Page 2 of 3

Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 7:51 am
by Cardno
Diamondback wrote:Me too! I've never seen a game empty out so fast. All I can think of is perhaps the explorer map and the 75 turn game end. Explorer games tend to start out slower due to hunting out planets. I like explorer map games although they do give hyp races an early advantage to see more space faster. Still we started losing players fast for no reason as far as I know.
I had to drop out of 3 of my 4 games due to a serious sickness my wife had. Apologies again.

Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 9:49 am
by Diamondback
Cardno,
Your situation is totally understandable. I was referring to the "other guys"...not you. Given the circumstances, I'm impressed you managed to stay in any games. No apology needed. Glad your wife is recovering. Best wishes to her and you.

Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:29 am
by Cardno
No worries, thanks for that.

Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:25 pm
by Raven2
Havok wrote:
Diamondback wrote:I think a no quitters game setup is a great idea. It's a big let down to have massive quitters. Case in point...Blind Headhunter. Down to 3 players in 26 turns. Several players were in and still are in others games. Just as you pointed out Rimstalker.
Speaking of BHH I am absolutely perplexed as to what happened there.
Obviously a severe case of Borgophobia.
:borgs: :borgs: :borgs: :borgs: :borgs:

Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 4:04 pm
by Diamondback
And I was sure it was Romulan Rage Syndrome...there cloaked everywhere. I just know it! :lol:

Quitters

Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 7:16 pm
by Krait
After thinking about this post a bit, I wondered about the following.

Would it be possible to automate some way to penalize a player for prematurely quitting games (after a small grace number) by reducing the number of games in which they could participate simultaneously, while providing additional game access based on a score from the number of games they have completed.

Functionally...I find some players just shop the games to find a scenerio and setup that they find rewarding and dump those games which are...um...challenging. The problem is when we get players dumping a game, it frequently makes a difficult game a burden for the players who are trying to stick it out. Frequently it is the same players who rack up too many games and then select the one they are having some success in to submit a turn, while ignoring the others.


Just my two cents.

Re: Quitters

Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 7:48 pm
by JonnyDoH
Krait wrote:After thinking about this post a bit, I wondered about the following.

Would it be possible to automate some way to penalize a player for prematurely quitting games (after a small grace number) by reducing the number of games in which they could participate simultaneously, while providing additional game access based on a score from the number of games they have completed.

Functionally...I find some players just shop the games to find a scenerio and setup that they find rewarding and dump those games which are...um...challenging. The problem is when we get players dumping a game, it frequently makes a difficult game a burden for the players who are trying to stick it out. Frequently it is the same players who rack up too many games and then select the one they are having some success in to submit a turn, while ignoring the others.


Just my two cents.
Well, if we're throwing in our opinions...

Such a system should balance extenuating circumstances too. Real life can't be avoided sometimes and very pressing situations (such as the health of loved ones) should void any penalty imposed on a person who drops. This, of course, goes without saying; I figured it should be noted just in case.

But I do agree with what you're proposing, for the most part.

Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 10:41 pm
by wyvern
Let me be the first to say I would never be in favor of penalizing those with real life issues. And if I encounter real life issues and have to quit playing VGA, the absolute last thing I would be worried about is Havok penalizing me.

That said, the quitters we are discussing bail out of one or more games while continuing to submit turns for multiple other games. Therefore, I do not think the reason is real life. I only make the point that it can significantly alter the enjoyment as well as the outcome of the game.

While VGA is engrossing player versus player, it becomes total nonsense to play against the computer. Why anyone joins a game to play ten to twenty turns and then quits is beyond my ability to understand. Well, actually I understand very well, read Krait's post.

wyvern

Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 2:37 am
by Fexer
I followed this thread for a while and I must say this matter is rather complex.

Like everyone else I agree that real live issues always have precedence and therefore they are a valid reason for dropping a game.

To avoid dropping on purpose, I have the following proposal:

-- limit the number of games a player can play simultaniously to 2 (I think every experienced player out here knows how time consuming games can/will get once the first 20 turns are over - you simply can't make quality turns playing 5 games or more in parallel - at least not for a "normal working" individuum)

-- peanlise dropping games on purpose (e.g. don't allow the player to sign up the next game for certain time period, e.g. limit his max parallel games to 1, etc...)

-- check turn commands - every turn generates a number of commands. Set these number in relation to the turn number and based on this judge if a player has "dropped" although he continues submitting turns.


Why this? I find it even worse playing against players that are just doing nothing and which are submitting their truns just in time so everybody has to wait for them....


-- count the number of real live issues of a player during a certain period.


Just some thoughts...
Fexer

Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 3:37 am
by Rimstalker
there is workarounds for some of them.

And limiting to two games only: There was a time, when I had to install a second copy of Winplan, I think my zenith was doing 13 turns for 11 different games at the same time.

Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 6:41 am
by Six_Of_One
Fexer wrote: -- check turn commands - every turn generates a number of commands. Set these number in relation to the turn number and based on this judge if a player has "dropped" although he continues submitting turns.


Why this? I find it even worse playing against players that are just doing nothing and which are submitting their truns just in time so everybody has to wait for them....


Fexer
Don't agree with that one, if i submit a turn i am playing, irrespective of how many commands i make.

It may be zero commands because rl is pressing, but im not dropping, just want to make sure no other player suffers a delay waiting for me.

And no i shouldn't have to say if thats the case, its a game and i shouldn't have to explain my life every time i need to deviate from a so called norm.

I fail to see how it is worse in any way than a player dropping, and how would you know?? The scoreboard?? ship limit might have been reached, he may be consoladating what he has.. who knows.

If the turn is submitted on time, thats all that matters

Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:17 am
by Raven2
Diamondback wrote:And I was sure it was Romulan Rage Syndrome...there cloaked everywhere. I just know it! :lol:
Given that we ended up with 8 computer players that do absolutely nothing to counter cloakers, I'm sure there were MBRs, White Falcons and Fearless Wings all over the place! Probably a few Resolutes and a Darkwing or two as well!

Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:49 am
by wyvern
KISS Method

While all the suggestions being offered to react to players indiscriminately dropping one game in favor of others, I prefer the KISS method first. Keep It Simple Stupid for those not familiar.

I am suggesting we try adding No Quiters to the game description and include a statement that basically instructs players to not join unless they intend to complete the game.

Havok has a great VGA Gaming site. The last thing I want to see happen is to increase his burden. Havok should not have to play police man to the board. Instead he should be left to what he enjoys doing with his site. As long as choices exist between normal games and No Quiters games, players should be able to govern their own actions. Then if someone does in fact quit, we could ask Havok to send a form email to the player reminding him of his obligation. If there are multiple players and offenses, then we can regroup and assess the options.

For all I know, maybe we will not even be able to fill up a No Quiters game. Let's not try to deal with all the "what ifs" until they actually become burdens. And for what it is worth, I would not be able to join an immediate game anyway until my current is in the wind down mode.

wyvern

Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 1:49 pm
by JonnyDoH
wyvern wrote:KISS Method

While all the suggestions being offered to react to players indiscriminately dropping one game in favor of others, I prefer the KISS method first. Keep It Simple Stupid for those not familiar.

I am suggesting we try adding No Quiters to the game description and include a statement that basically instructs players to not join unless they intend to complete the game.

Havok has a great VGA Gaming site. The last thing I want to see happen is to increase his burden. Havok should not have to play police man to the board. Instead he should be left to what he enjoys doing with his site. As long as choices exist between normal games and No Quiters games, players should be able to govern their own actions. Then if someone does in fact quit, we could ask Havok to send a form email to the player reminding him of his obligation. If there are multiple players and offenses, then we can regroup and assess the options.

For all I know, maybe we will not even be able to fill up a No Quiters game. Let's not try to deal with all the "what ifs" until they actually become burdens. And for what it is worth, I would not be able to join an immediate game anyway until my current is in the wind down mode.

wyvern
This method has my vote.

Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 1:54 pm
by Donovan
wyvern wrote:As long as choices exist between normal games and No Quiters games, players should be able to govern their own actions.
Uhm, this suggests that it will be okay to quit any game that does not have a 'no quitters' rule in it's description. Probably not the effect you want.

I think there's more potential in limiting the number of games someone can play. Give everyone a maximum of X. Someone drops a game, his maximum number goes down by one and he's not allowed to join another game until he has finished one of his still ongoing games. Or, when someone drops a game, maximum goes down by two. Only way to increase your maximum number of games is by finishing a game. If a player contacts the host about why he quit, host can re-set the max number of games. This allows for real-life stuff without penalties on the site.

I'm not sure how much of this can be automated, the site's rankings being based on number of turns / games completed give me hope that there are possibilities.