Defeated,...

[auelneides]

Hi all

I know the title doenst say much buth let me explain (the title box wasn't big enough).

I was defeated in my previous game (and some before buth ok ).
Now the game continues, what is great for everybody still in the game, buth I would like to quit it so I can start a new game, or join one.

Why do I have to wait untill the game fully ends? Or is there a way so I can join a new game at this moment?

Hope someone can help me

 

[coolname]

You can play in upto 4 games. If you upgrade to strategist (http://www.majorcommand.com/forums/threads/759-How-to-Upgrade-to-Strategist-Class) you can play in unlimited number of games.

 

[codanostra]

This brings up a good point. For those players who are not strategist class, i believe the limit should be 4 "active games" in which the user can actually participate. Having to wait for games to finish so you can continue to play is a downer, and just a reminder of your loss.

 

[Badorties]

This brings up a good point. For those players who are not strategist class, i believe the limit should be 4 "active games" in which the user can actually participate. Having to wait for games to finish so you can continue to play is a downer, and just a reminder of your loss.

This would encourage suiciding so players could exit the game quicker.

 

[Incandenza]

This would encourage suiciding so players could exit the game quicker.

Maybe, but the flip side is that people could end up stuck in a stalemated game in which they were eliminated weeks ago...

 

[Shepherd]

This is a discussion we've had many times, and in weighing the risks vs. the rewards I always come out on the side of NOT allowing players to leave a game, regardless of the situation. Two of the situations I find most annoying are when (1) my team-mate goes AWOL, and (2) a close and well-fought game with a delicate balance of power is ruined because one player AWOLs and throws off that balance. At least when players AWOL the rest of the board has a round or two of warning; give a player a Quit button and we'll see many more games ruined.

I understand that there are disadvantages to being a member with limited access to games. And while I don't mean to be callous, the reality is that users who chose to use the site for free will have to accept the terms of free and limited membership.

 

[codanostra]

This is a discussion we've had many times, and in weighing the risks vs. the rewards I always come out on the side of NOT allowing players to leave a game, regardless of the situation. Two of the situations I find most annoying are when (1) my team-mate goes AWOL, and (2) a close and well-fought game with a delicate balance of power is ruined because one player AWOLs and throws off that balance. At least when players AWOL the rest of the board has a round or two of warning; give a player a Quit button and we'll see many more games ruined.

I understand that there are disadvantages to being a member with limited access to games. And while I don't mean to be callous, the reality is that users who chose to use the site for free will have to accept the terms of free and limited membership.

We're not talking about removing individuals from games, just allowing them to join games once they have been defeated. From my experience, people who AWOL do so at the beginning of the game. Not because they assume they'll lose, but because they don't enjoy some aspect of the game. Additionally in my experience, experienced majcom players do not awol just b/c they think they will lose. The majority of AWOLers, it seems, are first time players who dont stick around. Correct me if you've had different experiences.

We want to provide a pleasurable experience for our non paying members. It shouldn't be a hassle to be a free member, and this seems like a fairly large one. At the end of the day, we can always remove features that are abused by our members, so its not like its written in stone.

 

[Shepherd]

Yeah, I hear you coda, but I'm still on the fence. I agree that players don't tend to bail on a game just because they're losing, and I'm not convinced that, as badorties suggested, a lot of users will 'suicide' to get out of a game more quickly. But some will, and it will ruin the experience for all of the players in the game. (When this happens it could be argued that said player is being "that guy," so maybe we need to have a policy on this and actively discourage it.)

Of course, if somebody really wants out of a game under the current system, they end it by selectively attacking weak players to hand somebody a victory. So the current system isn't perfect - no system will be. I'm sure there will be, at some point, a discussion about raising the cap to six, then eight, etc. Whether we give users four total games or four active games it won't be enough for somebody.

Perhaps we should ask the question: what is the rationale behind the number four? If the answer is that we don't want non-paying users to tax the servers, then I'd say we make four a hard cap and make them wait until their games end. If the idea is that giving a user constant access to four games is the right number to keep them interested in and excited about coming back to the site - and perhaps to eventually pay for more access - we should let them play four active games. I'm not the expert on this stuff, so I don't know the answer.

 

[Incandenza]

One reason that the limit is set at four is so new players can't come, go AWOL in 5 games, and still get the "5 games completed" medal. It's not especially compelling, but worth noting.

For my part, I'd say that 4 games should mean 4 games that are either waiting for players or that the player is currently active in. There might be a few people that suicide out of games, but that's the same kind of intermittent erratic behavior that's not out of character for new players. If they're so hooked that they have to find a new game the very moment they have a slot free, then it's not so unreasonable to expect that they'd be able to scrape together a few dollars and upgrade.

 

[auelneides]

I'm with Coda on this point.

@admin: Ive send a reply in the forum noted in the second post, can you make me strategist class? Because I really dig this buth cant play any because I'm defeated in almost all current games

 

[jimsguy]

hi i'm new to this server and think its a huge bummer that once defeated i cant star another game with out eather paying or waiting for the game to end i was enjoying my first game and the more exp players in it where great at helping me learn the basics of it but need less to say i missed a few turns and was one of the first to be defeated so i find my self just sitting doing nothing u realy should add a quit button for defeated players

 

[nappyleon2013]

Ya! I was defeated. Let me start new games.

 

[empirejeff]

I do not know what the best answer is.

 

[johnjdc]

The answer is not to join four casual games. Always keep at least one vacant slot for a real-time game if you are desperate to play and it's not your turn / you are defeated in your ongoing casual games...

Otherwise, four is a fair limit for those of us getting something for nothing, I think! Just try not to get defeated

 

[chefsmitty]

I have to echo Incandenza. It seem the people wanting it dropped are already as I call us "addicts". It would be in their best interest to upgrade and enjoy the liberty of having tons of games to follow all the time. There are a number of players, good players, that are still grunts and play the 4 games, and you never hear from about the limit. Go pay the $10! I promise it will more then feed your addiction!

It is always good to hear new players excited and interested in MC!

 

[daddydiaz]

I understand the problem with this issue and realize what a pain it is when someone takes off but I still have a problem
with making the honorable player suffer because of a "potential" bad egg. I suggest we allow people who have
been defeated to go to another game. as for the 'suicider" ,players need to complain about this guy and,
if the powers that be agree, suspend said "player' if this becomes a habitual problem. This puts the responsibility on everyone.
Just a thought.