Baalz' good player pledge

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.