The obvious solution is to find people with reliability ratings under, to pluck a figure entirely at random, 60%, and hurl abuse at them mercilessly.

Are drop-outs becoming more frequent? I'd be curious to hear others' views on this.

In the few games I play nowadays, I don't notice that. And, I notice that many players reflexively offer a draw when one player falls away. In terms of 'fairness' I think that's the gentlemanlike approach, especially with players you know.

However, I don't think every game is a place for being a gentleman. When you feel people don't 'deserve' to be in the draw, then you're fully entitled to refuse to include them. All's fair in love and war. CDs are part of the game, so if you want to use that to your advantage, then more power to you.

I don't play enough games to know if there are more resigns or not. Sadly my last game was an all time low. I took over from the first CDer and by the time it was cancelled every one of the original players had resigned or been banned.

@Octavious lol - didn't miss the subtlety there. Those figures don't seem to be accurate .
@Minister - I would say 30% of the games I have seen feature somebody dropping out - I do agree that every game isn't a place for a gentleman though. Grab your advantage

The figures are something or a mystery. The NMR ones doubly so. Even if they were kosher there would be a certain unfairness comparing live game players with long game players.

That's no reason to deny ourselves a fun session of abuse hurling though :).

I don't think I see any drop outs. They occur in lower level games. If I do see one, I always draw over cancel. The draw ensures the CD stays on their record.

What Tru said. +1

Make sure you set up games as WTA to keep out the new players (or assume that the new players weren't the ones who set them up with defaults).

if youre getting drop outs in private games , youre not screening well enough

@Octavious - I fully support the abuse approach.
@Jeff Kuta - New players should be encouraged and developed. New entrants into any system are always equivalent to lifeblood.

It might not be a bad idea for a game to auto cancel if no orders are received from any one player in the game's first season. That would at least eliminate the situation where a player decides not to participate if he gets a power he doesn't like. The player who doesn't issue orders should be marked, however.

I wonder if a tolerance for unreliability should be set. Maybe three strikes and out.

there needs to be a ceasefire option where the game ends with the people keeping the territories they have

When I join a live game I absolutely expect players to drop out (and see that as part of the game). For longer phases - where we have invested more time, a player dropping out can be more annoying.

The site seems to focus on points (that is what is displayed next to a player's ID), even though there is widespread consensus that points have little to say about the player's skill level. What about displaying reliability rating (rather than, or in addition to points)?Also what about the inclusion of a reliability rating threshold for new (particularly anon) games? If I start a game, I could decide that it only open to players with a reliability rating of 90% or higher.

Couple that with a stronger incentive for players to take over CDs. Perhaps taking over a CD could have a bigger impact on reliability rating (add to it at 2x the rate of a normal game, perhaps).

@acornist: My comment should not be read to discourage new players. But if you are an experienced player tired of dealing with those who drop games, look for or set up WTA games.

From the help: "For more experienced players who have over 100 there is a "Winner-takes-all" mode, which can be chosen instead of the default "Points-per-supply-center" mode."

I don't know whether players with fewer webDip points can even join WTA games, but it's one way to possibly filter out new players who don't fully appreciate the commitment needed to play a game of Diplomacy.

"What about displaying reliability rating (rather than, or in addition to points)?"

Or making that display space a preference that can be customized?

It seems to be utterly unfair that, if I (with or without an ally) have beaten or superior started to gain supremacy against an opponent and that person NMRs or CDs, I should be expected to give up my hard-earned advantage. Such a rule or practice seems to offer an inducement to poor players to CD as a means of depriving their adversary of a victory. This game tests a combination of skills: persuasion; strategy; tactics and reliability. Why should one feel any guilt about a victory born of superiority on any one of those facets of the game?

I don't think that's the situation we're talking about here. A one-center power is not going to damage the game by dropping out that much - I've based a stalemate line around a dead player before, even. I do believe that if a game starts and one player NMR's, a cancel could be a good idea. If two do so, you should certainly do it.