Ok, I am sure most of us went through this process:

1) I create a game
2a) my initial outposts are too distant from each other
2b) I just have dormant generators near me
2c) my neighbour has 120 drillers facing my farthest outpost
2d) I am Pink (or Brown)
3) I cancel my game
4) go back to 1) until 2a) 2b) 2c) and 2d) are no longer true

There should be a way to avoid this. I suggest that you should not be able to quit a game you created before 7 days.

I think players shouldn't be able to see their bases until all players have joined and the game has started. Also helps alleviate a little for people who have preestablished alliance friendship and multiboxers just a little in that you can't see if you are near each other.

Agreed. Quitting out of bad spots is an issue both with hosts and with people who join.

I view it as an opportunity to work on my diplomacy / other strategy in games where my initial layout is bad. Then I get wrecked. Also what you start with initially isn't too big of a deal. If everyone is equal skill then every advantage matters but mostly it doesn't at low rankings. You may not have the starting position to get first but can still climb up.

rlin81 wrote:I think players shouldn't be able to see their bases until all players have joined and the game has started.

I fully second that. Aside of alleviating the said issues, it would also address the "last-joiner" problem, add thrill to the game and should be easy to implement.

I would agree to that if we could pick color.

If you couldn't quit out of a game you didnt' want to play, you'd just find people would resign after play began. How would that be better? You haven't solved anything.

By letting people see their starting position you allow people to decide to stay in the game, which should minimise early retirements.

I am torn on this issue because on one hand I do agree that quitting shouldn't be allowed like that but I have also been in the position where i looked at my starting spot and knew there was just no chance of winning. I can deal with less than perfect set ups but there are times where I just look at my starting position and think "well this is a waste, ill be eliminated in the first 48 hours. This is especially true if you end up joining a game that has 2 or 3 players that have already pre formed an alliance, and they all go after you cause you have a horrible starting set up.

So, I don't mind if they somehow prevent quitters BUT at the same time they should adjust the random generation of starting locations of players and outposts, types of outposts, and queen starting locations. What kind of diplomacy can you use when you got your factories on the inside, your generators on the outside, your queen at one of the generators surrounded by enemy factories and only a few dormant outposts that you have to pray you get to before someone else does since all your drillers are 20+ hours away.

You still have the option to quit before the game starts so you still can see 3 names and decide you don't want to play with them. Also someone will always get screwed and quit. May not be you but someone is always getting screwed. The benefit of blind layout are those preformed alliance can't quit and rejoin so that all 3 or more of them are next to each other. Also so people can't quit and rejoin so they can scope out all the layout of the other bases and choose the one he likes the most. Someone is always getting screwed but at least everyone eventually gets screwed in equal amounts.

I'm in a game where day 1 I started with 7 expansions that were closer to me and were all generators while everyone else had 4 or 5. I was basically a utility company with no factories. To top it off my neighbor had 2 factories expansion I couldn't contest because my queen started next to those factories and half a day just moving my drillers toward my queen. In monopoly going last is also sucks unless you had some rule where everyone must go all the way around before buying properties. I say we leave it all up to chance but I can see how others wouldn't want to play at a disadvantage. I tend to play a little chaotically and not let ranking prevent me from doing whatever and don't mind dying and losing points.

evoid wrote:If you couldn't quit out of a game you didnt' want to play, you'd just find people would resign after play began.

The change should be for ranked play only. If people resign out of a ranked game, it will hit their rating as if they had lost, so therefore they are better off trying to do the best they can.

pookiebear wrote:I am torn on this issue because on one hand I do agree that quitting shouldn't be allowed like that but I have also been in the position where i looked at my starting spot and knew there was just no chance of winning. I can deal with less than perfect set ups but there are times where I just look at my starting position and think "well this is a waste, ill be eliminated in the first 48 hours.

I made it to rank #1 on the global leaderboard without ever quitting out of a bad seat. The disadvantage is not as bad as people think it is, if they play correctly in response. I would rather have a bad outpost setup and a good set of first round spec hires, than vice versa.

pookiebear wrote:This is especially true if you end up joining a game that has 2 or 3 players that have already pre formed an alliance...

This is a seperate and (in my opinion) far more serious problem. The first handful of people to join a server always have significantly more time to form diplomacy than the last people to join. This is a problem no matter how good or bad your outpost set-up is. My honest opinion to someone looking for advice on how to win in Subterfuge as it is now, is that you should always try to be one of the first 3 people to join the server, and absolutely never be one of the last 3 to join. Which is ridiculous advice to have to give. There should not be a meta-game on how to best join a game.