Thinking of the mitigating option, how it could be?
The mitigation has to be an agreed process between the players. From this thread i see that there are pros and cons, and different opinions.
So the creator after consulting the other players should have different options possible.
1 the creator can pause the game to handle the situation. Discussion shouldn’t waste the time on clock
Then what options could he have?
Pause the game until the come back of the missing player
Declare a victory or a cancelation
Consider a pass each time the missing player has to play
Continue the game without the missing player
Find a player to replace
Maybe more options?
Some options involve quite some development work, especially the most interesting ones like the replacement. But in my eyes there is no shortcut if we really want to manage this situation.
If that’s the case this is terrible premeditated rudeness. If you are going to be AFK in the lobby then withdraw (and rejoin when you are back. If you really are only away briefly then this should be fine. And maybe a reason to have chat in the lobby.)
[Is the answer here a click from all players to start the game?]
And if it’s during a game then explain, pause, etc. If you just ghost your teammates and opponents I don’t see a solution other than mod intervention.
Or we need to add a “withdraw” button. Which I think would be the solution for games of at least 3 in a team.
I don’t think you cannot count too much on the leaving players in a large rengo. It’s a bit like when organizing a party, you probably can count only on half the people to attend. Human nature, better anticipate a mitigation as pushing everyone to stay in, it just won’t work.
Well then I think you are least need a click at the start of the game. When the organiser starts the game every gets a “game is starting” thing and had to click ok within, say, 30s and if they don’t then they don’t join the game.
I reconmended the validation by the players before so yes i join that idea too. Now there is still the problem of quitting during the game which mostly (i hope) concern the correspondance format.
It’s probably somewhere in the concerns already and I missed it, but what happens if a rengo player is banned? Does it just count as timeout and will be solved the same way?
Concerning the replacement (not only, for managing the starting pairing, create more correspondance offers… too), would it be possible for the creator to keep open the “make the team” tab and go chat, find players at the same time? Not to just stay stuck there?
For informal games and playing some variants enabled by Rengo, this could be an interesting feature. At the very least, it would be nice to be able to “replace” a player that wishes to leave, in order to limit disruption of an ongoing game, while still trying to preserve the same team sizes.
However, maybe some sort of ability to fork and create new teams would serve this purpose?
There should be special site-wide live rengo challenge that always online. Anyone can do move without “joining”. Move is placed by whoever clicks first.
Also, eliminating a player who times out seems to make boring play undesirably attractive: the much weaker player does nothing until timed out, and then the strong player plays on their own. What mechanism could ensure that it is always a disadvantage to time out? Even if you take away most of their time, the stronger player probably still does better against another very disparate paring!