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. |
Show Media Item - Why is there no mechanism to end a game early? No GG...
