Would you play to the death? - Page 3

thejeff · #1 July 7th, 2009, 02:28 PM

Well, I can't imagine trying to coordinate through the in game messages.
I've always worked through the forum or email.

It's still not easy. The lack of mechanics doesn't help.

Bananadine · #2 July 7th, 2009, 02:28 PM

(Re: chrispedersen's scenario: )

Hm well that sounds pretty fun to me! Except for the slow, painful communication.

But isn't that part of what these forums are for?

capnq · #3 July 7th, 2009, 05:50 PM

I have never played Dom2 or Dom3 multiplayer, and don't expect to anytime soon, but I have some experience with Space Empires IV multiplayer.

I have stuck games out to the bitter end, and been complimented for doing so. If anything, I tend to start thinking I'm going to lose sooner than it's actually been decided, and adjust my strategy from trying to win to losing as slowly as possible. I have also conceded games to the only other surviving player when I couldn't see any way of winning.

A long time ago, I subscribed to an online TBS game that was only played as a two-player duel. I got good enough at it that I entered several single-elimination bracket tournaments, and actually won one of them. In that game, I won several duels when my opponent conceded from what I thought was the stronger position, simply because the game was taking too long to play out. I was also eliminated from a couple tournaments (along with my opponent) because our duel had exceeded the time limit for the round without a clear leader.

My point in mentioning that is that one cannot expect every player to approach the game in the same manner. One of the reasons I dropped that game was that I got tired of winning by concessions that I didn't think I deserved. There is no unanimously agreed upon way that the game should be played, and arguing that there is such a way is mostly going to drive people who aren't interested in that style of play away from the thread.

Bananadine · #4 July 7th, 2009, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by capnq

My point in mentioning that is that one cannot expect every player to approach the game in the same manner. One of the reasons I dropped that game was that I got tired of winning by concessions that I didn't think I deserved. There is no unanimously agreed upon way that the game should be played, and arguing that there is such a way is mostly going to drive people who aren't interested in that style of play away from the thread.

Ah! Another huge and interesting thread of potential questionry: Are some styles or methodologies within what is basically a competitive art (in our case, the art of fantasy war!) fundamentally better than others? Hm it's easy to run into big questions, when you are trying to answer what seems to be a small question.

Well you weren't quite taking a position in that argument; so leave it be--all you said about it was that the argument will drive people away.

I don't mean to say that everybody should play the way I want! I would like to have the opportunity to play that way myself, though. It's easy to sound fighty when you're frustrated because you feel like you're in some kind of dominated minority!

Foodstamp · #5 July 7th, 2009, 06:04 PM

I guess I am a fight to the death kinda guy. I joined a multiplayer game as MA Oceania on random map. Oh the joy of being put in a water province completely surrounded by land. Both of my land neighbors declared war on me and I spent the next 30 turns raiding the surrounding provinces and being pushed back in my little puddle while they figured out a way to invade me properly.

I doubt I had any effect on the game, but I had a blast wreaking havoc in my puddle + the five surrounding provinces I considered my domain.

Micah · #6 July 8th, 2009, 12:40 AM

If the game is over I'm happy to concede to the inevitable winner with the consensus of the rest of the players in the game, but if I'm one of the first out and the game is still wide open I play it out til my last gasp. So when I go out I'm either dead or the game is over via concession.

Dragar · #7 July 8th, 2009, 01:24 AM

I keep playing until I am able to make no more impact than the AI would if in control of my nation. So if I'm obviously losing but can still do some things to make life hard for my conqueror, I will play it out hard.

Once I'm left with virtually nothing and can't do any better than sit there and get rolled over it's time for AI

It can be disheartening to keep playing knowing your time is up, but I never think it's a waste of time to let your opponents know you won't ever quit and make life easy on them

Bananadine · #8 July 8th, 2009, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

I keep playing until I am able to make no more impact than the AI would if in control of my nation.

Hey, thanks, that could be a useful criterion to promote. Why shouldn't you turn things over to the AI, if the AI is actually going to be as responsible a steward of your nation as you would have been! You'd have to have a certain amount of experience to be able to judge whether that was the case. But that experience is pretty easy to get--just play with AI's for a while, and play with humans for a while. Neat!

Jarkko · #9 July 8th, 2009, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

I keep playing until I am able to make no more impact than the AI would if in control of my nation. So if I'm obviously losing but can still do some things to make life hard for my conqueror, I will play it out hard.

Once I'm left with virtually nothing and can't do any better than sit there and get rolled over it's time for AI

This is basically my philosophy too. Altough sometimes I am just too damn boneheaded to give up, which leads to frustration and general un-fun. It takes a great lot from me to admit there is no longer anything I possibly could do better than the AI could do

LDiCesare · #10 July 9th, 2009, 06:17 AM

I think I turned ai only once, but then I haven't played that many games.
The reasons I did that were:
Spite. I had done a mistake and lost all chances of doing anything useful.
Spite. I had been explaining I wouldn't be able to play my next turn before a given day, no changes to the time limit were made, and I had something like 10 minutes left to give my orders before going stale. I think ai is better than stale.

I don't think a player turning ai is that bad compared with a player staling forever. I also think if it takes you too long to play the turns (for whatever reason - not easy internet access for instance) and you end up slowing down the players you're better off turning ai (or finding a sub, but that can be hard).