Baalz' good player pledge

[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.

[Alpine Joe]

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.

[TwoBits]

Originally Posted by Alpine Joe

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.

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! 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).

[statttis]

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.

[Micah]

Originally Posted by Alpine Joe

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.

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.

[Alpine Joe]

Originally Posted by Micah

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.

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.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by Micah

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.

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.

[rdonj]

Pledged.

[Stretch]

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.

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.