Quit/Dropped players/positions

Nestalawe · Post by **Nestalawe** » Mon Jul 21, 2003 2:11 pm

I am not sure if this has been discussed before, or if we can set up any kindof rules, house rules or whatever...

Anyone who has played a range of games, especially pbems, know that quit/dropped positions can really affect the balance of games. In WOK, it can greatly benefit a player next to a dropped position as they get to invade and pick up a heap of easy lands and resources.

What I would like to suggest, is that some sort of convention be set up to protect 'games' so that they do not get to skewed by players quitting, through whatever reasons (most of which are RL reasons, and are fully understandable).

The most obvious solution is to find a replacement player. First choice would be from the same clan, second choice being a player from some other clan, which has not already used its full quota - or maybe more fairly, from a clan who has no members in the game so far.

Also, to keep things 'fair' the replacement player should keep all NAP's etc.

I would like to suggest some form of convention, such as 'If a player quits from a game, the GM should hold the game for a minimum of two days so that a replacement may be found...'. Whatever. Something where some effort gets put into finding someone who can pick up the position and keep the game rolling.

For me, I think this effort would be more beneficial than leaving the position as dropped, and forgetting about it.

What are people's thoughts on this?

I have been in all sorts of pbem games where players (including me) have taken advantage of dropped positions, and in many cases, this has given them the edge to win the game. Of course it is always nice to be next to someone who drops out, but well, it does mean you get an advantage beyond that which your skill in the game provides.

Post by **trewqh** » Mon Jul 21, 2003 5:33 pm

This topic has been here some time ago. The easiest way of dealing with quit players is tot turn their provinces into neutral ones but this also creates a problem because sometimes players quit becuase some other player crippled them and they assume that they have no chance of winning and quit. In such a case turning these players' provinces into neutrals is not necessarily fair because it only makes the prize for taking a player out of the game harder to get.

The thing I don't like about your particular solution is this holding of a game to find a replacement. Some games see over 5 players quit. If they quit in different times that would hold the game for an absurd time of 10 days ( I don't mean consecutively). Also who would like to take up a place that has 10 times less points than the other players in the game and no naps.

Here's my oppinion,
trewqh

Post by **gm_al** » Mon Jul 21, 2003 5:56 pm

Chances are also good that those Provs leaved without new orders still grow in strenght. We have seen players missing turns and actually taking profit out of doing so.

WOK is different from other PBEMs as a Player who has quit not automatically gives the others an advantage by doing so. All I would suggest is to immediately turn the Provinces into neutral status, so that they gain +2 armies/turn and fight with good EFF.

I can see your point very clearly, but imho its not really a problem (or maybe it wasnt viewed as such a good opportunity until now....)

Other views ?

Nestalawe · Post by **Nestalawe** » Tue Jul 22, 2003 9:19 am

My main concern is that a dropped position shifts the game in an 'unnatural' way.

There are dropped positions in several of my current games, and it has instantly shifted my plans and the plans of others.

One example is Seths game, where Trewqh dropped out, and now several players have shifted their strategies to take advantage of this. Plus, one more player out means things are much easier for other players.

In repsonse to your comment Trewqh, I think my main concern is at the start of the game. Sure if we are on turn 10 and I have a score of 100 compared to other players in the 1000's, then well, of course there is not much I can do, and I am most likely in no position to have much of an effect in the game, plus it sounds lilke I would have been wiped out shortly anyway.

However, if it is turn one, and I quit (as has been the case with Xero in Nick's 'Wheel Of Time' game) then it opens up a whole swathe of land ready to be exploited by neighbours. Being so early on in the game, this also affects the NAP's, and strategies. Most NAP's are formed on turn one, but then if a player drops out on turn one, two, or even three, then players who have already formed NAP's on the assuption that this player would be active in the game, would be greatly affected by this.

Thus, my main arguement is that the BEST option for when a player drops, is to have them replaced. And this following this, though it is possible to turn provinces neutral etc, what are some more thoughts from mainly GM's and Clan Heads, on ideas of how we can get players to pick up dropped positions - also, this means we have more players playing games! And that is always a good thing.

Personally, I would not mind missing out 10 days over the course of a game to make sure each position is played to their best ability, hey, most games suffer longer delays anyway!

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Tue Jul 22, 2003 9:48 am

I tend to agree with Nestalawe. Having somebody take over for a player that sadly has to quit the game will make sure the game continues with as little unexpected change as possible.

Of course should nobody be willing to step in for that player, the best thing is to revert all provinces to neutrals, which is actually what would happen in real life as well.

Mylantis · Post by **Mylantis** » Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:05 pm

I don't know about the rest of the community, but I watch for players that have a history of quiting. Especially the ones that quit if things don't go their way in the first few turns. It helps in later games when I have to pick someone to have a war with. If my options are to attack someone who will quit after I hit em, or someone who'll stick around and be a pain in the you know what.....well, its not a hard choice.....

I too think that a quit player's prov. should be reverted to neutrals. If you are responsible for making the player quit by attacking them, it just adds a little fire under your butt to get in there and mop up the mess cuz if you wait too long, it won't be easy. of course if you can get someone to step in and play for a quit player that would be fine too. but who would want to step in and take over a spot that someone else thought was hopeless?

Post by **trewqh** » Tue Jul 22, 2003 9:13 pm

Nesty, if you mean replacing the positions only in the beginning of the game then I think you should know that it sometimes happens. In Seth's game Lardie was the first one to quit and Seth offered his spot to a different player right away. We don't need a ruling over this. This something you have to agree with the GM and other players in the group on and organise yourself.

trewqh