Dropping viable positions - Why?

[Lord Thanatos]

I am curious as to why I see so many players dropping positions while those are still viable. In fact, I continue to see players drop positions when they control regions, have great military strength, wealth, and strong wizards.

I have seen a position dropped after a failed victory check order was issued.

I have seen positions dropped that led directly to other players winning a contest they probably wouldn't have been able to win otherwise.

I have seen entire contests shift because viable positions were dropped.

I recognize that not every player has to play to the absolute end, even if their kingdom is completely ravaged (as I do - I simply refuse to quit).

Dropping positions immediately alters the contest and, in truth, selfishly detracts from everyone else's game.

I remember that one of the major reasons for having monthly pricing was to limit (eliminate?) the frequency of players dropping their positions. So we all enjoy the beneficial monthly pricing structure, but some of us accept that benefit without accepting the responsibility to continue playing the contests we enter so our fellow players are not negatively impacted?

Selfish? Short-sighted? Rude? Or simply inevitable?

Do others share my revulsion towards dropping viable positions? Or am I alone on my island?

[DuPont]

No, you aren't alone. I understand when people do it for reasons of real life crisis. Those happen to the best of us. But I wish there was a better way to get replacements in when that happens and the position is viable.

[kevindusi]

I, too, would like to see the standby policy revisited to extend beyond the current turn limit (which is 6, I think). Having a player drop when they control a region creates a vacuum that generally only a couple of select kingdoms can take advantage of based on proximity, and takes away from the balance of the game. I'm not as worried about the reasons behind the dropping - to each their own - but a viable position should continue to be played, and I'm sure we won't have issues finding people to pick up a standby position. I'm also fairly sure the majority of the remaining players in the game would be willing to have a turn delayed in order to keep all positions in and running.

[Hamlet]

Yep, I also would love to solve the dropping issue and to continue another thread on the Elf seeming to disappear a lot - the Elf is no longer in the anon game 141 as of Turn 7 (in fairness, troll took Oakendell, but still, gone by turn 7?).
Gives the troll a big advantage if the Elf does not hang around to harrass at least a little .

[kevindusi]

I believe someone would have cited that as a Pattern. EL in 138 is still alive and kicking!!

If a position is beat up, that's one thing... people may want the slots to pursue games where they can start fresh... but when a position is in good shape, well... that position needs to be kept going.

[unclemike]

Phil had a policy of charging a $25 deposit that he would return if you lasted until turn 10. Perhaps we can do the same with the $12 startup fee but ladder it further on.

Turn 10: get $2.50 back
Turn 15: get $2.50 back
Turn 20: get $2.50 back
Turn 25: get $2.50 back
Turn 30: heck, if you made it this far, free game time

[Jumpingfist]

Even if a player needs to quite for personal reasons or just because they are pissed off at Alamaze which I think is what happen here I see the same player exit in a few games and can only figure it is the same guy leaving in the anon games as well. If you know your going to quit send a note to support and let them know. Why take it out on the player base and make our games goto crap. Giving even a ligit win an asterisk.
I am all for delaying a game to fill a viable kingdom even late in the game. Just send a note the kingdom is under new management so everyone knows there old deals need to be revisited or maybe be more cautious in that anon game.

As for quitting I tell every new player I talk to you do not want to be that guy people learn is a quiter. You will be the first person attacked in every game.

Then I see them on the forums crying how unfair team ups are and they only play anon games.

For me it is just my personality if you attack me I will make it my mission in that game to try and keep you from winning. Keeps the game fun for me.

[Lord Diamond]

I never drop and really lose respect for players who do for any but the most dire of circumstances. If you didn't lose a job or an immediate family member, I'm not interested in your excuses. You just suck.

When I know that a dropper, in Fall of Rome I called them 'glassjaws' is in my game I love attacking them early. Kill a consul or demon prince and they quit. Use CE and his assassins die, he quits. Throw everything at their capital, capture the king, and they quit. I don't respect them, but I will take advantage when I can.

There seem to be a lot of droppers right after status points are reported.

When Anon games end, I say we still show those who started the gme but never finished. Maybe Rick will let me build that into the new Valhalla...

[Ry Vor]

There are several things going on here. When players drop, its generally:
1. A new player who is lost and not asking for or getting support from experienced players. This happens a lot with the Elves because I often direct brand new players to the corner positions.
2. A few players have had to disappear for a limited time due to real life issues.
3. A few players drop because they get annoyed by personal attacks on the forum, or for making errors in order entry.
4. We have a Citizenship quality in Valhalla that penalizes drops before turn 12. But honestly, I think that should be reduced to Turn 10. This is usually due to an organized and surprise multi-kingdom attack on a position. If its not fun, I'd rather the player be free to join a new game. At turn 10, its not so much an early drop, and is probably due to being crushed.

There is no rule against adding standbys after turn 6. It was more that we try to add standbys before turn 6. There was one famous example in a team game with a drop around turn 16 that wasn't replaced and Cipher and I discussed this and felt having a player in the game control two kingdoms wasn't fair. We would reconsider that, possibly.

All that said, I am confident we have far fewer drops than we did with turn based pricing, I'd say way less than 50% of what happened in that model.

We have added some standbys that were not viable. Adding a standby is a labor intensive task, even assuming the player provides notice.

[Bash Grimtooth]

As unclemike said, maybe having a certain amount of money that the player will deposit up front and after turn 10 or 15, that amount will be credited to the account. This way, a player has incentive to stick it out, and thus the game won't be unbalanced. However, for the player's first game, this should not apply, as that would be one more incentive for a player to start. It doesn't have to be much, but if there was a deposit of $10-15, that would be a start.