Pitboss etiquette

[Charriu]

The first two options are only on PBSpy. Nothing will happen in-game with those. They are a way to negotiate a turn split without giving away information to the other side

[Mjmd]

1. Request war in second half: Often we have two players running the clock down to get the second half in a war.

Are you suggesting getting rid of rule where attacker gets to choose? Very rarely do both people want to attack. It happens mind. Now. I would be fully for some kind of official note system where you state "I plan on attacking on x turn" and it time stamps it. That way you can pull it up if needed to prove what turn you had planned on attacking (and whomever is attacking first wins and if not roll) and in game note system would be sweet besides.

[superdeath]

1. Request war in second half: Often we have two players running the clock down to get the second half in a war.

Are you suggesting getting rid of rule where attacker gets to choose? Very rarely do both people want to attack. It happens mind. Now. I would be fully for some kind of official note system where you state "I plan on attacking on x turn" and it time stamps it. That way you can pull it up if needed to prove what turn you had planned on attacking (and whomever is attacking first wins and if not roll) and in game note system would be sweet besides.

Noting in thread imo works, but not everyone updates their threads regularly.

[Charriu]

1. Request war in second half: Often we have two players running the clock down to get the second half in a war.

Are you suggesting getting rid of rule where attacker gets to choose? Very rarely do both people want to attack. It happens mind. Now. I would be fully for some kind of official note system where you state "I plan on attacking on x turn" and it time stamps it. That way you can pull it up if needed to prove what turn you had planned on attacking (and whomever is attacking first wins and if not roll) and in game note system would be sweet besides.

No I don't want to get rid of rules. I just want to provide a technical solutions to this specific problem: Two players waiting for each other to play so that they can take the second half.

[vanrober]

I relaly like this proposals. I had some issues with Ruff in one game, (i believe it was pb56 but didnt check) where he camped turn for more than 40 turns and he got no punish at all and i couldnt atack on second half.

And also i tried to solve this making a PM in PB61 with bellarch and lurkers didnt like my acting. 

So to me, it makes a lot of sense. I also like the idea of Mjmd of makingl the one that planned the war more turns ago instead of the roll, or as a first way of choosing, in case that it is also the same it could be a roll.

[Mjmd]

PB56 you could have asked lurkers to make him play under the current rules.

PB61 considering you weren't planning on attacking that weird forcing Bellarch to double move so you could have second half was totally uncalled for.

The problem with a button saying "I want to go to war" is people would just press it if they THINK they are going to be going to war with someone in the near future. After all a chance at second half is better than no chance under the current rules. Which is why my first thought was if you wanted to change the current rules because your solution would essentially invalidate. Also, if I think player X is going to go to war with me soon and I push the button 3 turns before player X then player X pushes two turns before, then I'll get a notification about turn split one turn before the actual war starts and get confirmation.

I wasn't saying who planned first should go first, but rather just to prove you were going to attack at all on a certain turn.

[vanrober]

PB56 you could have asked lurkers to make him play under the current rules.

I did and OH told ruff several times and put him some happy faces, and he just didnt care. Maybe i could have stop the game? yeah maybe, but i play for fun not to win i didnt want to get mad and leave it since i was learning a lot and having fun. Finally Noble declared me on second half and i couldnt camp the timer, and ruff was doing so...

PB61 considering you weren't planning on attacking that weird forcing Bellarch to double move so you could have second half was totally uncalled for.

The problem with a button saying "I want to go to war" is people would just press it if they THINK they are going to be going to war with someone in the near future. After all a chance at second half is better than no chance under the current rules. Which is why my first thought was if you wanted to change the current rules because your solution would essentially invalidate. Also, if I think player X is going to go to war with me soon and I push the button 3 turns before player X then player X pushes two turns before, then I'll get a notification about turn split one turn before the actual war starts and get confirmation.

I wasn't saying who planned first should go first, but rather just to prove you were going to attack at all on a certain turn.

Its true that i wasnt planning but i saw it comming so i decided to do it before it came so i was taking the second half. That day it was pretty late for me and i needed to sleep, he was usually playing before than me and i expected the same, i thought that could be an option not to delay the game 15h or so. I did with the best willing and i felt it wasnt received that way which frustrated me a bit.


I would make that button a must be a war in that turn, so that you need to think twice before pressing it. 

And sorry i didnt understood you well.

[Cornflakes]

Simpler solution is to just play your turn as early as you can, even if that puts you in the first half. It's just a game, after all. Accept the disadvantage and make them pay If you can't have fun while losing then maybe a different pass-time would be better.

[Charriu]

The problem with a button saying "I want to go to war" is people would just press it if they THINK they are going to be going to war with someone in the near future. After all a chance at second half is better than no chance under the current rules. Which is why my first thought was if you wanted to change the current rules because your solution would essentially invalidate. Also, if I think player X is going to go to war with me soon and I push the button 3 turns before player X then player X pushes two turns before, then I'll get a notification about turn split one turn before the actual war starts and get confirmation.

I wasn't saying who planned first should go first, but rather just to prove you were going to attack at all on a certain turn.

My idea was that you can request second half only for the current turn. But you are right that one could request it every turn to ensure a chance for second half. This would be equivalent to person constantly playing last under the current system. Therefore this new system would at least give the othersa chance for second half.

@Cornflakes, of course that would be ideal, but we know it's not the reality in which we play.

[Cornflakes]

These games aren't played for money, and barely for bragging rights. More rules just create more opportunity to be "right" based on the letter of the rule while still breaking the spirit. The issues stem entirely from bending a sequential game into simultaneous mode for convenience of turn pace. The price for convenience is accepting some disadvantages. Those who care too much about squeezing out any advantage or feel too strongly about someone else taking advantage can stick with sequential mode.