If someone is losing, they can simply run down the clock. It might take you 10 or 15 turns to eliminate them.

So what? I think that dragging out the game is an excellent way to test an enemy's concentration and dedication to the game. If you can't be bothered to spend 1-2 hours eliminating your opponent, you don't deserve to win, end of story.

but going on the toilet and having a 2min turn shouldn't be rewarded by a boot!

If your bladder is weaker than your opponent's, well, that means you're too incompetent to win, and you should get booted.

Apparently I'm not actually on the forum...

Good.

Anyway, overall I have to say I'm rather disappointed with the drop in quality of forum posts. Back in the days of Illuminati's prominence, we never would have tolerated this foolishness. Hail Illuminati! WOLOLO!!!

Edited 8/5/2014 20:36:57

"if you can't spend 2 hours you don't 'deserve' to win"





wtf does that even mean? most single sitting games are over in less than 20 minutes.

I don't know which is more confusing - people who attach some kind of morality to winning and losing, or people who think ranked games should stop for potty breaks.

get real.

Cephistokles,

What do you mean by 'early booting'? You cannot boot a player early. Only when the timer runs out....which is the point of this thread - everyone operates under the same clock, and the time constraint is PART OF THE GAME.

If you can't be bothered to spend 1-2 hours eliminating your opponent, you don't deserve to win, end of story.

it is a folish american way to reason like you do. Learn about Hume's law!
i already know that the game mechanics are as they are. I repeat to say: it doesnt follow that it is good that they are like this.

We can in effect CHANGE the "soft game mechanics" by implementing social norms, as humans tend to adhere to them under social pressure. and this is what we actually talk about: we wont change the hard game mechanics, but we decide whether to hate and ostracize earlybooters or not.

Edited 8/7/2014 22:03:13

" or people who think ranked games should stop for potty breaks. "

Of course they should, and you're a goddamn moron for arguing otherwise.

If you're playing an actual game of risk, do you declare yourself the winner and put the game away when your buddy goes to take a piss?

What's the point of even playing if your real goal is just to win via boot at the earliest possible chance?

Master Race,

Risk is not a timed game. If it were, you might have a point. In fact, I'm hard pressed to think of even one timed competition game of any kind that allows for bathroom breaks.



Cephistokles,

criticizing American culture is not argument. Further if you think there 'ought to be' a game with bathroom breaks, make one. Warlight does not have it. The clock does not care what 'ought to be', and rightly so.

Cephistokles,

criticizing American culture is not argument. Further if you think there 'ought to be' a game with bathroom breaks, make one. Warlight does not have it. The clock does not care what 'ought to be', and rightly so.

criticizing American culture is not argument, true. The argument actually was Hume's law. It's contempt is part of my critique of American culture. I just stated this aside.
You still don't seem to understand, that WE CAN change the actual setting of warlight by changing it's social settings. Thus Warlight DOES have as the case may be "bathroom breaks".
I dont care if the clock cares or not, I care if players care. And we can make them care.

Edited 8/8/2014 18:33:43

seems like a self-delusion to me.

the only thing you change is who you play with. The larger game landscape, operating under the reality of the clock, goes on without you.

Does the ability to do an action without fear of punishment mean that that action is "right"?

taxi driver i didnt understand you well, do you want to say cannot change warlight by changing my behavior or what?

and bob is so right: you act as if the possibility to do it makes early booting a good thing

a 'good' thing? a 'right' action? There you go again attributing some kind of morality to the landscape. It's neither good nor bad. The landscape doesn't care. It just is.


In any timed competition, one side is often happy to see the clock run out. Whether it is 'right' or 'wrong' that the clock should run out is not part of the equation.

the time constraint is PART OF THE GAME

the clock is part of the measure of the skill of a player

Edited 8/9/2014 16:08:17

You made yourself go in serious trouble , blame yourself for posting this thread

serious trouble?

I was wondering what those black helicopters were doing circling my house.

the Clock Nazis will be rappelling into my window at any moment.

I will never understand how people can complain about others playing within the defined constructs of the game. Since when is it poor play to follow the rules of the game?!df

good players dont boot, there is really no more to say

Welll ... erm thay do only at specefic times

Myhand, that is neither here nor there. The question isn't whether good players boot... The question is whether or not booting is acceptable. Clearly it is given the fact that it is designed into the game. If it were not acceptable it wouldn't be a part of the game!

Personally I only play games where direct and auto are the same so I can't ever boot. That said, if I were to play a game where that was not the case and was booted I would blame one person and only one person... Myself.

If you set the autoboot time equal to the direct boot time then the computer will boot the person on the right time, problem solved.
Not that I'm in to the real-time games anymore, because it takes far too long

Willem,

setting the autoboot to match the direct boot does NOT solve the problem.

why? because the minimum auto-boot is 5 minutes. That's enough time to allow a sore loser to drag the game out to over an hour if they choose.


Richard,

you nailed it.

so if you won and you dont want to play anymore, because you know you won, why dont just surrender and blacklist?

Why do you force upon yourself half an hour of wasted time and feeling bad, for only a win more and a loss less in your statistic.

It makes no sense. Your whole approach is wrong. Good players know that. They join the games to play, not to look at their stats.

Generally, a good player would not play someone who acts like a dick that badly anyway.