Baalz' good player pledge

[Hoplosternum]

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?

[LDiCesare]

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.

[Gregstrom]

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

[statttis]

once you are behind you have little chance.

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.

[llamabeast]

Pledged.

[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.

[DakaSha]

i pledge

[Septimius Severus]

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.

[Frozen Lama]

pledged

[Trumanator]

pledged