Idea for Dropouts

Ideas for expansions and improvements to Defcon

Moderator: Defcon moderators

User avatar
Red October
level1
level1
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:40 pm

Idea for Dropouts

Postby Red October » Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:44 pm

Hi Boards,

I have an indea that would squish a pain in the buttocks for me. When plyers drop out of the game, the CPU takes over. Fair enuff.

But this is sometimes annoying and can lead to one sided diplo games in particular.

Why not have the server option to DISABLE players that drop? This would make diplomatic alliance voting more meaningfull when you have 2 or more droppers, and prevent players hiding behind CPU shields...

Just a thought...

RO
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: Idea for Dropouts

Postby xander » Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:56 pm

Red October wrote:Why not have the server option to DISABLE players that drop? This would make diplomatic alliance voting more meaningfull when you have 2 or more droppers, and prevent players hiding behind CPU shields...

How would you do that? Are you going to prevent them from unplugging the physical cables? Or turning off their computer? Or unplugging the power from their computer? There is no way to keep people from dropping. The best that you can do is minimize the impact of them dropping. With that in mind, it seems that you are bringing up two issues:

1) When the host quits, the server dies, and the game ends. This, I agree, is a problem. It has been talked about quite a bit on the forums, and I think that the consensus is that one of two things should happen. Either IV should release a stand alone server, so that people can host without playing (personally, I don't much like this option) or IV should allow Defcon to pass the power of server onto another machine if the original host quits. Unless you can think of something else, I think that pretty much covers that topic.

2) In Diplo games, people can hide behind the CPUs when people quit. I agree, this is a problem. In diplo games that I play, I insist that any player that drops is immediately kicked from the alliance. However, I have been burned by teams of people allied to CPUs. I think that the solution is to automatically kick CPUs from any alliance when a player drops. This is not an ideal solution, but I think that it is better than the current situation.

xander
prozachar
level1
level1
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:57 pm

Postby prozachar » Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:39 am

I think what he means is that the assets and stuff of the player that drops just disappear. No CPU player assumes control of his stuff, they just cease to exist.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:50 am

prozachar wrote:I think what he means is that the assets and stuff of the player that drops just disappear. No CPU player assumes control of his stuff, they just cease to exist.

Oh. Pardon, I misread it. Still, I like my solution better.

xander
Tor
level0
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:13 pm

Postby Tor » Sat Nov 11, 2006 8:26 am

I had thought much the same thing, that is, how useful it would be if when a player drops and the CPU takes over it automatically withdraws from the alliance. That should be automatic, except of course if no defection is enabled.

A more interesting additional option that perhaps one could enable would be not only does the CPU player leave the alliance, but it joins that of any existing CPU players for others who dropped.

That might have a negative effect on the dynamics, I don't know. Since most players who drop do so because they are severely weakened (often misjudged because I've seen many come back at the end and/or others drop below them), it would balance out against the other players who might be forced into some uneasy cooperation in dealing with several allied CPU players while still fighting it out (or planning to fight it out) among themselves. That would certainly turn it into a different game if several people leave, but it might still be interesting - so certainly this would be an optional setting. On the other hand, as it is, games currently are much less fun after several players leave.
User avatar
Red October
level1
level1
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:40 pm

Postby Red October » Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:26 pm

Yes I'm suggesting that thier units etc either disapear or just get greyed out. There could of course be some grace time to allow a connection problem to reconnect, and after that the 'player' just stops doing anything, rather than switching over to cpu control.

RO
Tor
level0
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:13 pm

Postby Tor » Sat Nov 11, 2006 3:46 pm

I think that would have a lot of downsides if game assets suddenly disappear. If I'm moving my subs or bombers against target cities or even have multiple nukes on the way and suddenly the player disconnects, I would be out of luck. This is true in default scoring and especially genocide mode. I'd hate to see a player lose most of his silos and radar, then disconnect. Suddenly, the player who went to all the trouble to eliminate the defenses gets no reward if they have follow-up nukes ready to go.

If their cities remain and all their military assets disappear, then again it gives an advantage to whomever is firing at them already or their nearest opponent, who can now attack defenseless cities. If the cpu remains in 'defense only' you just have the original problem again with it acting as a shield with neighbors not having to worry about attacks.

So some sort of cpu has to remain or it just creates a negative game dynamic in some other fashion. The best solution has already been suggested, that of making the cpu withdraw from any alliances.

We don't want anyone to benefit from a cpu player, which is the current problem, so having the cpu withdraw from any alliances solves it since unless no defection is enabled, the 'alliance' would eventually break apart anyway. Having the computer break the alliance as opposed to another player keeps the normal flow (as much as possible) of the game going for the remaining players.
User avatar
KingAl
level5
level5
Posts: 4138
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:42 am

Re: Idea for Dropouts

Postby KingAl » Sat Nov 11, 2006 3:46 pm

xander wrote:
Red October wrote:Why not have the server option to DISABLE players that drop? This would make diplomatic alliance voting more meaningfull when you have 2 or more droppers, and prevent players hiding behind CPU shields...


<insert predetermined rant here>

xander


Fixed ;)
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: Idea for Dropouts

Postby xander » Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:38 pm

KingAl wrote:
xander wrote:
Red October wrote:Why not have the server option to DISABLE players that drop? This would make diplomatic alliance voting more meaningfull when you have 2 or more droppers, and prevent players hiding behind CPU shields...


<insert predetermined rant here>

xander


Fixed ;)

Oh, come on! My second point was pertinent!

xander
User avatar
KingAl
level5
level5
Posts: 4138
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:42 am

Re: Idea for Dropouts

Postby KingAl » Sun Nov 12, 2006 7:53 am

xander wrote:Oh, come on! My second point was pertinent!

xander


I suppose you're right. After all, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: Idea for Dropouts

Postby xander » Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:50 pm

KingAl wrote:
xander wrote:Oh, come on! My second point was pertinent!

xander


I suppose you're right. After all, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!

xander
User avatar
Annoying
level1
level1
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:41 pm
Location: UK

Postby Annoying » Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:51 pm

there is a problem with greying out dropped players, your score might be reliant on the nukes you just launched at a dropped player.

thus this would allow "tactical drops" where plays could drop to avoid getting nuked to death and rejoin after the assult.

Return to “Think Tank”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests