Ending a live game by decision just one player

[ariallito]

Hi, can you propose something new for a problematic situation?

I made the game with the name '1-only-live-game-till-16', before start of the game - I added a comment in 'chat' that it is a live game till 16:00 o'clock, I set the timer 1 hour + 15 min.

Someone joined, and... blocked the game. We waited an hour for his one move, after that - game has been completely canceled.
I don't blame - maybe he changed plans and didn't want to play, maybe he went to the toilet for an hour.
But the blocker-player lost our time and our chances to play live for 3 wanting to play.
Should it be that way?

Please think about it, thanks!

[coyotte508]

We understand.

We're going to add to the live play stuff, probably a matchmaking option where you're in a queue and the timer is something like 10min + 1min.

This will be especially needed since our next game is a lot less complex than gaia project.

We also need to add the ability to start the game at a precise time, ...

All I can say is that we're working on a lot of stuff, but we're aware of this and we're willing to address it.

In the meantime you can add people to this discord: https://discord.gg/SVVeAkY and ask the owner to invite you to the secret channel for the site.

[ariallito]

Thx for reply. The current 'timers' are OK... rather I worry about the risk of canceling the whole game, e.g. before its end.

I understand that the game currently must be over due to one player inactivity, so that others do not score points in 'elo system' - but this solution is also punishing those who wanted to play. My sugestion for example:

• others can finish the game (like it was a few days ago). As a normal game (with elo), or: they can finish but the match is no longer classified (elo).
  or
• the system asks the others if they also want to quit the game