Make pause contractual.

I love the new pause feature. In private leagues where you know/trust your opponents to play fair, it's great for dealing with unforeseeable real-life interruptions that would otherwise have prevented some games to be played in the first place or lead to concession.

However, in open play, especially competitive like CCL, the pause is a bit problematic as you don't know your opponent in most cases and trusting them on any verbal gentlemens' agreement is dangerous as that can screw you over big time (you are potentially competing after all).

Therefore, I suggest the pause feature to be augmented in the following way (or something similar):

  1. GUI-action player 1: Request-Pause (in the menu)
  2. GUI reaction: display 1,2,3,5,10, ? minutes?
  3. GUI action player 1: Select requested pause length
  4. GUI reaction: waiting for opponent to accept
  5. GUI interaction player 2: your opponent requests a pause of XXX minutes, do you accept? Yes/No?
    6.1) GUI action player 2: Select Yes
    ==> Pause begins and can only be ended by both people ending the pause prematurely. Otherwise, it will end automatically once the pause-duration has expired (a count-down timer display would be nice).
    6.2) GUI action player 2: Select No
    ==> GUI popup player 1: Your request has been rejected, resuming game. Game resumes as after a pause, pause-counter is decreased.

To avoid abuse, the timers should not stopped until step 3 is completed. Since the player initiating the process is wanting a pause, pausing the game for the acceptance/rejection interaction of the opponent should be acceptable.

Pause requests should be limited to the same amount as they are now so that people cannot be harassed by continual pause requests.

So, in essence, the pause feature in itself doesn't change, only the initiation changes and gives both players the safety that once the pause is started, it will not be ended prematurely unilaterally by the other party (no matter who initiated it).

@jimmyfantastic

Why? What good is a feature (the pause as it is now) that you can't really use?

@ugh said in Make pause contractual.:

Therefore, I suggest the pause feature to be augmented in the following way...

The fact that the term "GUI" appears in every single step, combined with the fact that Cyanide has already said they are biased against anything that requires GUI alteration, tells me you're pissing into the wind here.

If you don't trust the other guy, don't try to pause things. You're not entitled to an extension on your turns, they're just able to offer you one. If anything, I'd rather switch to the soft turn timers like they use on FUMBBL instead of the existing pause system.

@voodoomike said in Make pause contractual.:

@ugh said in Make pause contractual.:

Therefore, I suggest the pause feature to be augmented in the following way...

The fact that the term "GUI" appears in every single step, combined with the fact that Cyanide has already said they are biased against anything that requires GUI alteration, tells me you're pissing into the wind here.

You know me, I'm not afraid to tilt against windmills for a good cause. 🙂

The term GUI has been used in the broadest sense of the word here.
What GUI-features am I actually suggesting:

  • an additional menu entry
  • a dialog with either a few checkboxes/radiobuttons or a ruler to select a time (such things already exist in the game aplenty),
  • a dialog with two buttons (or maybe an accept button with a timer - also existent).

That's it. If Cyanide is able to program leaping ogres, I'm sure they can manage these simple features. My trust into that is absolute.

And this is the suggestions forum, so I'm just suggesting things that might improve the life of everyone. To me, it's a soundingboard for ideas, a brainstorming center. If an idea gets traction, chance is it will happen, whether in the original form or something even better that comes out of the ensuing discussion.

So, I expect constructive criticism or improvements of the idea, but not negative nay-saying just because the word GUI appears in the proposal. That's counterproductive in any brainstorming activity.

If you don't trust the other guy, don't try to pause things. You're not entitled to an extension on your turns, they're just able to offer you one. If anything, I'd rather switch to the soft turn timers like they use on FUMBBL instead of the existing pause system.

That's just the thing that this proposal tries to address. I'm not entitled to any pause, but if I ask for a pause and the other party agrees (which they don't have to), I should be entitled to be able to trust that agreement, don't you think?

And what good is a feature you can't really - safely - use?

@ugh said in Make pause contractual.:

You know me, I'm not afraid to tilt against windmills for a good cause. 🙂

Yeah, I don't think that's what comes to anyone's mind about you except maybe you. You're also begging the question when you declare it to be a "good cause".

@ugh said in Make pause contractual.:

And this is the suggestions forum, so I'm just suggesting things that might improve the life of everyone. To me, it's a soundingboard for ideas, a brainstorming center. If an idea gets traction, chance is it will happen, whether in the original form or something even better that comes out of the ensuing discussion.

Cool. I'm suggesting that it's a bad idea. BB1 had a pause system that only the pauser could end prematurely. It was the source of much griefing. This is a game where the matches are long compared to other online games... if you don't have the time to put into the match then don't queue. If something important comes up then stop worrying about a video game and go deal with it.

@ugh said in Make pause contractual.:

So, I expect constructive criticism or improvements of the idea, but not negative nay-saying just because the word GUI appears in the proposal. That's counterproductive in any brainstorming activity.

I suggest that abandoning the idea would improve it immensely.

@ugh said in Make pause contractual.:

That's just the thing that this proposal tries to address. I'm not entitled to any pause, but if I ask for a pause and the other party agrees (which they don't have to), I should be entitled to be able to trust that agreement, don't you think?

You want to formalize informal agreements. I think the only formal thing that the game should enforce is the time limit on turns unless both sides feel like allowing a bit of extra time. Pausing is a single-player game paradigm.... in multiplayer games pausing is just pulling up a menu, while the game continues on for everyone who isn't trying to walk away from the game they signed up for.

So no, I don't think that. My opinion has consistently been that online play should be treated as a multiplayer environment, not as a single player environment where other people act as better-than-average NPCs, existing to entertain and obey you. It's why I am against time extensions both sides can't cancel at any time, and why I believe matchmaking should create even matches.

@ugh said in Make pause contractual.:

And what good is a feature you can't really - safely - use?

You can safely play the match according to the rules... if you want to take more time than the rules allow feel free to ask the other person and they can wait on you or not... their call. If they change their mind they change their mind - you're not entitled to more time... every extra second they give you is one more second than you were owed.

@voodoomike

Obviously, you are new to the concept of brainstorming. Maybe read up on it a bit before engaging in it.

You have not given any reason why you think it is a bad idea to improve the existing pause feature, just reasons why you think there shouldn't be a pause feature at all. Maybe you should open a suggestion about it and see how people like that one. Spoiler alert, they won't!

If a feature exists, it should be usable. Period. At the moment, it isn't. That's why an improvement seems necessary.

I did specifically not suggest a pause that can be ended by only one party. Of course that would be a cause of much grief. That is why the current feature is unusable. Neither the one starting the pause should be able to end it prematurely on their own, nor the other person. That's the suggestion. But for that to work, there needs to be a time-limit for a pause. Either make that configurable or make it negotiable or make it fixed.

A good and constructive suggestion for someone like you who is opposed to pauses in general would have been to say that you can add a configuration that you always auto-reject all pause-requests. That would be an improvement on my idea.

What you have given is just more nay-saying without any real consideration what other people might need or want.

A game of blood-bowl is long. Sometimes unforeseen real-life interruptions happen during such a long game. If both parties agree, it should be possible to allow for such things without having to abandon a game you might be engaged in. If that's something you can't understand, I can only feel sorry for you.

@ugh said in Make pause contractual.:

Obviously, you are new to the concept of brainstorming. Maybe read up on it a bit before engaging in it.

I know how public forums work, and who gets to decide what is or is not posted. Maybe you need to spend some time pondering those concepts before you imagine you can declare your ideas to be "protected" from criticism and opposition.

@ugh said in Make pause contractual.:

You have not given any reason why you think it is a bad idea to improve the existing pause feature, just reasons why you think there shouldn't be a pause feature at all. Maybe you should open a suggestion about it and see how people like that one. Spoiler alert, they won't!

That's like saying that my opposing rape does not address your idea about raping babies in particular.

I am opposed to all formalized time extensions. I am not opposed to the existing pause system, I simply think its a dumb implementation - it accomplishes nothing more than the soft turn timer would, but with more moving parts and less versatility.

@ugh said in Make pause contractual.:

A good and constructive suggestion for someone like you who is opposed to pauses in general would have been to say that you can add a configuration that you always auto-reject all pause-requests. That would be an improvement on my idea.

Abandonment would be an improvement on your idea. You want your idea being good taken as given... it's not, nor will it be. You're going to have to live with that until such time as they put you in charge of the forum.

"Spoiler alert, they won't!"

@ugh said in Make pause contractual.:

A game of blood-bowl is long. Sometimes unforeseen real-life interruptions happen during such a long game. If both parties agree, it should be possible to allow for such things without having to abandon a game you might be engaged in. If that's something you can't understand, I can only feel sorry for you.

I understand all of that... but it does not support your desire for ENFORCED game extensions. If both people legitimately and enduring agree then there's no problem under the current system or anything like it. What you want is to take the choice out of both people's hands once the pause has begun. I think that's a bad idea in a multiplayer game. The two coaches agree until such time as they don't agree, and neither coach is entitled to more time than the game allows, or their opponent allows up until the moment they get sick of waiting on the other guy.

@voodoomike said in Make pause contractual.:

I know how public forums work, and who gets to decide what is or is not posted. Maybe you need to spend some time pondering those concepts before you imagine you can declare your ideas to be "protected" from criticism and opposition.

You might know how forums work. You definitely don't know how a constructive discussion works.

Luckily, I can choose to ignore unsubstantiated criticism like yours.

@voodoomike said in Make pause contractual.:

That's like saying that my opposing rape does not address your idea about raping babies in particular.

Go back to analogy school. That might earn you fewer Fs on your record in that department.

@voodoomike said in Make pause contractual.:

I am opposed to all formalized time extensions. I am not opposed to the existing pause system, I simply think its a dumb implementation - it accomplishes nothing more than the soft turn timer would, but with more moving parts and less versatility.

What you're opposed to doesn't matter to me in the slightest, especially since you can give no reason why (or refuse to). The pause feature in principle accomplishes something for some people (maybe not you). You can accept that or continue in your wishful thinking that it should not accomplish anything for everybody.

And yes, its current implementation is dumb because of several reasons, none having to do with the fact that you think there should be no such feature.

@voodoomike said in Make pause contractual.:

Abandonment would be an improvement on your idea. You want your idea being good taken as given... it's not, nor will it be.

You think because someone doesn't like the idea it's automatically bad? Poor you. I don't claim it's a good idea and everybody has to like it. I claim it could be and want people to consider it, either build on it or give actual reasons why it's a bad idea. All things you seem to be incapable of.

Maybe you should consider the topic of this forum 'Ideas and Suggestions' before posting. But, who am I talking to. Consider something. Never mind. Continue trolling.

@voodoomike said in Make pause contractual.:

I understand all of that... but it does not support your desire for ENFORCED game extensions.

And again, another skill you should improve: reading and understanding. There is no desire of enforced game extensions put forth here. There is a desire of mutually-agreed-on game extensions. If one party doesn't agree, no extension of any second of the game. So, you're totally safe from all extensions if my idea would be implemented. If you didn't understand that until now (and apparently you didn't), maybe that made it more clear.

@voodoomike said in Make pause contractual.:

If both people legitimately and enduring agree then there's no problem under the current system or anything like it.

Yes, there is. People can lie and cheat and there is nothing enforcing a purely verbal contract. That's why such a contract isn't worth anything.

@voodoomike said in Make pause contractual.:

What you want is to take the choice out of both people's hands once the pause has begun.

Yes, once a contract has been established that both parties have agreed to, they should not unilaterally be able to break the contract. But, they can still mutually end the agreed-on pause prematurely. Didn't you read that part? Or was that too hard to grasp?

@voodoomike said in Make pause contractual.:

The two coaches agree until such time as they don't agree, and neither coach is entitled to more time than the game allows, or their opponent allows up until the moment they get sick of waiting on the other guy.

That's the description of the current implementation. What of it? It doesn't work and makes the feature with people you don't trust. What good is a feature you can't use?

@ugh said in Make pause contractual.:

You might know how forums work. You definitely don't know how a constructive discussion works.

Oh, is there an ISO standard on the topic? Do tell.

@ugh said in Make pause contractual.:

Luckily, I can choose to ignore unsubstantiated criticism like yours.

You could, but thus far you haven't.

@ugh said in Make pause contractual.:

What you're opposed to doesn't matter to me in the slightest, especially since you can give no reason why (or refuse to). The pause feature in principle accomplishes something for some people (maybe not you). You can accept that or continue in your wishful thinking that it should not accomplish anything for everybody.

I've actually given the reasons and repeated them - your inability to relate to them does not will them out of existence. The current pause system accomplishes nothing that the soft timer system wouldn't accomplish better. It's like you don't read whole sentences, just the first half of each.

@ugh said in Make pause contractual.:

You think because someone doesn't like the idea it's automatically bad?

No, it's "just because you think the idea is good doesn't mean it needs to be treated as such by everybody", and that's what you're expecting by declaring your thread to be "brainstorming" and expecting nobody to object to your ideas. If someone doesn't like the idea then it's automatically a bad idea to them, and they do not need to tell you ways they'd improve on your bad idea beyond saying you should scrap it.

@ugh said in Make pause contractual.:

I claim it could be and want people to consider it, either build on it or give actual reasons why it's a bad idea. All things you seem to be incapable of.

I considered it and told you why it's a bad idea. You're throwing a tantrum about it because you don't like opposition.

@ugh said in Make pause contractual.:

And again, another skill you should improve: reading and understanding. There is no desire of enforced game extensions put forth here. There is a desire of mutually-agreed-on game extensions. If one party doesn't agree, no extension of any second of the game. So, you're totally safe from all extensions if my idea would be implemented. If you didn't understand that until now (and apparently you didn't), maybe that made it more clear.

Boy, that's the pot calling the kettle black. I'll repeat, for a third time: I don't agree with enforced or formalized time extensions. You are not owed any more time than the rules of the game allow - it is already a very long game. If the other guy wants to give you a bit of extra time then he should be able to let your turn timer run past 0 for as long as he feels like it... and presumably you two talked about it ahead of time. He shouldn't be required to wait a certain amount of extra time... if he wants to give you more, he gives you as much as he feels like it, but every second beyond your <x> minute turn is a gift, not a right.

@ugh said in Make pause contractual.:

Yes, there is. People can lie and cheat and there is nothing enforcing a purely verbal contract. That's why such a contract isn't worth anything.

You should try that the next time you ask someone for a favour... have the favour written up as a document they have to sign and bring a notary public with you to witness it, locking that person into doing you that favour. I wonder how many favours people will agree to do for you once you start that habit up.

@ugh said in Make pause contractual.:

That's the description of the current implementation. What of it? It doesn't work and makes the feature with people you don't trust. What good is a feature you can't use?

You can use it just fine, you simply have to accept that the other guy is not obligated to give you more time, and that any time extension is nothing more than the other guy's good will. You're under the impression that it's more, and that informal agreements should be enforced at sword point. In fact, you think so little of people that you feel everything NEEDS to be formalized at every level.

The pause system in BB1 created a ton of headaches over its lifespan, and accomplished little to nothing.. we don't need to work our way back toward that. This is a multiplayer game and multiplayer games almost never have some general pausing system... people can walk away from the game, but it keeps going without them because it's not all about the one person. If you know you can't abide by your turn limits then don't queue up... if something more important comes up then go attend to it and don't worry about what happens to your video game. Beyond that, nobody else should be obligated to accommodate your life.

Looks like your connection to Focus Home Interactive - Official Forums was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.