Finding the time to NOT have fun

Zapmeister · #1 July 19th, 2004, 04:31 AM

I've recently gone AI in a game that was taking me almost 3 hours a day to play. It was a 12-hour game and, until recently, I was having a great time.

Recently, though, things have been going less well and I was having less fun. However, I was still a major nation - some may even have said I was winning. With a sudden increase in my work/study commitments, I had little choice but to abandon the game.

Now, before I'm accused of Cohen-esque play-and-run behaviour, I should point out that I survived some very grim times indeed, writing off my winning chances altogether at one point, to ultimately emerge as one of the leading contenders. I chucked the game at turn 75. The important point here is that during those grim times, turns were not taking a long time to play, so I didn't mind that they were not much fun.

However, I'm also aware that it pretty much ruins a game when a major nation goes AI. So what's the solution - find a replacement? Rarely, I think. Apart from the difficulty of finding someone with the available time required, there's the fact that the replacement is unlikely to have any more fun than the departing player, so what's the point?

So, at Last, to the point of this post. How do we solve the problem of games being ruined when large nations go to AI for the understandable reason that if you're going to commit 3 hours a day to something, you need to be having fun?

[ July 19, 2004, 03:39: Message edited by: Zapmeister ]

djtool · #2 July 19th, 2004, 04:38 AM

people who chastise you for not making a computer game a priority in your life are to be ignored.

Gandalf Parker · #3 July 19th, 2004, 04:41 AM

I think alot of newbies would have stepped in. I often recommend it in fact. They have a ready excuse if they do bad because it wasnt their nation design. Gives an idea of a multiplayer game and all they have to do is play better than turning it over to an AI. Or at least, more surprising.

Cainehill · #4 July 19th, 2004, 04:49 AM

You get to go AI about 20 more times before you're accused of Cohenesque play.

Seriously though - I think that's a big problem with 12 hour games. Early on it's great, sure! Get those 2-5 minute turns with no action out of the way faster!

But the game runs on, and ... It starts to take half an hour a turn. Then an hour. And if you're on 24 hour cycles, that can be hard enough some days - but twice a day???

Personally, I'm more and more inclined towards 48 hour games nowadays, because I have seen this happening. Even better, I think, is if people agree beforehand to shifting timelines. Maybe 12 hour turns for the first 10 turns, 24 hours after that until turn 35 or 40, and finally settle in for 48 hour turns. After all - it's much easier to find an hour or two once in two days; and it lets you take a quick look at the turn as soon as it cycles, and then ponder the situation offline, while commuting, sitting in a bar, sitting through long meetings, etc.

None of which has to do with how to minimize the impact on a game when one of the major nations goes AI, but ... Had you considered asking if the other players would agree to a slower pace? Quite possibly some might be in the same situation as the game started to demand enough time to almost qualify as a part time job.

One huge thing that could be done by Illwinter though : Add some rudimentary diplomacy, or at least "allied / friendly" settings.

If, when you go AI, you could tell the AI which nations you were allied with, which you were at war with, etc, then at least it wouldn't have quite the huge impact of someone's trusted ally going AI and all of a sudden their previously safe border is getting devastated by the 'ally'.

Cainehill · #5 July 19th, 2004, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
I think alot of newbies would have stepped in. I often recommend it in fact. They have a ready excuse if they do bad because it wasnt their nation design. Gives an idea of a multiplayer game and all they have to do is play better than turning it over to an AI. Or at least, more surprising.

Eh.... Not for a 12 hour game, I don't think. Even in the early game, new players suddenly realize that they're in a 12 hour, 2 turn a day game, and balk.

Turning it over to a new player is great, certainly better than going AI especially if the replacement player agrees to keep in mind alliances / wars that were going.

But ... If it's taking the original player 3 hours to take his turns, in a nation he built, where he knows what his plans were, how long is it going to take the new guy?

Cainehill · #6 July 19th, 2004, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by djtool:
people who chastise you for not making a computer game a priority in your life are to be ignored.

Keep in mind that it's not really "just a game" - getting into a multiplayer game is making a commitment to other human beings.

Zap's situation is understandable - frankly, I can't imagine keeping a game going at a 12 hour pace when the turns are taking that long.

But people who go AI regularly, on whim, really ought to consider sticking to single player where they're not screwing other players over.

Again - I'm not talking Zap here.

Zapmeister · #7 July 19th, 2004, 07:20 AM

I'm currently in 2 other games, both on the Faerun map, so potentially leading to large and demanding positions as well (although not there yet).

I think I owe it to the other players to offer these positions to anyone that thinks they can handle the time commitment that they may come to involve. So that's what I'm doing here and now. They're both 24-hour games at the moment.

One game (Machaka) has 4 human players, one AI and one abandoned position. Oh, and you're not allowed to make gem-producing items. Annoyingly, the name is Human_God_-_No_Clams,_other_gem_making_trinkets

The other game (R'lyeh) has 14 humans and 2 AIs, with no house rules. The name is Faerun_Folly.

Please read this thread and understand the potential time commitment before accepting either position.

Zapmeister · #8 July 19th, 2004, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cainehill:
Had you considered asking if the other players would agree to a slower pace?

Yes, but then I realized it wouldn't make any difference, even if they agreed. I'd still want to quit regardless of whether turns ran twice a day, once every two days or once a week because 90 minutes is too much to take out of any day, however infrequent, if that ninety minutes is a chore as opposed to gaming fun.

Sheap · #9 July 19th, 2004, 08:41 AM

Color me obvious, but the problem of turns taking too long can be avoided by not playing on Faerun, or any map bigger than about 200 provinces, even with 17 players in the game. When the game gets down to 4 or 5 people (or as often as not - STARTS with that few), and you're playing on Faerun, and you've got 100 provinces to deal with, that's just not going to be fun. Less fun if you aren't winning.

It's easy to pick a number of provinces per empire that you happen to like, and then assume that it scales linearly with the number of players in the game, but it doesn't. More players does mean a bigger map is required, but it's logarithmic, not linear.

Blitz · #10 July 19th, 2004, 09:05 AM

There's the basic reason why I don't play Online. The maps are too fuggin huge and take way too long to finish. If that's your bag, fine. I can't possibly dedicate an hour a day to update a game, let alone 2 hours on one game in a 12-hour cycle. There are plenty of really nice smaller maps. My friends and I play on Ormus quite a bit. Fits 4 nations pretty well, ends up in a 2-2 situation most times... and we finish the games in about 40-50 turns usually. Even played Online, that's a month and a half, and even in the end my turns rarely took longer than 10 minutes to finish.