How should we handle player changes?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

How should we handle player changes?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> How should we handle player changes?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

How should we handle player changes? - 6/4/2008 9:15:23 PM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

There was a large problem that faced the board game, and it also is a problem with this version: How to handle players who need to be replaced.

When a player leaves, his entire nation will sit in whatever condition he left it. It doesn't matter what his strategy was, tactics, diplomacy, etc. What matters is the specific game components that are in place RIGHT NOW.

If that player had decimated his nation, the new player will be playing with a decimated nation. If he left the nation in a poor political position (say, in instability or fiasco), the new player will be faced with that. If he left with only a small percentage of the VP needed to win, while his opponents have larger percentages, again, the new player is stuck with that.

I've never come up with a satisfactory solution to this problem. We tried granting them a boon of X victory points and adjusting the PSD to his default starting position. That helped, but didn't solve the problem, because of the many tentacles this issue has.

What other ideas have people tried when dealing with this kind of issue?

Did they work?

Will they still work in the computer version (if different)?

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

Post #: 1

RE: How should we handle player changes? - 6/4/2008 9:35:54 PM

Kwik E Mart

Posts: 2447
Joined: 7/22/2004
Status: offline

Why is this an issue? A player that takes over should understand what they are gettting into. This is a long game in which things can change a lot from one year to the next. In one game that I am in, we lost the Brit after the first year...he managed to go up against France, Spain and Russia at the same time, with predictable results to his navy and home country. The new Brit is facing a huge deficit in VP's and little or no navy. The rest of us understand that if we don't check Nappy right now, the game will be lost. This should give the new Brit time to rebuild. I think the better question is why some players insist on playing Diplomacy (old AH title) instead of using diplomacy. The results of bad decisions in this area can be devastating, as evidenced in this game. New players should heed the maxim, "buyer beware".

_____________________________

Kirk Lazarus: I know who I am. I'm the dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude!
Ron Swanson: Clear alcohols are for rich women on diets.

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 2

RE: How should we handle player changes? - 6/4/2008 10:13:18 PM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

I've never come up with a satisfactory solution to this problem.

One solution in this game is having a decent AI. The computer opponent won't care what you give it.

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 3

RE: How should we handle player changes? - 6/4/2008 11:42:24 PM

NeverMan

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

I agree with Kwik E Mart.

If you are honest, and I mean really honest, with the player about the state of the nation they are getting and they still agree to play then I think it's all good.

I think that most of the time you will find out that replacement players, like myself, are just people who want to play the game and make the most of it. I play for the ride not for the destination.

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 4

RE: How should we handle player changes? - 6/5/2008 1:44:55 AM

bresh

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

I agree with Kwik E Mart.

If you are honest, and I mean really honest, with the player about the state of the nation they are getting and they still agree to play then I think it's all good.

I think that most of the time you will find out that replacement players, like myself, are just people who want to play the game and make the most of it. I play for the ride not for the destination.

Well, im not sure.
One of the pbm games im in just died, because we could not find a replacement.
Thats aprox 2 rl months down the drain, now imagine if this happens after say 4-12+ months ?

Regards
Bresh

< Message edited by bresh -- 6/5/2008 1:45:08 AM >

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 5

RE: How should we handle player changes? - 6/5/2008 2:07:38 AM

NeverMan

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

I agree with Kwik E Mart.

If you are honest, and I mean really honest, with the player about the state of the nation they are getting and they still agree to play then I think it's all good.

I think that most of the time you will find out that replacement players, like myself, are just people who want to play the game and make the most of it. I play for the ride not for the destination.

Well, im not sure.
One of the pbm games im in just died, because we could not find a replacement.
Thats aprox 2 rl months down the drain, now imagine if this happens after say 4-12+ months ?

Regards
Bresh

What's the alternative? Lie to the replacement player so that he comes in, plays a month and then leaves, never to be heard from again? :)

It's just the risk with this game, it happened all the time in the boardgame.

Now if you are suggesting that the AI could take over, then I'm all for that, assuming the AI can at least play a decent game, which right now it doesn't look like.

(in reply to bresh)

Post #: 6

RE: How should we handle player changes? - 6/5/2008 4:01:21 AM

gwheelock

Posts: 563
Joined: 12/27/2007
From: Coon Rapids, Minnesota
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

I agree with Kwik E Mart.

If you are honest, and I mean really honest, with the player about the state of the nation they are getting and they still agree to play then I think it's all good.

I think that most of the time you will find out that replacement players, like myself, are just people who want to play the game and make the most of it. I play for the ride not for the destination.

Well, im not sure.
One of the pbm games im in just died, because we could not find a replacement.
Thats aprox 2 rl months down the drain, now imagine if this happens after say 4-12+ months ?

Regards
Bresh

What's the alternative? Lie to the replacement player so that he comes in, plays a month and then leaves, never to be heard from again? :)

It's just the risk with this game, it happened all the time in the boardgame.

Now if you are suggesting that the AI could take over, then I'm all for that, assuming the AI can at least play a decent game, which right now it doesn't look like.

If a mp is so hosed up that you can't find a human to take over; I would just turn it over to the AI no matter what.
(If a country is in that bad of a shape; I don't think the AI can screw it up any worse no matter how bad it plays)

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 7

RE: How should we handle player changes? - 6/5/2008 4:25:32 AM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

OK, maybe I wasn't clear: I want to know if anybody has found a way to balance the game for a player in this condition.

I DON'T want to hear statements that this isn't a valid problem. If you don't think it's a problem, then go ahead and join a game. This thread is for the rest of us.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to gwheelock)

Post #: 8

RE: How should we handle player changes? - 6/5/2008 10:17:08 AM

moopere

Posts: 46
Joined: 1/26/2008
Status: offline

Its potentially quite dangerous, from a game perspective, to risk unbalancing things by offering bribes to new leaders of shattered nations. You invite risky violent moves because a 'rescue package' will always be forthcoming once the leadership is changed. Also, don't completely discount some completely dishonourable players leaving your game under one name and coming back as the supposed replacement player under a new name....collects his reward at the door and continues on with an anarchy and mayhem strategy.

I'd turn such countries over to the AI. Much like a previous poster though, I am in this game for the ride, not for its final conclusion. I'm not even sure yet that any decent games will -ever- end!

Cheers, Moopere

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 9

RE: How should we handle player changes? - 6/5/2008 1:44:22 PM

DCWhitworth

Posts: 676
Joined: 12/15/2007
From: Norwich, England
Status: offline

The only way it can be balanced (if you see the need to do so) is by the actions of the other players. e.g. Going easy on the surrender terms, giving them money, giving them breaks diplomatically, etc

I don't believe there is any way to change things within the game directly. However I know elsewhere a minor game editor has been proposed that would allow the host to adjust army strengths, money etc which would presumably do what you wish.

Another point worth considering is that if you started such a trend, people might start to expect benefits as the price for taking over a country and keeping a game going ?

Also on the flip side, should there be any constraints placed on a new player ? I have played (board) games of EiA that have been spoilt for me by a player changing and the new player then totally changing the diplomatic position of that nation.

_____________________________

Regards
David

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 10

RE: How should we handle player changes? - 6/5/2008 1:55:07 PM

NeverMan

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

The problem is if you decide to "reward" the replacement player with things (army, money, PP, VP, whatever), then you are really being unfair to all the other players that are still playing.

(in reply to DCWhitworth)

Post #: 11

RE: How should we handle player changes? - 6/5/2008 1:57:10 PM

gazfun

Posts: 1046
Joined: 7/1/2004
From: Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

I agree with Kwik E Mart.

If you are honest, and I mean really honest, with the player about the state of the nation they are getting and they still agree to play then I think it's all good.

I think that most of the time you will find out that replacement players, like myself, are just people who want to play the game and make the most of it. I play for the ride not for the destination.

Well, im not sure.
One of the pbm games im in just died, because we could not find a replacement.
Thats aprox 2 rl months down the drain, now imagine if this happens after say 4-12+ months ?

Regards
Bresh

Well thats just the reason why a good community of players who are serious about wargaming should exist, and stick together.
Thats one reason a game like this will be able to go on longer, than 2 or 3 months. You can tell who are not going to last long in a game pretty quickly.
I was able to spot this easily, and we kept it to ourselves.
There are always the people around who play, without much thought or commitment in what they are doing, they can really mess things up for that country, and make it near impossible for anyone to take over.
The AI was originally designed to take over, when that happens. I know the AI isnt good right now, and even when it is better, nor will it ever be good as a lot of human players, but it certainly be better than a lot of human players especially newcomers, or spoilers.
For those who change there ID as someone said here, I refer to the first paragraph and say, a leopard never changes his spots regardless what he calls himself.
Thanks
Garry

_____________________________

(in reply to bresh)

Post #: 12

RE: How should we handle player changes? - 6/5/2008 2:06:36 PM

gazfun

Posts: 1046
Joined: 7/1/2004
From: Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

The only way it can be balanced (if you see the need to do so) is by the actions of the other players. e.g. Going easy on the surrender terms, giving them money, giving them breaks diplomatically, etc

This correct
When people start demanding unconditional surrenders around the place early in a game, its really an ego thing, for them, not what I would call something that a group of well meaning players would do to each other, as a whim.
These issues as David mentioned should be thought about seriously by players, if they wish to play again, or be involved in a game long term.

_____________________________

(in reply to DCWhitworth)

Post #: 13

RE: How should we handle player changes? - 6/5/2008 3:46:01 PM

eske

Posts: 258
Joined: 1/2/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth
The only way it can be balanced (if you see the need to do so) is by the actions of the other players. e.g. Going easy on the surrender terms, giving them money, giving them breaks diplomatically, etc
...
Also on the flip side, should there be any constraints placed on a new player ? I have played (board) games of EiA that have been spoilt for me by a player changing and the new player then totally changing the diplomatic position of that nation.

I prefer to view it as a parallel to an actual chance of ruler, which did happen historically. And the new ruler often had very different loyalties and priorities. Leading to a periode of "softness" from other nations, frequently also changes of alliances. I'm sure - at the time - some felt their "game" had been spoilt

To return to the subject, I think it fair to let a new player make it his own game, and only require the same lvl of VP's from him as if he been there from the start. Something like if 25% of gametime has gone and the nation only scored 20%, then declare him a winner or co-winner, if he reaches 95%.
(Picked that one up from an old tread on the "a player can't win"-problem.)

About unconditional surrenders, playing styles and such: Consider how much more of an achievement it is to win this game and everybody agrees that you deserved it and you've been their friend - compared to you win, but they consider you a doublecrossing nogood twit who - IF - they wan't to play with you again, it's only to get back at you. Diplomacy is a skill. It's not a game by AH !

- my 2c

/eske

_____________________________

Alea iacta est

(in reply to DCWhitworth)

Post #: 14

RE: How should we handle player changes? - 6/5/2008 4:05:12 PM

NeverMan

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gazfun

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

The only way it can be balanced (if you see the need to do so) is by the actions of the other players. e.g. Going easy on the surrender terms, giving them money, giving them breaks diplomatically, etc

This correct
When people start demanding unconditional surrenders around the place early in a game, its really an ego thing, for them, not what I would call something that a group of well meaning players would do to each other, as a whim.
These issues as David mentioned should be thought about seriously by players, if they wish to play again, or be involved in a game long term.

IMO, it's not even about being a well meaning player. You should play to win the game but a lot of players don't realize the game is long and balanced is needed. Too often I see Russia and GB not support an anti-French coalition early in the game and France goes for unconditionals. Then a few years down the line Russia realizes that it can't win because France has a nice Pr-Au cycle going and is constantly riding high in the dom. zone. GB then really has no alternative but to try to be the winner by default, which at that point is really hard.

You don't have to be a well meaning player, you just have to play the game well. If you are playing the game well then you know that a certain balance has to be kept. JMO.

(in reply to gazfun)

Post #: 15

RE: How should we handle player changes? - 6/5/2008 6:56:34 PM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

Well, it seems there is nearly unanimous support for not doing much.

I guess I won't be taking over for another player in any games, then, since I appear to be the only person who thinks it's unfair to saddle a player with another player's bad choices or bad luck.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 16

RE: How should we handle player changes? - 6/5/2008 8:54:25 PM

Murat

Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline

Everything is connected to everything else, man

Any balancing for the new player is done at the cost of the old ones - the force must stay in balance.

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 17

RE: How should we handle player changes? - 6/5/2008 11:48:32 PM

Kwik E Mart

Posts: 2447
Joined: 7/22/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Well, it seems there is nearly unanimous support for not doing much.

I guess I won't be taking over for another player in any games, then, since I appear to be the only person who thinks it's unfair to saddle a player with another player's bad choices or bad luck.

if i felt like i was going to get "saddled" with bad choices or bad luck, then i wouldn't *volunteer* to take over an MP...but then, i guess i wouldn't be *volunteering* to take over the MP...gotta love circular logic...

_____________________________

Kirk Lazarus: I know who I am. I'm the dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude!
Ron Swanson: Clear alcohols are for rich women on diets.

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 18

RE: How should we handle player changes? - 6/5/2008 11:49:29 PM

Kwik E Mart

Posts: 2447
Joined: 7/22/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

Everything is connected to everything else, man �Any balancing for the new player is done at the cost of the old ones - the force must stay in balance.

your jedi mind tricks are useless here!

_____________________________

Kirk Lazarus: I know who I am. I'm the dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude!
Ron Swanson: Clear alcohols are for rich women on diets.

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 19