MP Game: How bad is too bad?

[Gandalf Parker]

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.

[Squirrelloid]

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.

[WingedDog]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

but maybe player 1 is playing his first non-n00b game. Yeah, he gets trounced pretty badly, but he *learns* something from getting trounced.

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.

[BigDaddy]

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.

[WingedDog]

Originally Posted by BigDaddy

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.

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?

[BigDaddy]

Originally Posted by WingedDog

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?

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.

[Belac]

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.

[Sombre]

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.

[WingedDog]

Post deleted.

Sombre
Sorry, misread your post and got it wrong.

[Maerlande]

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