Just now noticed this thread in Baalz' signature.
I think the below is testimony of where I stand in the matter:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lingchih
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.
|
Given that I was the only player not willing to concede and miraculously somehow finding subs
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.