MP Game: How bad is too bad?

[Sombre]

At what point would it be considered acceptable to remove a player from a game, based purely on how badly they're doing?

This topic was provoked indirectly by something happening in a current game, but is in no way /about/ that game, since I personally wouldn't ever remove someone from a started game for skill level and in that game I don't actually have a full picture of what's going on. It set me talking about skill levels in IRC and that set me thinking about this topic.

Let's assume all settings in the game are default. It's a 10 player game, 200 provinces. After 10 turns, it's clear one player is doing very badly indeed and is dead last in terms of territory, incomes, research - they could also be doing horribly diplomatically and in terms of actual battles and/or build/design choices.

How bad would the player have to be doing in order for you to want them subbed out of the game? How long would you wait for this to become apparent?

Discuss!

[thejeff]

Isn't this something of a self-correcting problem? If they're that bad off and haven't protected themselves with diplomacy, someone's going to rush them shortly.

Also, if they're that bad off, that early in a competitive game, it'll be hard to find a sub.

[Sombre]

Well their presence in the game isn't the problem, so them being killed isn't a solution. In fact them being killed is the /problem/. Their play has warped the balance of the entire game - they are easily conquered by their neighbour(s) for example, and leave far more room to expand in the first place.

If you subbed them out for a better player, the invasion of their small holdings could at least be made problematic and the amount that they warp the game decreased.

Also - let's say that it's turn 30 of the game and rather than being there from the start, the player in question is subbed in. The positon they subbed into was in the top 3 in the game. After 10 turns of atrocious losses resulting in the position they subbed into being reduced to about half its power/size, would you want them subbed out?

[vfb]

It's not all that different from a player who stales out and wrecks his nation's expansion, or worse, a player who abandons his position and throws all his gems and lands to a neighbor to "make friends".

Hopefully the other nations in the game will take notice of who gains an instant power increase by eating him, and rebalance the game by attacking the "lucky" beneficiary of the abandoned/underperforming nation.

I mean, the cause of the problem is different, but the response can be the same.

It's hopefully a learning experience for the underperforming player, and hopefully he will ask for some advice on how to expand and/or protect himself better. I would never kick someone from a game just for being inexperienced and/or unskilled.

Edit: There's also nothing stopping you from giving advice in-game before it's too late. I've urged newer players to buy at least 1 PD, when my scouts have seen their lands undefended (if it's not possible for me to launch my own scout attack ).

[thejeff]

In theory, yes. If it's warping the game that badly.

In practice though, I suspect the damage would already be done by the time it was apparent the situation was that bad. And I really wouldn't want to force someone out if if wasn't really blatant.
In your example, losing half your size/power in 10 turns really only means you're losing the war, not that you're incompetent. I've seen players who'd been doing well all game get taken down much more quickly by a well-executed attack.

And then you've got the problem of finding a good player to take over a probably doomed position.

Edit: So in practice, I suspect it would never actually be appropriate/workable.

[Foodstamp]

These players already get removed in games through conquest of their territories.

How can it possibly be warping the game? You signed up to play against 9 other players including that guy, and the game is playing out how it is supposed to. The problem with this argument is players trying to dictate that other players should be playing a certain way. They would be removing the player not because he is not playing correctly, but because the game is not playing out how the person wanting to get rid of him thinks it should play out.

[Sombre]

Well the question is really more how bad does someone have to be and how long do you wait, rather than how can you tell if they're bad.

In my second example, the amount they have lost is not really important, since anyone can lose everything they have given certain circumstances, I just mean to indicate that the player is indeed playing very poorly. Let's say for example that they've spent fortunes on 30 pd in every province, have their thugs all researching at home, haven't scripted anything or have scripted very poor spell choices, have suicided many of their forces in essentially unwinnable attacks and have alchemised all their gems to try and get more gold to boost up their pd. They have done this not to be purposely bad or spoil the game for anyone, but because they just aren't good at the game. Equally their diplomacy has amounted to making an expensive NAP with a neighbour they were previously conquering with ease and attacking numerous other neighbours who are well situated to attack them and do a lot of damage.

With subbing in a better player, the hope would be to manage to do so before the game gets too warped, hence the question of if/when it's ok to forcibly sub someone out.

To provide another example from the start of the game - this is actually from a game I played in a year or two back: Player A did not do well in expansion. In fact on turn 8 (iirc) they had only taken 1 province. They had to leave the game due to other time commitments and a sub, player B, was found. Player B knew the position was bad, which was fine, and they weren't able to do that much about it before they were killed off. Player B did report that the previous player had built up a lot of pd in his two provinces. Although I don't know exactly what happened, it looked like Player A just wasn't very good/experienced with MP. They didn't seem to have staled or thrown the game or anything. Now if Player A hadn't left the game, their position would have been conquered with even greater ease, which would certainly have warped the game more than it was with the sub in (Player B did manage to expand a bit more and fight a rush off for a while before going down).

Had Player A not left, should he have been subbed anyway for his very poor performance?

[Sombre]

Originally Posted by Foodstamp

These players already get removed in games through conquest of their territories.

But the objective isn't to remove them from the game. It's to avoid the game being overwhelmingly warped by their performance.

How can it possibly be warping the game? You signed up to play against 9 other players including that guy, and the game is playing out how it is supposed to. The problem with this argument is players trying to dictate that other players should be playing a certain way. They would be removing the player not because he is not playing correctly, but because the game is not playing out how the person wanting to get rid of him thinks it should play out.

I suppose it depends on your definition of 'correctly'. The functional difference between a player playing extremely badly and a player staling, after all, is very slight. Obviously the intent is different, but people are subbed out for staling too often, even if they don't want to be.

I agree that expecting people to play exactly the way you would, or the way you want them to is unreasonable. But I think it is reasonable to expect players to be of a certain level of competence.

[thejeff]

But again, by that point the damage has mostly been done. His neighbors have already gotten the extra territory that A should have taken. The only difference is that they had to fight a bit more to take the capital from B. Two nations squabbling over the spoils could play the same role.

I think I'm swinging even more to the "No forcing anyone out" position. Maybe not in a perfect situation, where you have a disinterested party who can know the whole situation make the call, but in a real game, everyone has an interest and those in the position to best judge are also those most likely to be affected.
Long before actually subbing anyone, I'd contact them and see if they thought they were out of their depth and were willing to back out. And I'm sufficiently non-confrontational that I'd wait too long for that anyway.

[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 :]