MP Game: How bad is too bad?

[Krec]

Play on. adapt to the situation the over come it. might turn out to be a great experience. Sometimes/most times things turn out or end up not as we invisioned. So you have 2 options, 1 play on or 2 quit. basically thats your choice. Either one is fine because its your choice, and it just a game. I wont get too worked up on this one, help the guy out alittle and it will benefit everyone later. GL

[Sombre]

Well no, you also have the option to kick the guy. It doesn't seem like anyone here would be in favour of that option, but it is available.

How do you mean help the guy out? With advice or with resources? It's hard to find advice for people who have performed abysmally. You could 'build doctor' with them if you could get them to go through the build they came up with and their plans, but that's rarely going to be an option.

[Fantomen]

Even if it "warps" the game, I'd say it is wrong to kick out someone who's trying his best, no matter how he plays.

You can go to lengths to make sure the game will be balanced before setup, but once you're in, you're in. All players are entitled to their positions, in game performance don't change that.

Taking over a powerful nation in a matured game is a bit more potentially game breaking. Still, I think the only fair way is to be careful about checking the experience of the sub and making sure he understands the obligation. I can't imagine a situation when I would just throw someone out for playing bad.

Edit: I also think it is unacceptable to publicly lambast a player for being unskilled. A freindly PM would be the way if you want to help out, otherwise keep shut.

[thejeff]

The problem with subs is you're often in the position of taking whoever you can get, setting the nation AI or waiting and hoping others don't lose interest.

Agreed that public lambasting is out. If there was a real concern, someone, maybe an ally or the game admin, should talk to him long before even suggesting he gets booted.

[Maerlande]

I think the player should get a kind PM and offer to help. But basically, it's part of the metagame luck that you might end up with a neighbour who screws up royally. If you can jump on him and take advantage, more power to you. You might even get the win just because of that.

In my first MP game it was a mix of noobs and experienced players. I got lucky and ended up with noobs on my side of the map. It gave me two easy wins against those players and as a result I have the biggest empire. The veterans all bashed each other senseless on the other side of the map.

That's just luck of the draw. I think the player should be left alone even if it warps the game. Unless it's severe staling.

[anonymity]

I don't see a justification in removing anyone for anything other than staling or cheating. Is it fair to their efforts that the results are not up to your standards? I think most people would agree that any sub is better than setting that nation AI.

If they're staling it's a different matter entirely, and if someone entered a game midway and then proceded to only play every other turn and do badly, it could be argued they're not putting any effort into the game.

[13lackGu4rd]

I might be in the minority here but I think that the option to kick a person should be considered. no, it shouldn't be an automatic move or anything, but it shouldn't be dismissed either. in order to make the decision I think that the following information is required:
1. the identity of the player, well known, experienced, new player.
2. if new player, is he a newbie or a noob? the distinction here is very important! a newbie is just a new player who is willing to learn(such as myself for example), a noob on the other hand is a new player who thinks he already knows it all, therefore he doesn't listen to other people who try to help him, teach him, give him advise, etc.
3. why the player is doing badly, unlucky events(such as the example mentioned previously here of heroes attacking and conquering the capital), loss of pretender early on due to a mistake(blind attacking independents, lack of scouting on enemy province, getting caught off guard in the open, etc), being a jerk and scorch earthing is own territory, etc.

if you're dealing with an experienced player who is just messing around, and the other players are talking about it(which means it bothers them) than I think a kick should be considered, as he's clearly ruining the game for the other players. if it's a noob(not a newbie) than I also think a kick should be considered, as he clearly has no intention or willingness to learn and improve, so what's the point in trying...? if it's a newbie on the other hand than I think he should be given a chance to continue, while the experienced players in the game give him advise and try to teach him(even at the expense of slightly damaging themselves, being in the same game and all...). if it's only an unlucky break of events than as long as the player is willing to continue he should be allowed to do so.

this is just from the top of my head, but I think it should make my position clear on the matter. my main point is that while everybody here is only considering the well being of the player in question, I think the focus should be mainly on the game as a whole.

[13lackGu4rd]

I might be in the minority here but I think that the option to kick a person should be considered. no, it shouldn't be an automatic move or anything, but it shouldn't be dismissed either. in order to make the decision I think that the following information is required:
1. the identity of the player, well known, experienced, new player.
2. if new player, is he a newbie or a noob? the distinction here is very important! a newbie is just a new player who is willing to learn(such as myself for example), a noob on the other hand is a new player who thinks he already knows it all, therefore he doesn't listen to other people who try to help him, teach him, give him advise, etc.
3. why the player is doing badly, unlucky events(such as the example mentioned previously here of heroes attacking and conquering the capital), loss of pretender early on due to a mistake(blind attacking independents, lack of scouting on enemy province, getting caught off guard in the open, etc), being a jerk and scorch earthing is own territory, etc.

if you're dealing with an experienced player who is just messing around, and the other players are talking about it(which means it bothers them) than I think a kick should be considered, as he's clearly ruining the game for the other players. if it's a noob(not a newbie) than I also think a kick should be considered, as he clearly has no intention or willingness to learn and improve, so what's the point in trying...? if it's a newbie on the other hand than I think he should be given a chance to continue, while the experienced players in the game give him advise and try to teach him(even at the expense of slightly damaging themselves, being in the same game and all...). if it's only an unlucky break of events than as long as the player is willing to continue he should be allowed to do so.

this is just from the top of my head, but I think it should make my position clear on the matter. my main point is that while everybody here is only considering the well being of the player in question, I think the focus should be mainly on the game as a whole.

[cleveland]

Pinko!

[Louist]

How good is too good? At what point do you consider kicking a player for playing too well? What if one player is easily dominating all the others, to the point where their strength and superiority is warping the game?

Sorry, I couldn't help it.

In my opinion, it sounds like the game is playing exactly like it should. There will always be poor players, including myself. I'm not sure I've ever won a game of Dominions against other players. Back to the point though, why would you ever consider subbing out a player because he is circling the drain? That's Dominions. Someone is going to be the first to fall. Someone will be a second. And a thrid. And a fourth. Etc.

If that player is willing to continue trying to fight a losing battle than he's earned my respect. Far too many people will drop out of a game like Dominions when things are heading south. Try playing a couple games of Civ IV, and watch as half the poor performers leave or "mysteriously" lose connection. It's a rare breed that is willing to fight to the end.

I'm not trying to troll, but in a game as strategically deep as Dominions 3, there are going to be enormous differences between different players. And in a game so random, even good players might find themselves falling behind. Should the other players not try to capitalize on that?

TL;DR: I'd never kick a player for doing poorly. And kudos to that player for marching on!