Automatically remove trapped players

[PLAYER57832]

Maybe this could be an exception to the "no resign" button or something along the lines of "vote for draw" , where this one person can leave if the others agree.

As a premium, this would not bother me too much, but I can definitely see where it would be very frustrating for non-premiums.

[samuelc812]

I don't understand why not just eliminate them yourself instead of getting the game to do it for you Very confusing Or tell the other players in game chat to eliminate you if you have cards they will want to eliminate you

[sully800]

I don't understand why not just eliminate them yourself instead of getting the game to do it for you Very confusing Or tell the other players in game chat to eliminate you if you have cards they will want to eliminate you

And what if you don't have cards? What if its flat rate or no cards? If there are multiple players in the game, the dominant strategy will almost always be to kill everyone else first, and then go after the trapped player. That's why trapped players are usually left alone, because they are no threat.

I don't think the player should be kicked automatically. They still have a possibility of winning from the trapped country if everyone else deadbeats. This becomes more likely if they have amassed a large number of troops, which is fairly common. Instead, I like Yeti's suggestion that the game engine autodeploy the player's troops. Perhaps we could specify in the XML where the autodeploy occurs when trapped, or maybe it should just be done randomly. But with this feature you would actually have to attack the trapped player to get their points in terminator, as it should be. And if everyone but the trapped player deadbeats, the trapped player still wins the game.

For everyone who says they don't want to delay the game when trapped, you are fooling yourself. If you deadbeat that is 72 hours wasted. If you play 100 rounds from the trapped position you are likely delaying the game by 400-600 hours or more. I understand that you don't want to deadbeat in fear of neg ratings or neg attendance. And I understand that you might want to hang in for the slimmest chance at a win....but playing so as to not delay the game is illogical, in most cases you are making it worse. The comp auto-deploy would solve this problem because there would be no waiting for the trapped player any more.

[Winged Cat]

Winged Cat, in the light of discussion to date, is it worth updating your first post to clearly specify what kinds of traps would lead to automatic elimination ? (You seem to have ruled out Waterloo type for example.)

It ruled out Waterloo type from the beginning. But, sure, done.

Thinking about the autodeploy...I don't think that would be the best option after all. If they're trapped and ignored, then they build up a large army that can do nothing but defend, making their space(s) take a long time to be cracked. This can degrade the game for the remaining players as well. Though it might be an option for team games.

Likewise, "deadbeat" is not a good solution: what if player A really meant to eliminate player B, but player B has two territories left, one of which is trapped, and the other of which player A must go through first? In that case, player A takes the non-trapped territory, and player B immediately goes deadbeat, denying player A the elimination (which can be an issue when cards or terminator games are involved).

I don't think the player should be kicked automatically. They still have a possibility of winning from the trapped country if everyone else deadbeats.

That is unlikely enough to be practically impossible. Also, it encourages people to encourage or work towards a certain thing (deadbeating) which CC does NOT desire under any circumstance.

Perhaps we could specify in the XML where the autodeploy occurs when trapped

Part of the point of this suggestion is that works without specific support in the XML. Otherwise, existing maps would have to have this added, and future maps would have to be checked for that (which would not a bad thing in and of itself, IMO, since it would discourage ill-thought-out trap situations, but it would be added work). I've noted that in the first post's update.

[sully800]

Yeah, I agree that adjusting the XML is probably not a great solution since it would require additional work in maps. It's just a possibility.

Thinking about the autodeploy...I don't think that would be the best option after all. If they're trapped and ignored, then they build up a large army that can do nothing but defend, making their space(s) take a long time to be cracked. This can degrade the game for the remaining players as well.

That's exactly why I think autodeploy should happen. If a player is trapped they can only win by waiting and deploying. It makes sense for the computer to do this for them so as to not delay the game. If other players then choose to ignore the trapped player, it will indeed take a long time to crack him/her...which increases the chances that everyone else deadbeats.

I know you said it's unlikely for everyone to deadbeat, but you really only need one person. Player A kills everyone on the map except Player B who is trapped but has 10,000 armies. Player A then tries to eliminate Player B but deadbeats before it happens, so Player B wins.

This still may seem unlikely, but it has happened before. I've seen escalating games where a player conquered the map, and then left one territory for one player. The player was not exactly trapped, but they were facing hundreds of armies with no chance at getting a card and therefore no chance at winning...right? Well the tormentor in this situation ended up deadbeating after a few rounds so the trapped player with one army won the game, all for being patient. Mostly though, I suggest the autodeploy because I'm thinking about the terminator consequences. You shouldn't get points in terminator unless you eliminate the trapped player, and that person's armies should be allowed to keep growing until you eliminate them.

[yeti_c]

since it would discourage ill-thought-out trap situations

Just to point out - the fact that there are traps in these maps is actually part of the maps design.

C.

[happy2seeyou]

People that are trapped can still win a game. If the other players in the game happen to deadbeat. I don't think their game should automatically be over.

[lancehoch]

I do not like the suggestion, but if it were to be implemented, I would like it to be similar to a deadbeat situation. This solves all the problems with terminator and standard (and maybe assassin, since someone else would get the target). In team games, the territory would revert to a teammate too, wouldn't it?

[yeti_c]

I do not like the suggestion, but if it were to be implemented, I would like it to be similar to a deadbeat situation. This solves all the problems with terminator and standard (and maybe assassin, since someone else would get the target). In team games, the territory would revert to a teammate too, wouldn't it?

NOOOOOOooooo - This is so wrong.

Teammates could be protecting the trapped player - remember those extra 3 armies a round could make all the difference...

C.

[lancehoch]

yeti, that is why I said I do not like the suggestion. I really do not, but there are worse ways to implement the suggestion, I was just giving the lesser of the bad ideas.

[kingpin01]

In some tournaments, the order that you are eliminated in is important, so I would not support this suggestion. If I can survive to the top 3 and continue on in the tourney, I might let myself be trapped.

[Winged Cat]

I know you said it's unlikely for everyone to deadbeat

This still may seem unlikely, but it has happened before.

It is unlikely, and relying on deadbeats is (as I understand CC's intent) loathsome enough that the perception of odds should be skewed away from that solution.

Just because it can and/or does happen, does not mean it should be encouraged, or even hoped for.

since it would discourage ill-thought-out trap situations

Just to point out - the fact that there are traps in these maps is actually part of the maps design.

That's why I said "ill-thought-out". If it's part of the map's design, it's far less likely to be included as by accident and lack of forethought.

In some tournaments, the order that you are eliminated in is important, so I would not support this suggestion. If I can survive to the top 3 and continue on in the tourney, I might let myself be trapped.

I would view that as a bug, honestly. If you're no longer able to affect the game (including by deploying onto teammates, in team games), you shouldn't get credit for a second or third place win.

I do not like the suggestion, but if it were to be implemented, I would like it to be similar to a deadbeat situation. This solves all the problems with terminator and standard (and maybe assassin, since someone else would get the target).

Nope. I say again: what if player A is attacking player B, and means to eliminate player B, but must take player B's last non-trapped territory before getting at player B's last territory (which is trapped)? This would thoroughly foul such a situation.

[yeti_c]

Nope. I say again: what if player A is attacking player B, and means to eliminate player B, but must take player B's last non-trapped territory before getting at player B's last territory (which is trapped)? This would thoroughly foul such a situation.

I assume that the coding would only be evaluated at the beginning of the trapped players turn...

I still think that an auto deploying feature would be the best for non team games. - For team games - the trapped player should be able to carry on.

C.

[BENJIKAT IS DEAD]

I think that this new feature is ending up with so many exceptions as to render it unrequired, IMO.

Currently it only applies to a single territory on each of 2 maps and a handful on a 3rd.

[Winged Cat]

I assume that the coding would only be evaluated at the beginning of the trapped players turn...

I was thinking it would be evaluated immediately upon territory capture - but "at the beginning of the trapped player's turn" might make sense, too. Mods (or whoever would be coding this), what do you think?

[blakebowling]

I personally don't like it (I may have said this before, but it has changed, so I'm stating that I still don't like it)

Coding this shouldn't be too hard though, just use territories that have no borders (listed in XML file)

[yeti_c]

I personally don't like it (I may have said this before, but it has changed, so I'm stating that I still don't like it)

Coding this shouldn't be too hard though, just use territories that have no borders (listed in XML file)

And No Bombardments... (Artillery in Waterloo have no borders - but do have bombardments)

C.

[Winged Cat]

So...with no further comments on this in a while, does this look like something worth doing, devs?

[Jeff Hardy]

could someone give me an example of being "trapped"
ive never seen it before

[lancehoch]

Jeff, they are talking about territories like Alcatraz on the San Francisco map. The territory cannot attack or bombard anything. If that is your last territory, you cannot win unless everyone else deadbeats.

[yeti_c]

I think that this new feature is ending up with so many exceptions as to render it unrequired, IMO.

Currently it only applies to a single territory on each of 2 maps and a handful on a 3rd.