MP Game: How bad is too bad?

[Foodstamp]

Originally Posted by Sombre

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 :]

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

[cleveland]

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.

[Sombre]

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?

[Sir_Dr_D]

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.

[Sombre]

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)?

[thejeff]

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.

[WingedDog]

Originally Posted by Sombre

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

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.

[Sombre]

Originally Posted by WingedDog

I believe people from IRC know each other pretty well and could start a closed invite-only game.

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?

[WingedDog]

Originally Posted by Sombre

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?

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.

[Stavis_L]

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.