Why is there no mechanism to end a game early? No GG...

« Back

36 days, 11 hours, 32 minutes ago
Profile Image
strixy
Why is there no mechanism to end a game early? No GG...Write Reply
Why is there no mechanism to end a game early? No GG button? Thoughts?
36 days, 10 hours, 46 minutes ago
View emork the lizard king's profile
emork the lizard king
RE: Why is there no mechanism to end a game early? No GG...Write Reply
Reasons that come into my mind:
* fairness on the leaderboard (demand roughly the same effort/time for everyone to climb up)
* exploits by "friends" joining the same game

I'm not sure if I understood the problem. If _all_ other players agree on a winner then they can just stop resistence. It should be over in 5-10 turns then and only the winner has send in some, probably easy orders. What doesn't and shouldn't work is "Hey, we vote ythis one for a winner and then we others are at least survivors at our current planets count". This opens Pandora's box.

What I understand is the problem for a responsible player who is in a desperate situation which provides little fun but who is shy to quit because he doesn't want to unbalance by dropping and giving his neighbour a big advantage. Good spirit! The solution here would a decent computer player in who kicks in. It could a spezialized computer player for the last turns of an empire going down. Should be easier to do than a computer player for all phases of the game. It's a pity that providing such a computer player isn't on the to-do-list.


36 days, 10 hours, 4 minutes ago
View darvster's profile
darvster
RE: Why is there no mechanism to end a game early? No GG...Write Reply
I don't think there should ever be a vote for a certain player to win.

I do however feel that there should be a vote to end a game at the current score board standings at that point but it would need a restriction such as something like requiring agreement from a number of players who control a combined total of say at least 300 or more planets.
36 days, 9 hours, 54 minutes ago
View emork the lizard king's profile
emork the lizard king
RE: Why is there no mechanism to end a game early? No GG...Write Reply
Darvester, you mean an option to end the game without winner and everyone getting just normal survivor achievements? I wouldn't object against that. The treshold of 300 is a bit too low, though. I imagine a situation where a player has 190 planets and a glorious solo victory at 200 planets is near. If all other players would be able to decide "Ok, let's call a tie." in such a situation I'm quite sure we have one commander less on this site. I'd say the threshold has to be something between 80% and 90% of all the planets in the sector.
36 days, 9 hours, 46 minutes ago
Profile Image
mrchrstn
RE: Why is there no mechanism to end a game early? No GG...Write Reply
I would greatly love an option where I could just admit I lost this game and throw in the towel without penalty.
36 days, 9 hours, 39 minutes ago
View darvster's profile
darvster
RE: Why is there no mechanism to end a game early? No GG...Write Reply
@Emork I agree with you in that situation and it should be higher. Although not thought out to well on my part, it was more of a suggestion of a mechanic to end the game early (by majority of the score board) rather than the torment of continuing to play for months when all is but inevitable and everyone else agrees it is inevitable.

In a different situation and having 190 planets, if two other players had a combined total of 250 planets they could end the game anyway even being so close to a solo victory and hence my initial suggestion of 300 planets.
36 days, 3 hours, 2 minutes ago
Profile Image
kode
RE: Why is there no mechanism to end a game early? No GG...Write Reply
I'd certainly like an option to end a game early, when a large enough majority agree.
Chances for exploits can be minimized with the right rules.

I suggest that players should be able to end a game early, starting on turn 50. To end a game early, players controlling at least 80% of the planets would need to vote for the end, and in such a case, player or alliance holding the most planets would be the winner, and they would gain all the benefits of a regular victory.

Opening up possibility of early end to turn 50 (or maybe even later) should significantly limit the threat of a group of friends exploiting such system.

Even if this would shorten games by only 5-10 turns, I think it would be worth it. And sometimes, when a game has been practically decided, it can still take a LONG time to get to the victory countdown.
35 days, 20 hours, 1 minutes ago
View whisperer's profile
whisperer
RE: Why is there no mechanism to end a game early? No GG...Write Reply
> Opening up possibility of early end to turn 50 (or maybe even later) should significantly limit the threat of a group of friends exploiting such system.

There are two potential issues here.

1. A group of "friends" starting the game to declare one the winner. Having a longer wait until eligible for an agreed cessation of hostilities would decrease that.

2. A group of "friends" invading a game. This is less likely due to the fact that it needs droppers in the original game, but a longer time until eligible for an agreed cessation of hostilities would increase that. The turn multiplier should decrease the chances of this, as it decreases the return for recent replacements. Also, having a minimum number of turns since the most recent replacement player joined could further decrease this.

Another way to decrease the chances of "friends" joining just to declare one of their number the winner would be to decrease the Victory Multiplier to 2 for the planet leader, (if they're ahead by at least 20%, 1 otherwise), and 1 for everyone else. The justification for this is that they haven't met the specified win conditions, so they haven't "earned" the full benefit of a real win.

Overall, I think the complexity of making this feature difficult to "game" is excessive for the relatively small return on investment. I believe the best path would be for the players to just give some of their planets to the "winner", and finish the game off quickly. No changes are required for that to work and the full Victory Multiplier would be available.
34 days, 7 hours, 27 minutes ago
Profile Image
glynsalternate
RE: Why is there no mechanism to end a game early? No GG...Write Reply
If the reason to win a game was purely for fun... instead of unlocking Campaign-mode goodies and Badges to climb the Achievement points-accumulation based Leaderboad... then voting to end a game would see very little resistance besides those that want the game to continue.

An alternative ELO Game Ladder would still encourage the multi-account Rule 2 violations, but require much more effort as the sacrificial accounts quickly become de-ranked.

As long as they focus on grinding and unlocking stuff, they will discourage voting to end games for the sake of 'fairness'.
_ _ _

If an option to allow voting to end a game is added... I think the option to keep playing should exist, a bit like in Civilization you can keep going after a winning condition is met. But this will never be a thing here I bet because the player pool is too limited and they don't want to spread players out too thin.
_ _ _

Like most such threads, we're just screaming into the void... although a bunch of Race changes came out of one thread out of the blue, so you never know.
34 days, 7 hours, 21 minutes ago
Profile Image
kode
RE: Why is there no mechanism to end a game early? No GG...Write Reply
Vote to end can work fine, you just need to set right limitations and thresholds on it. Replacement players can have a moratorium of n turns before they can vote for ending a game.

When games are decided well before anyone reaches the countdown, I think it would be nice to just end them and move on to the next one.

At the very least, ending a game by an unanimous decision should be possible.
33 days, 21 hours, 0 minutes ago
Profile Image
strixy
RE: Why is there no mechanism to end a game early? No GG...Write Reply
A short summary of the above concerns

-Fairness on the leader board
-Rule 2 violations / exploits by "friends"
-If _all_ other players agree on a winner then they can just stop resistance. It should be over in 5-10 turns.
-[player] doesn't want to unbalance the game by dropping and giving his neighbor a big advantage.
-A specialized computer player...
-Conditions on who gets to vote
-Conditions on when the vote occurs
-Conditions on how the vote occurs
-Like most such threads, we're just screaming into the void..

I that there is a difference in perspective between the more experienced and higher ranked veterans, the less experienced 'newbies', and those of us that love the game, but suuuuuck at it (most likely because we're casual gamers). So, here's how I see it.

We already have configurable parameters around games that can count towards campaign points or not. So let's propose that this works in standard and classic only. Not enough? Okay, I'll accept your argument for the sake of expediency and suggest that we make it an option that's only available for player hosted games. I would support that. I only play in player hosted games. I also spend a lot of time organizing and hosting them which is what brings me to this thread in the first place.

I can accept the leader board argument, but not everyone cares. Some people are here to play for fun and you know what's not fun? Capitulating - logging in, clicking "end turn" for 5 to 10 or more turns. Let's not forget that 10 turns is 3+ weeks at 3 turns per week. People tend to lose interest (attention) and even if they don't get dropped for missing turns they still hold up the progress of the game. Maybe you've never experienced this, but without the motivation/anticipation of checking to see what's in their their player.rst they stop coming back to the site or they get distracted by another game. This is one of those places where the gap between the player experience of the salty vets diverges greatly from that of the casual player. Frankly, most of us would rather drop and take the tenacity hit. Consider that it takes less time to make back the T loss than it does to stick it out and capitulate - an especially notable point when discussing replacement players and their role in voting to end game.

This is not going to solve the Rule 2 violations. Does it make it worse? Honestly, I fail to see how it could get any worse, but I'm down here at the bottom of the ladder and stuck playing with all the alts. I'm not up there on the leader board playing with accounts that have something to lose. Just one more difference between the newbie experience and that of the salty vets. Would it make it worse? Let's say that it will. How much worse could it possibly get? I don't actully care. If it does make it worse it'll push the alts further up the leader board faster and frankly, I'm okay with that. Maybe something will get done about it.

I think players dropping the game is a far worse problem than Rule 2 violations. Yeah, I said it. Down here I have to play against 5 player alliances regardless. What do I really care, honestly, if it's one person playing all 5 races or 5? I don't. It's game over anyway. From my perspective the list of solutions is identical - drop or capitulate. Both suck. Do they suck more than a GG button? Hell yes.

Now that I have that rant off of my chest, understand that this thread is not about what to do about Rule 2 violations so let's keep it out of this thread. I say that because if we can solve that problem for the game as it is right now, I'm pretty sure we would solve it for a game where there's a GG button. Savvy? This thing is not that thing.

The cplayer is, as stated, a mythical solution to so many problems. The thing about a cplayer that'll never work (and has never worked) is that it can't negotiate and if it could would it honor the NAP's and borders of the previous player? Cheap shot, but it illustrates my point. Again, this thing is not that thing.

I've run games where I experimented with various GG button scenarios and I've learned a few things.

Without a GG mechanism I have a very hard time getting new players, but I can and I do get them. However, when I specify that there will be a vote to end the game I have an easier time of it, maybe one or two new players will be willing to give it a shot. Not a huge improvement, but statistically significant? Let's say it's not.

Where the GG mechanism really starts to become statistically significant is with players that have played 3 or fewer games. When I specify a GG mechanism I not only get twice as many players, I get them signed up in 2 days instead of 2 weeks. None of these players are vets. None of them are on the leaderboard. None of them even care about it. They're casual players. They come out because the GG button removes the otherwise high potential for "suck". Suck being defined as having to drop or capitulate. I honest don't believe anyone wants to drop a game, but the alternative is so much worse.

Is the GG button a good idea? I don't know, but it makes Planets "suck less" for a certain demographic. Is that an important demographic? Does a GG button make it "suck more" for a different demographic? He he.... There's another phrase with "suck" in it that I'm not going to use.

Here's what I've learned that people prefer. Public vote every 25 turns. Results must be unanimous. However, I'm going to propose something very different.

Every player gets one opportunity to call for a vote and they can do so at any time. Kind of like how sportsball teams get one time out. Any player can call for a vote to end the game at any time, but only once. The vote is private. If the vote to end goes through, the player or team in the lead will win. Scoring continues as usual. The player (or players on a team) that is/are in the lead don't get to vote nor are they made aware that a vote even occurred. The reason this needs to be handled this way is because of politics. I ran into one situation where the public vote caused a secret alliance to be revealed and that wasn't a good feeling. Not that what I'm proposing would remove that from happening, but this version would need to be used in a very specific way by someone very talented in the art of negotiation and frankly, while that's my weakest skill in this game, I think we all admire those who can play that part of the game well. I think we all know that's one of the reasons why we love this game (and why cplayer sucks, callback).

So that's the why, the what, the when, the who and the how as I see it. Am I shouting into the void? You tell me.
33 days, 8 hours, 20 minutes ago
Profile Image
martinr
RE: Why is there no mechanism to end a game early? No GG...Write Reply
There are Privately hosted Public games and Privately hosted Non Public games.

Private Public games gain Achievement points, campaign resources and awards.

Private Non Public games do not.

Some of the many suggestions like installing a GG button, full access to HConfig to change all previous configurable Host settings (changing combat ground assault ratio's, Cloak fail %, shield bonus for engine tech etc) could be set up by Admin.

These then could be made for fun games for Non Public games. They can be unbalanced and favour set races. Allow mates to play until you all hit the GG button and declare the winner etc. All without effecting anyone else's Officer levels and Achievement and Awards etc.

But I think these sort of things should be only set up for Private Non Public games as they can be unbalanced and farmed by a small minority of the players on the site.



I actually think we should have a Private Game Admin where every game goes through an approval stage. You set up the game and send it in. Then an Admin approved person then approves it as a Public game or Non Public game.

There could be a menu like the interest games for Public games to make it easier for attracting players.

If the game settings look to be out side of a recommended set up it gets put into a Non Public setting.

Also if a similar format is available it is put on hold. And games that have no interest get deleted or modified and then reissued.
33 days, 0 hours, 9 minutes ago
Profile Image
strixy
RE: Why is there no mechanism to end a game early? No GG...Write Reply
That certainly gives me more to think about. Thanks @Martinr.