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 :)