Multiplayer Etiquette

[parakleta]

Hi,

What's the etiquette for multiplayer games? Particularly I am finding that opponents are quitting after they have a bad turn. I am only new at it and have only been playing the Desert Fort scenario from both sides but when I play as Allies the German opponent often quits (2/3 times now) after the first engagement. It seems to me if people want to restart whenever they have a bad turn they should be playing against the computer, not real opponents.

Is there a way to discourage this, like tracking an etiquette score for players or something?

[arcticpost]

I must admit I've been lucky in never having a player quit on me mid game without warning, but I also only play MP in tournaments or with people I've played before in a tournament setting. I'd also say playing anyone who posts in the Scenario or Modders section you won't have them quit early either.

[parakleta]

I assume the only way to control who you play against is to create private matches and then post the password in the forum?

Maybe there needs to be a system that gives players an etiquette score and then not allow players to join a game started by someone with a higher etiquette score. If the etiquette score of the person initiating a game is displayed then higher etiquette people could chooses to play against lower etiquette players (and would know what they're getting into) but otherwise you'd be able to leave open (public) games and still be safe from having someone joining the game and then quitting the moment they start losing. Players etiquette score would rise and fall on the basis of their most recent performance, but care would need to be taken to define it in a way that doesn't penalise people unfairly.

I'm sure I've played games in the past where they tracked sportsmanship separately from ability but can't think of specifics now.

[morge4]

People, this isn't RL...this is a GAME! Why are you trying to treat it like something other than it is? Players are going to end games early or just stop playing them for what ever reason, RL happens. I have had it happen to me a few times but I never though of going headhunting or blacklisting these users. They may have had a valid reason for needing to surrender, so just because they do you are going to penalize them or black list them to the community??? NO!

This is a game and needs to be played as such. Be happy and grateful that Lordz and Slitherine have created such a wonderful game for us to enjoy. Don't bring it down just because someone surrenders on you.

I would more likely NOT pick up a game from members like you than from someone who has surrendered early in a past game.

[MrsWargamer]

Black lists are not something I would expect will fly, but, if you play someone, and they are a GREAT player in that they are nice and make casual chat between turns and never leave in an abrupt suspicious fashion, say so in a thread saying you played this person and they made the game fun.

I for one have stolen games from my opponent when it seemed I was doomed. Not easy, but the thing is luck is like that.

Remember, the game in addition to trying to mimic history, also plays like a good poker game or a game of chess. It often isn't over till it really is over.

[jcb989]

I find etiquette is best displayed at all times, but we cannot control everyone to this opinion. If I feel a need to surrender, I tend to write a note as such and allow a couple more turns to play out with exchanged messages of "good job" or "maybe this scenario isn't for me". But that is rare. I usually play it out. I prescribe early departures to today's attention deficit society, note who the player is, and go start another game! lol.

What I mean is, with the game now widely available via the Apple marketplace, non-wargamers and non-WWII enthusiasts could very well be buying and playing much more commonly that the crowd that will drop $50 on a boxed PC wargame. So maybe with an expanded audience, we have to be more patient with finding well-matched opponents wrt commitment.

[gortwillsaveus]

People, this isn't RL...this is a GAME! Why are you trying to treat it like something other than it is? Players are going to end games early or just stop playing them for what ever reason, RL happens. I have had it happen to me a few times but I never though of going headhunting or blacklisting these users. They may have had a valid reason for needing to surrender, so just because they do you are going to penalize them or black list them to the community??? NO!

This is a game and needs to be played as such. Be happy and grateful that Lordz and Slitherine have created such a wonderful game for us to enjoy. Don't bring it down just because someone surrenders on you.

I would more likely NOT pick up a game from members like you than from someone who has surrendered early in a past game.

As always,..good response!

[parakleta]

we have to be more patient with finding well-matched opponents wrt commitment

How do we do this through the existing match making system? All I was asking for was some way to make this easier without having to leave the game and come to the forums to find suitable opponents. I would like to play a wide range of opponents but I don't want to have to come to the forum to establish a 'relationship' with each opponent first and I don't want to keep having opponents rage quit when I have a good turn or they a bad one.

It makes the game suck a bit in multiplayer when most of my turns are losing ones because as soon as I start to win the opponent quits.

America's Army Online which I used to play a lot had a good RoE/Honor system. Players got an honor score based on their compliance with the RoE of the mission they were playing. If when you created a mission you could set some RoE settings you could then get well-matched opponents and if you got an opponent that didn't comply they would be penalised by a reduction in their honor score.

[jcb989]

you're right - there is no system in BA for this. I currently keep track the hard way, via mental notes about opponent names, not just forum visits.

[LandMarine47]

If you want to fight good player go down to the GJS Forums it's where all the multiplayer gents go. If it makes you feel better fight me I only quit when A. Artillery spam or B. When I'm down to 2 or 3 men and I'm a attacking.

[leci]

As a mediocre player (who has had the privelege of playing some very skilled opponents), but as someone who loves war games, any decision on my part to surrender is based on a number of factors.

The better my opponent, the more I believe I have a 'duty' to provide them with a challenging game. This aspect when combined with stupid game play on my part and or an impossible game/resource position for my forces, will/would prompt me to surrender. This can be compounded were ones opponent never provides any messages - something that I find quite disconcerting and in complete contrast to many opponents (you know who you are...) who provide interesting, amusing and relevant dialogue and comment.

While I try to flag my intention to surrender, this topic has at least emphasised to me that I need to flag such an intention in every case.

The other aspect is with regard to games that 'appear' to be abandoned. I guess 'etiquette' would suggest one PMs the other player before deleting the game.

[LandMarine47]

As a mediocre player (who has had the privelege of playing some very skilled opponents), but as someone who loves war games, any decision on my part to surrender is based on a number of factors.

The better my opponent, the more I believe I have a 'duty' to provide them with a challenging game. This aspect when combined with stupid game play on my part and or an impossible game/resource position for my forces, will/would prompt me to surrender. This can be compounded were ones opponent never provides any messages - something that I find quite disconcerting and in complete contrast to many opponents (you know who you are...) who provide interesting, amusing and relevant dialogue and comment.

While I try to flag my intention to surrender, this topic has at least emphasised to me that I need to flag such an intention in every case.

The other aspect is with regard to games that 'appear' to be abandoned. I guess 'etiquette' would suggest one PMs the other player before deleting the game.

Those rules also apply to me