I Love Player Elimination

Hethalos

Player elimination is one of the most underrated and inordinately hated game mechanic. It has problems, but player elimination can sometimes mitigate kingmaking and leader bashing by completely removing players who have virtually no chance of winning. Besides, I'd much rather die an epic, heroic death than a slow, painful one. If I'm behind, I'd much rather get knocked out directly than indirectly than to pointlessly continue playing with no hope of catching up. Besides, player elimination games can fare very well as online asynchronous games. As soon as a player dies, the player can just move on to the next game.

In any case, I don't think it's objectively bad. It all comes down to personal taste and most people happen to resent it. Either that, or more games should incorporate withdrawal rules that don't disturb the flow of the game.

HMTKSteve

Depends on the length of the game. A short game is fine, longer games, not so much.

The problem is not the mechanic in and of itself, the problem is what does the eliminated. Player do while everyone else is still playing?

Think of Counter Strike, you die and you are out of the match. Since the match only lasts a few minutes it's no big deal. Now imagine a game like Battlefield where the match can easily last 30 minutes or more. See the problem?

Totally Guy

The most memorable player elimination story I know is one where we'd met up to play D&D but one of the suggested we play a "warm up" game of Diplomacy.

Diplomacy is not a warm up game. We didn't know that then as we'd never played it before.

As soon as we figured out that this would be an all day affair I started to suggest with everyone that we gang up on the initiator of this farce and eliminate him from the game. Then we all declare a draw and play some D&D.

And that's pretty much what happened. It made the guy a bit huffy though.

Anthony Heman

Context is everything. Short or long, it can be fine. I've played games that span 60-70 days online and been eliminated on day 20 or so. It's not a problem because of the nature of the game (long running play by post murder mystery deal). Like just about everything else, it's all about when and how you use it.

It's at its worst when people are still making personal sacrifices for no gain. Let's say I show up at noon Saturday for a game and I'm eliminated at 1, but the game goes on for six more hours. I've given up whatever else I was going to do in that time. Unless I can just leave and be happy with that (probably not if I had planned to be there for six hours), I just got royally fucked.

A great example of a game with elimination that "fixed" another game was Risk Legacy. They shortened the total game length of risk significantly and made elimination have it's own sort of influence on future games. Any player being eliminated also vastly accelerates the game ending. There is still being eliminated and losing time and such for it, but it is significantly mitigated. Regular risk was such a shit show of being eliminated or effectively eliminated and having nothing useful to do with your time for an extended period.

Hethalos

I guess it also depends on the type of gamer. I notice that hardcore, play-to-win gamers are less likely to mind player elimination. However, if there's a multiplayer game involving player elimination, the worst-case scenario is playing a 3-P game, since the other person will be all by himself. 4-P games are not too bad. As soon as two players get eliminated, they can just play another 2-P game.

Hethalos

HMTKSteve said:

Depends on the length of the game. A short game is fine, longer games, not so much.

The problem is not the mechanic in and of itself, the problem is what does the eliminated. Player do while everyone else is still playing?

Think of Counter Strike, you die and you are out of the match. Since the match only lasts a few minutes it's no big deal. Now imagine a game like Battlefield where the match can easily last 30 minutes or more. See the problem?

Not really. Then again, I guess it's just a matter of personal perspective. If I have to sit through a 4-hour slog-fest with zero chance of winning or finishing in a respectable position (i.e. 1st or 2nd), I might as well play another game since there's nothing productive I can do, especially improving my skills. At the very least, the game should allow players to withdraw if they really don't feel like playing any further.

HMTKSteve

That is a different argument, you are describing a game designed for player elimination with the mechanic removed.

Hethalos

HMTKSteve said:

That is a different argument, you are describing a game designed for player elimination with the mechanic removed.

What do you mean by that?

HMTKSteve

If the game is designed such that a player can either runaway with the lead or be left in a position where they have no chance of winning (player skill not being a factor) then that game is poorly designed and/or should have player elimination.

SWATrous

Yeah but almost any game allows the ability for a skilled player to run roughshod over someone of even moderate ability at the game and run away beyond hope of catching up (maybe with the exception of an instant-win/kill option that could be played)

I can think of matches where elimination was not a mechanic; but crushing and utter defeat for at least a few players was, and it was well known by half-way through the game. Not just 'I think I'm loosing' but 'there is no way assuming competent play by opponents that I could ever catch up'

I like the idea of permanent elimination in games where the mechanisms for defeat and elimination are not 'instant death' but require more of a concentrated effort to remove an opponent, such as an RTS where you can wipe out one player/AI entirely but the others remain. It seems more natural and everyone has a chance to defend themselves.

A game like Dominion has the chance for one player to get to a point where others cannot mathematically catch up, nor does it have elimination; but it runs short enough that there's little point to bother kicking someone out and it keeps the mechanics cleaner. Adding elimination of a player would be difficult to work into it I think.

HMTKSteve

Which falls back on my first point. If the game is short enough it's not a big deal.

Imagine Monopoly where instead of being eliminated when you go bankrupt you instead have to keep playing as you go deeper and deeper into debt and the game does not end until one player has all of the money and properties.

Hethalos

SWATrous said:

Yeah but almost any game allows the ability for a skilled player to run roughshod over someone of even moderate ability at the game and run away beyond hope of catching up (maybe with the exception of an instant-win/kill option that could be played)

I can think of matches where elimination was not a mechanic; but crushing and utter defeat for at least a few players was, and it was well known by half-way through the game. Not just 'I think I'm loosing' but 'there is no way assuming competent play by opponents that I could ever catch up'

I like the idea of permanent elimination in games where the mechanisms for defeat and elimination are not 'instant death' but require more of a concentrated effort to remove an opponent, such as an RTS where you can wipe out one player/AI entirely but the others remain. It seems more natural and everyone has a chance to defend themselves.

Bingo. I'd rather be eliminated and play another game than to stick around in a hopeless scenario. There isn't much a player can learn by continuously playing in a checkmate situation.