l0de wrote:Rhox profile:
2. Often gets petulant after losing, blames luck, has a hard time accepting defeat
I'm pretty sure all the top players credit most of their losses to luck. Since the top players don't make a lot of mistakes, usually the only time they lose is when the orbs tilt the advantage in their opponent's favor.
3. Thinks it's reasonable he should win if they can force the enemy to resign from boredom or time constraints
I'm not sure where you got this idea from, but I would much rather win by legitimately beating my opponent than having him resign for some reason.
So it's no surprise to me you're advocating a tool for griefing other players. If you want to play that way, super, but I don't think you should have the option.
If you must know, I've actually given in during back-and-forth situations more than my opponent. I actually just did it yesterday in a game against Mammalman. So perhaps you should get your facts straight first before you go making wild inaccurate assumptions.
Or maybe you've just never encountered a true asshole and a stretch of bad luck where neither side gets an orb that can resolve the situation for 100 turns, with the opponent waiting things out for as long as they can to be a dick.
I've played almost every player there is, and I've only made a few enemies during the game. Maybe you should stop talking so much shit and less opponents would be more inclined to piss you off?
(note that I will also wait an opponent like this out to double the dicks).
Basically you practice what you preach against? Nice, that's a real effective way to stop the problem.
But it's still an inelegant part of the game where the gameplay breaks down, and one player has the ability to force the other to suffer.
Like I said, your opponent can't force you to do anything. If you're in a hurry, give in, lose a valuable piece, and you may or may not lose one game. Big deal.
Thinking about it more, I think that d2s's speedup suggestion has the best chance of being implemented, and thus is probably the suggestion everyone could agree on.
I actually think it has the worse chance of being implemented. I can't see Jimmi agreeing to code in such a solution to fix a problem that isn't even that prominent.