Baalz' good player pledge - Page 2

analytic_kernel · #11 July 22nd, 2009, 12:12 PM

I pledge.

Raiel · #12 July 22nd, 2009, 12:46 PM

I, too, will take this pledge.

Mithras · #13 July 22nd, 2009, 12:56 PM

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

Dimaz · #14 July 22nd, 2009, 01:11 PM

I pledge.

Jazzepi · #15 July 22nd, 2009, 01:16 PM

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

LoloMo · #16 July 22nd, 2009, 01:24 PM

I pledge.

Lavaere · #17 July 22nd, 2009, 01:25 PM

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.

Baalz · #18 July 22nd, 2009, 02:06 PM

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.

chrispedersen · #19 July 22nd, 2009, 02:12 PM

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.

Alpine Joe · #20 July 22nd, 2009, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

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.

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.