Quits: some statistical observations

[unmerged(6147)]

I just read dago's IMO excellent stickied "weekly Schedule MP games" thread. Unfortunately it is not updated as often as it should. That responsibility lies on all our shoulders, if we want the thread. If we do not want it it should be unstickied.

Anyway I made a post adding some info of the games in the list. It gave an interesting statistical observation on the quit frequence which I believe deserve a post of its own. This is what I wrote

---------------------

Battlefront 2 on Sundays has ended due to unannounced quits (good or bad noone knows, prolly bad).

DbD3 on Wednesdays is finished (wow!) due to the extreme dedication by some players who just did not allow it to be aborted due to quits.

New Order IV on thursdays has been aborted due to announced bad quits.

Rush of Titans on fridays is very close to be aborted due to bad quits.

---------------

Any comments appears superfluous.

Ah wait, yes the Rush of Titans game need a special comment. In it we had three Russians playing. When I tried a litte diplomacy some 6 hours before the game started last Friday I got told by one of them that they were not going to participate that evening, they had quit the game because
1. he himself had no chance to win (Siberia would win) - this analysis was made with about 60 years left to play :wacko:
2. "The Russian league" matches in EU had been moved from Saturdays to Fridays... (I asked what this had to do with their obligations to the RoT game but got no answer)
None of them had announced this in the thread. Nor told the GM AFAIK. Nor told anyone about it AFAIK.

Talking of bad quits. Huuuh. They have of course all been put on my black list which now comprises 16 players on the black list and 4 on the grey list.

 

[ForzaA]

I'd argue against ToH being portrayed as "ending due to quits"

The GM's just got a little too creative in their editing, which lead to the various computers and connections getting overloaded, which meant that session made maybe 5 years, which, in turn, led to the game taking far longer than expected, into a period that was "known" to be troublesome.

Yes, people quit the game, but that was not because they were suddenly scared of their commitment- no, the commitment unexpectedly (for all of us, I'd say) took/would take far longer than expected. It was more a collective decision that the game had lived it's life than a premature aborting of it.

 

[kurtbrian]

Daniel A, your last thread on this subject got closed and you got a timed ban.

Opening a new thread on this subject is not a wise thing to do.
Please notice that the moment you post anything at all that can be clasified as a attack on a poster's personality the thread will be closed and you will hear from either me or BiB through the PM's

 

[unmerged(6147)]

I'd argue against ToH being portrayed as "ending due to quits"

The GM's just got a little too creative in their editing, which lead to the various computers and connections getting overloaded, which meant that session made maybe 5 years, which, in turn, led to the game taking far longer than expected, into a period that was "known" to be troublesome.

Yes, people quit the game, but that was not because they were suddenly scared of their commitment- no, the commitment unexpectedly (for all of us, I'd say) took/would take far longer than expected. It was more a collective decision that the game had lived it's life than a premature aborting of it.

OK, sorry Forzaa, I got the wrong impression apparently. I will edit my post accordingly.

 

[Hive]

Daniel, it annoys me that you and you alone decide what a "bad" quit is. In your first post, you eg. state that New Order IV ended due to "bad quits" - as if it's a universally known and agreed-upon fact.

 

[arcorelli]

Daniel, it annoys me that you and you alone decide what a "bad" quit is. In your first post, you eg. state that New Order IV ended due to "bad quits" - as if it's a universally known and agreed-upon fact.

Well, his argument of a large number of games ended by bad quits could not work if he only used universally knwon and agreed-upon facts.

 

[King John]

Most games that end early do so because they're not interesting enough to keep people from quitting. It's pretty simple. "Bad quits" do not kill games, a lack of dynamic play, fluid diplomacy, and daring wars do. Or an excessive amount of RP rules . "Bad quits", for the most part, only happen after half the players find it not worth their energy to make real effort to show on time, or at all. Sometimes RL gets in the way and too many schedule changes force an end to a game, but I think it ussually only happens when players fail to keep themselves entertained.

 

[unmerged(27108)]

Most games that end early do so because they're not interesting enough to keep people from quitting. It's pretty simple. "Bad quits" do not kill games, a lack of dynamic play, fluid diplomacy, and daring wars do. Or an excessive amount of RP rules . "Bad quits", for the most part, only happen after half the players find it not worth their energy to make real effort to show on time, or at all. Sometimes RL gets in the way and too many schedule changes force an end to a game, but I think it ussually only happens when players fail to keep themselves entertained.

I agree with that.

In Newbie game, not a lot of people quitted. We kept 6 players from the initial setup and only changed 1 perm for another for the 4 remaining country. Kudos to the newbies

edit - and we played until 1816.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Daniel, it annoys me that you and you alone decide what a "bad" quit is. In your first post, you eg. state that New Order IV ended due to "bad quits" - as if it's a universally known and agreed-upon fact.

Sorry Hive. I did that to provoke a little. As you know it is a bad quit to me if you want to end the game because "you have no chance to win the game" or something similar. If everyone had that opinion not many games would be played to the end, and thus it would be rare for anyone to claim a victory. Personally I play all games until the end if no "good quit" condition are at hand.

 

[Tonioz]

by the way, Hive, why NO4 was ended ?

 

[unmerged(5161)]

I would not consider 4 case studies to be "statistical observations" of anything.

 

[Gaius Marius I]

The bigger question, is why he is so obsessed with the subject...

 

[DSYoungEsq]

The bigger question, is why he is so obsessed with the subject...

Hmmm, Daniel A obessed with proving a point. Novel thought... :rofl:

 

[unmerged(6147)]

The bigger question, is why he is so obsessed with the subject...

Because IMO it is a big problem in our community.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Most games that end early do so because they're not interesting enough to keep people from quitting. It's pretty simple. "Bad quits" do not kill games, a lack of dynamic play, fluid diplomacy, and daring wars do. Or an excessive amount of RP rules . "Bad quits", for the most part, only happen after half the players find it not worth their energy to make real effort to show on time, or at all. Sometimes RL gets in the way and too many schedule changes force an end to a game, but I think it ussually only happens when players fail to keep themselves entertained.

This post is the best part of this thread, imho. Emphasis mine.

 

[Gaius Marius I]

Hmmm, Daniel A obessed with proving a point. Novel thought... :rofl:

i'm a newbie round these here parts. i take it he often does this.

I like King John's response. I've experienced this lately. There is a vicky MP game, mainly full of euros. i joined because they needed people, and i had a chance to play with a couple people i never have before. however, i've had to get up at 9AM everytime to do it. Considering i normally don't get up until around noon, its a significant change. Basically, we've had some rocky times and not alot of progress. no UK player due to connection problems. picking up newbies that have slowed the game down. the best session to date occured when i was gone, with only about 4 people. 9 years or more of AI management for france, UK, austria, etc, that now have human players. meanwhile, germany as usual unites early and becomes very powerful as it often does. I don't really feel all that interested in continuing, but when i broached the idea that i might leave the game, i was, due to what Daniel A would call a 'bad quit' from a previous unrelated game, told i was being an ass. what do you guys think? I've been seeing alot of problems with lack of progress and problems with connections and stuff in the other MP games i play in (friday vicky and monday eu2) that run on much better evening times for me. Am i really that bad, for wanting to leave a game that has the same problems, but runs on an unfriendly time, and one where i can't really add much in terms of challenge and interest to the game?

 

[King John]

Talking of bad quits. Huuuh. They have of course all been put on my black list which now comprises 16 players on the black list and 4 on the grey list.

It would be intriguing to see this black list . Though I would understand if you would be hesitant to post it on the forums .

BTW, I think your posts are interesting, Daniel, even if they're sometimes a little off . I hope you don't get banned again.

 

[King John]

i'm a newbie round these here parts. i take it he often does this.

I like King John's response. I've experienced this lately. There is a vicky MP game, mainly full of euros. i joined because they needed people, and i had a chance to play with a couple people i never have before. however, i've had to get up at 9AM everytime to do it. Considering i normally don't get up until around noon, its a significant change. Basically, we've had some rocky times and not alot of progress. no UK player due to connection problems. picking up newbies that have slowed the game down. the best session to date occured when i was gone, with only about 4 people. 9 years or more of AI management for france, UK, austria, etc, that now have human players. meanwhile, germany as usual unites early and becomes very powerful as it often does. I don't really feel all that interested in continuing, but when i broached the idea that i might leave the game, i was, due to what Daniel A would call a 'bad quit' from a previous unrelated game, told i was being an ass. what do you guys think? I've been seeing alot of problems with lack of progress and problems with connections and stuff in the other MP games i play in (friday vicky and monday eu2) that run on much better evening times for me. Am i really that bad, for wanting to leave a game that has the same problems, but runs on an unfriendly time, and one where i can't really add much in terms of challenge and interest to the game?

I think it's important to remember that the responsibility of your own fun is mostly yours, not the rest of your crew's. But if the game is kind of dead and you're not having any fun, I think it's ok to quit. There are better games out there.

 

[Gaius Marius I]

Thats the thing, the game isn't really 'dead,' just operating on shakey ground. This i imagine, is typical when you have a game, without having all major nations filled, and where most players are fairly newbie-ish. What will happen to me though, is that if i do leave, and the game does die afterwards, i'll be blamed in large part, and i'll acquire a bad reputation. Because of the small size of the community, the same people might just turn on me in the other games i'm in.

 

[Hive]

Sorry Hive. I did that to provoke a little.

Shouldn't you know better by now?