I've been playing some multi-player games (more than 2 players) on the test server, and in two of them, I feel that early departures from players have imbalanced the games.  By this I mean that a player was kicked early, or even surrendered himself.

Think about a basic 4-way map; generally, the starting positions will be at four relatively equidistant corners.  If one player bails out early, the player at the opposite corner is at a disadvantage because the two nearer players can scoop up the abandoned bases sooner and with little resistance.

At this point, I am hesitant to do anything but 1 on 1 games.  If nobody ever got kicked, and everyone stayed in the game and played their turns, then MP games would be fine.  But in reality, kicks and surrenders are quite prevalent.  I'm beginning to think that every MP game with a kicked/bailed player is tainted and no longer fair.

Thoughts?

Yep... I've had a similar opinion for a while now.

I'm not sure if we should chalk it up as one of those things part of the game, or try and minimise unfairness (by locking the departing player's bases perhaps?)

I think being able to leave some sort of player feedback would be better. If someone is constantly abandoning games, there should be a way to warn other players of that behavior.

Should be dead easy for the server to keep track of such stats for us, and put it in the profiles.

I've been in the situation of being in the opposite corner from a player who left the game hanging forever.

I didn't want to remove him, because it would make it more or less impossible for me to win, but the game was stalled...

it would be nice to have stats that say how often a player gets kicked for time. Harder though is the surrendering option. if we include that stat, it'll encourage players to grind out every game even though it's a lost cause. that's not fun.

I have created multiplayer maps that exactely solve that problem. You can find them on

http://battleground2.weewar.com/map/25364 (4 player)
http://battleground2.weewar.com/map/25514 (4 player)
http://battleground2.weewar.com/map/25528 (3 player)

I think the first is the best.

The point is that the map has 'isles' where you first have to fight small battles against every player. After that you can conquer the rest of the world. If somebody drops out early, everybody can profit from that.

I'm running like 5 testgames with them now. Go ahead and try them too...

None of these maps is balanced to account for blue going first and gaining a first turn advantage. Red has the next best advantage and so on. Players that move first can get to strategic middle ground first. Here is an example of smearing out the advantages:

http://battleground2.weewar.com/map/24524

Blue goes first and can fill his bases with whatever units he wants, but blue won't get first pick of the non-base spaces. The later the player in the turn order the more units the player gets with better quality and the more they can reserve non-base spaces for later zerks. The map is also set up that the only way to freely step onto another player's base is if that other player chooses not to build on their base.

stirling, on your map there, blue won't be able to build on all his bases... looks to me like he'll lose anything he doesn't build on to the other players

What you say is true. Any player who does not build on their base will potentially lose it. With 200 income per base per turn, any player who doesn't build on every base is foolish.

No one can step on another player's base before they have a chance to build at that base.

...I am exceptionally stupid today. I read "Income: 200" and forgot that it was 200 per base.

Ok, never mind, ignore me... *retreats to corner* 

lol - np

+1 for player feedback stat. I think this is a great way to get to know your opponents.

Although this feature can be abused to blackball a player out of spite. Perhaps instead of comments, a short survey that players can choose to take after playing someone.

For Example:

Would I play this player again?   Rate 1 - 5.

Was this player considerate, polite, etc, whatever? Rate 1 - 5

Perhaps the preferred player list is sufficient, though?  A sort of positive feedback system instead of a negative one.

+2 for player feedback stat. I think its more effective than the preferred list system, mainly because it would give more information abt a player, and would also give a player's profile something more worth reading than just numbers.

sorry to join the thread late. if it happens before turn three you can abandon the game yourself without penalty. for after turn three how about giving each other player the option to withdraw with no loss of record/points, but only on their very next turn. i.e. blue is booted/surrenders on turn 6. each other player gets teh choice to leave without penalty, but only during turn 6 (maybe at the start of the turn even?).

  once you take a turn in that game you lose the chance to retreat gracefully.

There is plenty of technical reasons why this is not implementable. Just to name one: if the first 3 players retreat without penalty, there is only one left, so automatically that would mark a win for this person. thats not desirable behavior. and you cant force the last person to retreat either.

There's always the option of offering peace...

Streen: I see the point you raise about the problem of fairly handling points.  At the same time, I was recently struck by nearly exactly the scenario VTTruck has brought up.

Indeed, we are allowed to bail within the first 3 rounds without penalty, BUT, the LAST player (say, yellow in a 4-player game) bailed on turn 3, so HE got to bail out without penalty, but *I*, in round 4 did not have such a chance.

Therefore, I propose a slightly nuanced version of VTTruck's suggestion: If anyone bails without penalty, everyone else should have the chance to bail without penalty on the very next turn.

Streen: Your issue is still an issue in the current system: Imagine a 4 player game.  In the 3rd turn, player 1 plays his turn, then players 2 through 4 all bail with no penalty.    I think the system already would handle such a situation: player 1 would not get any points.  I suspect it does not even register as a win for him (does it?).

I'm still not sure VTTruck's original suggestion can't be done.

Regardless, I don't feel like playing MP games any more due to the imbalance introduced by a bail or kick.

This remains a big issue, because you're basically stuck. I always offer peace in these situations, but I've been screwed before when the benefiting sides decide that they'd rather have the advantage and a clear win.

I think the primary reason that people bail is that they find greener grass elsewhere (i.e. faster game, better group of players, etc), so the best thing to prevent this is to lock down the bailing player's open slots for a period of time (i.e. 24 hours, etc) after they bail. This would ultimately encourage players to really think about the games they join, as well as think about the games players bail on.

However, when you see a newb build the biggest thing they can get and it's a light artillary, you realize that this game is already over if you're not next to them, because whomever is next to them has access to pummel them. I think newbs should have to go through a walled garden of games before being put out there in general population. They're often the ones who bail first.

I think MP games are the most exciting, a lot more "strategery" involved, but if you're playing a 3 day game you can be caught in limbo for a long time once another player bails.

What about this: if a player gets kicked because his time is over, all his bases stay uncapturable, except when every other player agrees to unlock them. It's just an idea...

Yep, exactly what I suggested as well ^^second from top

In fact, maybe all units and bases of a kicked player should completely disappear.  Bases might turn into plains hexes, let's say.

/me tries to mull over whether that would produce any unfairness...

If the units were left to stick around, they still have an impact on game play by impeding "live" units.

Well, the fact that one out of four players leaves (for example) is inherently unfair anyway - especially for the poor soul stuck between the two other players.

Leaving 'dead' units around just might even things out!

You're right.  For certain map configurations, a disappearing player might take the heat off a remaining player by totally removing one battle front.  Argh!  Perhaps all games with a departed player are unfair.

Yeah, as far as I can tell, it will be...

If that's the case, we should at least try to minimize the unfairness.  I propose the removal of all units and geographic properties.

But on a large map, and they bail early, then they havent taken the bases close to their starting point. Then the player at the opposite corner is still put at a disadvantage. Imagine Cruel Intentions and someone bails on turn 5.