Game Creators Leaving As Soon as I Enter?

While I do manage to get into a fair number of games with people, I have a recurring experience i don't understand.  VERY often -- usually several times each play session -- I find an open game with one person in it.  As soon as I enter the game, that person leaves.

It can be a game that just appeared a second ago, or one that I've watched sit open for a few minutes before joining.  So I doubt it's just my bad luck to enter as they decide to leave for unrelated reasons.  The factor that seems to trigger the other person leaving is my entry.  They never say anything.

I talked to some folks in a game and some of them said they'd had the same experience.  What the heck?  One guy said he leaves and re-enters to dodge holding the crown.  But in the encounters I am talking about, the departing player never returns.

Any clue what's going on?

Probably one of the following:

a) It's a conspiracy.

b) It's proof of the evolution of a painfully shy AI on the interwebnets.

c) Ronway has progressed to incapping heroes before the game even starts.

d) People are experimenting with the online feature and not actually ready to start a game. nah, that's just silly.

e) They have all heard that Silverleaf is wearing a hat and have to immediately log-off so that they can go on the forums to double check.

f) It's the work of some kind of swivel-chair worshipping cult.

 g) They start a game then look at the time/figure no one's coming and log out. Not that I do this far too much, at all.

Actually, the thing that really annoys me in online games is some of the etiquette. It's a little bit irritating when everybody is immediately suggesting what card they think should be played out of their turn instead of holding back for at least a few seconds to allow the other players to consider their options. I guess it's understandable when you realise people may have played a lot of solo games and are just used to clicking on the card they want to activate every turn, but then I've had a couple of games where people are also giving others a telling-off in the comments about making a choice against their wishes, or asking for turns to be rewound because they didn't like the outcome, which is just off.

On the subject of rewinding, I personally don't like to do it unless someone really borked their turn and wants to go back (I've done that myself before when I was away and rushed my turn in a panic when I got back), preferring to just roll with the punches instead of trying to craft the perfect game. I've thought about using the closed hands feature, but it's also important to know what cards the others have and without VOIP visible hands is the only effective way to communicate that.

I'm also annoyed with some of the brusqueness, when people are barking orders like "Advanced" or "Voss" or in the comments, and the head-on rush to get through games as quickly as possible. Playing SotM in person tends to be more relaxed, more chatting and discussion of strategy; even when we used to play on Google+ it was far more relaxed and sociable. It just seems that there are quite a few people in the online game circle who just want to rush through the games without any time for pleasantries, expecting everybody to play the game their way and without delay. It's not endemic or anything, but it's not the sort of table I'd join on a club night if you know what I mean, and yet I don't have much choice on whose game I get involved in.

The other players may have waited a few seconds but if they fast forward or speed through things instead of letting animations play out they might have been waiting. 

To the original point I have not experienced that in a multiplayer game.   I've had people leave and immediately exit but it wasn't the person with the crown typically.  

I hate it when people don’t talk to me, even when I specifically use their name… Mezike 

I have done g) on occassion. Sometimes I have time for a game NOW but not by the time people actually join the game, minutes later.

Also I agree with Powerhound_2000’s statement about them having already waited, but I also agree with Mezike’s hate of it. I do “tell off” people who do it so quickly they can’t possibly have been waiting but I generally give people the benefit of the doubt.

My bugbear is on people who take too long on their turns. I have played games were people have not acted in a (actually timed ) minute, and they haven't timed out either so they're doing something, just not playing the game. I confess to quitting a couple of games over that. But I always say why and more often than not everyone except the offender drops and joins a new game with me!

I did have an odd game last night.   Three players in it including myself and we all agreed on play order before starting the game.   The villain turn ended and shortly afterwards the other two folks just dropped.   I hadn't even looked at my hand before it happened.  I waited about a minute and then I just played the multiplayer game by myself.  

I've disconnected from the most games due to connection issues, and my internet isn't even that bad. It's happened so many times.

I also tend to back out of lobbies if I'm really itching to play expansion content, and the host only has the base pack.

That's funny - there could be a whole chain started by a host setting up a game, then dropping out for whatever reason just as a new person comes in who says "oh, no expansions" and drops out just as another person joins… and so on…

I'm not too bothered by people suggesting cards, except when they are lightning quick to do so every single round, in fact there has been a couple of times where it's helped me understand what they are intending to do on their own turn. It's more that I've had a couple of games now where people started being snarky in the comments about the choices other people made, or actively asking for a rewind because they felt the 'wrong' move had been made. It bothered me to the point I almost dropped, but I couldn't bring myself to be a dick by doing that.

Oh yeah…the folks who hit “suggest” when there’s only one rational choice. Like when the only target is Baron Blade or the heroes, and I activate my attack, and someone instantly suggests Blade.

No duh!

I haven't encountered too many people leaving a lobby after I had joined, but I had a game online against Ambuscade where someone left mid game. They were mad at me for hitting the Reactive Plating instead of either the Automated Turret or Custom Hand Cannon because those deal damage on his turn. Bleh, like I care about a bit of extra damage, I want to hit that french actor!

As for someone constantly suggesting, if they do that to me I begin to intentionally choosing cards that they do not suggest. Even if I actually want to play the card they suggested. Fortunately there is usually another card worth playing, albeit not as good as the other.

Another fun bit of information, sometimes suggest me to to "watch my HP" or "becareful you're getting low" when playing. I'm unsure as to why I get told that. It happens most when playing as Absolute Zero, NightMist, or Fanatic.

If I have a suggestion, I tend to just use the chat and explain my reasoning for it. Otherwise, I tend to trust that the other players have some idea what they're doing. I try not to second guess, but there was one time someone used Turmoil to put Hasten Doom on top of Bomber Blade's deck, which led to a chain of targets being played capped by Devious Disruption.

And I typically don't suggest a rewind unless someone's turn ended up being totally useless in a foreseeable way (i.e., using a low-damage card on someone who has enough DR to nullify it).

I think the nature of how the game was made and released has created some interesting situations. When it was only a card game, you played with about the same people over and over. Those people have their own strategies and their groups have their own strategies. Over the years, those strategies become the "good play". Once multiplayer hit, and we are now seeing a bunch of different ways to play, some people are having a hard time differentiating between "good-bad plays" and "different approaches".

Will have to second Pydro a bit. Only reason I do the suggestion thing is trying to see what different people try and share my strategy. Never expect anyone to use it. Good way to share strategy and teach newer players about the game and different ways to think about the decks. Now for selection of who to target, since it is a co-op game that should always be talked about a bit so the suggestion button just allows for quicker coomunication than just the chat. 

For example I play the scholor now completely different than I once did. I never used the forms, period. For me they were dead cards and scholor wasn't that great. Now because of multiplayer and different people sharing their strategies, I see how powerful scholor actually is and love playing him. 

Ultimately everyone has to remember it's a suggestion only. You don't have to follow it and play the deck the way you want. Just remember there are people who are trying to learn and don't be afraid to share the knowledge.

If I want someone to know a new strategy I type it out in the chat. It's far better than "I suggest this" repeatedly, anything could happen between this turn and next that might invalidate the combo you were trying to suggest for me and I would never learn your "really cool thing you can do".

I agree with Matchstickman. Isn't it better to explain why they might consider playing that card instead of just telling them to play it?

I know I learn more that way myself.

I find it much more of a problem in the other direction. People automatically think you are wrong and suggest something, instead of considering it a different strategy.

I am sorry, I don’t want someone to tell me to play Null-Point when AZ is at 25+ life. However, the attitude of “you are playing wrong” instead of “you are playing differently” seems to be an issue. I think I was told once that I was doing too much damage with bunker?!

Also, I have found that not enough people look at or use the chat. Often I would explain something there instead of suggesting, and they wouldn’t see it at the right time.

I've found it can take a while to explain in the chat, especially on a tablet, and by the time you've finished, people have already done whatever thing you wanted to advise them on.

Still doesn't hurt to explain if possible.  You might not be able to undo what they did but it may help them in the future.  

I haven't done any multiplayer on Steam, so this is just going off a 2-second Google search - I see that Steam has voice chat capability, but I don't know how convenient that is to use.  Is it something that can be easily set up for a given match?  If not, is that a capability that can be added in some future expansion of the game?

Steam VOIP is OK, it's only really useable if the people you are playing with are on your friends list though. So a private game with people from the Forum could be done that way but a general game wouldn't work.

Given there are already whole programs devoted to running VOIP I'm not sure how much a SotM:VG specific thing added in would get used for the extra time and effort it would take to program/make cross compatible.

I found the chat kind of annoying in that it's in a separate sort of pop-up window thingy rather than being visible on-screen at all times. It makes discussing strategy kind of a pain, as mentioned above. I tend to ask people not to use that suggestion thingy for me at all because it's my deck, so I will decide what to play. If people want to suggest something in the chat with reasons why, then fine. Having everyone's hands visible helps because then I can suggest stuff myself based on what I see them holding and we can set up some kind of cool combo or something. A voice chat would be very helpful, yeah :).

I haven't actually played the Steam version for some time now, though I expect the bug that put me off doing so was fixed ages ago (the one where you get disconnected then treated like a lurker by the game when you get back in, so you can't play any of your cards). I will have to get back into it at some point.

We totally need to do a "Class of Skype '12" game at some point with VOIP

Anyone remember those very first games on Skype chat? We had some epic roleplaying in some of those!

What is "VOIP"? I'm guessing the V stands for "voice". It seems to be one of those things that is generally assumed to be known by everyone on the Internet but which has passed me by. I just call it "voice chat"…

Anyway, if a voice-chat game of Sentinels were to get set up at a time I could manage, I'm sure I could come along :). The "at a time I could manage" part may be tricky, though, as I am surprisingly busy these days and timezones are also likely to be a problem, as usual :(.

Voice over Internet Protocol

I've got two things.

One, I've often clicked suggestion because I forget I'm playing multiplayer instead of a single game. So I'm attempting to play cards and not suggest.

Two, typing on the kindle tablet for chat is a pain in the butt, same withactually playing cards some times. Of course, sometimes the delay is me agonizing over a choice, because I do know the game fairly well and I'm a person who can easily suffer from option paralysis.

Then again, despite only playing a few times I've seen some wierd stuff. I had one guy playing Bunker, I can't remeber who against, but we lost and the Bunker playing literally did nothing except draw cards. I don't think he played more than 3 cards the entire game and initialized every turn. Then commented Bunker was "the worst deck". I was so angry I played Bunker in the follow up game to show him what was what, though I didn't tell him that's why I did it.

P.S. When I read the title I thought you were going to complain that Handelabra was avoiding you and I was going to ask what you did to upset them.