i think even members should all have a maximum game limit.
it should be a very large number,
perhaps 100.
then if they have not been timed out in the last 102 completed games it goes up to 101 games.
then if they have not been timed out in the last 104 completed games it goes up to 102 games.
then if they have not been timed out in the last 106 completed games it goes up to 103 games.
etc
etc
etc
Good idea, but retracting should also be possible, not just augmenting. Example: If they play 100 games, and get timed out in half of them, they can only play 98, if they play 98, and get timed out in just one game, they can only play 96, etc... If they want to go back to the original 100, they must make sure none of their games are timed out for a certain period of time. Hopefully, this may add incentive to not do the "Dustnrodgers factor".
Originally posted by flexmoreI like the basic premise of the idea, but I don't like the implementation.
if people want to start so many games then they need to demonstrate that they are capable of finishing them .... the more they finish the more they can start!!!
So far, (as far as I can see) Dustn is the only person who has 'abused' (probably wrong word) the no maximum limit. One of the main reasons for paying your 20 bucks is unlimited games. Basically, I see the system working the opposite of the way u see it. Everyone starts off with 1,000 (arbitrary big number) game limit. F that up with mass timeouts, and your game limit is halved, etc, etc.
I don't think u can limit somebody who may well be able to responsibly manage 900 games at once.
D
I think part of the idea of the system is to find a way to ASSESS who can responsibly manage 900 games at once. There may be some people who can do it, but they're arguably in the minority.
100 or perhaps 150 seems like a reasonable starting point because it's large enough to satisfy the majority of people, and a lot more than the 6 that non-subscribers are allowed.
Maybe if the steps up and down are a bit larger then those that want to play more games wouldn't be too frustrated?
Originally posted by orfeoThe whole idea is unenforceable.
I think part of the idea of the system is to find a way to ASSESS who can responsibly manage 900 games at once. There may be some people who can do it, but they're arguably in the minority.
100 or perhaps 150 seems like a reasonable starting point because it's large enough to satisfy the majority of people, and a lot more than the 6 that non-subscribers ...[text shortened]... p and down are a bit larger then those that want to play more games wouldn't be too frustrated?
There are a lot of people who suddenly decide they have too many games and resign a great load of them, and most of these are playing less than 100 games.
This is just as bad, or even worse than getting timed out.
Would you check these people's games to see if they were actually losing when they resigned?
And if you did this, and people knew about it, you would then have to check if they had just thrown the games on purpose just before they resigned.
i dont get it... what's the point of restricting????
If someone cant handle all the games they enter.. is THEIR fault.. and this will only be bad for THEM... let them be.. i dont know how this can bother others... 🙄
personally i dont like the idea of getting restrictions.. being a paying subscriber.. just cause some guys have lots of games.. so whaT?
Originally posted by bazikYou have obviously never played Dustnrogers.
i dont get it... what's the point of restricting????
If someone cant handle all the games they enter.. is THEIR fault.. and this will only be bad for THEM... let them be.. i dont know how this can bother others... 🙄
personally i dont like the idea of getting restrictions.. being a paying subscriber.. just cause some guys have lots of games.. so whaT?
Originally posted by bazikYou haven't played Dustn, so u wouldn't know why there could be a problem.
i dont get it... what's the point of restricting????
If someone cant handle all the games they enter.. is THEIR fault.. and this will only be bad for THEM... let them be.. i dont know how this can bother others... 🙄
personally i dont like the idea of getting restrictions.. being a paying subscriber.. just cause some guys have lots of games.. so whaT?
He used to have upwards of 800 games going, then he would be T/O'd from his rating of 1900 down to 900. The problems for others are these...
1) Some low rating players might be pushed above their level if their games with the old Dustn were auto T/O'd. That would mean they may not be able to enter banded tournies in the correct band anymore. They would also be put up against tougher opponents in clan games. The problem wouldn't be so bad if it was one or 2 games, but when dustn enters every tournament in sight, then you may well have 10-20 games (6 is my max) against him.
2) People who decide not to time him out, or don't have the opportunity are suddenly playing a 1900 player at a 900 rating. This can be disastrous for their ratings, especially if they have 10-20 games going with him at once. For the fast movers a dip in rating isn't too bad, but for the slower players it could take them months to get back up to their level.
I don't have a massive problem with mass T/O's cos, in the end of the day ratings are just an abstract number and u still get a good game whatever the rating. But it can get annoying especially when it happens 3 months in a row.
At least the new and improved Dustn has said that he's going to just take on a managable game load, so I don't really see major problems anymore.
D