Quitting immediately after starting a game

[xjhdexter]

I am in a game now, dark, 48 hr turn submits, 6 tick jumps, 24 players , custom map 24L Three Neighbors, trade within scan range.
It is now tick 102, and there are 8 players AFK and 3 QUIT.

The 8 AFK players all have either 0 or 1 Victories, or less than 16 Rank, and less than 15 Renown.
One AFK player is Premium, and another AFK player is Lifetime Premium.

I have no clue whether any of these AFK players may be alternate accounts.

Two AFK were kicked after the first three submits, so no user activity, could be possible alts ? or maybe just to help start the game sooner ? Maybe they do not read their email ?

Three AFK were kicked on the fourth submit, so only active on the first turn, but no more.

A rank 21 player launched a lot of attacks, then was AFK at tick 84.

A rank 11, 1 victory player played a while, seemed to do OK, but became AFK at tick 90, and AI is still going strong.
A rank 16, 1 victory player played a while, seemed to do OK, but became AFK at tick 96, and AI is still going strong.

So 3/8 AFK players actually put in more effort to play the game.

Two quitters with 1 victory each quit just before an attack at tick 66 and 84, and the AI is still going strong.

One quitter with rank 104 quit at tick 24 when just losing a carrier. Maybe he did not like his starting position ?

There may be other interesting analysis that can be done . . . ?

One possible reason I think is that some new players just need some help learning the game.

More data might be needed to make more sense of this.

[eplazaguest]

Perhaps Jay can build in a feedback survey for the quitters.

Not sure how to get AFK folks to feedback on any particular game. Perhaps a feedback box when they click on the AFK completed game.

Please check your reason for quitting:
I got started in another NP2 game.
I was not expecting to win this game.>>> bad luck/lack of allies/backstabbed/adverse battle results/low funds/behind on technology/stars out of my range/Allowing an ally to finish with the victory
This game is taking too long to finish.
I missed a key timing action.
I wanted better graphics.
Real time issues outside of the NP2 environment.

Other >>> text area for detail.

[psyber624]

I really don’t know how I feel about players quitting/going afk early. On the one hand it really ruins the game for everyone else and makes winning more about who gets the most afkers near them than anything else. On the other if your dealt a bad hand and it could take you months of playing time to actually be truly defeated I can understand not wanting to make the investment in time required to sustain being a “competitive loser”. And the diplomacy option is SEVERELY underutilized by the majority of random players in the game, making what could be an interesting exercise in manipulation a frustrating and doomed attempt from the start. Rarely do I find more than 1 or 2 players in a game willing to even discuss diplomacy, let alone truly astute diplomatic players willing to work together to overcome weaknesses.

And penalizing quitting/afk could easily wind up exacerbating the problem instead of resolving it. While the AI is far from excellent it at least puts up SOME kind of a fight. If you penalize quitting/afk the best result for those not wanting to stick it out is to ensure that you lose as quickly as possible which makes the fortunate ones near them even MORE fortunate.

Not sure what the solution could be, or if there even is one.

[JayKyburz]

Some time early next year I’m going to get back into NP and spend a solid few months on the AI. I am really looking forward to it and wish I could do it right now.

2015 will be the year I make NP a really great single player experience so that even if every other player in the game AFK’s you will still enjoy yourself playing against fun, interesting, competitive AI that understand diplomacy!

[hughganought]

Hello Jay & other players.

I’ve only just started playing NP, & I’m not premium as yet, so take my thoughts with a pinch of salt.

First I want to second eplazaguest’s call for a feedback survey, I think this could be an easy win in finding out why people quit, and could also encourage people to think before quitting.

Secondly I think smaller games would be better for new players: less players means less risk of snowball quitting, and a quicker play time. vs AI games might also be a good way to make your noob mistakes without worrying about affecting other people’s experience.

Thirdly more balanced starting location might keep people keen. Asymmetry can create fun situations, but it can dictate your whole game, and chance of success, before you’ve even moved. So I think some way for games creators to control this and to have ‘fairness’ as the default would be useful.

Finally as this is my first post, I’ll just add: good work Jay!

[JayKyburz]

Thanks for your feedback @hughganought

I have some bug plants to try and improve the experience for new players. I want to have a fun AI to play against, and even some kind of single player tutorials levels.

[Kavanavak]

A Loss of renown perhaps?
Quitting could cost renown, and perhaps push you into negative #s. It would give a little more weight to that # and perhaps make someone think twice about quitting or allying with someone who clearly quits a lot.

[AnnanFay]

This post I made a while ago is related. I have highlighted the most relevant section.

@AnnanFay

It’s probably not 1 as the admin can force-start games before they are full. The places are auto-filled with AI’s named “Automation”. 2 is very possible.

The above screenshot shows he was the 22, 23 or 24th person to join. If he was the last person to join, he may have immediately quite because he felt the starting position was unfavourable. Maybe there should be a grace period before the game starts to allow the last player to quit if they change their mind about joining. Maybe 2-3 hours. During that time anyone can quit and the game will go back to waiting for players to join.

Another option for turn-based games only is to wait until everyone has committed their turn before starting. That is, the game will start as normal and count down to first turn-deadline. After reaching the deadline it will kick everyone who did not commit and go back to waiting for players.

[Ahamkara]

I’m sure this has been mentioned before, but it’s worth mentioning again.

There ought to be some options for allowing longer turn periods over weekends and various holidays. I noticed on Diplomacy online, that you can turn off mandatory check-ins over weekends/holidays. That might help mitigate some of the AFK players in the faster games (where turns are faster than 24hrs)?

That’s partly why I avoid game periods shorter than 24hrs is because weekends are rough for me to play on anything other than my phone.

As to the quiters I’d recommend what many people have stated: negative rep. Or a public player stat that says how many times a person has bailed on a game. That would help other players to:

• align themselves with more reliable players
• plan better contingency plans around AIs and divvying up resources

[Burt]

I’m in a game where I’m 1 of 2 left in an 8 player game. Everyone else quit before I had 2 techs at level 2. The 2 of us have agreed to work together against the AI. I’m sure it will be a different kind of fun. Similar to a six pack during a solitaire session.

I think I like the idea of ‘marking’ a player that quits/goes AFK frequently. Perhaps a scale similar to AI regard. A moving scale of -8 to +8. If you quit/AFK a lot you’ll be negative and conversely positive as you stick it out more.

I’m thinking the hardest part of this would be determining what a quitter/AFK is. Someone who sticks it out to top 5 in a 64 player game and realizes it’s hopeless and quits/AFK, should this count against him? My thinking here is people who don’t generally bail at the first sign of hopelessness will have no problem maintaining a positive standing.