Protecting games from NMRs in Spring 1901 - Now an OPTION

Official announcements from the creators

Re: Protecting games from NMRs in Spring 1901 - Now an OPTIO

Postby super_dipsy » 07 Aug 2011, 15:05

OK, as advertised, the NMR protect feature iw now an OPTION.

Here are the details.

When you create a game, there is now a tick box to ask for 1st turn NMR protection. Ticking this box will maek the game reset on teh first turn if someone NMRs. That is, the NMRing player(s) will be surrendered (-1 points for them) and the game will go back to waiting for players until it fills up again.

If this box is not ticked, the game will proceed as previously - that is, if there are NMRs in the first turn, the game will continue regardless.

In addition, any game that has ALREADY been created will now be equivalent to NOT having ticked the NMR protect box. The ONLY games that will benefit from NMR protect are those created with the NMR protect box ticked.

iamgraef wrote:Would it be possible to detect an NMR and pause the orders from processing? Then, a Public Press can announce something like "France did not enter orders - user has surrendered/been booted, waiting for replacement player to join" The replacement player who joins would then be able to enter in legit moves for this season, and the game could continue without too much harm done. I'd think most players wouldn't mind a small delay in order results (to find a replacement) if it meant that one country's NMR wouldn't taint the game nearly as badly.


That is effectively what the NMR prrotect does. The only difference is that instead of the game staying for ever in Turn 1 waiting for a player, it goes back to waiting for players. The reason is that there is no way to tell how long it would have to wait, and if we left the game in Turn 1 while it was waiting, we would not know what to set the new expiry date to. Then we would also have the problem that if a player NMRs, if we leave the game in Turn 1 then no-one else can get away without penalty and may be stuck with that game frozen in their game list for a long time, waiting for a replacement. The way it is today, if a player gets tired of waiting they can just unsubscribe to the game and walk away.
User avatar
super_dipsy
Premium Member
 
Posts: 12194
Joined: 04 Nov 2009, 17:43
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1000)
All-game rating: (931)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Protecting games from NMRs in Spring 1901 - Now an OPTIO

Postby richkarna » 07 Aug 2011, 15:08

Nicely done.
There are Trolls in Norway, you don't want that.
User avatar
richkarna
Sponsor
Sponsor
 
Posts: 507
Joined: 07 Jan 2009, 22:34
Location: Virginia Beach, Virginia
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Protecting games from NMRs in Spring 1901 - Now an OPTIO

Postby iamgraef » 07 Aug 2011, 17:56

diplomat42 wrote:Your suggestion is good in theory. However, when the game keeps getting bogged down by having to wait for a replacement (that may never come) more players lose interest and...NMR.


As it is a suggestion, not a finished idea, there would be plenty of followup considerations like this. If I were designing this process, and the NMR problem is indeed as widespread and detrimental as indicated, I would be looking into adding an entire NMR section into the game creation page. It could have a wide variety of options, using many of the previous suggestions. Or, a set of pre-defined NMR statuses, that would show up publicly while doing a search to join a game. For an example off the top of my head, a "NMR status: strict" choice would be a game that a) pauses (does not re-start) when an NMR is detected, b) penalizes NMR users more than the -1 points, c) allows these NMR rules to continue not just in 1901 but all game, d) does not give three strikes until they're out, only one, etc. If players know that they're signing up for a strict game, perhaps we can curtail this problem. I'd even throw in an additional public Stat on the user profile page to count the number of NMRs if you really want to crack down.

diplomat42 wrote:What if a one-center player NMR's? Do we wait endlessly for someone to take the position?


I'd think this would be variable. If less than or equal to their their starting # of countries? Auto-boot them. If they have more supply centers than they started, perhaps try to contact them. There's plenty of considerations to be factored in. Civil Disorder is a consideration in the original rules of Diplomacy, so it is not the end of the world if a country who is failing goes to auto-hold; the danger on this site is that those countries going to Civil Disorder are unannounced until orders are revealed.

super_dipsy wrote:That is effectively what the NMR protect does. The only difference is that instead of the game staying for ever in Turn 1 waiting for a player, it goes back to waiting for players.


True, the end result is roughly the same for NMRs in Spring 1901. I guess I was speaking more towards Fall 1901 and beyond, when you are at a point in the game where you don't necessarily expect an NMR to be a problem. It'd be understandable to have to face the reality of picking up the negotiating pieces after Spring 1901 - but, you wouldn't want a game to go back to the waiting phase in future turns because of NMR, where you'd potentially lose all momentum (and/or players). In these later turns, I think pausing a game to search for a new player would be less susceptible to mass exodus from other players. It could be handled exactly the same way as the "surrender" option, without actually processing those damaging orders.
iamgraef
 
Posts: 5
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 23:47
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Protecting games from NMRs in Spring 1901 - Now an OPTIO

Postby salamanda » 07 Aug 2011, 22:48

A very, very, very nice development. This is a real winner imo. I especially like the part where the original players have the option of dropping out if they see fit; I can see good reasons why some players may wish to do so in these circumstances.

Thanks so much for this, it's brilliant :)
salamanda
 
Posts: 65
Joined: 30 Dec 2010, 00:42
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Protecting games from NMRs in Spring 1901 - Now an OPTIO

Postby asudevil » 08 Aug 2011, 05:24

Thank you for rewriting the code and taking the time to consider other people's opinions. I didn't care one way or another, but thank you for your hard work
Captain FANG, forum team championships WINNER
Part of the surviving nations of WW4/Haven

Unless I am in the cheater's subforum. 99% of what I say is NOT as a mod.
User avatar
asudevil
Premium Member
 
Posts: 16606
Joined: 18 Jul 2011, 02:20
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1351)
All-game rating: (1437)
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: Protecting games from NMRs in Spring 1901 - Now an OPTIO

Postby lannes » 08 Aug 2011, 19:09

I will post on this as well, as I am recently being affected by this. True, there is now an announcement, but I did not notice at first as I usually just click on a link that sends me straight to my games. Not really important, but I was kind of shocked when I joined a game and saw that I did not have to wait for confirmations and then there was all kind of press. Imo, I think there should be some kind of warning or whatnot to say that this is a game which is already in progress. As it stands, I joined a new game and was surprised to see negotiations already in place.

While I understand the reasons and approve of trying to stop NMR's in the first year, it should be my choice whether to decide to join this game. The reason is negotiations already undertook. All the other powers have already started talking and probably made their decisions. Some were based on the fact I was not there. I will say I am France in this game. Perhaps England and Germany already decided to work together as the previous France was a dillhole. Maybe Germany wants to work with me because the previous France agreed to things which I never would. There are now many more permutations to add to the starting mix in a game of diplomacy. In a game where so much is decided on how we read people, and trust them to do what we would like them to, this is a huge disadvantage and I think merits the extra point for a dropped position, or I should have the option to see and not join the game. I rarely take abandoned positions as there is too much previous baggage that I quite frankly don't want to deal with. I just don't find it enjoyable. Leaving a mark on the game from start to finish, is what I like.

What I will say is that if the intended thing is to reduce first year NMR's in a game, this will obviously work, but it will still have some effect. How much is still to be determined, and likely never will be. What it will do is likely add to frustration as in this particular game, two people have already had to be replaced and it is not even 1901 spring yet. It will affect people who join new games. As most people who have been on the site for some time do not join new open games because of the low quality NMR's etc...I will speak to this. I join new open games to play against different players, and to try and hopefully entice these newer players into the game. When established members of the site refuse to play against new people it may make them feel less welcome. I do not know about others, but this will make me even less likely to join an open game as it will put me at even more disadvantage in the start, and possibly limit what I can do. I don't know if others feel the same way, but I know I will be more selective in joining games if I can not tell when it has already started or not.
"After I'm dead I'd rather have people ask why I have no monument than why I have one"

Cato the Elder
User avatar
lannes
 
Posts: 784
Joined: 04 Feb 2010, 21:39
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (794)
All-game rating: (790)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Protecting games from NMRs in Spring 1901 - Now an OPTIO

Postby cspieker » 09 Aug 2011, 07:10

It certainly seems obvious that games like this (where someone NMR's and is thus surrendered) should have the description "Active game with surrendered countries" in the "join game" menu just like other games with openings due to surrenders.

Is this not the case? lannes's post seems to imply that there is no indicator.
User avatar
cspieker
 
Posts: 469
Joined: 30 Aug 2010, 22:30
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1300)
All-game rating: (1381)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Protecting games from NMRs in Spring 1901 - Now an OPTIO

Postby TheCraw » 09 Aug 2011, 07:46

cspieker wrote:Is this not the case? lannes's post seems to imply that there is no indicator.

I don't think so. I believe it shows up as a NEW game, "waiting for players".
Very clever, Mr. Smart...
User avatar
TheCraw
Premium Member
 
Posts: 17275
Joined: 05 Dec 2008, 23:39
Location: lurking, baby.... lurking.
Class: Shropshire slasher
All-game rating: 1,000,000
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Protecting games from NMRs in Spring 1901 - Now an OPTIO

Postby lannes » 09 Aug 2011, 15:30

No, there was no indication, I sometimes just search for new games, and this looked like any other, waiting for players, with a list of those already joined. I joined and it was commenced.
"After I'm dead I'd rather have people ask why I have no monument than why I have one"

Cato the Elder
User avatar
lannes
 
Posts: 784
Joined: 04 Feb 2010, 21:39
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (794)
All-game rating: (790)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Protecting games from NMRs in Spring 1901 - Now an OPTIO

Postby super_dipsy » 11 Sep 2011, 08:15

Quick update - restarted games (due to a first turn NMR) are now indicated as such on the Join Games list - the same place where it says 'Active game with surrendered countries' for games after a surrender, it now says 'Restarting game after first turn NMR' if the waiting game is a restarted one. Hopefully this will mean people will not 'accidentally' walk into a restarting game. Sorry for the delay, I was busy with the new short-handed stuff which is now done.
User avatar
super_dipsy
Premium Member
 
Posts: 12194
Joined: 04 Nov 2009, 17:43
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1000)
All-game rating: (931)
Timezone: GMT

Previous

Return to Announcements

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests