[Mainline] Registered player status

[Pok]

When you start a new multiplayer game and people start to join up sometimes it would be great to make
a) game for only registered players
b) to see in the lobby if the player has registered nick
sometimes there are so much quitters that you would like to have more stable players.

[thespaceinvader]

b is already possible - players who are registered (which is accomplished by signing up to the forum) appear in bold, whilst unregistered/un-signed-in players do not.

However, just because someone is registered is ABSOLUTELY no guarantee that they won't quit out. Even the most dedicated have connection problems occasionally, and registration says nothing about dedication.

[Iris]

a) game for only registered players

It's possible to assign a password to your game.

I'm no MP developer or player (except every once in a while), but I think that adding more types of game access restrictions than that could confuse newbies or people with short attention spans.

[patwotrik]

I totally agree to this proposal. One good thing would be to be able to set a required ratio between quitted/not-quitted games, no matter if its because connection problems or a quit. After all I don't wanna play with people with heavy connection problems either.

[ancestral]

Ugh. I hate games which assign some sort of statistic (i.e. rating) with dropped connections and quitted games. What happens is people will actively start to choose not to play with people and others will complain about how their dropped connection wasn't their fault. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think stats are stored individually by player either, so I don't think that would even be possible currently.

Better would be a game option, upon creation, where the host could click a check box where a dropped connection signifies a forfeit. (Not sure the best way to handle that with 2 vs 2.)

[Caphriel]

Given that under most circumstances if you disconnect you can rejoin by observing the game and getting control of your side given back to you by the host, I don't think occasional dropped connections are a problem.

Currently, tracking "games quit" as suggested is a terrible idea. There is currently no way to resign, so most players resign or surrender by saying "gg" and leaving. Many of the most reliable players on the server would be listed as quitting absurdly high percentages of their games.

If you don't mind satisfying my curiosity, what kinds of games are you playing, and when would you consider it okay to quit a game?

[patwotrik]

Ugh. I hate games which assign some sort of statistic (i.e. rating) with dropped connections and quitted games. What happens is people will actively start to choose not to play with people and others will complain about how their dropped connection wasn't their fault.

That's the whole point. I WANT to be able to choose to not accept people with a high quit ratio.

Currently, tracking "games quit" as suggested is a terrible idea. There is currently no way to resign, so most players resign or surrender by saying "gg" and leaving. Many of the most reliable players on the server would be listed as quitting absurdly high percentages of their games.

If you don't mind satisfying my curiosity, what kinds of games are you playing, and when would you consider it okay to quit a game?

True, but that's a technical detail. I think a good option would be that you keep the regular option to leave, but also add another that could be called "Ask to leave". If you use this, and the host approve it does not affect you ratio.

At the moment I'm only playing Wesnoth

A simple answer to the last question would be "When the host (and maybe the other players too) thinks its ok".

[Caphriel]

Unfortunately, I don't think that's acceptable. If a player wishes to resign the game as lost and surrender, they should have the freedom to do so. The other players shouldn't be able to say no. Wesnoth should not penalize players for not wanting to continue playing a lost game they're not having fun with and wanting to start a new game. Try applying your permission idea to other games, and I think you'll see that it's not reasonable

Vanilla Wesnoth doesn't have a lot of people quitting in the first few turns, so I have to assume that you're talking about people who surrender before their leader is killed. Thus, while you seem to consider people quitting games before getting eliminated to be rude, but I consider expecting players to play every game to the bitter end to be rude. This would be especially problematic in team games, where a player's teammate may be playing terribly, and the player wishes to resign. It might not be pleasant for the other team, but the game was ruined anyway.

Finally, if a player really doesn't want to keep playing, you can't force them to. If your proposal was implemented, and someone was refusing to let a player who wanted to surrender leave, that player has several options. The most obvious is to use :control to give control of their side up, at which point they cease to be a player and can leave freely. However, if you decide to count that as quitting (which would be a terrible, terrible idea), then the player who wants to leave still has recourse. They can, of course, go do something else until the recalcitrant player allows them to leave. If they want to keep playing Wesnoth, however, they can just start a new instance of Wesnoth and ignore the old one.

As an afterthought, your suggestion of leaving it up to the host doesn't address the issue where the host would "quit."

[patwotrik]

Unfortunately, I don't think that's acceptable. If a player wishes to resign the game as lost and surrender, they should have the freedom to do so. The other players shouldn't be able to say no. Wesnoth should not penalize players for not wanting to continue playing a lost game they're not having fun with and wanting to start a new game. Try applying your permission idea to other games, and I think you'll see that it's not reasonable

Vanilla Wesnoth doesn't have a lot of people quitting in the first few turns, so I have to assume that you're talking about people who surrender before their leader is killed. Thus, while you seem to consider people quitting games before getting eliminated to be rude, but I consider expecting players to play every game to the bitter end to be rude. This would be especially problematic in team games, where a player's teammate may be playing terribly, and the player wishes to resign. It might not be pleasant for the other team, but the game was ruined anyway.

Finally, if a player really doesn't want to keep playing, you can't force them to. If your proposal was implemented, and someone was refusing to let a player who wanted to surrender leave, that player has several options. The most obvious is to use :control to give control of their side up, at which point they cease to be a player and can leave freely. However, if you decide to count that as quitting (which would be a terrible, terrible idea), then the player who wants to leave still has recourse. They can, of course, go do something else until the recalcitrant player allows them to leave. If they want to keep playing Wesnoth, however, they can just start a new instance of Wesnoth and ignore the old one.

As an afterthought, your suggestion of leaving it up to the host doesn't address the issue where the host would "quit."

I don't like the idea either, but in my opinion it's the best of two bad alternitives.

Of course you can say that you should have the freedom so quit when you want to, but at the same time I can say that I want the freedom to not accept players who are likely to quit. I think many games would benifit on this idea, but I also want to remind that I dont like the idea. I just think it's the best of two bad choices.

I'd like to point out that some of the problems with this idea is not problems that are directly implied by the idea. They are just possible problems that have technical solutions. I do not have these solutions at the moment but it would be quite naive to look at them as unsolvable.

I've experienced a lot of early quitters. Some maps are worse than others. Of course you should have the option to not continue playing if you do not want to, but in my opinion its rude. If someone joins a game I've created I see that as a sort of agreement that we're gonna play to the end. If someone quits in the middle for some reason it can spoil the fun for everyone. Of course you can do it, but its rude, and I don't wanna play with rude people.

Of course SOME people could be [censored] and not let you quit. [censored] allways exists. As it is now we have quitters, and with this idea we would have quitrefusers. But i think it would be a quite good guess that this amount would be a lot lower.

[Caphriel]

Okay, again, I'm going to ask you what scenarios you're playing? 1v1? 2v2? Only on Isar's Cross? 3v3? Conquest? Survivals of various sorts? This matters.

They are just possible problems that have technical solutions.

You cannot force someone to play a game. This is not a problem with a technical solution. The best you can do is prevent them from leaving, which doesn't force them to do things like move units or end their turn before the timer expires.

If someone joins a game I've created I see that as a sort of agreement that we're gonna play to the end.

This can be solved before starting the game. Express to players that you expect everyone to stay until the end. If they agree and then leave early, blacklist them by adding them to your ignore list.

Basically, this is a matter of differing social expectations. You have an opinion about how you want the people you play with to behave. Other players have different opinions. You think this would improve the game. I think it would make it worse.

However, right now the game is neutral to it and leaves it up to the players. This suggestion would introduce bias by creating a strong implication that playing until defeat without surrendering is the "right" way to play Wesnoth multiplayer. (The other side would be tracking a "refused to surrender/refused to accept surrender" statistic, which would introduce bias against playing to the end.) There is no "right" way to play Wesnoth, and it's the responsibility of the player to make sure that the people he's playing with have the same expectations.

I would oppose a proposal to try to make it easier to avoid people who refuse to surrender on similar grounds. The game ought not to provide a value judgement about this.

[patwotrik]

Okay, again, I'm going to ask you what scenarios you're playing? 1v1? 2v2? Only on Isar's Cross? 3v3? Conquest? Survivals of various sorts? This matters.

Isars Cross a couple of times. Some other 2v2. Some survivals, but mostly royal rumble.

You cannot force someone to play a game. This is not a problem with a technical solution. The best you can do is prevent them from leaving, which doesn't force them to do things like move units or end their turn before the timer expires.

I can't force them to play, but I don't see anything strange in telling others that they are quitters. You can allways quit. I suggest consequences.

This can be solved before starting the game. Express to players that you expect everyone to stay until the end. If they agree and then leave early, blacklist them by adding them to your ignore list.

Tried this, but it just takes to much effort, and a lot of times they quit anyway. If this should be really useful I'd like to accept registered users only.

Basically, this is a matter of differing social expectations. You have an opinion about how you want the people you play with to behave. Other players have different opinions. You think this would improve the game. I think it would make it worse.

True. I think the best solution is two separate servers.

However, right now the game is neutral to it and leaves it up to the players. This suggestion would introduce bias by creating a strong implication that playing until defeat without surrendering is the "right" way to play Wesnoth multiplayer. (The other side would be tracking a "refused to surrender/refused to accept surrender" statistic, which would introduce bias against playing to the end.)

I must agree that you have a strong point here, but again a technical solution could, if not eliminate, at least reduce this issue. The game could easaly have a simple power measure, and the rules could be that you can quit when your opponent is five times stronger.

There is no "right" way to play Wesnoth, and it's the responsibility of the player to make sure that the people he's playing with have the same expectations.

This is damn true. My idea makes it A LOT easier for me to ensure that the ones I'm playing with shares my view of playing.

I would oppose a proposal to try to make it easier to avoid people who refuse to surrender on similar grounds. The game ought not to provide a value judgement about this.

If it becomes a problem I totally agree that it needs a solution. At the moment - for obvious reasons - it is not a problem. We don't know if this will ever be a significant problem. A simple idea to solve this is that when you create a game you click a check box if you want to be able to refuse people to leave. This way other people can see that this is a game that does not accept quitters.

To be honest. Don't you think it's annoying when you've played for lets say one hour and you are in the middle of a good game, and suddendly you have to abort, because people quits?

[Caphriel]

I'm going to be a bit prejudiced and say that your problem stems from playing Royal Rumble. The "leaver" problem seems to mostly afflict rumble/survival type games. For reference, I don't play Royal Rumble, or survivals, or any of the other UMC scenarios that seem to generate lots of games with "NO QUITTERS" or "NO LEAVERS" in the game names. However, I do note that vanilla Wesnoth doesn't seem to share this problem. Therefore, I hypothesize that the problem is with the UMC scenario design, or the community that plays them. My theory is that the "game-ruining" stems from playing casual free-for-alls, where one player leaving throws off the balance of power, so you need people to stay in the game and keep playing even when they're losing. However, it's not fun to do, so people don't want to, and because of the way the scenario is designed, they don't have a lot of incentive to do so. I will say that while this proposal would probably be somewhat reasonable for these types of casual UMC, it would be absolutely terrible for vanilla Wesnoth.

I can't say that I've ever been one hour into a good game and had to abort because someone quit. It just doesn't happen. Either it's 1v1 and my opponent leaves, which is a resignation, or it's 2v2 and either the other player on that team plays both sides, or an observer takes over. All this assumes, of course, that the players don't agree to save the game and continue at a later date. Yes, people sometimes quit and ruin games. Do I want to blacklist them server-wide and prevent them from being able to play any games over it? No.

I can't force them to play, but I don't see anything strange in telling others that they are quitters. You can allways quit. I suggest consequences.

You can always complain about people not playing to your preferences. I suggest consequences. See what I did there? You're trying to enforce your tastes, which are subjective. Yes, some people share them, and yes, this would help you play with people who share your tastes, to the detriment of the rest of the community. As a hypothetical counter-point not to be taken seriously, I would find it convenient if the server tracked how frequently people complained about quitters/leavers in the lobby, and muted them when their complaints reached a certain frequency. This is obviously unreasonable, but hopefully illustrates my objection to this proposal.

Tried this, but it just takes to much effort, and a lot of times they quit anyway. If this should be really useful I'd like to accept registered users only.

I can just keep pointing out problems here. People can register unlimited numbers of accounts, for instance. But instead, I'll say this: It's not that hard to maintain a blacklist of people you've had bad experiences with. If you consider that too much effort, why should a major change be made to the game to make it easier for you (which would be effort for the developers)? Why should the game be changed to address a problem in the design of a UMC scenario?

My idea makes it A LOT easier for me to ensure that the ones I'm playing with shares my view of playing.

At the expense of people who think it's okay to leave when a game is lost, because this system would lump them in with people who quit on turn three every game.

The game could easaly have a simple power measure, and the rules could be that you can quit when your opponent is five times stronger.

You're playing UMC. An engine-level power measure probably wouldn't work for most UMC scenarios. Try modifying the scenario you're playing to address the problem?

I think the best solution is two separate servers.

I happen to agree with you, because I'm tired of having to listen to all the arguments about quitters and leavers and people trying to get survivals started in the lobby

In conclusion, because this suggestion is extraordinarily unlikely to be implemented, I strongly suggest maintaining your own personal blacklist, which will at least spare you from playing with the same quitter twice. This is a practical and immediate solution, although as you point out, it requires you to put forth some effort in order to get what you want. If you want to address the root issue, you might want to analyze the design of the Royal Rumble scenario, figure out why people are quitting so much compared to other scenarios, and try to adjust the scenario to address that.

Edit: Sorry for the multiquote, I'm a bit tired and it was easier.

[patwotrik]

This can go on forever
But I like discussing it. I'll start to shorten down quotes.

I'm going to be a bit prejudiced and say that your problem stems from playing Royal Rumble...

Its partly true. MOST of the problems comes from this, but I consider it a problem in regular gaming too. AI is a emergency solution to me. If I wanna play aginst AI I dont see any reason to connect to the server at all. And I don't find it amusing to play two teams at once. Especially not when I am forced to take over. Observers is a solution sometimes, but it's not so commonly available.

You can always complain about people not playing to your preferences. I suggest consequences. See what I did there? ...

If you really consider this a problem, of course you can suggest this. But do you? If this really was a problem in the lobby, I'd be the first one to suggest it.

I can just keep pointing out problems here. People can register unlimited numbers of accounts, for instance...

It's up to the programmer to do it if they want to. I can just say that I would appreciate it. I do not demand it. Besides, you can say that about any feature that would make your Wesnoth gaming a little more convenient. And of course you can find possible problems, but you can't say for sure that they will be problems for real. And as i mentioned before, they can often be solved.

At the expense of people who think it's okay to leave when a game is lost, because this system would lump them in with people who quit on turn three every game.

Again, it's not sure this really will become a problem.

You're playing UMC. An engine-level power measure probably wouldn't work for most UMC scenarios. Try modifying the scenario you're playing to address the problem?

It was just a quick idea. I have no intentions of solving all problems, likely or unlikely, that possible can occur here in this forum.

I happen to agree with you, because I'm tired of having to listen to all the arguments about quitters and leavers and people trying to get survivals started in the lobby

If we got rid of all quitters, we would also get rid of all the complaining about quitters

In conclusion, because this suggestion is extraordinarily unlikely to be implemented, I strongly suggest maintaining your own personal blacklist, which will at least spare you from playing with the same quitter twice. This is a practical and immediate solution, although as you point out, it requires you to put forth some effort in order to get what you want. If you want to address the root issue, you might want to analyze the design of the Royal Rumble scenario, figure out why people are quitting so much compared to other scenarios, and try to adjust the scenario to address that.

If this should be done in a good way it takes a lot more effort. Afterall, problems may occur. Disconnections, or just having a bad day. To make a good judgement about a player I'd have to write down his nick somewhere and keep track of how often he quits. I don't wanna blacklist a guy because of a single incident.

And I know a couple of reasons that makes quitting problems worse in rumble. Firstly, it's different. Quite often people quit in the beginning just because they realize it's not a regular map. Secondly, rumbles often have more players, wich obviously increases the likelyhood of someone quitting, and thirdly, the ai is not designed for these maps, and does a very bad job. None of these can be solved easily.

[Caphriel]

I hope you don't mind if I reply only to a couple of points; I'm on my way to sleep.

Its partly true. MOST of the problems comes from this, but I consider it a problem in regular gaming too. AI is a emergency solution to me. If I wanna play aginst AI I dont see any reason to connect to the server at all. And I don't find it amusing to play two teams at once. Especially not when I am forced to take over. Observers is a solution sometimes, but it's not so commonly available.

Playing two sides in a 2v2 isn't an unreasonable solution, compared to someone taking over another side in a free for all. However, what frequent 1v1 and 2v2 players do that rumble players don't is save games to resume them later.

It's up to the programmer to do it if they want to. I can just say that I would appreciate it. I do not demand it. Besides, you can say that about any feature that would make your Wesnoth gaming a little more convenient. And of course you can find possible problems, but you can't say for sure that they will be problems for real. And as i mentioned before, they can often be solved.

My primary objection to this suggestion is not the effort required, but the fact that it would arguably negatively impact people who are currently unaffected by the problem it aims to solve.

If this should be done in a good way it takes a lot more effort. Afterall, problems may occur. Disconnections, or just having a bad day. To make a good judgement about a player I'd have to write down his nick somewhere and keep track of how often he quits. I don't wanna blacklist a guy because of a single incident.

Fair enough, but the same counter-argument applies to having the server blindly track this. It doesn't take circumstances into account.

And I know a couple of reasons that makes quitting problems worse in rumble. Firstly, it's different. Quite often people quit in the beginning just because they realize it's not a regular map. Secondly, rumbles often have more players, wich obviously increases the likelyhood of someone quitting, and thirdly, the ai is not designed for these maps, and does a very bad job. None of these can be solved easily.

Agreed, on all counts. My opinion of the rumble idea in particular and large free-for-alls in general is that they sound good on paper, but aren't really good games. I don't think this idea would help the problem at all, because it'd be like slapping a bandaid on an amputated limb.

Also, the AI isn't a good choice for any kind of multiplayer.

I've been enjoying discussing this, also, but I hope you realize that it's pretty much an academic discussion I'd happily derail this into a discussion of the complexities involved in designing large free-for-all games.

[patwotrik]

I hope you don't mind if I reply only to a couple of points; I'm on my way to sleep.

Np, same here

Playing two sides in a 2v2 isn't an unreasonable solution, compared to someone taking over another side in a free for all. However, what frequent 1v1 and 2v2 players do that rumble players don't is save games to resume them later.

Now your'e forcing your opinion on me

Yes, of course it works to play two sides, but I don't like it at all. Saving games could work, but then you have to plan next time you're gonna play. Besides, many quitters just quit without discussion.

My primary objection to this suggestion is not the effort required, but the fact that it would arguably negatively impact people who are currently unaffected by the problem it aims to solve.

And then we would have the opposite situation, where you could complain about this quit-refuse-system and I could use the exact same argument. I'm sorry but that type of argument does not say anything. Of course it affects people who are currently unaffected. For example all quitters are unaffected. I want them to be affected. That's the whole point. And I don't see how this could be a problem to noquitters.

Fair enough, but the same counter-argument applies to having the server blindly track this. It doesn't take circumstances into account.

And neither do I, unless someone is polite and really quits in a good way. This is extremely rare. That makes me no different from the server. The server, however, can tell me that a certain person quits over 50% of his games. Then I don't wanna play with him regardless of the reasons. And if a person has quitted 1% its no problem. Everybody is an [censored] sometimes, and a single action does not affect statistics. Let's say that you've played 500 times, and suddenly the phone rings and it's extremely urgent and you have to quit. Then your ratio will increase by 0.2% and noone will notice.

Agreed, on all counts. My opinion of the rumble idea in particular and large free-for-alls in general is that they sound good on paper, but aren't really good games.

You've got some points. I agree partly, but i don't think that's relevant.

I don't think this idea would help the problem at all, because it'd be like slapping a bandaid on an amputated limb.

Since this is a problem to a lot of players, i don't see how that comparasion is relevant.

Also, the AI isn't a good choice for any kind of multiplayer.

Agreed! Exept those all v cpu.

I've been enjoying discussing this, also, but I hope you realize that it's pretty much an academic discussion

[/quote]
Glad you like it. I do to. I think you are right though. It's probably quite academic. I've stll got hope though.