Temp ban for players who keep timing out in their games.

[GwennieMacrae]

A problem I run into just about every day, often multiple times a day, is players that rather than conceding when they don't like what's played, will just let the timer run out and start a new game.

It would be nice if there was some repercussion for this. Like the server just bans them from playing for a few hours or something if they have too many time outs. I've seen this implemented in other games and it has helped improve this sort of thing.

 

[Firedrake]

I've played a number of people who time out due to medical issues (Hodgkin's, Parkinsons, MD, MS, etc.), but they usually warn me when the game starts it could happen.

I agree with the situation you outlined, though. Rather than conceding, they just let the timer run out while they start a new game. Very annoying, and it would be nice if something could be done to discourage it.

 

[Neo001992]

I would also like to add on to this by saying that I would love to see some form of punishment for people who constantly scoop in multiplayer games of commander the second they're not winning, got interacted with, or their greedy keep didn't pay off. Maybe something like where if the servers see that you conceded from the last x number of games before you actively used 10 minutes of your own clock you get timed out for a few hours or so.

I understand that sometimes real life comes up and you have to bail on a game, but I definitely don't like how modo encourages behavior that is completely not acceptable in a paper setting in person.

 

[GwennieMacrae]

I would also like to add on to this by saying that I would love to see some form of punishment for people who constantly scoop in multiplayer games of commander the second they're not winning, got interacted with, or their greedy keep didn't pay off. Maybe something like where if the servers see that you conceded from the last x number of games before you actively used 10 minutes of your own clock you get timed out for a few hours or so.

I understand that sometimes real life comes up and you have to bail on a game, but I definitely don't like how modo encourages behavior that is completely not acceptable in a paper setting in person.

See now that I completely disagree with. No one should be FORCED to play if they no longer want to play. That's just silly.

At least with conceding, the game is over, a player gets the "win" and you can just move on to the next. I get early concedes might upset people but...what can you do. Im sure getting a bad hand or not winning upset the person who conceded early. You shouldn't force the player to have to sit there and watch you win.

If anything, this could easily create a more annoying problem where people who would otherwise have just conceded now have to stall out and slow play until they hit X amount of time passed on their clock so they don't get dropped for a few hours. I can't imagine this being anything but wholly negative for everyone involved.

I understand it can be a lil annoying at times if you had some big fancy play you wanted to pull off and the opponent gave up before you can do it, but...that's life. Again at least conceding allows both players to just move on to the next game.

 

[Neo001992]

See now that I completely disagree with. No one should be FORCED to play if they no longer want to play. That's just silly.

At least with conceding, the game is over, a player gets the "win" and you can just move on to the next. I get early concedes might upset people but...what can you do. Im sure getting a bad hand or not winning upset the person who conceded early. You shouldn't force the player to have to sit there and watch you win.

If anything, this could easily create a more annoying problem where people who would otherwise have just conceded now have to stall out and slow play until they hit X amount of time passed on their clock so they don't get dropped for a few hours. I can't imagine this being anything but wholly negative for everyone involved.

I understand it can be a lil annoying at times if you had some big fancy play you wanted to pull off and the opponent gave up before you can do it, but...that's life. Again at least conceding allows both players to just move on to the next game.

I agree, no one should be forced to sit there for anything, but in a multiplayer game one person dipping out the second they're not winning or get interacted with effects more than just themselves, and I think it is completely reasonable to have some form of punishment for consistent bad behavior.

As for creating new problems it definitely could, but it wouldn't surprise me if the server had the information on if you were just waiting two minutes before passing each instance of priority you receive to wait out any clock requirements.

I would just like some tool beyond blocking people who salt scoop to control the quality of games you get with open lobbies of commander.

 

[GwennieMacrae]

I agree, no one should be forced to sit there for anything, but in a multiplayer game one person dipping out the second they're not winning or get interacted with effects more than just themselves, and I think it is completely reasonable to have some form of punishment for consistent bad behavior.

As for creating new problems it definitely could, but it wouldn't surprise me if the server had the information on if you were just waiting two minutes before passing each instance of priority you receive to wait out any clock requirements.

I would just like some tool beyond blocking people who salt scoop to control the quality of games you get with open lobbies of commander.

Even in multiplayer though, its just not fair to force people to stay when they don't want to. That feels very "sore winner". Why should someone be punished because they're no longer interested in playing a game?

I'm certainly not the type of person to deliberately wait out the clock. But if I was absolutely forced to continue playing when I didn't want to, I'd just yield my turn every turn without doing anything until I was taken out. It just feels like it would create way more problems than it would solve. I wouldn't want to join multiplayer games anymore out of fear that I'd be stuck having to watch 3 other people play until they were all satisfied and felt I could leave. It's just not reasonable.

I understand that early scoops upset people, but so does losing, being teamed up on, having your commander killed for the 3rd time and knowing you'll never cast it again. It just seems completely unreasonable that players should be punished and have to choose between watching 3 other people play OR be banned.

I don't really think players scooping early is the same as childish players intentionally keeping the game open and letting the time run out or even worse...ive seen players that will go so far as to like tap a land every few minutes to keep themselves from timing out and just run the clock to zero.

IRL there IS rules against slow play, because it makes sense to have those rules. It wouldn't make sense to force players to have to stay in a game X amount of time before they can leave, lest they not be allowed to play anymore in the future.

 

[Neo001992]

Even in multiplayer though, its just not fair to force people to stay when they don't want to. That feels very "sore winner". Why should someone be punished because they're no longer interested in playing a game?

I'm certainly not the type of person to deliberately wait out the clock. But if I was absolutely forced to continue playing when I didn't want to, I'd just yield my turn every turn without doing anything until I was taken out. It just feels like it would create way more problems than it would solve. I wouldn't want to join multiplayer games anymore out of fear that I'd be stuck having to watch 3 other people play until they were all satisfied and felt I could leave. It's just not reasonable.

I understand that early scoops upset people, but so does losing, being teamed up on, having your commander killed for the 3rd time and knowing you'll never cast it again. It just seems completely unreasonable that players should be punished and have to choose between watching 3 other people play OR be banned.

I don't really think players scooping early is the same as childish players intentionally keeping the game open and letting the time run out or even worse...ive seen players that will go so far as to like tap a land every few minutes to keep themselves from timing out and just run the clock to zero.

IRL there IS rules against slow play, because it makes sense to have those rules. It wouldn't make sense to force players to have to stay in a game X amount of time before they can leave, lest they not be allowed to play anymore in the future.

I feel like we're talking past each other here. I have no problem with people conceding games they have likely already lost in the face of an overwhelming board state. What I have a problem with is the never-ending stream of players who will concede on turns 2-4 when anything they have played gets interacted with, on or before turn 1 if anyone else has any kind of fast mana, or even during mulligans if heaven forbid they have to keep less than 7 cards (These people are extra fun because conceding during mulligans has a tendency to cause other problems with the client in multiplayer).

In paper this kind of behavior is kept in check from social pressure from the fact that if you're known as the player who picks up their cards and leaves every game of commander they play, then you're eventually going to run out of people willing to play with you. I don't think what is bad behavior in paper should be given a free pass simply because we have moved to a digital client.

 

[Firedrake]

This probably applies more to 1v1 than multiplayer...

"In a setting where there is no entry and nothing [money, prizes, ratings] on the line... most players don’t feel obligated to stay in a match where they are NOT HAVING FUN. NOR SHOULD THEY. One nice thing about online play is how fast and easy it is to concede and find a new match." Chris Kiritz, Digital Magic Executive Producer

As Gwennie pointed out, just concede and move on. Don't try to stall out a 1v1 JFF game while you go start another. That's just a$$holian.

 

[GwennieMacrae]

I feel like we're talking past each other here. I have no problem with people conceding games they have likely already lost in the face of an overwhelming board state. What I have a problem with is the never-ending stream of players who will concede on turns 2-4 when anything they have played gets interacted with, on or before turn 1 if anyone else has any kind of fast mana, or even during mulligans if heaven forbid they have to keep less than 7 cards (These people are extra fun because conceding during mulligans has a tendency to cause other problems with the client in multiplayer).

In paper this kind of behavior is kept in check from social pressure from the fact that if you're known as the player who picks up their cards and leaves every game of commander they play, then you're eventually going to run out of people willing to play with you. I don't think what is bad behavior in paper should be given a free pass simply because we have moved to a digital client.

I understand where you're coming from and I do get that sort of thing could be annoying. But even specifically talking about what you're saying. As annoyed as you might be because someone dropped on the first few turns or even turn 1 before much of anything happened. You have to understand that the player who scooped is annoyed as well. Even if it was just from having to go down to less than 7 or because they simply just don't like their opening hand. And it's not really fair that other players annoyance at them scooping should take precedence. I fully understand it can be a bummer for some folk if people quit early but....them's just the brakes. Again, Im sure the player who had to scoop early wasn't thrilled with having to do it either.

It's not fun to have 5 or less dead cards in your opening hand, seeing everyone else had a decent start and strong commanders and then being forced to have to play it out for X amount of time, knowing the whole time you're gonna quit once you hit that mark because now you HAVE to stay in the game and play amount of time or you won't be able to start another.

There's just too many issues this would bring up. There'd have to be a whole system that checked to make sure X amount of time or turns passed before a player left and how many times they've done it. Players forced to stay in games they didnt want to could just yield their turn doing nothing until they were "allowed" to leave. If there was a time limit they could play "just slow enough" to stall the game out and reach the timer but not slow enough for this new system to recognize it as intentional slow play and basically encourage the exact problem I was hoping to address in the OP.

I think its fair to say that implementing this sort of thing would just do a lot more harm than good. It would be a hindrance both to the players that prefer to leave whenever they want AND the players that want to make players stay against their will.

 

[GwennieMacrae]

This probably applies more to 1v1 than multiplayer...

"In a setting where there is no entry and nothing [money, prizes, ratings] on the line... most players don’t feel obligated to stay in a match where they are NOT HAVING FUN. NOR SHOULD THEY. One nice thing about online play is how fast and easy it is to concede and find a new match." Chris Kiritz, Digital Magic Executive Producer

As Gwennie pointed out, just concede and move on. Don't try to stall out a 1v1 JFF game while you go start another. That's just a$$holian.

And def totally agree with what you're quoting here and what you said above.

Like for sure if someone straight up said, "Hey I have health issues and I might time out without saying anything" of course that's totes diff. Heck, I'd even keep the game open if they timed out and leave like a "Hey, message me when you get this! Just checking in and hoping you're okay" kinda thing.

And definitely, part of what I like about playing online is that its easy to just bounce if I don't like the game and start another. I've had people do it to me and on the occasion I've gotten mildly annoyed but more often than not, I understand why they did it and accept that its just part of the game. Heck, in multiplayer a lotta times I PREFER when people scoop early. Maybe its just me but I see it as they're just being one less player to worry about in the game.

 

[GwennieMacrae]

I hate to bump this again but its getting to become an epidemic on my end at this point.

It's gotten to where I have more games where my opponent pulls the time out thing then games that actually end with them conceding. Literally has to be about 75% of my games at this point. Within the last 2 days its easily happened over 20 times from different users.

And I cant really block everyone who does it (although im sure some block me and that's fine) because if I DID block everyone who did it....I wouldn't be able to get a game started since I'd have blocked nearly every person I could possibly play against.

If anyone is wondering, I fully concede I am playing a deck that might upset people since it has an infinite mana combo in it but the fact is, im just playing MTG. Im not verbally harassing anyone, im not slow playing, im just playing cards legal in the format. I completely understand if people just concede or wanna not play me afterwards, thats fair. There's decks I dont like playing against myself and ill concede early or avoid people playing certain things. But its REALLY childish and manbaby stuff to just sit there and let the timer run out cause you don't like what's being played and I hope we can do something about this.

Im not asking for perma bans or anything serious. Just something that would prevent players from joining/creating games for an hour or something if they let the timer run out.