Baalz' good player pledge

[Micah]

Chris - Just stating my observations of what I've seen and heard, I spend a lot of time in the IRC channel with most of the active vets, and I've played in quite a few games with them, so I think I have a pretty good handle on how they act in games.

Faerun does bring up a good point though: Late game dominions sucks, and maps shouldn't be that big. Prepo did a great job ramming that point home, it's just too much mm. I pushed to have Prepo end because it was heading that direction at a very quick clip, and people were already burning out...I'd encourage the Fearun players to consider a draw/concession given the horror stories I've heard about it, though I have no stake in the game at all.

[vfb]

But who do you cause damage to? It's easy if you're being invaded. Here's a couple imaginary examples where it's a bit different:

1) You're the intended victim of an early rush. Your expansion is severely curtailed, but you manage to win a big fight against your attacker. Your neighbors who in the meantime have been expanding like crazy, now take the opportunity to fight it out over your rusher's capitol, while you're left with 3 provinces, a feebleminded and crippled god, and no reason to take sides in the current fight.

2) You attack a neighbor in the mid-game, but it was a bad choice because he turns out to be a dominions kung-fu master and he totally decimates your forces. You then beg and plead with third party for help, and he turns out to be Chuck Norris, and wipes out the kung-fu master. But now you've only got your saviour Chuck Norris as a neighbor, and you're MA Agartha so it's not like you're going to be sneaking or teleporting anywhere. You're too puny for Chuck Norris to even consider wasting his time invading.

That's just a couple ideas off the top of my head. Burnsaber's crippled Oceania position in Faerun is another example.

Here's another aspect to consider too: as the losing side in a war, you sometimes know when you've been defeated. As far as you can see, your opponent has outperformed or outmaneuvered or just plain outwitted you, and there's nothing you know of that you can do to even touch him. It was a totally fair fight, you just lost. So, how far do you go? Do you pillage your homelands and raze your capitol's castle and lab, and poison the wells, etc? On the other hand, is it fair to hand the nation over to a replacement sub? Maybe the sub knows something you don't, and can even turn the war around. It could be that the "fairer" choice as far as winning is concerned would be to go AI. Personal note though: if I was the "winning" nation, I'd prefer to fight the sub and lose, rather than fight an AI and win. I need my strategy lessons pummeled into me!

[Kuritza]

Do as much damage as possible?

You know, there is a difference between resisting till the end, mustering your forces and trying to survive while you can... And just turtling in your castles and, say, sending black minions with bane venom charms without even trying to give a good fight.
There are different opinions about Burning Earth strategy; I think its rather unportsmanlike. Do your best to survive, make him bleed for every province he takes etc - but if you know you are dead, just die already and try to do better next time.
Others will disagree and say Burning Earth is very fun and fair. Who's right, who's wrong? I doubt there is one true answer.

Where was I...
Ahem, there are situations when going AI is a good thing to do. When you just know you dont have any tricks left (your God has died, your research is low, your enemies are well ahead of you), you can just as well let the AI handle your troops. AI doesnt mind micro-management, and he doesnt stale.

[Illuminated One]

Scorched earth -> you (my invader) are not going to win -> someone else has to win -> for maximum effect the person in the lead is going to get everything I have left in the lab...
Furthering the lead the leading player is not exactly more fair than just going AI.


Anyway talking about fair or balanced (see vfb's point) or when you can't do anything makes little sense imo.
Especially in the situation that A feels like there's nothing he can do (and therefore a sub isn't found easily) it's only a conflict between three player interests.
Player A: I can't win this war so I can as well give up.
Player B: Hahaha, all these territories without resistance. It's really sad to see you leave A.
Player C: Keep playing A. You don't have to play to win. But if you stop now B will secure such a huge lead I can't win anymore. You completely ruin the game. Why should I keep playing if I can't win?


All I'd say is that it is more fun to play against human than against AI, and in that spirit I'll try to get a sub when I go out in future games.
I wont commit myself to finishing a game where I've nothing left to do, or that I find hard to handle, though.
I'll also refrain from attacks on staling neighbours unless I'm driving his invasion army out or he has freespawn.

[ano]

The latter is very important. Having no actual reason to play well people will be even more likely to stale. And even one or two stales can make AI more efficient in the situation (at least he recruits troops)

[Toran]

I pledge, although it's been my guide line all the time anyway.



Plus Beardaxe really saddens me *sniff*

[the Vanishag]

I pledge.

On a point related to the practical concerns here (rather than the ethical ones, e.g. "what is a player's responsability?") this brings up the general problem with the A.I. Is there any way for players to get "under the hood" and mod it? I don't have the skills necessary, but a friend of mine teaches AI for games, and I just *might* be able to get him interested.

[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.