In whatever game you want to do that Ryoken, I want to play. Can't wait to see that happen 
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
The greatest thing about it, Ozzeh, will be the total liquidation. It will occur in one violent swoop. Not some piecemeal destruction, no no no. That would be too easy. Everyone on his border will attack simultaneously and he will pause to cry. It will be beautiful.....
FAL said:I wanted to let Daniel become the super badboy before I would dow him
Sorry FAL, but that's bullshit. UK was a big badboy to everyone already, and noone would have come to his aid if you and/or Portugal had dowed him. You are just making up weak excuses for being passive.
"If the game had continued, I would have done it" is easy to claim.
Daniel A said:
No, he just dropped. Which was pretty nasty, given that he was hosting...
Honestly, I doubt many people would agree with you on this. I personally find that to be a horrible solution. Fact is that even before Babur had connection problems, Mughals weren't contributing with anything to the game. They had no diplomacy, no wars, no nothing with anyone else - so they were kinda obsolete. And after 2 sessions of them being AI off-limits, with no way of knowing whether Babur would ever come back, I think it was very reasonable to drop them as a player nation.
I did not force-move Babur to USA when he got his connection back, I offered them to him. A big difference if you ask me.
Which is why he quit when it became obvious that USA did not have any chance of defeating you alone, added the fact that the other naval superpowers didn't give a shit about balance in any way (which is understandable if you play Risk, but is neither historical nor very wise given the situation imo). He had no chance of survival, why should he play on really? His game was over.
Daniel A said:Unfortunately the whole game collapsed after Babur quit and Art said something like "Perhaps this is a good point to end the campaign". After that game-killing comment he even got a prize from the GM for his good gaming. When I read about that I went out and vomited
I gave Art that prize because he's the kind of player I enjoy playing with the most. I'll have more fun playing a 2-player game with him than playing a 14-player game with 13 people like you.
Daniel A said:
The war didn't come by event, but because Babur dowed them. Which is very understandable, I'd say.
If I had had any moral problems after my perfomance in this incident (not that I have) I would have lost them after having read how Hive tried to fool me. Nice try Hive, I like that GMship. Hehe, reallly funny actually.
I didn't lie to you or anything. I told you that CSA would get some USA provinces if you released them. I said no more, no less. Was that not true? Even without the event that would let him re-inherit them, he could just take all the provinces through a couple of wars instead of just one. Surely, it couldn't come as a surprise to you that he would try that?
And I fail to see how what I did had anything to do with the fact that I was also GM. Care to explain that? Did I as a GM *order* you to obey me? No, I lured you into doing so as a player like yourself.
And that brings us nicely back to the start of this thread: by setting up a quit rule (and perhaps discuss it) we get to know what the GM in the game expects from us and what we have to obey if we are to take part in the campaign.
In most games, the punishment for breaking a rule is either being kicked from the game or receiving a negative edit. But how on earth will you punish people from breaking *this* rule? Why would they care about breaking it?
Now you are saying that people might think "Oh, no quitting in this game... darn, I was planning to! Better not join then..." - but honestly, I doubt that *anyone* joins a game with the intention of quitting...
NO4 was a terrible game to take this analogy from. By the time I resigned I knew there was no balance in the naval scene, with Portugal and Spain never not allied, England friendly to the Iberians, and the Dutch killed. It doesn't really matter that there wasn't balance, that's what you get when you put such players in those nations. It's just crazy to think that in such a situation, people wouldn't drop out. I wouldn't blame PJL, myself or Hmmmm for that.
Anyway as Byak said, all this NO4 ranting is getting tiring.
Anyway as Byak said, all this NO4 ranting is getting tiring.
Hive said:
I *did* declare several months ahead that I would drop. This AFTER putting the US main army with all its leaders in a safe province. Nor was I unpolite, but simply declared my dissappointment on the situation and that the US had no chance of survival. And when that was done I quit; That I was host(I was temp. host this session) had totally flew out of my mind. However I *did* return and transfered the autosave. On you it sounds like I just said, "I've had it" and one second later dropped.
Bocaj said:
You know, noone are forcing you guys to read this thread.
The thread starter himself, in the very first post, brings up NOIV. You can thus not claim that it's off-topic.
Asking for a thread topic to end because you are tired of reading about it and is seemingly unable to steer away from it seems rather silly to me...
Bâbur said:
I know you didn't drop as host without saving on purpose, and that you just forgot. I'm just saying that it had a nasty effect, since we lost some months.
some of you guys should try Vicky MP... we're a small enough community, that everyone pretty well knows everyone else, and there aren't too many unexpected situations to cause the kind of problems here. No totally all-powerful 'GM's to blame either. the posts about reputation and such would actually translate better, because a smaller playerbase makes it more likely a person who does quit far too often, becomes not welcome in every game.
That said, this thread seems more about picking people apart now, than solving any issue revolving around quitting. I recently quit a vicky game because of a player i didn't like and his actions. I have volunteered to sub however, both in a session yesterday, and one next saturday, for people, as a way of atoning for my spur of the moment bad quitting conduct, and also as a way of helping those who have put effort into the game, and didn't quit when things looked bad. I think that, in cases when its fairly clear to the majority, that a quit was a 'bad quit,' that the player in question, ought to be pressured into subbing, when the other players can't make it. It works better probably than getting someone unfamiliar with the particular game situation for a sub, and i think it would satisfy those who would rather see people punished for quitting, but in a meaningful and productive way. Ranting about them here certainly doesn't accomplish much i'd imagine. Think of it as the Paradoxian equivalent of community service.
That said, this thread seems more about picking people apart now, than solving any issue revolving around quitting. I recently quit a vicky game because of a player i didn't like and his actions. I have volunteered to sub however, both in a session yesterday, and one next saturday, for people, as a way of atoning for my spur of the moment bad quitting conduct, and also as a way of helping those who have put effort into the game, and didn't quit when things looked bad. I think that, in cases when its fairly clear to the majority, that a quit was a 'bad quit,' that the player in question, ought to be pressured into subbing, when the other players can't make it. It works better probably than getting someone unfamiliar with the particular game situation for a sub, and i think it would satisfy those who would rather see people punished for quitting, but in a meaningful and productive way. Ranting about them here certainly doesn't accomplish much i'd imagine. Think of it as the Paradoxian equivalent of community service.
Whoa, a vickyer!
I actually tried to play the game once, but i lagged out and stuff. Ive fixed the lagging problem, but havent gotten around to join a game again. I find eu2 a funnier and more fast-paced MP game than Vicky and will probably keep on playing this instead of CK or Victoria. On the other hand, the diplomatic game seems, although a little stale and unchanging, at least quite challenging and with the possibility of many outcomes. So maybe i will try to rejoin you one day.
With a large community (which the eu MP one should be ranked as) there will always come effects of controversities and clashings of ego and i dont think that can ever be avoided. Right now, there are quite alot of people that refuse to play with this player and can only respond to that player with sarcasm or insulting vibes and that is in a community where the median age is quite alot higher than the communities of for example Counterstrike or Warcraft 3!
With time and luck and love, i think the MP scene of Victoria can be discovered by more players and thus grow into what we have here.
I actually tried to play the game once, but i lagged out and stuff. Ive fixed the lagging problem, but havent gotten around to join a game again. I find eu2 a funnier and more fast-paced MP game than Vicky and will probably keep on playing this instead of CK or Victoria. On the other hand, the diplomatic game seems, although a little stale and unchanging, at least quite challenging and with the possibility of many outcomes. So maybe i will try to rejoin you one day
.With a large community (which the eu MP one should be ranked as) there will always come effects of controversities and clashings of ego and i dont think that can ever be avoided. Right now, there are quite alot of people that refuse to play with this player and can only respond to that player with sarcasm or insulting vibes and that is in a community where the median age is quite alot higher than the communities of for example Counterstrike or Warcraft 3!
With time and luck and love, i think the MP scene of Victoria can be discovered by more players and thus grow into what we have here.
Hive said:
Ouch.
Hive said:
Sorry Hive, I thought you did. To me he did not appear that happy with the move.
Hive said:
Indeed. But you can do it in different ways.
Hive said:
I know Hive. And it's the reverse for me, as you know.
Hive said:The war didn't come by event, but because Babur dowed them. Which is very understandable, I'd say.
I have wondered about that but I imagined that Babur would not commit suicide by attacking my vassal - at least not without securing support from some nation in Europe. This is quite hilarious. He believes I will stand watching while he rapes my vassal, and when it turns out I am not, well then he quits. At the quit he had no idea whatsoever of my aim in that war, for the simple reason I did not know it myself.
Hive said:
Some kind of misunderstanding here. That is exactly the same as I say you said.
No more, no less than that info.Hive said:Even without the event that would let him re-inherit them, he could just take all the provinces through a couple of wars instead of just one. Surely, it couldn't come as a surprise to you that he would try that?
Heh, I normally expect a smarter behaviour from my opponents than suicide. If he had gotten himself a strong alliance, then I agree. Certainly. But he did not.
Hive said:
As you are the GM and gives the tip it is obvious, at least to me, that my action was not against the "non-gamey-actions"-rule. That is what I have said. Do you not agree? Is it something else you are referring to?
Hive said:
I think I must have said this at least 4 times in the thread now. The rule aims mainly at clarifying the intentions of the players before the game start, to make sure they agree on what constitutes good quits. To a lesser extent also to prevent them from later on betraying what they promised. As I have written I believe most people are honest. For this belief I have been ridiculed by several oldtimers in this thread who IMO thereby reveals more about themselves than of the other players. Surely you do not belong to the former category?
Hive said:
I have enumerated several good quits. How is it even possible for an intelligent person like you to write such a sentence as "oh, no quitting in this game"
I myself not only doubt, I am certain that noone enters a game with the intention of quitting, did you really think that I believed they entered it planning to quit
o
Last edited:
Hive said:
Spain recently dowed the USA, recently dowed Austria and recently dowed the Ottomans. Three wars she won easily and after which she expanded. Spain also was in an alliance with Portugal for a long, long time. Finally Spain was the single most richest nation of the game. Spain also had the largest fleet.
Countries started to get worried with Spain. I already heard some anti-Spain propaganda.
Would the UK not have attacked the USA, I am not sure if people would just let me fight it out with the UK. The Ottomans, Austria and the USA would certainly want to get their revenge. Denmark would perhaps attack Spain too.
So, I decided to wait till Daniel would attack the USA, since I knew that then everyone would approve of me trying to defeat him.
Before you ask: I did not attack the UK before, because it took me a long time to get a large enough fleet. When I got one, I was deep in my southern american revolt events. And I wanted to make it a one on one.
Those were my reasons. Now, you stating that my statement was bullshit makes me flumoxed. How can you know what I would do?
No wonder you quit Eu2 mp, for things must be quite boring for you if you can predict everything. Or think you can
ryoken69 said:
Do you know that some years ago Slargos promised me a similar treatment if I ever joined EU MP - it occurred after a conversation between the two of us that was typical for our mutual respect
Now my only chance seems to be to get the two of you into the same game, then perhaps you will DOW eachother for the right to squash me
Hehe ofc. you would, else it wouldn't be funryoken69 said:
And we would repay in kind as always
devil said:Ohhh and good to see all you guys are still playing
Cheers
is also good to see you still watching
ciao
Daniel A said:Do you know that some years ago Slargos promised me a similar treatment if I ever joined EU MP - it occurred after a conversation between the two of us that was typical for our mutual respect
Now my only chance seems to be to get the two of you into the same game, then perhaps you will DOW eachother for the right to squash me
I am sure Slargos and I can come to some kind of division agreement. Kind of like East/West Germany after WWII. Fascism must be destroyed now, the Cold War comes after!
Devil, a man I have yet to squash because we make such good allies
He always ends up in a country that is my best friend. I still remember our Polo-Turkish joint strike against Austria (I think either Arcorelli or Artemis, cant remember) right after game start. Oh, that was beautiful. End of first session, OE and Poland have border with Vienna. Oh...... those were the days.....
He always ends up in a country that is my best friend. I still remember our Polo-Turkish joint strike against Austria (I think either Arcorelli or Artemis, cant remember) right after game start. Oh, that was beautiful. End of first session, OE and Poland have border with Vienna. Oh...... those were the days.....
Daniel A said:Some kind of misunderstanding here. That is exactly the same as I say you said.
I read your post as you complaining about the GM tricking you. But perhaps I misread?
But he couldn't get such a strong alliance, because noone cared. The only powers capable of helping him were either alligned to you or pretending to be modern-day Switzerland. Denmark had been crushed by UK and Portugal, and could not offer any worthwhile assistance. And since this situation did not seem to change within a reasonable timeframe, he took a chance alone.
As you are the GM and gives the tip it is obvious, at least to me, that my action was not against the "non-gamey-actions"-rule. That is what I have said. Do you not agree? Is it something else you are referring to?
Again, I read your post as if you were complaining about my actions as a GM.
The thing is that I find your proposal extremely naive. I ask again: what makes you think that people will care about breaking such a rule since they can't be punished for it? You know perfectly well that lots of people doesn't respect rules unless they are punished for breaking them.
I refer to the case of showing up on time; you yourself believes in punishing people who are late. Threatening to punish people for being late makes most people more aware of being on time. But you can't punish people for quitting, meaning that quitting have no consequence for them. So why would they care?
I have enumerated several good quits. How is it even possible for an intelligent person like you to write such a sentence as "oh, no quitting in this game"
Because, like I said, I doubt such a rule would mean anything. How will it deter potential quitters from playing? Noone signs up planning to quit a game anyway.
I myself not only doubt, I am certain that noone enters a game with the intention of quitting, did you really think that I believed they entered it planning to quit
That's what I'm saying... so you want, at the beginning of a game, to issue a rule against something noone plans to do when signing up anyway?
- Status