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.

[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.

[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]

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?

[WingedDog]

Post deleted.

Sombre
Sorry, misread your post and got it wrong.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Maerlande]

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