Protecting games from NMRs in Spring 1901 - Now an OPTION

Official announcements from the creators

Protecting games from NMRs in Spring 1901 - Now an OPTION

Postby rick.leeds » 02 Aug 2011, 15:28

About one game in five is currently damaged by NMRs in the first turn. While all NMRs affect the game, an NMR in the first turn can be devastating, even if the missing player is subbed quickly. Following a number of discussions on the forum, the view was people would prefer games to be restarted rather than carry on if there was an NMR on the first turn.

The new code implements this. When the first turn is processed (usually the first Order phase, but for games such as Chaos, Age of Empires or Winter 1900 the first Build phase) the game is checked for NMRs, and if there have been any the offending players are surrendered automatically. The game is reset to the subscription phase with the players who didn't NMR still in the game. Once new players join, the game will start again as normal. However, there are a few aspects that are worth mentioning.

1. Remaining players keep their assigned countries. This is achieved by turning the game into a 'Selected Countries' game, no matter how it was set up initially. New players will only be offered the vacant countries as a choice.
2. Communications sent in the game will remain, so when the game restarts all the messages and Public Press posts will be there. This offers some continuity. Of course, players do not have to hold to their original discussions when the game restarts!
3. If the game is Chaos, although the game will restart the map will not be recreated. Instead, the map already generated will be maintained.
4. If the game has a Public Press box, there will be a message when the game restarts saying who was surrendered.

From a player's perspective, if you have started a game which is in its first turn, and then it disappears from your active games list, it has been reset. You will see it in the joinable games list.
World Diplomacy Forum.
Online Resources editor at the Diplomatic Pouch.
Don't let the stepladder get you. Watch where you're stepping. ANY step could be a doozy.
User avatar
rick.leeds
 
Posts: 8360
Joined: 11 Jan 2009, 04:40
Location: Wherever I am, I'm scratching my head.
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1158)
All-game rating: (1070)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Protecting games from NMRs in Spring 1901

Postby gareth66 » 02 Aug 2011, 16:32

Thanks Rick, another positive development.

Presumably when the game returns to the subscription phase the players who did not NMR will automatically appear as confirmed? (Or will all players need to re-confirm?)
User avatar
gareth66
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3523
Joined: 06 Apr 2011, 18:09
Location: Uk (North Midlands)
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1485)
All-game rating: (1638)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Protecting games from NMRs in Spring 1901

Postby cs » 02 Aug 2011, 17:46

Is there still +1 point for taking over a surrendered position, or is this treated as a new game?

When searching for games, will these games show up as a new game or as an active game with a surrendered position?

If this shows up as a new game, how will we know whether we are entering a brand-new game or one that has been restarted due to a Spring 1901 NMR? (It's potentially a big disadvantage to enter a game in which all the other players have spent days negotiating with each other over their initial moves and alliances, especially if one is not aware of this already. In fact, it presents many of the same issues as entering a game with meta-gamers. If it's disclosed, of course, there should be no complaints.)

On a related note, if we enter a game, will we be able to see what moves were ordered in the original Spring 1901? That would offset at least some of the disadvantage mentioned above.

If we are in a game that is re-started, will we have the option of not confirming/leaving the game without penalty? (If normal confirmation rules apply, it won't be an issue.) The reason I ask is because, if I've revealed my hand in the initial Spring 1901 orders, I may be at a major disadvantage if I restart (e.g., I stabbed someone in Spring 1901--needless to say, they aren't going to trust me the next time around).
User avatar
cs
 
Posts: 1003
Joined: 24 Apr 2009, 23:24
Location: Venice, but moving to Trieste in 1901
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Protecting games from NMRs in Spring 1901

Postby gareth66 » 02 Aug 2011, 18:16

cs wrote:Is there still +1 point for taking over a surrendered position, or is this treated as a new game?

When searching for games, will these games show up as a new game or as an active game with a surrendered position?

If this shows up as a new game, how will we know whether we are entering a brand-new game or one that has been restarted due to a Spring 1901 NMR? (It's potentially a big disadvantage to enter a game in which all the other players have spent days negotiating with each other over their initial moves and alliances, especially if one is not aware of this already. In fact, it presents many of the same issues as entering a game with meta-gamers. If it's disclosed, of course, there should be no complaints.)

On a related note, if we enter a game, will we be able to see what moves were ordered in the original Spring 1901? That would offset at least some of the disadvantage mentioned above.

If we are in a game that is re-started, will we have the option of not confirming/leaving the game without penalty? (If normal confirmation rules apply, it won't be an issue.) The reason I ask is because, if I've revealed my hand in the initial Spring 1901 orders, I may be at a major disadvantage if I restart (e.g., I stabbed someone in Spring 1901--needless to say, they aren't going to trust me the next time around).



Way I understand it, by definition any surrendered position you take over won't have had any orders entered, so there should be no orders to see. And as far as revealing your hand is concerned, again my understanding is that the game will revert to its pending status before any orders are revealed. So should be no problem with other players knowing what you've entered.
User avatar
gareth66
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3523
Joined: 06 Apr 2011, 18:09
Location: Uk (North Midlands)
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1485)
All-game rating: (1638)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Protecting games from NMRs in Spring 1901

Postby rick.leeds » 02 Aug 2011, 18:34

cs wrote:Is there still +1 point for taking over a surrendered position, or is this treated as a new game?

Don't know.

cs wrote:When searching for games, will these games show up as a new game or as an active game with a surrendered position?

Don't know. However, I would imagine that it would do the same as when a player doesn't confirm. Which probably means it will show up as a new game?

cs wrote:If this shows up as a new game, how will we know whether we are entering a brand-new game or one that has been restarted due to a Spring 1901 NMR? (It's potentially a big disadvantage to enter a game in which all the other players have spent days negotiating with each other over their initial moves and alliances, especially if one is not aware of this already. In fact, it presents many of the same issues as entering a game with meta-gamers. If it's disclosed, of course, there should be no complaints.)

There is a message in the Public Press box.

cs wrote:On a related note, if we enter a game, will we be able to see what moves were ordered in the original Spring 1901? That would offset at least some of the disadvantage mentioned above.

No. The orders didn't go onto adjudication so there are no orders to see. The game returns to Spring 1901.

cs wrote:If we are in a game that is re-started, will we have the option of not confirming/leaving the game without penalty? (If normal confirmation rules apply, it won't be an issue.) The reason I ask is because, if I've revealed my hand in the initial Spring 1901 orders, I may be at a major disadvantage if I restart (e.g., I stabbed someone in Spring 1901--needless to say, they aren't going to trust me the next time around).

No orders can be seen (unless you have passed them on deliberately) because they did not get sent for adjudication. So I doubt this will be an option. If I remember the last time we tried to let players leave by this method we ended up with it not working well at all... was it two people trying to lay Turkey in one game?

So yes, I'm not sure at all with some of these... cos I'm just the messenger boy ;) I'll contact Dipsy if I can and see if there are any definitive answers.
World Diplomacy Forum.
Online Resources editor at the Diplomatic Pouch.
Don't let the stepladder get you. Watch where you're stepping. ANY step could be a doozy.
User avatar
rick.leeds
 
Posts: 8360
Joined: 11 Jan 2009, 04:40
Location: Wherever I am, I'm scratching my head.
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1158)
All-game rating: (1070)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Protecting games from NMRs in Spring 1901

Postby slippydippy » 02 Aug 2011, 19:47

Quoting Rick Leeds:
"About one game in five is currently damaged by NMRs in the first turn. While all NMRs affect the game, an NMR in the first turn can be devastating, even if the missing player is subbed quickly."

This is where I wanted to make my point previously, but was still in the S'01 movement phase of just such a game. In this case, the phase had not even ended, as the surrender was made in the PP and a replacement found. My point is, even just that early period of negotiation having been missed, the replacement is at a huge disadvantage, his neighbours having made their arrangements without him.
So, while this may be a step in the right direction, it is hopefully not the final solution. I believe it would be fairer in the end to ABANDON these games, or reset them with a new mix of powers, in other words, to not disadvantage to new incumbent with the lost opportunities which cannot be avoided when lateness to the diplomatic tabele is involved.

Quoting cs:

"Is there still +1 point for taking over a surrendered position, or is this treated as a new game?"
There would be, yes, but I believe you would pay a high price for it.

"When searching for games, will these games show up as a new game or as an active game with a surrendered position?"
It would be an active game with a surrendered position.

"If we are in a game that is re-started, will we have the option of not confirming/leaving the game without penalty? (If normal confirmation rules apply, it won't be an issue.) The reason I ask is because, if I've revealed my hand in the initial Spring 1901 orders, I may be at a major disadvantage if I restart (e.g., I stabbed someone in Spring 1901--needless to say, they aren't going to trust me the next time around)."
This is a hugely important point. If I had allied with the droopydropout, his replacement would be in the ideal position to blackmail me, I might well prefer to run for the cover of another game completely (its because I am naturally shy).

SuggestiveSally.
SympatheticSally.
If you spot a perfect pink pixie keeping to herself in the corner of the map, you're in luck: at last you have found someone you can trust.
User avatar
slippydippy
 
Posts: 823
Joined: 15 Aug 2010, 16:33
All-game rating: 39
Timezone: GMT+1

Re: Protecting games from NMRs in Spring 1901

Postby rick.leeds » 02 Aug 2011, 20:27

I'm not sure whether this is the final solution. As far as I'm aware I wasn't on site for much of the time when this was discussed, although I do remember the discussion starting when I was here. My only comment upon whether it is better to kill the game - there's no point at all in keeping the game but kicking all players - is that the points Sally correctly makes above have to balanced with someone who has put a lot of work into reaching agreement with a player who didn't NMR which has completely collapsed if the game is killed. With this in place at least all players get Spring 1901 to do again. I also wonder how many times a player puts a lot of effort into communicating in Spring 1901 and then NMRs. I've been in games where people have NMRed in 1901, but I can think of only one game where the 1901 NMR followed a high level of negotiating.

Anyway, as I say I'll try and find the answer to the questions above. You may need to have a little patience, unless some of the other Mods know the answer to them.
World Diplomacy Forum.
Online Resources editor at the Diplomatic Pouch.
Don't let the stepladder get you. Watch where you're stepping. ANY step could be a doozy.
User avatar
rick.leeds
 
Posts: 8360
Joined: 11 Jan 2009, 04:40
Location: Wherever I am, I'm scratching my head.
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1158)
All-game rating: (1070)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Protecting games from NMRs in Spring 1901

Postby TheCraw » 02 Aug 2011, 20:51

As I understand it:
cs wrote:Is there still +1 point for taking over a surrendered position, or is this treated as a new game?

No. This game has officially NOT STARTED. (although all message will be saved, and still available once the game has restarted.

cs wrote:When searching for games, will these games show up as a new game or as an active game with a surrendered position?

The game will re-enter the list of open games as a New Game/Waiting for Players.

cs wrote:If we are in a game that is re-started, will we have the option of not confirming/leaving the game without penalty?

Game will be a New Game, and all players will be requested to confirm playing (again) and yes, at that point you may opt to NOT confirm playing, and eventually you will be removed from the list of pending players and the game will AGAIN reset to "waiting for Players" to join.

(and your fellow players may have a word or two for you...)
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

Postby cs » 02 Aug 2011, 21:29

rick.leeds wrote:
cs wrote:If this shows up as a new game, how will we know whether we are entering a brand-new game or one that has been restarted due to a Spring 1901 NMR? (It's potentially a big disadvantage to enter a game in which all the other players have spent days negotiating with each other over their initial moves and alliances, especially if one is not aware of this already. In fact, it presents many of the same issues as entering a game with meta-gamers. If it's disclosed, of course, there should be no complaints.)

There is a message in the Public Press box.[/e quote]

Thanks, rick, for the responses, and I understand you don't have all the answers--just wanted to flag the questions.

w/r/t the question above, that doesn't actually solve the problem. If the game is listed as a new game (when I search and join), I'm not going to see what's in the PP box until the game has started, at which point I'm going to realize I've entered a game in which everyone has already been negotiating with a huge headstart on me. That seems like something I'd want to know before I join the game. Of course, if Sally is right that the games will show up as active games with surrendered positions, I'll know what's up before I join.
User avatar
cs
 
Posts: 1003
Joined: 24 Apr 2009, 23:24
Location: Venice, but moving to Trieste in 1901
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Protecting games from NMRs in Spring 1901

Postby rick.leeds » 02 Aug 2011, 21:44

I agree. I meant to add that this wouldn't help you until you could get to see the game. Sorry if my answer there seemed "short" ... it was short but only because I didn't finish it ;)
World Diplomacy Forum.
Online Resources editor at the Diplomatic Pouch.
Don't let the stepladder get you. Watch where you're stepping. ANY step could be a doozy.
User avatar
rick.leeds
 
Posts: 8360
Joined: 11 Jan 2009, 04:40
Location: Wherever I am, I'm scratching my head.
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1158)
All-game rating: (1070)
Timezone: GMT

Next

Return to Announcements

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest