Jump to content


Photo

Accepting or Declining Challenges


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

Poll: Accepting or Declining Challenges (22 member(s) have cast votes)

Add Accepting or Declining Challenges option?

  1. Yes (14 votes [63.64%])

    Percentage of vote: 63.64%

  2. No (8 votes [36.36%])

    Percentage of vote: 36.36%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,830 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 11 March 2013 - 03:16 AM

Lady Kathryn,

 

"Cheating" is a common complaint in these forums.  But I would ask that we consider that the most nefarious forms of cheating are going to be addressed independently, in time.  (We've already fixed the pause glitchers, right?)  So should we now pass an unrestricted decline button for a reason of cheating that may very well be eliminated by a separate fix later?  

 

Anti-chasing is coming, so let's give them time they need.  

 

I hope the Stratego.com community will consider these facts before pushing for an unrestricted decline button that will prove to be an error in its own right, in my opinion.



i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#22 PsychoPatty

PsychoPatty

    Sergeant

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold General

Posted 20 March 2013 - 11:36 PM

I vote no!

Ya should be able to reject a match, but not to accept challenges..

I'm afraid people would multi-account just to get in the leaderboards..

Humans in general are like rats, always looking for a better/faster way out..


Untitled-1.jpg

When I say sucker, I mean Good Game, Sucker!


#23 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,830 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 20 March 2013 - 11:54 PM

Would somebody clarify?  I thought that challenges were unranked events and of no ELO consequence whatsoever.  True or Not True?  If they do count as ranked events, then PPatty above has a good point.  You could multi-account your way up.  



i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#24 SpacemanSpiff

SpacemanSpiff

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Colonel

Posted 21 March 2013 - 12:01 AM

There is a reason it says 'ranked' on the ranked button. It is the only way you can play a ranked game on this site via smart matching. Challenges are not ranked.
  • GaryLShelton likes this

#25 Midnightguy

Midnightguy

    Colonel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,752 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Colonel

Posted 22 March 2013 - 02:50 AM

I have noticed something though when you are found an opponent, it displays the battle chat of your opponent BEFORE you click start setup button.  With that in mind, you have 30 seconds to decide click on "Continue what I was doing" instead.  If you see the persons name under Battle Chat and dislike that player for whatever reason, you don't have to click "Start game setup"  I have yet to ignore any challenge so, I not 100% sure this will work.  I only just noticed this a couple days ago. 



#26 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,830 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 08 April 2013 - 03:42 AM

M.G., yes, you can continue what you were doing for a few seconds, but I don't think you can back out of a game at the point you describe, do you?  It seems once you get the "Start Game Setup" message and then use up your 30 seconds, you will then only have the 6 minutes to set up.  I haven't failed to click ready before the 6 minutes is up.  I always thought it would be an automatic loss if I failed to do so.  Is that right?



i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#27 Ash0rz

Ash0rz

    Scout

  • Stratego Staff
  • 78 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Sergeant

Posted 08 April 2013 - 04:18 PM

M.G., yes, you can continue what you were doing for a few seconds, but I don't think you can back out of a game at the point you describe, do you?  It seems once you get the "Start Game Setup" message and then use up your 30 seconds, you will then only have the 6 minutes to set up.  I haven't failed to click ready before the 6 minutes is up.  I always thought it would be an automatic loss if I failed to do so.  Is that right?

 

Havn't read the entire topic..sorry.

But to answer your question Gary ... No you do not lose the match if you fail to setup within the 6 minutes.

What is does after 6 min of not being ready, is it automatically fills the blanks and starts the game.



#28 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,830 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 08 April 2013 - 06:11 PM

Ash, well, that's good to know one wouldn't automatically lose the match.

 

The main problem I was thinking of was the accidental pushing of the Ranked Match button and then realizing a long call of nature was at hand.  If I actually didn't get back before the 6 minutes was up--and hadn't put a thing in place yet--you're saying the computer would fill in every single piece?  I guess the best thing then would be to load up something, anything, so that I wouldn't get a complete computer fill.  Right?



i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#29 Adsum

Adsum

    Bomb

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Sergeant

Posted 11 April 2013 - 07:25 PM

There needs to be a double rating system:

 

Casual-Ranked (current system)

Tournament Ranked.

 

The ELO system really works better with a tournament pairing system so that players can be matched within appropriate classes, with new unranked players facing similarly low ranked players and so on. The Tournament rating will usually be the more accurate of the two.



#30 Guest_deliciousonions_*

Guest_deliciousonions_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 April 2013 - 07:58 PM

If they make duplicate accounts to knock down ratings of higher ranked players then they know they are cheating. That should be enough. They then know that their main account rating is falsely high because of their decoy account activity. We know they are cheats. They know they are cheats, Lets just pity them for needing to do it.



#31 Luckypapa

Luckypapa

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 738 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 28 April 2013 - 08:36 PM

I have noticed something though when you are found an opponent, it displays the battle chat of your opponent BEFORE you click start setup button.  With that in mind, you have 30 seconds to decide click on "Continue what I was doing" instead.  If you see the persons name under Battle Chat and dislike that player for whatever reason, you don't have to click "Start game setup" 

 

I think this is not a good idea. When you only want to play against self chosen opponents, you take away the opportunity for players to play against a high(er) ranked player, because they are afraid to lose a lot of points. A lot of low ranked players are recently become a member of this site, and are excellent players too.
I think Roger Federer also does not want to play against a qualifier, but yes, the qualifier has the day of his life! And a chance to earn a lot of points when he beats the (former) number one of the world!

So, better choose the challenge option to pick the opponent you wish to play against.

 

I like the way the computer connects two players. It is always a surprise what coming up. And yes, its not always what I want, but I have to deal with it. And if you (still) don't want to play against a low(er) ranked player, cancel the search after 5 seconds and try again.

 

In another forumdiscussion has been mentioned the problem of not score any points by a win (for example the leader of the silvers) and as solution a score of 1 point (minimum) by a win. Work out this option, so we can welcome the first 'gold' player soon!

 

                                                                                                         Lucky


The secret of happiness is not in doing what you like, but in liking what you should do.


#32 xa1337

xa1337

    Bomb

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Marshal

Posted 30 April 2013 - 12:40 AM

I vote no because I don't agree completely with Hmmness' arguments. The whole idea of the ranking system is that if you want to reach the top, you should be able to face any player. Of course if you play a low ranking player you risk to loose a lot of points, but then if a low ranking player beats you, you deserve to drop in ranking. Furthermore, if they are really no good, the game should be over quickly and it boosts your percentage. So why not?

Of course there is still the issue of the unsporty players. I don't have a solution for that one.

 

 

Disagree with accept/decline button and any concept that allows you to choose your opponent for a ranked game - Smart matching only.

 

 

I also vote no because the same arguments of KingTubby.

 

 

I vote no!

Ya should be able to reject a match, but not to accept challenges..

I'm afraid people would multi-account just to get in the leaderboards..

Humans in general are like rats, always looking for a better/faster way out..

 

This !

 

And... I voted no.

 
Why do you want to change the system? I do not understand.
 
If tomorrow we can choose our opponent, many players will not play against weaker opponents to avoid losing too many points. Result: fewer game, fewer activities on the site, more time wasted waiting.
 
Cheating? If you can decide who you're playing against, then the possibilities for cheating are increased.
 
Under the current system (the selected server opponent):
 
- This is a good opportunity to get a true ranking or opponents do not choose to. In any event (sports or otherwise), it is unthinkable to choose his opponent, it would be too easy.
 
- This is a good way to force players who avoid or fear to play against each other.
 
- No collusion.
 
- ...


#33 MajorPane

MajorPane

    New Recruit

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 30 April 2013 - 01:40 AM

I agree 100% with HmmNess! I vote yes!

 

#34 SuperDrew2k

SuperDrew2k

    Miner

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 225 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Major

Posted 30 April 2013 - 05:46 AM

I VOTED NO!

 

i think higher ranked players should be forced to play any challenge that comes their way. 

 

did iraq have a choice not to be invaded? hell no. 

 

if we let the "champs" start picking and choosing who they battle...this site will become like the others....people waiting for someone to play.

 

as far as the computer match ups go....sure, pair up people with similar records first. but still give david a chance to take down goliath.

 

"cheaters"...enough with the paranoia already...


Hmm....i wonder where that marshal went

#35 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,830 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 30 April 2013 - 06:54 AM

I VOTED NO!

 

i think higher ranked players should be forced to play any challenge that comes their way. 

 

did iraq have a choice not to be invaded? hell no. 

 

if we let the "champs" start picking and choosing who they battle...this site will become like the others....people waiting for someone to play.

 

as far as the computer match ups go....sure, pair up people with similar records first. but still give david a chance to take down goliath.

 

"cheaters"...enough with the paranoia already...

 

 

Hey Drew, was Iraq a "higher ranked player" ?

 

I agree with the NO sentiment on the absolutely free and unrestricted decline button.  But I do think we could have a limited button.  I think that all lower ranked players need to play whoever they can every time.  But upper ranks?  I think we ought to give them some leeway.  SOME.  Give them the ability to decline 2-3 matches per day.  Then they would have to play.  Look, if a Silver Marshall just doesn't feel like risking 50 points because he just drew a Bronze Spy from the computer, shouldn't we allow him to take a break and decline the match, if he wants?  Why shouldn't the upper ranks be given a few perks?  FEW, I said.  Yes, I think it is fun that I got to play Spiff when I was a Bronze Lieutenant, but I just know that he and others in the loftiest zones, the elite here, have a lot of stress to stay where they are.  So I'm not asking a lot, only 2-3 matches per day for the upper ranks only.  The lower ranks through Bronze Colonel or General should just play whoever they get because they still need to learn from everyone.  



i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#36 SuperDrew2k

SuperDrew2k

    Miner

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 225 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Major

Posted 30 April 2013 - 07:22 AM

Hey Drew, was Iraq a "higher ranked player" ?

 

 

 

obviously not, but that was besides the point...nobody/country/army/player has a real choice on if they get attacked. should they be able to run away like cowards when challenged? i say no....stay the @#$% out of the octogon if you arent willing to fight any challenger that steps to you


Hmm....i wonder where that marshal went

#37 trickz

trickz

    Major

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,450 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 01 May 2013 - 02:49 AM

Yo, I will fight Iraki's bitsj!

I will attack their shit and smash the pigs

so it'll be a fokkin' disaster kids!

And I don't care which nationality they have, under which flag they live...

In the game, I will get their flag so quick that they're begging Trickz :

"Dude, I never want to play you again cuz' you're really an agressive dik!"

Impressive sjit,.....cuz' you don't mess with Trickz who's blessed with gifts

to kill you and I even fokkin' molest your kids, you wanna bet on this?!? :D

 

It doesn't matter which language you speak.

When you're playing me, you only manage defeat!

My job is to make sure you can't handle the peepz

that act in the league where you can't practically be!

Can't,..as in NEVER so you have to agree...

that Trickz rules the game and he's attacking the weak....

 

noobs, their defeat rules and that's what I constantly repeat fools!

I think giving you the heat's cool so I will beat you

and my miner will sneak through...

to grab your fokkin' flag cuz you're just a weak tool! :D


I love the smell of Napalm in the morning




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users