Option to exclude individuals who frequently surrender

[Caladin]

At the moment, we can split games between two types of players. "Ambassador" games, for those whose behaviour is effectively impeccable, and "Diplomat" games, for those whose behavior ranges from atrocious to good.

Recent events, where I have seen a prolific player surrendering the second their position looks slightly negative, has suggested to me that this is not sufficient, and as such I would like to propose the introduction of a third option, to allow us to further breakdown the "Diplomat" class.

Rather than restricting the game to players who behavior is effectively impeccable, it would exclude players whose behaviour is beyond the pale. I propose that this be done by allowing "Diplomat" class games to be created that exclude individuals who, of their last 20 games, have surrendered in at least 6 of them.

This should only affect a tiny minority of players, but it should result in a vast improvement in the quality games for the rest.

[Tortellacci]

It's unfortunate, but I think it's necessary. Agreed.

[drillbit]

I posted a couple of months ago on this subject. I suggested there should perhaps be more gradations in the class system. It didn't get much traction at the time tho.

The game creator gets to decide the range of classes that they are happy to play against. There is a trade off though, the tighter the restriction, the smaller the pool of players available to play the game.

There is merit to this idea. As long as there is always a way to improve your class and there is always games available for even the worst surrenderers. It would be unfair for them to feel they are being effectively excluded from the site but hopefully this would provide some motivation for them to stick with a position and be pleasantly surprised when they find that more often than not there is still a way to the final table. It could also help them improve their game too by having to figure out how to get out of a tight spot.

It's worth pointing out that there are diplomats who act like ambassadors too. I rejoined this site over year ago and am still a diplomat, due to taking up surrendered positions etc. I'd love it if the class system was based on turns completed without NMR & surrender rather than games, but that's a whole different discussion.

[beowulf7]

Forcing your opponent to surrender is part of the game. Managing the game whilst considering who might or might not surrender is an added complexity. This is supposed to echo real life - there is no "no suicide" rule in real war.

As an "Old-school" player, I'm against anything that simplifies (trivialises) the game.

(Grins) Or you can always go play Risk...

[Caladin]

I would argue that surrendering is outside the scope of the game, and is instead an act of "game-ruining".

However, this is being suggested not as a default but as an option. If you don't like it, you won't be forced to play games with this option on - just as you currently aren't forced to play Ambassador games, which includes similar disincentives against surrendering.

[ColonelApricot]

Check out this thread

https://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=56569&start=10#p924604

A strong proposal for major improvement in game play experience on this site based on solid statistical analysis.

Site development should consider giving this high priority.

.. CA

[drillbit]

I totally agree, I hadn't realised this had been suggested years ago. There have also been 3 posts over the last 3 months running along a similar line, Caladin's, Marotta's and mine (drillbit). With Colonel Apricot's this makes at least 4.

I'm certain this would benefit the site. It would allow Ambassadors to play against a wider pool of players whilst not having to compromise too much on player consistency. And could encourage potential attaches to improve their stats as well (probably gaining more enjoyment from their games in the process too).

Is it not worth, at the very least, putting it to a vote?
I'd be happy with an increase to 3 classes. 5 classes would give even more options, allowing players to move up classes more rapidly (i.e. providing motivation and something to strive for that is easily within their reach), give more options of selecting the widest pool of players that you are happy to play against etc. etc.

[beowulf7]

Hi Caladin

I get your point but, sadly, I have to say it is simply wrong. If you read up on the history of the game then only physical violence was deemed "outside of the game".

In its purest form the game is an attempt to replicate real life - the telegram based WW1. Not only were there no rules to stop leaders "cheating" I would suggest that WW1 ended when the Kaiser surrendered from the game...

But online we have more surrender-monkeys and I see the attraction. Its perfectly valid to simplify the game if that's what you want. I remain old school - never surrender, never submit requests for turn delays.

[ColonelApricot]

Very romantic but let's keep to topic. There's nothing in this proposal that stops players surrendering.

[Caladin]

I get your point but, sadly, I have to say it is simply wrong. If you read up on the history of the game then only physical violence was deemed "outside of the game".

I would be genuinely interested in seeing this history?

In any case, I would have to disagree. Outside the internet, if you play with someone who isn't enjoyable to play with, such as by throwing in the towel as soon as things start to look mildly bad for them, then you don't invite them back for a second game. That has nothing to do with gameplay and everything to do with player selection.

All we are asking for, and it seems to be a common request, is to give us an option to exclude players who we would not wish to invite back for that second game due to how frequently they surrender.