Finding the time to NOT have fun

[Zapmeister]

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]

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

[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.

[Cainehill]

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]

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]

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.