Review of Players before game starts (Please!!!)

[andy_is_awesome]

There should be a start game button or something, so that once all players have joined we have an option of reviewing who we are playing with before the game starts.

It's not fair when playing quads and all players are joined, but you are waiting for one last player to join your team. Then you log in the next day and notice that a cook with 50% turns taken rate has joined your team and the game has started. Then he deadbeats and causes your team to lose.

How is that fair?

What good is the rating system then? We can all tag him as deadbeat, but it means nothing. He can hop into a game that your waiting to start tomorrow and do the same thing. Can we fix this?

[cicero]

Totally get where you're coming from Andy. But ...

This "game start" button ... how many of the players in the hypothetical quads game you mention have to click it before the game actually starts? Everyone except that last-joining-potentially-annoying-50%-turn-taker-cook I guess? And how long does everyone have to click the button? Definitely some questions to consider ...

[Teflon Kris]

Could be problematic -how about an adaptation where you can set a minimum turn %age to join the game.

So the annoying cook would get a 'sort your life out' message when trying to enter!

[4myGod]

Or it can be something like everyone has 24 hours to click "Ready," starting after the last person joined. Perhaps this can be an option in creating a map. Like "Require Ready Up." Then for those who don't care can click "Ready" before the last person even joins. It can also send you an email message when there is enough players. So this would be no worse then waiting for the first turn to happen.

[Artimis]

Nah, just setup a private game and put a post in callouts to invite active players. You'll avoid 99.99% of all annoying turn missers who are just dead weights to any team they join.

[andy_is_awesome]

Maybe after all players have joined, give 24hrs for any player to veto the game and drop out if they choose.
So once DB cook joins and the teams are set, I log on and see I'm playing with Mr. 50% and I drop the game so I don't get stuck with him.

This would give you the chace at looking at people's tags and you don't have to play with "rude" or "suicider" or "vidictive" or "deadbeat".

But setting limits (turns taken limits, etc.) that was mentioned earlier would be fine too.

Otherwise, what is the rating system for????

[cicero]

Maybe after all players have joined, give 24hrs for any player to veto the game and drop out if they choose.

Sounds like it could work, but I think it would have to be an option for the player starting the game to set "review players before game start" to "on" or "off". I don't think that it can be a fixed setting because I am sure that there are many players who are quite willing to take a chance on who they play against in every game and would not welcome an additional 24 hour delay before game start which, for such players, would serve no purpose.

[PLAYER57832]

There should be a start game button or something, so that once all players have joined we have an option of reviewing who we are playing with before the game starts.

It's not fair when playing quads and all players are joined, but you are waiting for one last player to join your team. Then you log in the next day and notice that a cook with 50% turns taken rate has joined your team and the game has started. Then he deadbeats and causes your team to lose.

How is that fair?

What good is the rating system then? We can all tag him as deadbeat, but it means nothing. He can hop into a game that your waiting to start tomorrow and do the same thing. Can we fix this?

This is a problem, but its also a problem that I cannot start a quad or triples game without having one of the ready and waiting teams take over.

There are better ways to fix this. Several things have been suggested already.

Right now, playing private games is your best option.

[andy_is_awesome]

But it's hard to fill up private games.

I would have to send out 15 PMs to fill 5 slots. And I would likely play the same people over and over and over.
I could resort to playing nothing but tourneys and clan challenges.
But why should we handcuff ourselves for the sake of DBs and noobs?

[MrBenn]

I would have to send out 15 PMs to fill 5 slots.

Or you could send 1 PM to 15 people?? I

[lexie3000]

It would be nice to be able to create public games where you could select rank restrictions that excluded those ranks you didn't want joining.

I think CC could also look at tracking serial deadbeats like PissFire and impose restrictions on the number and type of games they can play.

Deadbeating in team games is a truly low thing to do!