MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

At what point would it be considered acceptable to remove a player from a game, based purely on how badly they're doing?

This topic was provoked indirectly by something happening in a current game, but is in no way /about/ that game, since I personally wouldn't ever remove someone from a started game for skill level and in that game I don't actually have a full picture of what's going on. It set me talking about skill levels in IRC and that set me thinking about this topic.

Let's assume all settings in the game are default. It's a 10 player game, 200 provinces. After 10 turns, it's clear one player is doing very badly indeed and is dead last in terms of territory, incomes, research - they could also be doing horribly diplomatically and in terms of actual battles and/or build/design choices.

How bad would the player have to be doing in order for you to want them subbed out of the game? How long would you wait for this to become apparent?

Discuss!

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

Isn't this something of a self-correcting problem? If they're that bad off and haven't protected themselves with diplomacy, someone's going to rush them shortly.

Also, if they're that bad off, that early in a competitive game, it'll be hard to find a sub.

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

Well their presence in the game isn't the problem, so them being killed isn't a solution. In fact them being killed is the /problem/. Their play has warped the balance of the entire game - they are easily conquered by their neighbour(s) for example, and leave far more room to expand in the first place.

If you subbed them out for a better player, the invasion of their small holdings could at least be made problematic and the amount that they warp the game decreased.

Also - let's say that it's turn 30 of the game and rather than being there from the start, the player in question is subbed in. The positon they subbed into was in the top 3 in the game. After 10 turns of atrocious losses resulting in the position they subbed into being reduced to about half its power/size, would you want them subbed out?

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

It's not all that different from a player who stales out and wrecks his nation's expansion, or worse, a player who abandons his position and throws all his gems and lands to a neighbor to "make friends".

Hopefully the other nations in the game will take notice of who gains an instant power increase by eating him, and rebalance the game by attacking the "lucky" beneficiary of the abandoned/underperforming nation.

I mean, the cause of the problem is different, but the response can be the same.

It's hopefully a learning experience for the underperforming player, and hopefully he will ask for some advice on how to expand and/or protect himself better. I would never kick someone from a game just for being inexperienced and/or unskilled.

Edit: There's also nothing stopping you from giving advice in-game before it's too late. I've urged newer players to buy at least 1 PD, when my scouts have seen their lands undefended (if it's not possible for me to launch my own scout attack :)).

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

In theory, yes. If it's warping the game that badly.

In practice though, I suspect the damage would already be done by the time it was apparent the situation was that bad. And I really wouldn't want to force someone out if if wasn't really blatant.
In your example, losing half your size/power in 10 turns really only means you're losing the war, not that you're incompetent. I've seen players who'd been doing well all game get taken down much more quickly by a well-executed attack.

And then you've got the problem of finding a good player to take over a probably doomed position.

Edit: So in practice, I suspect it would never actually be appropriate/workable.

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

These players already get removed in games through conquest of their territories.

How can it possibly be warping the game? You signed up to play against 9 other players including that guy, and the game is playing out how it is supposed to. The problem with this argument is players trying to dictate that other players should be playing a certain way. They would be removing the player not because he is not playing correctly, but because the game is not playing out how the person wanting to get rid of him thinks it should play out.

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

Well the question is really more how bad does someone have to be and how long do you wait, rather than how can you tell if they're bad.

In my second example, the amount they have lost is not really important, since anyone can lose everything they have given certain circumstances, I just mean to indicate that the player is indeed playing very poorly. Let's say for example that they've spent fortunes on 30 pd in every province, have their thugs all researching at home, haven't scripted anything or have scripted very poor spell choices, have suicided many of their forces in essentially unwinnable attacks and have alchemised all their gems to try and get more gold to boost up their pd. They have done this not to be purposely bad or spoil the game for anyone, but because they just aren't good at the game. Equally their diplomacy has amounted to making an expensive NAP with a neighbour they were previously conquering with ease and attacking numerous other neighbours who are well situated to attack them and do a lot of damage.

With subbing in a better player, the hope would be to manage to do so before the game gets too warped, hence the question of if/when it's ok to forcibly sub someone out.

To provide another example from the start of the game - this is actually from a game I played in a year or two back: Player A did not do well in expansion. In fact on turn 8 (iirc) they had only taken 1 province. They had to leave the game due to other time commitments and a sub, player B, was found. Player B knew the position was bad, which was fine, and they weren't able to do that much about it before they were killed off. Player B did report that the previous player had built up a lot of pd in his two provinces. Although I don't know exactly what happened, it looked like Player A just wasn't very good/experienced with MP. They didn't seem to have staled or thrown the game or anything. Now if Player A hadn't left the game, their position would have been conquered with even greater ease, which would certainly have warped the game more than it was with the sub in (Player B did manage to expand a bit more and fight a rush off for a while before going down).

Had Player A not left, should he have been subbed anyway for his very poor performance?

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

But the objective isn't to remove them from the game. It's to avoid the game being overwhelmingly warped by their performance.

I suppose it depends on your definition of 'correctly'. The functional difference between a player playing extremely badly and a player staling, after all, is very slight. Obviously the intent is different, but people are subbed out for staling too often, even if they don't want to be.

I agree that expecting people to play exactly the way you would, or the way you want them to is unreasonable. But I think it is reasonable to expect players to be of a certain level of competence.

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

But again, by that point the damage has mostly been done. His neighbors have already gotten the extra territory that A should have taken. The only difference is that they had to fight a bit more to take the capital from B. Two nations squabbling over the spoils could play the same role.

I think I'm swinging even more to the "No forcing anyone out" position. Maybe not in a perfect situation, where you have a disinterested party who can know the whole situation make the call, but in a real game, everyone has an interest and those in the position to best judge are also those most likely to be affected.
Long before actually subbing anyone, I'd contact them and see if they thought they were out of their depth and were willing to back out. And I'm sufficiently non-confrontational that I'd wait too long for that anyway. :)

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

I'm definitely in the 'no forcing anyone out' camp myself (once the game has started, that is). It's just a game after all.

I wanted to hear from the community though :]

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

Another thing to consider: What about in a team game? Let's say 5 vs 5. On one team of 5, two of the players are doing very badly due to their low skill level. Does this change things at all?

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

It would depend on the type of game, and how it was advertised. If the game advertises that it is for experienced players, then yes, it is unfair for people doing that badly to be in the game.

It is equally unfair for experienced players to be in a newbie game.

Games do run best when everyone is of equal skill level.

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

If a level of skill is advertised, you would hope that would prevent people of the wrong skill level from joining to begin with.

Would you kick an obviously very skilled player from a newbie game (after it had started)?

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

I'd say, especially in the team game, the best thing to do would be to talk to the player. No one wants to let the rest of the team down, so most people would agree to a sub.

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

Player skill should be specified by administrator of the game in the OP of the game. Administrator also should make a selection of players joined. If administrator didn't do all this before game had started then it is unethical to kick someone from the game.
And if player X is pissed off by someone's poor performance in the game - he just should stop joining all are welcome type of games.
I believe people from IRC know each other pretty well and could start a closed invite-only game.

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

What does IRC have to do with this topic? Anyone can start an invite only game thereby (hopefully) sidestepping skill mismatches.


In the case of a game where the player skill did not match what the admin had specified before starting the game, would a forcible sub out be on the cards?

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

Yes, because it is a clear violation of inhouse rules.

But still, if a person with low skill enters vets only game - it is administrator's fault. He let unknown\unchecked person in. Community isn't that big and all good players are known.

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

So, more generally, each person has some skill level s, and the set of players in a game generate some average skill level S. If player 1 has skill s1 << S, should he be removed from the game? How much less than S does s1 have to be before its okay to remove the player?

I would perhaps propose that if s1 >> S its a similar situation.

I see s1 << S as being far less imbalancing than s1 >> S. Sure, there's some localized advantage, but maybe player 1 is playing his first non-n00b game. Yeah, he gets trounced pretty badly, but he *learns* something from getting trounced. In a strategy game that is theoretically a test of skill, requiring everyone's skill to be approximately the same is self-defeating.

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

I think a better question to ask is:

Is it ever better to sub out a player whose play thus far has grossly imbalanced a game, vs. just restarting?

Obviously, mere "run of the mill" mediocrity will not satisfy the prerequisite to "grossly imbalance" things.

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

Suppose you are new player. You join newb games -> time passes, you feel confident with newbs -> you join 'all are welcome' games -> you fill confident again -> you join 'no newbs' games -> you feel confident -> you join vets games
This way you wouldn't be trounced too hard at any level and gain experience step by step.

But if you'd say: "Hi, I'm Bob, I just bought Dominions, and I feel I'm ready to face the toughest players, cause I've read Baalz's guides and even got some words. Besides my gaming experience is 5 years and I'm pretty good at Warcraft, and Dominions is about the same", - you'd surely ruin someone's game if admin let you in.

Then again - if it is a vet only game admin isn't supposed to let new faces in, no matter how many "please, please, please, pretty please" they say.

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

I can see the point. Some large games can easily take a month to set up. And might clearly have stated at the start that it was meant to be competitive for bragging rights (or some other wording, king of the hill, ladder, gunslinger). It might be a serious test of strategy game being ruined in the eyes of the other players by a non-serious player. Or the opposite, a meant-for-fun game being ruined by too serious a player. If its clear fairly early in the game that a player is not one that should have been included then removing them would become an obvious topic just in fairness to the other players who have waited so long for the game to start. Why punish the whole game because someone managed to slip in?

My stance would be that The person who created the game has the right to allow anyone into their game. And as an extension the right to revoke that at any time for any reason.
There are nice ways of doing it which I think has mostly been done here. But even done badly Id still tend toward his-game/his-rules.

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

I'm picturing some beginner who took an expensive rainbow titan and got the feebleminded affliction. He feels like he sucks, and he sees how good everyone else is doing... and then you kick him out adding insult to injury... it could take him a while to see that getting feebleminded was catastrophic bad luck.

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

I don't think it's as cut and dried as 'did you specify this was a game rule y/n?'

People do expect certain unspecified things. I think basic competency is one of them. Not staling every other turn would be another. Responding to things in the game thread might be another. Very few games specify that you shouldn't purposely suicide your nation, staying in your home province and pillaging to kill as much of the pop as possible before you are eliminated. For some people that might be a legitimate way for them to play, but it's generally taken as given that it isn't ok to do.

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

1) If it is a newb only\all are welcome game - nobody would even think of kicking him.

2) If it is no newbs\vets only game - what is he doing in it?

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

Post deleted.

Sombre
Sorry, misread your post and got it wrong.

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

I would be in that camp as well. I think you let them play it out and offer them tips for the next game.

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

OK, so suppose it is a vet, who tried to use a rainbow titan with a nation he thought could take bad scales.

Suppose he's relieved that you're done with him and he snickers, knowing how up a creek his nation is.

Anyway, I'd say that whoever set the game up should try and communicate with the player, say, whose home province got attacked by heroes on the fifth turn.

Once you can tell if he's just not playing, he sucks, he's been unlucky, or maybe he tried out a new design that didn't turn out like he thought it would... you could further assess how hard core the game is, and whether intervention is necessary or if it would even help.

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

This completely boils down to communication, IMO. If the player is regularly talking in the thread/over PM to other players, they stay til their empire dies. If they are silent and not making any effective orders, and the only way to interact with their tiny empire is via scout or invasion, and they don't respond when pinged, then I might consider forcibly subbing them.

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

Q: "At what point would it be considered acceptable to remove a player from a game, based purely on how badly they're doing?"

A: When he stales a turn.

There's quite a bit of emphasis lately on "fight to the bitter end" loyalty oaths - that's fine, and arguably necessary for a fun game. But the rationale is that folks want to play regardless of your personal success, and if you find yourself in a doomed position you're obligated to press on for the sake of those still interested.

Similarly, as long as the "bad player" is still submitting turns, he's still interested, and entitled to enjoy the game. So you can't kick him out until he demonstrates he's no longer interested (though if he just disappears w/out requesting a sub, **** him, he's never in another game with me).

And frankly, crappy strategies are usually TONS more fun than viable ones. ;)

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

As long as the problem child has only one eye then clearly you should drop them.

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

Play on. adapt to the situation the over come it. might turn out to be a great experience. Sometimes/most times things turn out or end up not as we invisioned. So you have 2 options, 1 play on or 2 quit. basically thats your choice. Either one is fine because its your choice, and it just a game. I wont get too worked up on this one, help the guy out alittle and it will benefit everyone later. GL

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

Well no, you also have the option to kick the guy. It doesn't seem like anyone here would be in favour of that option, but it is available.

How do you mean help the guy out? With advice or with resources? It's hard to find advice for people who have performed abysmally. You could 'build doctor' with them if you could get them to go through the build they came up with and their plans, but that's rarely going to be an option.

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

Even if it "warps" the game, I'd say it is wrong to kick out someone who's trying his best, no matter how he plays.

You can go to lengths to make sure the game will be balanced before setup, but once you're in, you're in. All players are entitled to their positions, in game performance don't change that.

Taking over a powerful nation in a matured game is a bit more potentially game breaking. Still, I think the only fair way is to be careful about checking the experience of the sub and making sure he understands the obligation. I can't imagine a situation when I would just throw someone out for playing bad.

Edit: I also think it is unacceptable to publicly lambast a player for being unskilled. A freindly PM would be the way if you want to help out, otherwise keep shut.

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

The problem with subs is you're often in the position of taking whoever you can get, setting the nation AI or waiting and hoping others don't lose interest.

Agreed that public lambasting is out. If there was a real concern, someone, maybe an ally or the game admin, should talk to him long before even suggesting he gets booted.

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

I think the player should get a kind PM and offer to help. But basically, it's part of the metagame luck that you might end up with a neighbour who screws up royally. If you can jump on him and take advantage, more power to you. You might even get the win just because of that.

In my first MP game it was a mix of noobs and experienced players. I got lucky and ended up with noobs on my side of the map. It gave me two easy wins against those players and as a result I have the biggest empire. The veterans all bashed each other senseless on the other side of the map.

That's just luck of the draw. I think the player should be left alone even if it warps the game. Unless it's severe staling.

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

I don't see a justification in removing anyone for anything other than staling or cheating. Is it fair to their efforts that the results are not up to your standards? I think most people would agree that any sub is better than setting that nation AI.

If they're staling it's a different matter entirely, and if someone entered a game midway and then proceded to only play every other turn and do badly, it could be argued they're not putting any effort into the game.

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

I might be in the minority here but I think that the option to kick a person should be considered. no, it shouldn't be an automatic move or anything, but it shouldn't be dismissed either. in order to make the decision I think that the following information is required:
1. the identity of the player, well known, experienced, new player.
2. if new player, is he a newbie or a noob? the distinction here is very important! a newbie is just a new player who is willing to learn(such as myself for example), a noob on the other hand is a new player who thinks he already knows it all, therefore he doesn't listen to other people who try to help him, teach him, give him advise, etc.
3. why the player is doing badly, unlucky events(such as the example mentioned previously here of heroes attacking and conquering the capital), loss of pretender early on due to a mistake(blind attacking independents, lack of scouting on enemy province, getting caught off guard in the open, etc), being a jerk and scorch earthing is own territory, etc.

if you're dealing with an experienced player who is just messing around, and the other players are talking about it(which means it bothers them) than I think a kick should be considered, as he's clearly ruining the game for the other players. if it's a noob(not a newbie) than I also think a kick should be considered, as he clearly has no intention or willingness to learn and improve, so what's the point in trying...? if it's a newbie on the other hand than I think he should be given a chance to continue, while the experienced players in the game give him advise and try to teach him(even at the expense of slightly damaging themselves, being in the same game and all...). if it's only an unlucky break of events than as long as the player is willing to continue he should be allowed to do so.

this is just from the top of my head, but I think it should make my position clear on the matter. my main point is that while everybody here is only considering the well being of the player in question, I think the focus should be mainly on the game as a whole.

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

I might be in the minority here but I think that the option to kick a person should be considered. no, it shouldn't be an automatic move or anything, but it shouldn't be dismissed either. in order to make the decision I think that the following information is required:
1. the identity of the player, well known, experienced, new player.
2. if new player, is he a newbie or a noob? the distinction here is very important! a newbie is just a new player who is willing to learn(such as myself for example), a noob on the other hand is a new player who thinks he already knows it all, therefore he doesn't listen to other people who try to help him, teach him, give him advise, etc.
3. why the player is doing badly, unlucky events(such as the example mentioned previously here of heroes attacking and conquering the capital), loss of pretender early on due to a mistake(blind attacking independents, lack of scouting on enemy province, getting caught off guard in the open, etc), being a jerk and scorch earthing is own territory, etc.

if you're dealing with an experienced player who is just messing around, and the other players are talking about it(which means it bothers them) than I think a kick should be considered, as he's clearly ruining the game for the other players. if it's a noob(not a newbie) than I also think a kick should be considered, as he clearly has no intention or willingness to learn and improve, so what's the point in trying...? if it's a newbie on the other hand than I think he should be given a chance to continue, while the experienced players in the game give him advise and try to teach him(even at the expense of slightly damaging themselves, being in the same game and all...). if it's only an unlucky break of events than as long as the player is willing to continue he should be allowed to do so.

this is just from the top of my head, but I think it should make my position clear on the matter. my main point is that while everybody here is only considering the well being of the player in question, I think the focus should be mainly on the game as a whole.

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

Pinko!

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

How good is too good? At what point do you consider kicking a player for playing too well? What if one player is easily dominating all the others, to the point where their strength and superiority is warping the game?

Sorry, I couldn't help it.

In my opinion, it sounds like the game is playing exactly like it should. There will always be poor players, including myself. I'm not sure I've ever won a game of Dominions against other players. Back to the point though, why would you ever consider subbing out a player because he is circling the drain? That's Dominions. Someone is going to be the first to fall. Someone will be a second. And a thrid. And a fourth. Etc.

If that player is willing to continue trying to fight a losing battle than he's earned my respect. Far too many people will drop out of a game like Dominions when things are heading south. Try playing a couple games of Civ IV, and watch as half the poor performers leave or "mysteriously" lose connection. It's a rare breed that is willing to fight to the end.

I'm not trying to troll, but in a game as strategically deep as Dominions 3, there are going to be enormous differences between different players. And in a game so random, even good players might find themselves falling behind. Should the other players not try to capitalize on that?

TL;DR: I'd never kick a player for doing poorly. And kudos to that player for marching on!

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

There's a difference between a player who is underperforming, and a player who is not performing at all. For example, someone who controls 6 provinces by the end of the first year, this could be combined with weird scale choices, perhaps they even lost their awake SC pretender trying to expand into indies. Or you could have a player who is playing so poorly they have maybe captured one province by the end of the year. Or someone who takes over the leading position in the game from another player and proceeds to squander their empire by sending out geared thugs and SCs with no scripts (and doesn't learn from the mistake), alchemizes all their gems and uses them to cast acashic record, or sends out mages who have huge globals attached to them and gets them killed pointlessly. Someone who casts battlefield spells with armies and not protecting their own mages from the effects, so they slaughter dozens of their own mages... repeatedly.

These "not performing at all" players are the sort that sombre is referring to, not just someone who's having a bit of a bad break, or a noob getting crushed by a more experienced player. If someone is losing and fights on until the end, great! But that really doesn't have anything to do with the topic. Being killed by another player is expected and a part of the game. But what about someone who's killing themself?

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

Yeah I'm talking about a level of play like taking no provinces year 1, spending 90% of your money on pd during the expansion phase, alchemising all you gems into pearls, then into fire gems, then into cash. I know these things sound like they could only be the result of purposely playing badly, but I don't believe they are in some cases.

I still say no kicking, but some of the replies to the thread make me think you aren't really considering the level of play it's discussing. Really really poor. Unfathomably bad to a player of my level (which is mid level skill).

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

Ok, I admit that such a player is essentially not even in the game. Still, I'd would like to think that I would do my best to offer advice and (very) inexpensive help before kicking them. And asking someone to sub in for that player would be a rather tough sell. I'd be curious as to why they are doing what they are doing, what exactly their thinking is. It may simply be that they've never played before, or perhaps it's someone's young child ;)

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

Hehe, in my first dom2 mp game (in Russian community, on Karan) I played standard Abysia and actually used the alchemising thing to get more sacreds. I was able to rush Jotuns this way and so had entire northwest region of the map. So Mictlan who was to the south agreed to an alliance and gave me helpful advices all the way, so I learned about blood hunt and construction (didn't use it before). With this new knowledge I was able to resist Machaka invasion (some luck was also involved, in particular in one turn I killed heavily geared Machaka Cyclops pretender with hoburg champion armed with ethereal crossbow and Al-Khazim with magic duel by sage in unguarded province with 20 sages). Finally Carrion Pangaea spammed me with GR while Man invaded Mict so we surrendered. So I managed to get to heavy lategame in my first MP with already good players, in the beginning I was making some mistakes but no one said anything about kicking, instead Dian(Mict) helped me very much to learn some mid-level things of the game, and after that I wasn't making the same mistakes again.
So, I think, first we should try to help such player, and only if he doesn't want to learn at all, other options can be considered.

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

But you obviously weren't playing that badly.

Again, I'm talking about people who play so badly that they'd get smashed by the AI on normal difficulty.

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

Well, I played MA Abysia (as it's called now) with F9 Moloch, spamming mostly sacreds for the first 20 or so turns and only a few mages. I think it's hard to screw early game that badly with such setup, but only luck (in the form of library site) and a lot of advice from Mict gave me the chance to do something meaningful after that.
On the other hand, I think I never saw the situation you describe (when someone makes bad decisions over and over without trying to improve). It's different matter.

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

I think alchemizing with abysia is not bad at all. Specially if you are rushing.

A new player is suposed to play worse. Thats why there are games for newbies.
I dont mind a player that does not know how to play but im concerned about those that dont play as good as they could. The quitters. The ones that dont play hard unless they are winning.

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

It doesn't matter whether the example player of this thread is trying to learn or not, does it? Their effect on the game is the same.

I haven't seen anyone actively teaching another player in any dom3 game.

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

Your enemy is the best teacher.
But conquering 2 provinces and pumping PD require some more basic explanations.
I think that you must at least be able to beat the AI before you go into MP.
Thats a good start.

Perhaps if you want a challenging game the best way is organizing one yourself and inviting known players (known to you).

Not only bad players ruin games. Theres other annoying things like friends joining a game and being allied from the start.

Re: MP Game: How bad is too bad?
 

I think it makes a difference, if he's learning there will be improvement over time. With the negative effect on the game decreasing.

I have seen active teaching. Mostly via PMs during alliances between more and less experienced players. Where the more experienced player helps the newbie to be competitive against the common enemy. I've been on both sides of this and it's been one of the best ways to learn for me.