Baalz' good player pledge
 

As most of the more experienced Dominions players know, the scourge of playing pickup games is people just abandoning the game due to lack of interest or discouragement after a big fight, and throwing everybody left into a lurch. Sometimes this can immediately trash a game, but more often the impact is more subtle with a couple players reaping huge benefits from an absentee neighbor thus giving a much less satisfying game to both the somewhat hollow victory and the virtually unpreventable defeat if this happens several times in a game. I’ve seen much sentiment growing among vets that they’re only going to play private games with people they know to be reliable. The problem with this is that it’s not only unfair to the good new players who can contribute to the game, it’s also a sure way to stagnate the community as it chokes off the fresh blood. So, what to do?

I propose a good player pledge, and future games I host will only allow players undersigned in this thread (any other interested game host can link here). By posting “I pledge” in this thread you’re swearing to abide by the pledge at the bottom of this post. A little cheesy? Maybe. Gonna be 100% effective? Definitely not. Hopefully though it’ll make people think about the commitment they make to the other players when joining a game. Anybody who thinks this is a bit over the top to play “just a game” is free to play with whomever they want very casually, but I’m only interested in playing with others who share my commitment to the games I join given the amount of time and effort I put in. Note, this pledge is to put in a reasonable effort, so nobody should ever be put into a miserable situation by taking it. If you're honestly bored to death with a position that just won't die and can't in good conscience inflict it on another player...do what you gotta do with a clear conscience....but just don't ever walk away leaving a staling nation.

Here’s Baalz’ Good Player Pledge:

I pledge to do my part to bring to completion the dominions multiplayer games I participate in which link to this thread. I realize that while it’s “just a game” it also represents a significant amount of time and effort by all the other players of the game and I will make a reasonable effort to fulfill my responsibility to their enjoyment just as they are doing for me. If for any reason I can’t or don’t want to keep playing a game in progress I’ll try to secure a substitute player to fill in for me (generally just make a post asking for one in the forums). If real life prevents me from doing this (emergencies, lack of internet access, etc) I will at the very least try to contact the game administrator and ask him to do it – realizing this is an imposition that should be reserved for things other than lack of interest. I will not set my nation to AI until 1) No substitute is able to be found after a couple days or 2) My capital has fallen (feel free to play through this if you like). I’ll do my best to at least put up a token defense with the last of my forces when defeat is all but certain – this doesn’t take much time and makes the game much better for everyone else.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Well, I'm willing to kick things off by taking the pledge.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I pledge.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Well, my first three MP games (plus one temporary substitution) are still ongoing. I'd like to say "I pledge", but until I earn it by finishing my current games, I know it's just words.

Even so, I take the pledge. Let's just hope I can match words with deeds. I'll do my best :)

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

This is a great idea. I take this pledge, with the caveat that I will do everything in my power to fight to the bitter end!

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I pledge, even if I am currently playing my first MP game.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Its always been my style. I will also take the pledge quite happily.
Its along the same line as the point I was trying to make when I used this sig sometimes.

Gandalf Parker
--
Do not go quietly into the night
rage rage rage against the dying of the light - Dylan Thomas
What does that mean? It means dont be a putz and quit the
multiplayer game before all of your candles are snuffed.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I'll pledge.
However I'll only put token effort if staling because a reasonable delay I asked (less than 48h) hasn't been granted.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Sounds good to me, I've only been in a couple games where sudden disappearances haven't played an important part in whom takes the lead.

Consider me pledged.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Pledged.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I pledge.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I, too, will take this pledge.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I'm quite happy to pledge, there's usually an interesting way to go out and always something to learn.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I pledge.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I don't pledge, but...

I think this is fine if people know that they're going into a "commitment game" or something where they're expected to fight to the bitter end. I think it's also pretty clear that everyone has different definitions of at what point their nation becomes a hopeless train wreck. Losing one's capital is an arbitrary point, but at least an acceptable rule of thumb.

For example, I surrendered a rather large nation to the AI in Beyond after trying to fight off Pythium with a huge research deficit (I had just finished a twenty turn war) and just getting all three of my large armies smashed. I tried to appeal to other people that Pythium was a game ending threat, but I got absolutely no response, so I just went AI as it was a foregone conclusion to me that if Pythium gobbled me up he would more than double his gem production, and everyone else would be screwed. So I just went AI, as I couldn't provide any real defense besides hiding in fortresses anyways. To me the position, even the game for the other players, was clearly hopeless long before I lost my capital. I got attacked by Pythium wielding an amazing force of mages, and heavily artifact equipped SCs, backed up by several very strong armies, with zero help from neighbors.

It's also ironic to see this thread come up virtually at the same time that Burnsaber is abandoning EA Oceanian (without asking for a sub) in Legends of Faerun (that game + Beardaxe which are probably the impetus for Baalz making this post) with Baalz's blessing. I'm not really sure what to think of that, besides that any kind of "wriggle room" in the rules is undoubtedly going to be a dramafest when person A feels like person B shouldn't be allowed to leave their post.

So, that's a lot of stuff, but I actually have something useful to say too.

1. You should eliminate the wiggle room for people leaving their posts. It's going to cause you a TON of headaches.

2. You need to setup a simple way to determine who is, or who is not, "on the good list".

Even if you do 1, you're still going to have problems where something happens because you haven't setup some sort of structure for deciding who belongs on the list of players following these rules, and who doesn't. For example, Trumator set himself to AI in Legends of Faerun on accident, and I heard some grumblings that it was on purpose. Should he be "stricken from the honor roll" for doing that? Who would decide? Baalz? Or whomever the admin of the game was?

Obviously the same question would apply to a situation like in Legends as far as EA Oceanian is concerned where someone sets an untenable position to AI without discussing it with anyone until after the fact. Even if they do bring it up with everyone, and then say that they don't want to play it anymore, and nobody will sub, who gets to decide that they can leave? Is it a group vote from the people in the game? Or does someone outside the game get to decide? Or just the admin?

So, if you resolve those problems, I think I would be interested in playing to a "fight to the bitter end" game, but not until there are better procedures put into place. At least it would be better if everyone went in with the same expectations from a game, rather than people trying to foist their very narrow view of how people should play onto others simply by assumption.

TL;DR version - Great idea in the abstract, fix the implementation and I'd be happy to take this pledge for games labeled as "good pledge" games. I would never agree to something this sweeping for every game I ever played.

Jazzepi

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I pledge.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I want to say that I pledge alligence to your ideal Baalz
LOL, that sounds so weird. But I can't. Yes I probably fight to the end. Probably even after my forts are all gone. But other times even with a relatively good sized nations. If I see no point because I forsee a certain nations win. I'd rather just set to AI and be done with it. Though thats more later in the game.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I've got no interest in policing a whitelist or telling anyone they're not on the approved list (outside of very extreme cases). I've also got no interest in trying to compel anyone to play who is significantly disinterested in a position both unlikely to die soon and uninteresting to a sub (been there). At the end of the day the point of this pledge is to make sure evereyone I play with in the future weighs some importance for their responsibility to the other players who put hundreds of hours into a given game. Everyone can decide for themselves what reasonable effort etc. means and any drama caused is purely the responsibility of whoever brings it. The capitol rule of thumb is to set the bar a bit higher than "my main army just died"...which is the reason I did't say something really ambiguous like play until defeat is almost certain. In most cases if defeat is certain you can take your turns in 5 minutes and have your capitol fall in a handful of turns but it makes a big difference for everyone else.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I'd rather see this applied to games. Some games take a lot of effort to set up - you'd like to see the players be 'good' players.

Other games, you want to goof around, try a different strategy, perhaps not be so exacting.

So, I'll definitely take the pledge on games where the administrator asks or sets it up that way.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Yeah I agree with this. If, when a game is created, the game creator specifies the game is only for players who actually fight to the literal death, I would commit to fighting to the absolute last gold piece.

Which I suppose would be any game where the creator specifies they are abiding by the rules of this pledge, although it seems simple enough for that creator to state them out in the game's OP.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Yeah, you'd think. But who knows what goes through people's heads. I'm in the early stages of a RAND game just now, and someone just asked another player for a NAP! :shock: So not everyone plays by (or even bothers to read) the rules. It would be nice to have a list of players who were truly dedicated, if not to fighting to the bitter, un-fun, suicidal end, to at least agreeing to give it their utmost effort (define that as you will).

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Fighting to the bitter, suicidal end is fun :). Plus it's a good way to learn some new tricks. When you're trying to beat an invasion army with half a dozen low level mages and a few gems, you learn to make good use of the spells.

I'll pledge.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I somewhat pledge

I will never leave games until defeated. But i might consider myself defeated, even if i still have my capitol (but nothing much else). Also if your capitol is close to the border, it might be captured fast even if after that you will have most of your power intact and when a player would do this even if clearly violating the spirit of the pledge it would be respecting the letter of it. For the pledge to carry some weight, i would define some clear rules until you have to stay.

Like for example:

Less than 5 Provinces and an army smaller than 300 points.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Oh no, this is the whole point of the thread: Fighting until the point where you are unable to affect the outcome of the game is what most experienced players in the community feel should be the default setting for MP games on this forum, not the exception to the rule. Games that want to depart from that ideal are free to do so, but the burden to specify that "setting" is on those that want less committed players.

I mean, seriously, would many of you really sign up for a game that advertised "staling and going AI are completely fine in this game, players are encouraged to do so if they wish." I think not, and hence it should not be the default assumption.

Addition: As for my personal pledge, I think my actions speak for themsleves.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I'd second Hadrian here. Frankly speaking, I nearly never had to quit early and at later stages defeat may become absolutely obvious when you still have a lot of land. It will take a long time to kill you but that is decided for sure. You were in similar situation, Baalz, if I remember what I read correctly, in Artifacts game. You even had a Forge and everybody thought you're perfectly fine while you knew you had absolutely no chance of anything. So, probably, things are a bit more complicated here.
Personally I will lose all interest in the game when, say, something weird happens at first turns (plague, Bogus or mandragora attack on turn 2 is the most obvious). Who knows, how long it takes for others to kill you after that? A year? Or maybe two? Will you perform much better than AI? I doubt it.
I'd say I agree to do everything I can when it makes sense and also to find a sub when it doesn't. Also, I'd agree to make reasonable effort to make game more interesting for others even when it loses interest for me. But definitely this is not fighting till the last breath (or even the capital).

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Ano - Hmm...Baalz stuck out Artifacts as Utgard until the (practical) end of the game, so I'm not sure why you're referencing it. And I've had bad luck on turn 1 to the point where I knew I was "defeated" and stuck the game out. (Dead pretender, for the record) I'm sure I played it a lot better than the AI would have and avoided creating a huge power imbalance in the game by fighting to the end as opposed to rolling over and giving my cap to my next-door neighbor without a fight. I actually managed to kill off HIS pretender when he got greedy and lasted quite a while (til level 6 research, I remember him casting arrow fend) The turns took 5 minutes and really weren't an issue.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I would sign up to this, but to be honest, what I see outlined in the proposal is just an incredibly 'lite' version of the promise I made myself before I played even my first MP game. So if I signed up for this, I'd actually feel I was lowering my standards, which may lead me into bad habits. As to date I've never turned myself AI ever, and don't ever intend to either. But signing this might lead me towards thinking.......

"I'm not enjoying this game, and I'd never normally quit, but it's ok in this game because it's within the bounds of the pledge". Which to be honest is not a train of thought I even want to entertain.

And as has been pointed out already, having any sort of loose criteria for when you can set yourself AI just leaves everything open to an individuals interpretation, which can only lead to arguments if one player interprets it differently to other players.


But reading some of the comments here has made me think that not everyone has the same version of what the 'default' commitment to a game should be. My default is that I'll never set myself AI, while others have the 'default' of playing until they get bored, or they find something better to do with their time. With many choosing to play until they conclude they will eventually lose whatever war(s) they are fighting, and see no point in staying around for the inevitable. Which of course opens up another can of worms regarding when, and how early, a conclusion like that can, or should be made.

So maybe the solution is that every new game that starts up should be absolutely clear on whether it is a 'serious' type of game, which rightly brings with it all the associated commitments of fighting until the bitter end. Or if the game is designed more for just pure fun, and anyone signing up is free to play for just the enjoyment of playing, and isn't expected to stay committed long term if they don't want to for any reason. Not sure if this would solve the problem, but if during sign-up it was crystal clear to each potential player if that game was 'serious' or 'fun', then I think it can only help.


But then having said this, Baalz was pretty damn clear from the start about the level of commitment he expected from players signing-up for the Legends of Faerun game, but it didn't help one bit there. But if there is ever going to be a good 'vet' to 'new player' mix in future games, which I think is important for community health, then some sort of solution needs to be found I think. Since bailers and AI setters are easily my number one hate in MP games by some distance, and I haven't been playing anywhere near as long as most of the vets have. So I can only imagine what strong feelings and opinions they have on this matter.

So in light of this, it's easy for me to understand why the veteran players would want to severely limit their expose to new, unknown players. As who wants to take the risk of having potentially hundreds of hours of their time wasted by playing in games that could be ruined at any moment by unknown players bailing or going AI. Logic says it's safer to just stick with the small pool of players you know, even if it means that pool very rarely grows.


And for the record, my pledge is: Nothing in-game will ever cause me to set my nation AI. But of course I can not put any guarantee on events in Real Life.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Yes but fighting to the last gold piece and fighting until a lost capital are two different things, and different still from fighting past the time you have no hope of winning. In the case Jazzepi described, he had no hope of winning but could still effect the outcome. Did his leaving violate an unwritten rule? If so, why not just state the rule clearly.

I suppose, as I think about it more, this thread makes sense in that context, as it provides a common context for standards that I don't believe are as clear as Micah lays out, at least not for all games. That being the case, I sign on, and would encourage others to do the same.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I meant this post when I spoke of Baalz' position in Artifacts. Of course I don't know what happened there but WL is referencing graphs here and I remember myself looking at them then.
As for your second point... Well, perhaps you're right but it would be very hard for me to act this way. Very hard to lose turn by turn and understand it's inevitable when you always aim to win.
However, there was one game long ago when I was ready to quit being pressed by 3 nations with no chance of success. Leaders were far far ahead and there was absolutely no light in the end of the tunnel. And the same turn I decided to quit my biggest enemy suggested eternal peace because of "senseless war". Well, that was when I decided I should win and did it.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I'd personally find it impossible not to perform better than the AI would in any situation. Scripting a single mage sensibly means doing better than the AI. Not buying loads of militia means doing better than the AI. Equipping a single item properly means doing better than the AI. Not attempting a suicidal break siege is doing better than the AI would. Even if I had just one Indy tribe mage left, I'd put him front centre and tell him to cast Vine Arrow. And even just that token effort would be doing better than the AI.

Would the end result of all this, ie. defeat, be the same given a hopeless position? Yes probably. Would the journey be the same? Not even close. And the journey is by far the most important thing for keeping games balanced.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Micah, I know of no facts that allow you to represent what most experienced players feel. It is certainly true that many experienced players feel that way.

Even so, I have seen a *lot* of experienced players bow out of games, including probably half of the hall of famers.

As an example of both sides of this issue: In Faerun, TC has run away with the game due to skill -but also due to his taking territories from nations that dropped.

I volunteered to sub in for Sauromatia (one nation that was staling). Doing a turn is probably 6-8 hours of sheer drudgery. I have no chances in the game. There are no interesting plays in the game. Frankly, it is like running your fingernails down a blackboard. Not too many people play sub positions - but require them to play to the end - and that number goes way down.

I understand that when you're the best - you want to play the best. You want the game decided by skill - not by someone dropping.

I agree completely.

But I don't want to be compelled to play a game that is drudgery hour after hour, turn after turn, merely because I signed up for a game.

More casual games want to play a game, to less exacting standards, I believe. Thats why I believe it is appropriate to do this on a per game basis. Nor do I think it is beneficial, reasonable, or possible to hold new players to these standards.

A new player is just going to say, screw this. I signed up to play a game, not waterboarding.

So telling people what the expectations are at the beginning of the game I think goes a long way towards reducing everyone's frustrations.

I think perhaps giving some turns of notice before staling, might also be beneficial, giving multiple nations the opportunity to profit - rather than only immediate nations.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Heh Calahan the AI would probably be doing better than me in Cripple_Fight, where I have played about 20 turns in pretty much this exact situation waiting for you to finish me off. Although I have learned a ton from watching different things fail miserably in that position, so I guess even that game (and bogarus in general) has value :)

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Ano - The post you linked was WRT a concession, as opposed to a abandoning a position-in-progress. Deciding to end a game as a group is a very different situation from a single player abandoning their position. I don't have any issues with people moving to end a game, just with them leaving a game that is yet to be decided. Sorry that I didn't make this distinction clear in an earlier post.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Pledged.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

This is the example of what I think that this pledge is designed to promote. Even with a big empire, someone playing it half-assed is still much better than the AI. Maybe you can't go full out, but you can set up some scripting, queue some rituals and try and catch a big few armies off guard. It doesn't have to be perfect, but at least you won't have a huge unbalancing effect.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Excuse me for grammar, I'm just watching a freaking Rocky marathon and I'm a bit drunk. But I feel like I must respond immediately.

Jazeppi just said that I was one player to start this thread because I went suddenly AI. Sure my position was poor, the definition of underdog. But that didn't get me. I'm fine with playing the underdog, just ask TC in crusaders or Baalz in Sentient Machines.

Sure I didn't have many late-game tools available. But I'm fine with that. Just ask those who stick out to the ending of Rothfuss game.

But Baalz advertised the game as roleplaying one. I really looked forward to it. Like chronicles, you know, without the requiment that you have to write something, even if you're not feeling like it. When Calahan made his first awesome in-character post, I was absolutely hyped and started to write my own stuff.

But I was EA Oceania. Really go ahead, go ahead and read the descriptions for the units in the nation. Trust me, it won't take long. Not much to work with, eh? I had all these cool stories in my head, but they just wouldn't have worked with vanilla Oceania. it was simply aggravating. Everytime I looked at the units, I just saw my writers block all over.

It was like being Bit*h-slapped by the game everytime I opened the recruitment screen. I just lost heart and did a half-assed job of the nation. I got provinces (because I got oceans uncontested because coobe left), I got pretty nice gem income, but I just didn't do anything with it.

Now the nations in the late game and all I see is lost opportunities. If I had started moving those triton kings in turn 30, if I had forged that in turn 40, if I had empowered that in turn 35... Trudt me in this, the nation might be doing well in the graphs, but it's just a air balloon.

But anyways, I pledge. I just won't make the mistake of joining a random EA nation game ever again.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Chris - Just stating my observations of what I've seen and heard, I spend a lot of time in the IRC channel with most of the active vets, and I've played in quite a few games with them, so I think I have a pretty good handle on how they act in games.

Faerun does bring up a good point though: Late game dominions sucks, and maps shouldn't be that big. Prepo did a great job ramming that point home, it's just too much mm. I pushed to have Prepo end because it was heading that direction at a very quick clip, and people were already burning out...I'd encourage the Fearun players to consider a draw/concession given the horror stories I've heard about it, though I have no stake in the game at all.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Maybe I wasn't very clear but my intent was to standardize a pledge that specific games could optionally link to. That's what I meant by "games I participate in which link to this thread." The reason I put this in a separate thread from a game thread rather than just pasting it to every game I host is because I feel like plenty of "casual" players don't really read all that stuff (as witnesed by the dropout rate in the legends game...I *begged* people to not sign up unless they wouldn't abandon the game). If people have to at least come to this thread and read it enough to figure out what to do I'm hoping they'll at least appreciate the commitment they're making to all the other players.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I know you're drunk, but I just wanted to make it clear that I didn't think that you, in particular, were the impetus for this thread. Legends of Faerun, for whatever reason, has been mired in leavers including a Jomon who left in the middle of invading Sauromatia (who also left).

Beardaxe had some strange disappearances as well, including Atlantis who owned all the seas and had Forge of the Ancients up, clearly had some artifacts, and then just vanished.

Also, I personally had zero problem with you leaving. I've been in that situation before, and it's no good. There's no reason to trudge through the actions for a nation where you're just shepherding it to a slow, boring, demise.

Jazzepi

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Yeah, I re-read your post now that my heads a bit more clear. I apologize for my sudden burst. Beer goggles make you read stuff funnily (Rocky 1 & 2 went like a charm, but in 3 I started to depend on drinks to pull me through :D).

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

New nick for Burnsaber: Adrian!

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I thought that the point of this thread was that some people think there is a point of at least keeping it respectable so that the game isn't unbalanced by your sudden forfeiture.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

In my understanding, this is exactly why there is a pledge. The person will do everything in their power to cause as much damage as possible. Surely when you're down to your last few forces, the turns will be short.

You owe it to everyone to spend those 5-15minutes completing the turn.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

But who do you cause damage to? It's easy if you're being invaded. Here's a couple imaginary examples where it's a bit different:

1) You're the intended victim of an early rush. Your expansion is severely curtailed, but you manage to win a big fight against your attacker. Your neighbors who in the meantime have been expanding like crazy, now take the opportunity to fight it out over your rusher's capitol, while you're left with 3 provinces, a feebleminded and crippled god, and no reason to take sides in the current fight.

2) You attack a neighbor in the mid-game, but it was a bad choice because he turns out to be a dominions kung-fu master and he totally decimates your forces. You then beg and plead with third party for help, and he turns out to be Chuck Norris, and wipes out the kung-fu master. But now you've only got your saviour Chuck Norris as a neighbor, and you're MA Agartha so it's not like you're going to be sneaking or teleporting anywhere. You're too puny for Chuck Norris to even consider wasting his time invading.

That's just a couple ideas off the top of my head. Burnsaber's crippled Oceania position in Faerun is another example.

Here's another aspect to consider too: as the losing side in a war, you sometimes know when you've been defeated. As far as you can see, your opponent has outperformed or outmaneuvered or just plain outwitted you, and there's nothing you know of that you can do to even touch him. It was a totally fair fight, you just lost. So, how far do you go? Do you pillage your homelands and raze your capitol's castle and lab, and poison the wells, etc? On the other hand, is it fair to hand the nation over to a replacement sub? Maybe the sub knows something you don't, and can even turn the war around. It could be that the "fairer" choice as far as winning is concerned would be to go AI. Personal note though: if I was the "winning" nation, I'd prefer to fight the sub and lose, rather than fight an AI and win. I need my strategy lessons pummeled into me! :)

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Do as much damage as possible?

You know, there is a difference between resisting till the end, mustering your forces and trying to survive while you can... And just turtling in your castles and, say, sending black minions with bane venom charms without even trying to give a good fight.
There are different opinions about Burning Earth strategy; I think its rather unportsmanlike. Do your best to survive, make him bleed for every province he takes etc - but if you know you are dead, just die already and try to do better next time.
Others will disagree and say Burning Earth is very fun and fair. Who's right, who's wrong? I doubt there is one true answer.

Where was I...
Ahem, there are situations when going AI is a good thing to do. When you just know you dont have any tricks left (your God has died, your research is low, your enemies are well ahead of you), you can just as well let the AI handle your troops. AI doesnt mind micro-management, and he doesnt stale.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

The latter is very important. Having no actual reason to play well people will be even more likely to stale. And even one or two stales can make AI more efficient in the situation (at least he recruits troops)

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Scorched earth -> you (my invader) are not going to win -> someone else has to win -> for maximum effect the person in the lead is going to get everything I have left in the lab...
Furthering the lead the leading player is not exactly more fair than just going AI.


Anyway talking about fair or balanced (see vfb's point) or when you can't do anything makes little sense imo.
Especially in the situation that A feels like there's nothing he can do (and therefore a sub isn't found easily) it's only a conflict between three player interests.
Player A: I can't win this war so I can as well give up.
Player B: Hahaha, all these territories without resistance. It's really sad to see you leave A.
Player C: Keep playing A. You don't have to play to win. But if you stop now B will secure such a huge lead I can't win anymore. You completely ruin the game. Why should I keep playing if I can't win?


All I'd say is that it is more fun to play against human than against AI, and in that spirit I'll try to get a sub when I go out in future games.
I wont commit myself to finishing a game where I've nothing left to do, or that I find hard to handle, though.
I'll also refrain from attacks on staling neighbours unless I'm driving his invasion army out or he has freespawn.

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

Pledged

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I pledge, although it's been my guide line all the time anyway.



Plus Beardaxe really saddens me *sniff*

Re: Baalz' good player pledge
 

I pledge.

On a point related to the practical concerns here (rather than the ethical ones, e.g. "what is a player's responsability?") this brings up the general problem with the A.I. Is there any way for players to get "under the hood" and mod it? I don't have the skills necessary, but a friend of mine teaches AI for games, and I just *might* be able to get him interested.