Penalty for leaving a team game

[LPhillips]

Hi all,

I'd like to get community opinions regarding this idea: should there be some penalty to a team when one of their members leaves a game?

As it stands now, all resources are rewarded to the remaining players. Cities, units, and treasury. This can be problematic, as consolidation of resources gives an advantage to the team with missing players. A good example is a 2v2 game. Two players are having moderate success against the other two, pushing one player to the brink at the expense of allowing the other some breathing room. He quits, and then suddenly the underdog team has completely united resources and one single commander. That causes the game to drag on, or can even turn the game around.

If one team is able to eliminate a player from the other team, should there be an "out" for that other team? I faced a similar circumstance in a 4v4 game. I pushed hard and defeated one of the enemy players in their 2v1 struggle against me, only to find that the one I had incapacitated turned his remaining cities and resources over to the other player, rendering my victory null. I was then sandwiched between the united resources of a single kingdom. My teammates were on the way, and the game was won. Eliminating the one player likely contributed a lot to breaking the enemy's spirit. However, in different circumstances, the truth of the matter is that the reward of my victory was robbed from me. The whole point was to divide and conquer: isolate and reduce one enemy to the point that he could no longer fend for himself, and then take over his resources. I'd then have a fair chance against the one on the other front.

I would propose some penalty for a player leaving. At the least, all units outside cities should be forfeit. I would also propose that his heroes are not passed to his allies. His treasury should not pass to them either. You're already robbing the conquerors of their plunder (the gold % captured when an enemy city is taken); you shouldn't then return it to his team. The heroes' contract is with one ruler, not the other.

This problem will only get worse with the addition of Mercenaries and other new game features. If you quit (or time out!), it should hurt your team. Obviously, premeditated absences can be solved in 2 ways: appoint a sitter, or manually turn over as much as you can to your allies beforehand. Get your units inside, give your gold away and pay the proper transit penalty (or spend it on production/walls), and secure your heroes' items in a defended place. One should appoint a sitter (Reagent) if he wishes to maintain the full integrity of his position, but there should be no magical transfer of all authority and resources when a ruler abdicates his position.

Thoughts?

[ezras]

maybe in ladder games. but in team games open to all players it is fun to join and try non-formal teams. This adds to the community but if there is a penalty if a stranger quits, be it on the ropes or just by timing out then ppl would be much less likely to join these fun and informal games. ultimately unless it is a ladder game I think it is a fun experience and the "penalty' you propose would take a lot of that fun away because the increase risk a random team mate may quit. I thought that if a team mate quits all you get are their remain castles divided amongst the remaining team member. the out of castle units disappear and the gold in treasury and heros vanish. That recently happened to me in a game. Maybe I'm wrong though.

[smursh]

I fully agree with a stiff penalty in ladder games. In non-ladder games I'm more with Ezras. Perhaps a smaller penalty like eliminating the heros of exiting players rather than wholesale removal of units. This should cover any advantage while still making these games playable and fun for newer players.

[SnotlinG]

I think it works pretty much as your suggestion already

Its a fine balance, as you dont want to ruin a game just because your teammate times out, but also, it should never be an advantage to have your teammate quit the game.

This is how it works:
1. Remaining cities and buildings are randomly disitributed among the still alive teammates
2. All units with buildtime 1 inside the building/city is transfered to the same player
3. All units outside buildings/cities or with buildtime > 1 is removed from the game
4. No gold is transfered
5. All buildtime in a city is reset to start from 0 again (so a production of a dragon on turn 3 for example will start over again...)

I think this is a pretty good compromise

[LPhillips]

Heroes need to be removed in ladder games. Otherwise, it seems functional.

Why allow units outside of cities? Even production time 1? One of my specific concerns was a stack of pikeman, now they're still hanging around.....

[SnotlinG]

Heroes need to be removed in ladder games. Otherwise, it seems functional.

Why allow units outside of cities? Even production time 1? One of my specific concerns was a stack of pikeman, now they're still hanging around.....

Heroes are removed (including any items they carry). If you have seen otherwise its a bug.

Units are only allowed outside cities if they are standing on a building (Tower/village etc) - and then only units with buildtime 1.

I also forgot to mention that the citywall level is decreased by 1 for all the transfered cities.

Considering all these penalties I think the team with 1 player surrendering should be of worse after the surrender than before...

[LPhillips]

I agree. Really had no idea about all these penalties. I took all of my info from theoretical discussions before it was even implemented, and in the implementation you've covered all of the bases very nicely. Shows you what happens when assumptions are made...

Now I have nothing to fear after browbeating an enemy

[Chazar]

I have seen a neutral hero guarding a neutral city recently.

Is the case where the last team member in a game with more than two teams surrenders handled differently?
Are non-ladder games treated differently in any case?

(It was a 2:2:2:2 non-ladder game I was briefly sitting - it might be going on if this would be considered a bug.)

[SnotlinG]

I have seen a neutral hero guarding a neutral city recently.

Is the case where the last team member in a game with more than two teams surrenders handled differently?
Are non-ladder games treated differently in any case?

(It was a 2:2:2:2 non-ladder game I was briefly sitting - it might be going on if this would be considered a bug.)

If the last player in a team (or FFA ofcourse) takes surrender, all his cities, buildings and units inside cities or buildings will be turned to Neutral. Also his capital city will be turned to a CityState, which in following turns will be activating closeby Neutral cities to become Active. So to answer your question, heroes etc will still be there, but as Neutrals.
Laddergames and nonladdergames are treated the same from a player surrender perspective.

[LPhillips]

That feature for the last player surrendering on a team helps reduce the drawbacks of having someone quit early where it might benefit a certain region, player, or team unduly. Say if you have an 8-player FFA on Bull Run and someone drops out, the player(s) with extra room to expand won't have a completely easy time taking over.