Recruiting a player to prevent a loss

Rules for playing on and using the site.
Forum rules
This section of the Forum is for the Site's rules.
If you have a question about how to play the game, please post in the RULES section of the Forum, not here. The site's rules for standard Dip do not substantially differ from published rules.

Re: Recruiting a player to prevent a loss

Postby sock » 17 Aug 2013, 16:13

OK, I know I'm a lone wolf, crying in the wind, but I don't think replacement players at the middle or the end of games represent a positive improvement to the other scenario (surrender and withdrawal by an existing player). It is true that replacement players at the beginning of games make sense. But in an end game scenario, most surrenders involve players with limited resources or have become simply frustrated by their prospects, and are probably inactive participants anyway (or which happens time and time again, play kingmaker and align themselves with one player to ensure his or her solo).

It's a relationship game. It's impossible to establish equitable relationships with new players, especially if they view themselves as a white knight to save the day or have little interest in checking the old communications to see what has happened in the past.

It would not surprise me if Beaven's sentiments are enacted time and time again. How would we really know? If someone joins a game, sees on player in a dominant position, they aren't going to help out the player on the verge of a solo. So when players are "asked" to join in such a situation, why isn't this a "tacit" metagame scenario?
Live a little. Laugh a lot.

Gold member, Classicists
User avatar
sock
 
Posts: 1558
Joined: 12 Jul 2010, 04:35
Location: Jersey Shore
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1149)
All-game rating: (1212)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Recruiting a player to prevent a loss

Postby VegaMan » 17 Aug 2013, 19:03

I kinda agree with Sock here.....

I'm finding new players more of a hindrance than anything. particularly when they join right after a build. I'm about to lose a game where I made a build of a fleet due to the player next to me surrendering in the fall orders. In Spring orders someone replaces the surrendered player. I would have built an army otherwise that probably would have prevented my loss.


I also think there should be an option for not enabling replacements that don't replace during the same phase as the person that surrendered.....

Of course....... the BEST case scenario would be that no one surrenders. But that doesn't seem reasonable.
"Nothing cheaper than something free"
VegaMan
 
Posts: 465
Joined: 17 Mar 2013, 00:41
Location: Atlanta..... Finally escaped Cali.
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1212)
All-game rating: (1148)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Recruiting a player to prevent a loss

Postby Jegpeg » 17 Aug 2013, 20:19

VegaMan wrote:I kinda agree with Sock here.....

I'm finding new players more of a hindrance than anything. particularly when they join right after a build. I'm about to lose a game where I made a build of a fleet due to the player next to me surrendering in the fall orders. In Spring orders someone replaces the surrendered player. I would have built an army otherwise that probably would have prevented my loss.


I also think there should be an option for not enabling replacements that don't replace during the same phase as the person that surrendered.....

Of course....... the BEST case scenario would be that no one surrenders. But that doesn't seem reasonable.


I actually think you arguement makes replacements being available a good thing.

If a player surrenders there some other countries in position to gain from that surrender by helping themselves to the surrenders supply centres. This means that those that can't benefit are at a disadvantage. If you know that the surrendered country will stay surrendered then that advantage / disadvantage is increased.

For example say you are France fighting Italy, you have an NAP with England and Russia who are fighting each other over the territory originally occupied by a defeated Germany. England then surrenders just as you have a build due but Mar is occupied, you have a fleet in the channel England has an army in Yor a fleet in Nth but Lon is empty. If he had not surrendered you would built Fleet Brest to try and get it round to the Med. Instead you build an Army Brest as you can convoy it without opposition into Lon and look good to take the rest of England's home SCs. From Italy's point of view his enemy is going to get 2/3 extra SCs and is in deep trouble.

As the game is atm you have to decide to try and gamble to get the potential quick gains offered you by the English surrender and possibly be at a disadvantage if he is replaced or do what you would have done anyway and you are no worse and probably better off than if England hadn't surrendered (eg move ENG to Lon to gain it but making progress in the rest of the UK slower than if you had an army there.
Jegpeg
 
Posts: 1271
Joined: 08 Dec 2009, 20:56
Location: Scotland
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1125)
All-game rating: (1401)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Recruiting a player to prevent a loss

Postby Petunia » 17 Aug 2013, 20:40

VegaMan wrote:I'm about to lose a game where I made a build of a fleet due to the player next to me surrendering in the fall orders. In Spring orders someone replaces the surrendered player. I would have built an army otherwise that probably would have prevented my loss.

I don't think this argument carries much water although I understand the frustration. I think that in a sense you're begging the question - why didn't you behave as though the dropped Power might be submitting orders? Because you don't believe replacement players are legit? I NEVER assume that it's safe to move against a surrendered position as though they're helpless (I've literally done this more than once: Prepare two sets of orders; one against a player and one against CD; enter the orders as though I'm fighting an enemy; set an alarm for 5 minutes before the deadline and log in, check that the Power is still in CD and enter the other set of orders. If the deadline is at an inconvenient time, I just leave the first set in place). If you had covered yourself properly you wouldn't have suffered this setback; the flaw here is not in the system but in your assumptions.

Of course....... the BEST case scenario would be that no one surrenders. But that doesn't seem reasonable.

Well, yes. And no, it doesn't.
Any views expressed prior to Dec 2013 are solely my own and do not represent the site or its administration in any way.
I took a break from the site for a while. I'm back now. Hi.
Platinum Classicist
User avatar
Petunia
 
Posts: 3190
Joined: 29 Aug 2012, 21:57
Location: I'm a dude.
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1583)
All-game rating: (1571)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Recruiting a player to prevent a loss

Postby VegaMan » 18 Aug 2013, 00:05

Janepeg wrote:
VegaMan wrote:I kinda agree with Sock here.....

I'm finding new players more of a hindrance than anything. particularly when they join right after a build. I'm about to lose a game where I made a build of a fleet due to the player next to me surrendering in the fall orders. In Spring orders someone replaces the surrendered player. I would have built an army otherwise that probably would have prevented my loss.


I also think there should be an option for not enabling replacements that don't replace during the same phase as the person that surrendered.....

Of course....... the BEST case scenario would be that no one surrenders. But that doesn't seem reasonable.


I actually think you arguement makes replacements being available a good thing.

If a player surrenders there some other countries in position to gain from that surrender by helping themselves to the surrenders supply centres. This means that those that can't benefit are at a disadvantage. If you know that the surrendered country will stay surrendered then that advantage / disadvantage is increased.

For example say you are France fighting Italy, you have an NAP with England and Russia who are fighting each other over the territory originally occupied by a defeated Germany. England then surrenders just as you have a build due but Mar is occupied, you have a fleet in the channel England has an army in Yor a fleet in Nth but Lon is empty. If he had not surrendered you would built Fleet Brest to try and get it round to the Med. Instead you build an Army Brest as you can convoy it without opposition into Lon and look good to take the rest of England's home SCs. From Italy's point of view his enemy is going to get 2/3 extra SCs and is in deep trouble.

As the game is atm you have to decide to try and gamble to get the potential quick gains offered you by the English surrender and possibly be at a disadvantage if he is replaced or do what you would have done anyway and you are no worse and probably better off than if England hadn't surrendered (eg move ENG to Lon to gain it but making progress in the rest of the UK slower than if you had an army there.


Here's my problem. It introduces the aspect of luck into the game at best and collusion at worst. I don't mind getting outplayed. I do mind random stuff happening during the game. Like I think I remember seeing Sock say before... If I wanted random stuff to happen, I would have selected the random stuff checkbox. I've only been here a couple weeks and I'm quickly discovering that people surrendering isn't affecting the game nearly as much as people randomly joining the game. If the replacement comes during the same phase... got it. Cool no problem. Perfectly acceptable. But joining any period of time afterwards just throws off everyone from the game. Losing to someone because I got outplayed is one thing. Losing because someone joined the game is just irritating.

People surrendering benefits EVERYONE in the game to some degree, where someone joining does not penalize everyone in the game. People that scramble to unclaimed SC's have to pull units from elsewhere in order to obtain them changing the dynamics of the game (1 less support available, 1 less potential build for the phase due to having to cross over their own home SC, etc). Chances are that the surrendered player would have lost anyway (due to the poor strategy which ended them up in the position they surrendered at to begin with).

I look at it this way. If it's not something you'd want in a tournament level game, it's not something that should be standard. If having random Joe Snuffy join in the middle of a Champoinship game is something you guys encourage... remind me not to enter any tournaments here.
"Nothing cheaper than something free"
VegaMan
 
Posts: 465
Joined: 17 Mar 2013, 00:41
Location: Atlanta..... Finally escaped Cali.
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1212)
All-game rating: (1148)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Recruiting a player to prevent a loss

Postby Petunia » 18 Aug 2013, 01:02

VegaMan wrote:But joining any period of time afterwards just throws off everyone from the game. Losing to someone because I got outplayed is one thing. Losing because someone joined the game is just irritating.

... I don't get it. Why do you deserve to have a neighboring Power in permanent CD? How can you LOSE because all seven Powers are being controlled by a player? How can someone taking up a Power and playing it possibly be more of a disruption than someone quitting in the first place?
Any views expressed prior to Dec 2013 are solely my own and do not represent the site or its administration in any way.
I took a break from the site for a while. I'm back now. Hi.
Platinum Classicist
User avatar
Petunia
 
Posts: 3190
Joined: 29 Aug 2012, 21:57
Location: I'm a dude.
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1583)
All-game rating: (1571)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Recruiting a player to prevent a loss

Postby VegaMan » 18 Aug 2013, 02:06

I wrote up a long post about it but it got lost in the void.... I'm not re-typing it all again.



I'll just say this: If we can't have the ability to select whether or not replacements show up in the game, then people shouldn't have the option to quit either.

If you commit to a game you should honor that commitment. it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to give people the option to surrender but yet hold it against people to do so.
"Nothing cheaper than something free"
VegaMan
 
Posts: 465
Joined: 17 Mar 2013, 00:41
Location: Atlanta..... Finally escaped Cali.
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1212)
All-game rating: (1148)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Recruiting a player to prevent a loss

Postby Petunia » 18 Aug 2013, 02:41

You want to outlaw surrenders? What do we have like the Dip Police going door to door and forcing everybody to enter orders?
Any views expressed prior to Dec 2013 are solely my own and do not represent the site or its administration in any way.
I took a break from the site for a while. I'm back now. Hi.
Platinum Classicist
User avatar
Petunia
 
Posts: 3190
Joined: 29 Aug 2012, 21:57
Location: I'm a dude.
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1583)
All-game rating: (1571)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Recruiting a player to prevent a loss

Postby VegaMan » 18 Aug 2013, 03:02

Petunia wrote:You want to outlaw surrenders? What do we have like the Dip Police going door to door and forcing everybody to enter orders?


well the option to not allow random, not same phase join-ins into the game would be preferable to me. As for orders, people can enter them or not enter them. Obviously if people don't enter ANY orders at all NMR rules still take into effect.
"Nothing cheaper than something free"
VegaMan
 
Posts: 465
Joined: 17 Mar 2013, 00:41
Location: Atlanta..... Finally escaped Cali.
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1212)
All-game rating: (1148)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Recruiting a player to prevent a loss

Postby jaelis » 18 Aug 2013, 04:27

I'm moving this topic to Site Rules, seems more appropriate there.
User avatar
jaelis
 
Posts: 1649
Joined: 17 Nov 2008, 22:08
Location: Virginia, USA
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1060)
All-game rating: (1212)
Timezone: GMT-5

PreviousNext

Return to Rules for Fair Play and Fair Use

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest