? Kind of sucks for everybody. Not that I want to criticize, love the site, but still...

Seriously, is the sanctity of "game creator's intent" so important that there's no way to fix an obviously broken situation?

Frankly I lay the blame at the programmer who created the "never" boot option to begin with.

If you agree, vote here:

https://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features/suggestions/1142291-kill-the-never-boot-option

Although Enrico is a little more . . . direct than I would be, I principally agree with his sentiment, and addressed this in the "longest stuck game" post at length.

Incidentally, although I voted for the "kill the never boot option," I don't believe that will solve the problem of already-existing games that are stuck, or become stuck from here on out because of carelessness, new users who don't understand the import, or actively obstructing users such as this Alexander person.

I'm with Guderian - - you can ban people and autosurrender them in multiple (aparently dozens of) games, but can or will not address this relatively benign issue? Seems out of whack to me. Also addressed in greater detail in the other thread.

And now, in another thread (http://warlight.net/Forum/Thread.aspx?ThreadID=864), it's revealed that Fizzer can unstick individual games.

Now that we know that he can do it, his refusal to do so in this case is increasingly baffling to me. Maybe he can explain, because I am highly confused.

The thread you're linking had a direct boot time. However, due to a bug, whenever someone clicked the boot button they were presented with an error dialog, and the boot wouldn't work. There's a big difference between a bug and a game creator that explicitly doesn't want booting in their game.

Honest question: Every game creator or player joining a game with a "never" direct boot time gets a big warning they *have* to dismiss to join the game. Now that this is in place, do you still feel that the "never" option should be removed? After all, everyone knows exactly what they're getting into.

Or is your concern just about the games that were created with the "never" option before this warning existed, since these players may not have known what they were getting into?

You say you're talking about the former camp - that the "never" option should be removed even though the warning exists. I find this a difficult pill to swallow - if players know exactly what they're getting into, and choose to do so anyway, why should I stop them? It's what they wanted! You think I need to protect them from themselves?

Part of WarLight's philosophy is that players are in control of their games. You're advocating that I remove some of that control.

I could understand it more if you were arguing to just fix older games (since it's logical to assume some of them didn't know what they were getting into since the warning did not exist yet), but leave the rules for new as they are now.

To clarify, here is my suggestion: there should be a universal auto-boot period of (say) 30 days. This will two related problems:
-Games where one person quit warlight and the boot is set to NEVER
-Games where two people quit warlight and there is no direct boot option

There are a lot of games of this sort, and the number will by definition go up over time. This is especially a problem in tournaments, where by the time you get to round 4 the tournament is several months old and some of the initial participants have stopped playing warlight.

The drawbacks of this suggestion are:
-people in the past who chose games where boot is set to NEVER, and somebody left for 30+ days. But who really is being harmed here? The person who remains in the stuck game is almost certainly frustrated (and regrets his/her choice to sign up for a game with that setting) and would welcome the boot. The person who has not moved for 30+ days has probably quit warlight, or else is being abusive. Of course we can conceive of far-fetched scenarios involving somebody travelling for 60 days, but surely that is the distinct minority.
-some people may want to be in very, very, very slow games, but again I think this population is very small and you have to consider that what's in their best interests may not be in the best interests of the vast majority of users.
-there may be extreme situations where somebody has to go on vacation or deployment for 30+ days and other people agree that it's OK. If this is a concern you have, you could mitigate it by having a setting that lets everybody vote (unanimously) to set aside the auto-boot.

I really think you are placing too much emphasis on the "Airplane!" argument, i.e. "They bought the tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em die!"

This is a great site, and one of the reasons is because we have different options regarding gameplay. But there are some options which contribute to unpleasant gameplay, and do so in a way that is not obvious at the outset (even if it should be). This is an example. Another would be really long sliding boot times (I'm currently in a game where the creator set it up for 3 day sliding boots and then promptly quit warlight. We waited 23 days to boot the creator, and are now on month 3 (I think) and about turn five. Multiple people have posted on chat that this is the worst game they ever joined. Yes, we all could have read the rules more carefully before signing up, but I also think the presence of such obviously unpleasant gameplay situations indicates that you shouldn't be completely laissez-faire in your settings philosophy, or at least that there should be failsafe mechanisms in the most obviously bad outcomes.

Imho, there should never have been a never boot time, instead with a max boot time of 30 days orsome such etc. for those that wanted a long boot time to prevent such occurances, *and arguements* similar to this..
and in most instances where people want to never boot, the boot time is relatively irrelevant. I am playing with a person that we never change the boot time because we never boot each other.. settin Never doesn't change when we will boot each other. It seems like that option was designed with good intentions, but now that warlight is getting more popular, situations where people leave unforeseen are causing problems, as well as trolls trying to cause hassle.
IMHO, the never boot time should be removed, and Fizzer should Manually handle the games with a current boot time based on a case by case basis, which would require alot of time and effort which If i was foolish enough to enter one of those games I would be patient for him to help me with my individual case.

I agree that the warning that there is a never boot time warning should be bad enough, my mere arguement is trolls... the never boot, like the 0 minute boot, should be removed to help the noobs from gettings trolled, and the like.

Of course the end choice is always Fizzers.. as i understand it, this game is a hobby of his, not a job, he makes nothing from it besides his own enjoyment, and while it is frustrating to some of us to now be capable of finishing our tournaments/games remember this is still probably one of the best free games out there.

I think that a better option would be a Quit option, or 30 day auto-vote to end, where the players that have been Absent for 30 days, auto-vote to end, and all other players must vote to end to process it.. it wouldn't solve the tournaments, but also wouldn't make players cause the inability to play incredibly long duration games.


and now that i have probably gotten into a rant, i will desist..

Certainly a good perspective worth reiterating:

>Of course the end choice is always Fizzers.. as i understand it, this game is a hobby of his, not a job, he makes nothing from it besides his own enjoyment, and while it is frustrating to some of us to now be capable of finishing our tournaments/games remember this is still probably one of the best free games out there.



This is a great site; I spend far too much time on here ;-). I used to be a paying member of conquerclub but quit to join this one a while ago.

Fizzer wrote:

*****[begin Fizzer quote]*****
Honest question: Every game creator or player joining a game with a "never" direct boot time gets a big warning they *have* to dismiss to join the game. Now that this is in place, do you still feel that the "never" option should be removed? After all, everyone knows exactly what they're getting into.

Or is your concern just about the games that were created with the "never" option before this warning existed, since these players may not have known what they were getting into?

You say you're talking about the former camp - that the "never" option should be removed even though the warning exists. I find this a difficult pill to swallow - if players know exactly what they're getting into, and choose to do so anyway, why should I stop them? It's what they wanted! You think I need to protect them from themselves?

Part of WarLight's philosophy is that players are in control of their games. You're advocating that I remove some of that control.

I could understand it more if you were arguing to just fix older games (since it's logical to assume some of them didn't know what they were getting into since the warning did not exist yet), but leave the rules for new as they are now.
*****[end Fizzer quote]*****



Fizzer, your last sentence is right on target. For the moment, I am arguing just to fix older games. In a moment, I will post the stuck tournament that is the subject of this thread and the most spectacular example of what I'm talking about.

Please note, however, that what Enrico Pallazzo says above is correct - - you're saving people from themselves, but in most cases, you're just helping the needs of the many without really harming anyone. But for the moment, I'll settle for just having old stuck games fixed.

More in a moment.