Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

So,.. what's the difference again?

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

The difference is the staler isn't playing.
Generally one subs a staler because you suspect he's gone, not because he's been missing turns. I've never seen someone who's missed turns but still wants to play get subbed out. It's usually either people who don't respond to messages after missing a couple turns or people who miss a few turns then admit they can't keep up.
Of course, I've also never seen a case where someone stays active on the forum, claims to want to keep playing but doesn't actually send in turns.

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

Sure, I understand that. It's why I wouldn't kick someone for skill level but would for staling. But consider these two responses.

Can you crush a staling position and plunder their ill defended provinces? Yep.

Guy who doesn't expand out of his capital - ruins the game? As much as a staler does, sure. Neighbours get an unfair advantage? Yep.

So functionally, very little difference, if any, at least in those examples.

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

to clarify what Sombre is trying to say, such pathetic skill level is the equivalent of a staler, neither are doing anything useful during their turns...

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

It all seems a bit moot, as nobody would sub in for a position where the previous player set it up SO badly that he had to be kicked. Now if there was a way to kick a player and turn his provinces into empty space which you couldn't enter, maybe you could correct the somewhat rare occurance of grossly mismatched opponents.

How bad is too bad? How long do you wait untill a player (such as myself!) has played very long and still is rotten at dominions? When do you send the suits in, beat him up and steal his hardcopy?

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

According to my experience there are many people willing to sub dying nations.
Some think it's some sort of a challenge: not to die as long as possible, or pull 'hopeless cripple' out of it's grave.
Some take it for 'free combat experience': maximum of battles, minimum of waiting and planning.
Some are just bored and do not want to wait for a new game to get started.

So, if player A had misinformed administrator in a 'no newbs' game about his skill and was acting so awfully badly that leaving him in the game meant 'free provinces' for his neighbour, even if his neighbour was me - I would considered him being subed for someone capable of baring his fangs.

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

there's also this concept called "stonewalling". true I borrow it from a different game and sort of genre(still somewhat strategy but very different) but it can still apply. stonewalling basically means to cost your enemy as much time and resources to kill you. in browser games such as Earth2025(if any of you know it) it is standard practice in clan wars to get the entire alliance to focus on talking about a single country in as short time as possible(so he won't be able to react and stonewall), making for the most efficient killing.

this concept doesn't fit perfectly into dominions but it can still somewhat apply. take over a dying nation and just claw your way into a very vicious and bloody war instead of simply giving up. make your enemy get Pyrrhic victories!

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

Don't like this idea. Only place it possibly has any application is in designated high-end games. Otherwise, if someone else has the courtesy to spend their valuable time submitting turns, you should damn well have the courtesy to accept the turns they submit. If you find the player that bad, don't let them in to the next game.

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

They can't be spending that much time on the turns if they only have one or two provinces. At least I don't know what they'd be spending their time on - maybe they spend an age agonising over things and can't decide what to do, so just end up sitting there.