Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

This debate goes far beyond Dom 3. Most mp games have similar issues with the disappearence of players or switching to AI rather than fighting out hopeless positions to the end (or far nearer the end). Civ 4 and Age of Wonders has/had it and I am sure plenty of others do to.

In boardgaming circles there are similar issues in long games. Especially if they go over one session or were being played remotely (by post or email say). Would a down on his luck Prussia in Empires in Arms turn up for the next session? Would a weakened Italy continue to hand in turns after defeat was certain or he had become marginalised in Diplomacy? And if you think the AI is bad in games such as this they still put up a much better performance than boardgames where there is none or terrible 'uncontrolled power' rules.

There is also the related issue of the kingmaker problem. Where the players who can't win often decide who does by their actions. This kingmaker problem is well known and much hated in boardgame circles. Most boardgame designers would jump at the chance of being able to set players to AI rather than have them both have to play on when they are bored as they can't win and possibly arbitarilly decide who wins by their actions. Many are designed so that kingmaker opportunities are restricted or comebacks are far easier than in a game like Dom 3 where once you are behind you have little chance.

So some of us have been dealing with the problem of what and how should people behave once they can't realistically win for a long long time. And there is no right answer that I have come across. In the case of close friends or even just people you are staring at across the gaming table the issue of someone nipping out to make the tea and then never returning is not usually a problem. But on the internet people can just disappear easily.

But in both cases I don't think the obligation is purely on the loser. This game has a problem that powers doing badly are marginalised easily. Nor can allies help each other very easily even if they wanted to. You can't give research or units. You cannot (within the game) even give maps or details of what you know of enemy dispositions or abilities. And of course it is the culture that there are no joint wins so the allies will need to turn on each other at some point even if successful.

This doesn't make it a bad game but does mean that a game has a lot of marginalised players and therefore likely to have a lot of drop outs. I am not sure pledges - whether made or not - will stop people leaving games they no longer enjoy.

If you are really concerned then put in rules or conventions to encourage those who are unlikely to win to continue. A few months ago someone suggested setting up a Dom 3 ladder where you would get points for lasting a long time or for being second or third rather than just for winning. That gives incentives to people to play on. But the ladder idea never caught on and many people seemed to have a downer on the whole idea which I didn't really understand. Or there could be more games where ad hoc teams could form so that while you may be in a position where you couldn't win alone you might win as part of an alliance?

But in the end I suspect that you won't be able to stop drop outs. You may be better off trying to get people to adjust to them better. Personally I am far more concerned by people who vanish than hand over to the AI early. The AI at least does something (unlike someone staleing every turn). A pledge where all agree to announce when they are leaving the game (and to turn themselves AI) would be good. And it's not very onerous so people can fulfill it easily unlike playing on and on.

Possibly the leaver should also say who his neighbours are too. Then everyone in that game can adjust their own diplomacy and strategy to the fact that nation X has suddenly become easy territories for it's neighbours. After all this game has uneven nation strengths and uneven luck on battle, provinces, site finds etc. and it is all overcome to a greater or lesser extent by diplomacy and player skill. Why should the leavers problem be any different? And why is this different from someone taking advantage of the often wildly different skill levels of players?

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

An option in some games would be to have a gamemaster take over the roles of all those who would drop. This would require a lot of dedication, because you'd have to play several nations keeping in mind they are not allied and not trying to win but just to survive. If one nation made a comeback, gamemaster could look for a sub.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I think NvV's idea of alternates has a lot going for it, too.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I think this attitude is the real problem. Too often players will go AI after any setback when they still have an excellent chance of winning. Being behind doesn't mean as much as most people think. Get a surprise victory and a new ally and you can go from irrelevant to major player in just a few turns.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Pledged.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I'll pledge, but you have to include the "Artifacts Exception".

As in, the recent Artifacts game, which went on so long and fruitlessly that most players decided it was either go AI or blow their brains out. Although, oddly enough, subs were eventually found for everybody.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

i pledge

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I pledge.

Some games, particularly large ones or team games, often require a great deal of time and effort to create, organize, and/or participate in, so being a responsible/considerate player in this sort of game is essential and should be a given.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

pledged

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

pledged

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I pledge!

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I pledge

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

i pledge

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I so pledge, not that I wasn't going to do those things anyway...

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I pledge

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I Pledge

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

:) Judging by the large number of players signing up for this Pledge, you'd swear that the vast majority of players fight to the last in every game. When in reality the opposite is closer to the truth for most MP games.

Be interesting to see/hear how MP games play out from now on, and to see if this Pledge does have any of its intended effect of encouraging players to fight past their initial thoughts of "I just lost a few fights, so therefore I'm outta here". Time will tell :)

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

The hardest it will be for me is when I'm subbing for someone else. In my own games I will fight either to the last or global succession, unless I am in the most boring position ever (10-13 provs, surrounded by AIs and the two strongest players, neither of which feels like putting me out of my misery. i.e. Human War :hurt:). When I'm subbing, I don't really care about the nation I'm playing. I probably don't even like it. Yet I continue playing because the rest of the game needs me. If only it were more possible to get subs for burnt out subs.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

+ Me

Yep, I've taken on a lot of sub positions mainly because they were needed to keep the game balanced (then again that's the summary of all sub positions). I actually much prefer subbing into positions that are on their last legs, as they take less time than good positions, and in theory shouldn't go on that long either.

I mainly do this to help out where I can, and also because I, probably naively, hope that if I do this for the benefit of the other players in their games, that the players in those games might one day return the favour by offering to sub-in to similar positions in the games I am playing in. A futile dream though I guess, since most players never remember who the subs actually were in their games :(

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Yeah, I have this habit of picking up sub positions that are heading towards a slow, torturous death. The one I'm currently subbing for, I apparently was fighting two nations for 12 or so turns and idiotically I offered peace to the human player who was slowly killing me off... so it could be a while before the nation dies. Playing a nation on its way out would be much less frustrating. You're pretty handicapped but there's an end in sight. I'll have to try it sometime.

Well, even if it doesn't work everyone appreciates the guy who subs. It is best when they appreciate it enough to sub for other games though.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Consider me pledged.

The only real problem I have is that I seem to have a lot of trouble securing a sub on my own. Nobody seems to want to reply to my ads for subs. I mean, if posting an ad for the position in the MP forum and as a post on the official "Games looking for players" sticky was all it took to get a sub, then I either have horrible luck or I'm doing something wrong that I don't know about.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I hereby pledge.

Now back to learning how to play...

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I pledge, for when my copy arrives.

I can see myself being held to this quite a lot in my first games ¬.¬

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I looked at the pledge, it's not particularly onerous nor does it affect my play style. That it's helpful to others is a bonus. Therefore, I'll take the pledge.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I will take the pledge

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Pledged.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I'll take the pledge. I'd rather go down kicking and screaming than roll over and die.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Pledged. I would rather like not to be bound by such agreements but nonetheless I wouldn't quit without any good reasons so why not?

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I would rather my reputation proceed me than having to swear an oath.

But if it makes everyone feel more secure...I pledge

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Pledged

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

should maybe update first post to include the people who pledged?

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

And the people that pledged with caveats?

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

And the people that already violated it?

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Signed. Hopefully I have followed this already and will do so in the future.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Heh, you guys have way too much faith in this if you expect me to keep track and police what everyone does. Regardless of what I do the only force this has is whatever people do to police their own behavior after having given their word. The primary purpose is to get (particularly new) players to consider the commitment they're making to everyone else by joining a community game. I've got less than 0 interest in tracking anything remotely like who agreed with what caveat and much less than that of determining and tracking who 'violated' their pledge. The bar is set at hoping most people put at least a minimum effort into supporting games they joined past when they lose personal interest...though I think a pledge with words literally like that would fail to clear that bar.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Pledged

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Pledged

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Just now noticed this thread in Baalz' signature.

I think the below is testimony of where I stand in the matter:
Given that I was the only player not willing to concede and miraculously somehow finding subs :D

I think the criteria to when a player can responsibly quit is when he can no longer influence the course of the game. So, for example, when all your lands are taken by early rush from three opponents and your castles are under siege and you have no army left to speak of - I'd say that qualifies to the criteria.

Speaking of winning by skill - I'm becoming ever more a fan of no diplomacy game. Diplomacy, while an important skill, sometimes tends to eclipse skill (even when the player in advantage is also very skilled). So when a player manages to make his neighbors sign deals with the devil (you'd be my forge whxxx, you'd give all your income to me etc.) diplomacy becomes too much of a deciding factor in the game. Don't get me wrong - I quite like diplomacy but sometimes it's too much.

No diplo games are about brute force (or rather wits) and take half the time to process turns as well.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I agree that any treaty of that sort is a poor way to play this game and I personally would do a Kamikaze against a nation that tried to bully me, for no other reason that to slow it down and put it behind the others!!

However, Some nations honestly need a little time to get it together and a few 3 turn naps give you that option.

They will eventually be broken anyway, but they serve their purpose at the start of the game.

I would suppose VERY GOOD players might not need treaties, but us meduim to new players do.

So games with no diplo are fine and those that want to join them know what they get...

Me, the medium to poor player that I am will take all the help I can get!!!

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

A player of any skill should take any advantage he gets. I suppose being a very good player while not taking advantage of treaties is somewhat of a contradiction.

It's the same I guess with gem gens and tarts and what not. if the game rules allow a given tactic, strategy or any other advantage barring an exploit, a player in his right sense would be forced to take it. Not really a choice in the matter :)

I'm not advocating "death" to diplo games. Just saying I find the RAND game refreshing and, trying to put the finger on why exactly, I came to attribute that to the no diplomacy.

You know, what you're saying made me think back on the player composition in past/present RAND games. Perhaps there is indeed a majority vet players in RAND games.
If so, I wonder why?

Oh and sorry for taking this a bit OT. Back to pledges please :)

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Pledged.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I'd just like to say that as a result of this pledge I have managed to to hold my capital in WaterTotalWar to the point that my besieger has given up trying. Its amazing what you can accomplish when you stick to it!

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Good to hear it Trumanator :up: Your conversion to the 'Never turn AI' side is almost complete :)

Any player who becomes adept at defending fort storms can last out for an incredibly long time in games. And who knows what can happen elsewhere to your besieger if the bulk of his forces are tied up pinning you down inside your fort(s). Capturing the actual province of a well defended fort is just a very minor step towards actually capturing the fort itself.

So the number of players I see quit games just because "my capital is under siege" never ceases to amaze me.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Trumanator:
Two things are making me decide its not worth it - (1) your ample gem resources have been admirably bent to the task of protecting it. That's an amazing army of summons you've amassed. (2) I can't compete with your battlefield magic. I can match the water stuff, but the astral is eating me alive. (3) Getting attacked by another nation, at which point the armies needed to successfully siege your capitol are just too much of a force commitment at the moment.

That said, if you attack me, I will ground your armies into powder... eventually.

(Why god why did I choose to play a nation with such a crappy endgame? I feel like everything effective I am doing has *nothing* to do with my national strengths at this point).

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I pledge

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I pledge.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I pledge

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I pledge.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

For some reason I never saw this thread earlier, but here I pledge. :)

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I pledge