Baalz' good player pledge

[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.

[Hadrian_II]

I somewhat pledge

I will never leave games until defeated. But i might consider myself defeated, even if i still have my capitol (but nothing much else). Also if your capitol is close to the border, it might be captured fast even if after that you will have most of your power intact and when a player would do this even if clearly violating the spirit of the pledge it would be respecting the letter of it. For the pledge to carry some weight, i would define some clear rules until you have to stay.

Like for example:

Less than 5 Provinces and an army smaller than 300 points.

[ano]

I'd second Hadrian here. Frankly speaking, I nearly never had to quit early and at later stages defeat may become absolutely obvious when you still have a lot of land. It will take a long time to kill you but that is decided for sure. You were in similar situation, Baalz, if I remember what I read correctly, in Artifacts game. You even had a Forge and everybody thought you're perfectly fine while you knew you had absolutely no chance of anything. So, probably, things are a bit more complicated here.
Personally I will lose all interest in the game when, say, something weird happens at first turns (plague, Bogus or mandragora attack on turn 2 is the most obvious). Who knows, how long it takes for others to kill you after that? A year? Or maybe two? Will you perform much better than AI? I doubt it.
I'd say I agree to do everything I can when it makes sense and also to find a sub when it doesn't. Also, I'd agree to make reasonable effort to make game more interesting for others even when it loses interest for me. But definitely this is not fighting till the last breath (or even the capital).

[Calahan]

Originally Posted by ano

.....Will you perform much better than AI? I doubt it....

I'd personally find it impossible not to perform better than the AI would in any situation. Scripting a single mage sensibly means doing better than the AI. Not buying loads of militia means doing better than the AI. Equipping a single item properly means doing better than the AI. Not attempting a suicidal break siege is doing better than the AI would. Even if I had just one Indy tribe mage left, I'd put him front centre and tell him to cast Vine Arrow. And even just that token effort would be doing better than the AI.

Would the end result of all this, ie. defeat, be the same given a hopeless position? Yes probably. Would the journey be the same? Not even close. And the journey is by far the most important thing for keeping games balanced.

[Alpine Joe]

Originally Posted by Calahan

I'd personally find it impossible not to perform better than the AI would in any situation. Scripting a single mage sensibly means doing better than the AI. Not buying loads of militia means doing better than the AI. Equipping a single item properly means doing better than the AI. Not attempting a suicidal break siege is doing better than the AI would. Even if I had just one Indy tribe mage left, I'd put him front centre and tell him to cast Vine Arrow. And even just that token effort would be doing better than the AI.

Would the end result of all this, ie. defeat, be the same given a hopeless position? Yes probably. Would the journey be the same? Not even close. And the journey is by far the most important thing for keeping games balanced.

Heh Calahan the AI would probably be doing better than me in Cripple_Fight, where I have played about 20 turns in pretty much this exact situation waiting for you to finish me off. Although I have learned a ton from watching different things fail miserably in that position, so I guess even that game (and bogarus in general) has value