Baalz' good player pledge

[Micah]

Ano - Hmm...Baalz stuck out Artifacts as Utgard until the (practical) end of the game, so I'm not sure why you're referencing it. 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.

[Calahan]

I would sign up to this, but to be honest, what I see outlined in the proposal is just an incredibly 'lite' version of the promise I made myself before I played even my first MP game. So if I signed up for this, I'd actually feel I was lowering my standards, which may lead me into bad habits. As to date I've never turned myself AI ever, and don't ever intend to either. But signing this might lead me towards thinking.......

"I'm not enjoying this game, and I'd never normally quit, but it's ok in this game because it's within the bounds of the pledge". Which to be honest is not a train of thought I even want to entertain.

And as has been pointed out already, having any sort of loose criteria for when you can set yourself AI just leaves everything open to an individuals interpretation, which can only lead to arguments if one player interprets it differently to other players.


But reading some of the comments here has made me think that not everyone has the same version of what the 'default' commitment to a game should be. My default is that I'll never set myself AI, while others have the 'default' of playing until they get bored, or they find something better to do with their time. With many choosing to play until they conclude they will eventually lose whatever war(s) they are fighting, and see no point in staying around for the inevitable. Which of course opens up another can of worms regarding when, and how early, a conclusion like that can, or should be made.

So maybe the solution is that every new game that starts up should be absolutely clear on whether it is a 'serious' type of game, which rightly brings with it all the associated commitments of fighting until the bitter end. Or if the game is designed more for just pure fun, and anyone signing up is free to play for just the enjoyment of playing, and isn't expected to stay committed long term if they don't want to for any reason. Not sure if this would solve the problem, but if during sign-up it was crystal clear to each potential player if that game was 'serious' or 'fun', then I think it can only help.


But then having said this, Baalz was pretty damn clear from the start about the level of commitment he expected from players signing-up for the Legends of Faerun game, but it didn't help one bit there. But if there is ever going to be a good 'vet' to 'new player' mix in future games, which I think is important for community health, then some sort of solution needs to be found I think. Since bailers and AI setters are easily my number one hate in MP games by some distance, and I haven't been playing anywhere near as long as most of the vets have. So I can only imagine what strong feelings and opinions they have on this matter.

So in light of this, it's easy for me to understand why the veteran players would want to severely limit their expose to new, unknown players. As who wants to take the risk of having potentially hundreds of hours of their time wasted by playing in games that could be ruined at any moment by unknown players bailing or going AI. Logic says it's safer to just stick with the small pool of players you know, even if it means that pool very rarely grows.


And for the record, my pledge is: Nothing in-game will ever cause me to set my nation AI. But of course I can not put any guarantee on events in Real Life.

[ano]

I meant this post when I spoke of Baalz' position in Artifacts. Of course I don't know what happened there but WL is referencing graphs here and I remember myself looking at them then.
As for your second point... Well, perhaps you're right but it would be very hard for me to act this way. Very hard to lose turn by turn and understand it's inevitable when you always aim to win.
However, there was one game long ago when I was ready to quit being pressed by 3 nations with no chance of success. Leaders were far far ahead and there was absolutely no light in the end of the tunnel. And the same turn I decided to quit my biggest enemy suggested eternal peace because of "senseless war". Well, that was when I decided I should win and did it.

[Baalz]

Maybe I wasn't very clear but my intent was to standardize a pledge that specific games could optionally link to. That's what I meant by "games I participate in which link to this thread." The reason I put this in a separate thread from a game thread rather than just pasting it to every game I host is because I feel like plenty of "casual" players don't really read all that stuff (as witnesed by the dropout rate in the legends game...I *begged* people to not sign up unless they wouldn't abandon the game). If people have to at least come to this thread and read it enough to figure out what to do I'm hoping they'll at least appreciate the commitment they're making to all the other players.

[Micah]

Ano - The post you linked was WRT a concession, as opposed to a abandoning a position-in-progress. Deciding to end a game as a group is a very different situation from a single player abandoning their position. I don't have any issues with people moving to end a game, just with them leaving a game that is yet to be decided. Sorry that I didn't make this distinction clear in an earlier post.

[Burnsaber]

Excuse me for grammar, I'm just watching a freaking Rocky marathon and I'm a bit drunk. But I feel like I must respond immediately.

Jazeppi just said that I was one player to start this thread because I went suddenly AI. Sure my position was poor, the definition of underdog. But that didn't get me. I'm fine with playing the underdog, just ask TC in crusaders or Baalz in Sentient Machines.

Sure I didn't have many late-game tools available. But I'm fine with that. Just ask those who stick out to the ending of Rothfuss game.

But Baalz advertised the game as roleplaying one. I really looked forward to it. Like chronicles, you know, without the requiment that you have to write something, even if you're not feeling like it. When Calahan made his first awesome in-character post, I was absolutely hyped and started to write my own stuff.

But I was EA Oceania. Really go ahead, go ahead and read the descriptions for the units in the nation. Trust me, it won't take long. Not much to work with, eh? I had all these cool stories in my head, but they just wouldn't have worked with vanilla Oceania. it was simply aggravating. Everytime I looked at the units, I just saw my writers block all over.

It was like being Bit*h-slapped by the game everytime I opened the recruitment screen. I just lost heart and did a half-assed job of the nation. I got provinces (because I got oceans uncontested because coobe left), I got pretty nice gem income, but I just didn't do anything with it.

Now the nations in the late game and all I see is lost opportunities. If I had started moving those triton kings in turn 30, if I had forged that in turn 40, if I had empowered that in turn 35... Trudt me in this, the nation might be doing well in the graphs, but it's just a air balloon.

But anyways, I pledge. I just won't make the mistake of joining a random EA nation game ever again.

[Jazzepi]

Originally Posted by Burnsaber

Jazeppi just said that I was one player to start this thread because I went suddenly AI. Sure my position was poor, the definition of underdog. But that didn't get me. I'm fine with playing the underdog, just ask TC in crusaders or Baalz in Sentient Machines.

I know you're drunk, but I just wanted to make it clear that I didn't think that you, in particular, were the impetus for this thread. Legends of Faerun, for whatever reason, has been mired in leavers including a Jomon who left in the middle of invading Sauromatia (who also left).

Beardaxe had some strange disappearances as well, including Atlantis who owned all the seas and had Forge of the Ancients up, clearly had some artifacts, and then just vanished.

Also, I personally had zero problem with you leaving. I've been in that situation before, and it's no good. There's no reason to trudge through the actions for a nation where you're just shepherding it to a slow, boring, demise.

Jazzepi

[Burnsaber]

Originally Posted by Jazzepi

Also, I personally had zero problem with you leaving. I've been in that situation before, and it's no good. There's no reason to trudge through the actions for a nation where you're just shepherding it to a slow, boring, demise.
Jazzepi

Yeah, I re-read your post now that my heads a bit more clear. I apologize for my sudden burst. Beer goggles make you read stuff funnily (Rocky 1 & 2 went like a charm, but in 3 I started to depend on drinks to pull me through ).

[chrispedersen]

New nick for Burnsaber: Adrian!

[Stretch]

There's no reason to trudge through the actions for a nation where you're just shepherding it to a slow, boring, demise.

I thought that the point of this thread was that some people think there is a point of at least keeping it respectable so that the game isn't unbalanced by your sudden forfeiture.