Bad quitting - a solution?

[unmerged(5161)]

This is the first thread in a long time where Hive and I have been on the same side of an argument Damn, couldnt agree more Hive. Tis a pointless gesture to make this rule........

 

[Hive]

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.

The key difference being that nations like Austria and France could fairly easily demolish Spain if needed. But only the Iberians could touch UK, making the UK that much more dangerous and more in need of a scratch.

No wonder you quit Eu2 mp, for things must be quite boring for you if you can predict everything. Or think you can

Even if what you said is true, that you would indeed dow the UK - it would be nothing more than the usual, boring all-out endgame war.

And by that time, balance wouldn't be an issue anymore. The war would have no effect to any other player nations (those not annexed by the super powers), and it would be nothing more than you and Daniel deciding who was the top dog. It's Risk, and it's completely uninteresting for the rest to play on for 50 years just for that.

 

[arcorelli]

Did you really read my suggestion?

The point is: to reduce the number of bad quits.

Yep, I read it. To be more blunt: I don't see the point: 'bad quits' under whatever definition will happen because EU2 MP games are simply too long. And then, the likelyhood of at least one player doing something 'bad' is simply very high.

And, besides that, I think it is an awful idea. There is simply no obligation to play in a game you don't like for months. Games are played for fun, and I am least could not be so selfish to force someone to play for a long time (4 hours per session several sessions is definitely long time), simply because I could be inconvenient for me if he could quit, although he definitely don't enjoy anymore to play. I think there is no such a thing as a bad quit. After all, if half of the players of one game (let sat NOIV) don't find entertaining to play any longer, why play any more?

 

[Hive]

This is the first thread in a long time where Hive and I have been on the same side of an argument

Hmm, maybe I should re-think my position...

 

[unmerged(5161)]

I am actually fairly infamous for "restarts". This comes from a similar disposition to Hive in that I enjoy chase, not the spoils.

I enjoy the first jostling period the most. Where destinies are made! Once it becomes obvious that a particular nation or group of nations are going to dominate everyone else, I dont really enjoy the game anymore. So I suggest a restart.

It is kind of like resigning a game of RISK once you know you are going to lose or that winning would involve monumental luck on your part.

I would rather just pay homage to the "victors" and restart. It is all a race, a race to dominance. Once dominance is achieved by one or a few players, I would rather proclaim them victorious and quit than keep playing. I think it is selfish for players who are clearly impossible to defeat to insist that everyone keep playing so that they can push them around. Similar logic to Arcorelli here.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Even if what you said is true, that you would indeed dow the UK - it would be nothing more than the usual, boring all-out endgame war.

Wow, that would really have been exciting! An all-out endgame war for the first place. Really great Really bad we never got the chance for this due to the disposition of the rest of you.

And by that time, balance wouldn't be an issue anymore. The war would have no effect to any other player nations (those not annexed by the super powers), and it would be nothing more than you and Daniel deciding who was the top dog. It's Risk, and it's completely uninteresting for the rest to play on for 50 years just for that.

For me it is always interesting to see what I can do based upon the current situation. I try to do my best. Perhaps ally with one of the biggies and see what I can do from that position. Perhaps I can become number 3 or number 4 or perhaps I can establish supremacy over an arch-enemy in the game. Fascinating! In the recent DbD3 my situation was exactly like that. I played Austria and was very far from being able to end as winner, however you analysed. But what I could do was to get a final revenge on my two arch-enemies, OE and PRU. And that I tried and succeded with, at least partly (one of them quit :rofl: ). That last session of that game was a great to play. I had very fun.

And further more, how much more funny for the rest of the players it is if all are doing their best in their corners of the world. As in DBD3 when I schemed with mighty SPA (a contender for first place) what we could do together.

Your attitude stinks in my opinion. It stinks from egoism and lack of adaptbility to changed circumstances in games. You are definitely not the type I will choose to play with now that I know how you are. Apparently Ryoken is of a similar kind if I understood correctly and this mean he will never get the chance to molest me

And yet again we can see how good it is to discuss our attitude to the game. We can see who we will prefer to play with and who we will not. Thus to put the quit rule in writing and in public may well turn out to clarify things. And thus we can again conclude that comments like

This is the first thread in a long time where Hive and I have been on the same side of an argument Damn, couldnt agree more Hive. Tis a pointless gesture to make this rule........

shines brightly on the sky of foolishness.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Yep, I read it. To be more blunt: I don't see the point: 'bad quits' under whatever definition will happen because EU2 MP games are simply too long. And then, the likelyhood of at least one player doing something 'bad' is simply very high.

And, besides that, I think it is an awful idea. There is simply no obligation to play in a game you don't like for months. Games are played for fun, and I am least could not be so selfish to force someone to play for a long time (4 hours per session several sessions is definitely long time), simply because I could be inconvenient for me if he could quit, although he definitely don't enjoy anymore to play. I think there is no such a thing as a bad quit. After all, if half of the players of one game (let sat NOIV) don't find entertaining to play any longer, why play any more?

No you have not read, at least you have not read it carefully. Instead you reiterate for the umpteenth time the erronous notion that the rule aims at keeping players locked in the game. I have answered to this just about the same number of times as it has been stated. :wacko:

If you need more help to understand you can e.g. read my response to Hive above.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

It is kind of like resigning a game of RISK once you know you are going to lose or that winning would involve monumental luck on your part.

At your age I played 100s of games of RISK. Yes 100s. Not once did a player quit because he believed he could not win. Not one single time. We all fought and schemed until we were wiped from the board or we were the winner (except when we agreed it was time for all of us to quit and go to bed).

It is very kind of you and Hive to reveal your character so that the rest of us know what to expect when we enter a game with one of you participating.

 

[unmerged(5161)]

Daniel, YOU are the one who is not reading. Multiple people have made the argument several times that NO ONE JOINS A GAME EXPECTING TO QUIT thus a rule against quitting will not pre-select non-quitters any more than a sign "No Vomiting" is going to stop that practice either. People dont vomit or quit because they planned to ahead of time.

And your logic requires that people who plan on quitting see this rule and go, "Gee, I might quit so I wont join". No one is going to do that. It is just stupid to think so.

So Daniel, you plan on quitting when I join your games?

 

[Gaius Marius I]

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.

there are a few of us... the vicky MP subforum here looks dead since the few of us relocated to a new independent forum (link in my sig). I recently got involved with the monday Bombardment game here, precisely because i was looking for a faster paced game. Vicky still has the same MP bugs and lag you probably experienced when you tried it, been precious little patching to address the bugs, and even with the best host, slow speed is the best one can hope for by the 1890s. the Bombardment game was hitting normal and above normal speeds last week, which was to me was quite an adjustment. Sometimes i just sit around for periods of time in vicky, not really doing much. With EU2, that downtime disappears, always a new settler to send, merchant to place, etc, which makes this game good for MP.

I'll agree with you that the tone of many people here , doesn't seem to reflect the age bracket, as you point out. Actually, its probably better that the sarcasm and insulting tones come out here in the forum thread, and not in-game (as it often does in the few running vicky games).

We're trying to grow the community; we have a few newbies now and then. One has become a very big participator, playing in 3 out of the 5 games running or starting. If you ever decide to give vicky mp another try, just follow the link in my sig, and check out whats available. I have a game being organized for about 5PM EST saturdays or earlier, that could use a couple more people. So feel free to pop in, or recommend us to your friends, anytime.

 

[kurtbrian]

Daniel A please moderate you tone. I've had complaints on your posts in this thread.

 

[unmerged(5161)]

Dont worry Daniel, I didnt rat you out. As a frequent "tone" offender myself, I can empathize. My advice consists of two quotes:

"I fought the law and the law won"

"When a shark bites you, despite what your instinct tells you, try very hard to not pull away because part of your body will probably not come along with you if you do."

 

[Hive]

Wow, that would really have been exciting! An all-out endgame war for the first place. Really great Really bad we never got the chance for this due to the disposition of the rest of you.

I personally don't see anything exciting in UK and Spain being peaceful towards each other while on occation destroying any possible competetitors together with Portugal (you seemed to share Portugal on that matter, how cute), while waiting for some huge endgame clash between the two of you in the final years of the game.

You could do that in a 2-player game, you didn't need the rest of us for that.

I am of the opinion that you, and to a lesser extent FAL, are too much used to boardgames like RISK, and thus play EU2 like it was a such. Needless to say, I find that playstyle completely wrong for EU2.

For me it is always interesting to see what I can do based upon the current situation. I try to do my best. Perhaps ally with one of the biggies and see what I can do from that position. Perhaps I can become number 3 or number 4 or perhaps I can establish supremacy over an arch-enemy in the game. Fascinating! In the recent DbD3 my situation was exactly like that. I played Austria and was very far from being able to end as winner, however you analysed. But what I could do was to get a final revenge on my two arch-enemies, OE and PRU. And that I tried and succeded with, at least partly (one of them quit :rofl: ). That last session of that game was a great to play. I had very fun.

The only thing "interesting" to see in this game was who the next target would be for either UK or Spain. I had for a long time tried to convince FAL to act against UK, and I think Fred did the same - but without luck. FAL simply showed no interest (again, his excuse to not wanting to look like a badboy is odd, since both France and Denmark obviously supported such a quest against UK). And since Spain and (especially) UK were both dominating the game completely, with neither side interested in doing anything about the other but only about picking all other nations 1 by 1, what reason did the rest of us have to play on for? You and FAL could have done that in a 2-player game, like I said.

I personally play EU2 MP (or played, to be exact) to be challenged, to experience things I cannot experience in SP. But you obviously don't want to be challenged, you play MP little differently from how most people play SP...

And further more, how much more funny for the rest of the players it is if all are doing their best in their corners of the world. As in DBD3 when I schemed with mighty SPA (a contender for first place) what we could do together.

Oh yes, it's sooooo much fun when the 2 biggest, baddest nations join up together to divide the world between them, when the only nations who can in reality come between them are each other...

Your attitude stinks in my opinion. It stinks from egoism and lack of adaptbility to changed circumstances in games. You are definitely not the type I will choose to play with now that I know how you are. Apparently Ryoken is of a similar kind if I understood correctly and this mean he will never get the chance to molest me

My attitude stinks? Well, you are of course free to think that. But I find it hilarious that you accuse *me* of being selfish. You are the one who want to force other people to play on for several months in a game they don't enjoy just for *your* amusement, you are the one who doesn't care whether other players have fun/have a better role than being your chanceless prey for half of the game...

Everyone should have fun playing in an MP game, not just Mr. Daniel A. If everyone are not having fun playing, perhaps those who *are* having fun should try to examine whether their attitude and way of playing could perhaps use a little adjustment. When playing MP, Daniel, you must realise that you aren't just playing with AIs who can chat.

And yet again we can see how good it is to discuss our attitude to the game. We can see who we will prefer to play with and who we will not.

Indeed.

Thus to put the quit rule in writing and in public may well turn out to clarify things.

No. This *discussion* made some things clear concerning various players' mentalities, but I'll keep claiming that the rule itself is futile and naive.

 

[Hive]

It is very kind of you and Hive to reveal your character so that the rest of us know what to expect when we enter a game with one of you participating.

I think most people were already aware of Ryo and me's characters. We have, after all, played in many games and with many different people throughout our EU2 careers.

Daniel, YOU are the one who is not reading. Multiple people have made the argument several times that NO ONE JOINS A GAME EXPECTING TO QUIT thus a rule against quitting will not pre-select non-quitters any more than a sign "No Vomiting" is going to stop that practice either. People dont vomit or quit because they planned to ahead of time.

Exactly, that's what I've been saying as well. But he keeps ignoring comments like these, it seems...

And your logic requires that people who plan on quitting see this rule and go, "Gee, I might quit so I wont join". No one is going to do that. It is just stupid to think so.

Indeed. So I ask yet again: Daniel, what exactly do you think this rule will be good for?

So Daniel, you plan on quitting when I join your games?

 

[unmerged(18425)]

Now some of you have mentioned RISK, I would say we have a good analogy here. (In contrary to ForzaA's 'you have to run around in a bar naked' analogy )

When you play RISK with a group of friends, you will ultimately come in the position that one or two others will become the clear winners, while you can't or have only very slim changes.
Now, the group in this case will expect from you that you play on, despite you not having as much fun as the others. Why? Because when you quit, the rest cannot finish their game and you will spoil their evening.
The reward for you playing on, despite you not having as much fun as teh rest, is that they will also not quit when YOU are winning and having fun.

This is true for EU2 too. Ultimately you will come in the position that you will be beaten severly by another player. You won't have much fun then. If you then quit, you are acting quite selfish and spoil it for the rest.
If you stay, players will appreciate it that you keep playing. You will appreciate it when they keep playing when YOU defeat them too afterall.

If no one would quit because he has less fun, for example because he is losing, the EU2 scene would be so much better...

Note: There is a difference between not having fun and being humiliated. I perfectly understand people who quit because they are being slapped around in a huge gangbang time after time. The group needs to pay you some respect too.
Note 2: I absolutely don't think games need to be restarted because a certain nation is too powerful. If you would advocate a restart in this situation, you are basically wanting to restart every time someone plays well!
Instead, try to break the hegemony of the top dog. That's the challenge for the rest at the time.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

The only thing "interesting" to see in this game was who the next target would be for either UK or Spain. I had for a long time tried to convince FAL to act against UK, and I think Fred did the same - but without luck. FAL simply showed no interest (again, his excuse to not wanting to look like a badboy is odd, since both France and Denmark obviously supported such a quest against UK).

It was not only about the badboy, I also pointed out that it simply took a long, long time before I got rid of my inflation, got myself an excellent fleet and naval tech and got rid of the SA revolt events.

Do you remember that in 1740-1750 I was being slapped around silly by Austria because I was 12 land tech levels below him?
That was because I was desperately tring to get a decent naval tech. But then it became obvious that my land tech suffered too much, so I had to focus on that too. And then the SA revolts started.
Only one session before the game was dead I was ready to attack the UK, and I wanted to wait till he was involved with he USA before striking at him.

Quite frankly, I don't understand your complaints. Why can't I make my own judgment when to attack my opponent? Why should I have attacked him when you asked me? Simply because it benefitted you back then? Right...

 

[Hive]

Now some of you have mentioned RISK, I would say we have a good analogy here. (In contrary to ForzaA's 'you have to run around in a bar naked' analogy )

When you play RISK with a group of friends, you will ultimately come in the position that one or two others will become the clear winners, while you can't or have only very slim changes.
Now, the group in this case will expect from you that you play on, despite you not having as much fun as the others. Why? Because when you quit, the rest cannot finish their game and you will spoil their evening.
The reward for you playing on, despite you not having as much fun as teh rest, is that they will also not quit when YOU are winning and having fun.

The difference, of course, being that an EU2 game can technically still be finished even if a player drops - due to something called 'AI'.

In the case of Babur dropping in NOIV, it didn't matter much to the game - as his future was annexation, a role AI could fill out just as well. So Babur didn't ruin anything by quitting.

Quite frankly, I don't understand your complaints. Why can't I make my own judgment when to attack my opponent? Why should I have attacked him when you asked me? Simply because it benefitted you back then? Right...

UK was uber, and only you could stop him. You showed no interest at all in doing so, you didn't even hint that you would try later or that you were waiting for the right time. You appeared to simply not be caring. And since the only nation capable of stopping UK doesn't seem to care - not now, not in the past, and seemingly not in the future - the rest could do nothing but wait to be targeted one by one. Noone here reads minds, you know. You showed no interest in dealing with UK, so how was it to be expected that you were secretly scheming to do so? The game looked to continue for the last 50 years as it had the previous 100 years: UK and Spain individually slapping around all other nations in turn, together with Portugal.

We had enough of that at some point, why would we bother to play on for another 50 years with the same?

 

[unmerged(18425)]

The difference, of course, being that an EU2 game can technically still be finished even if a player drops - due to something called 'AI'.

In the case of Babur dropping in NOIV, it didn't matter much to the game - as his future was annexation, a role AI could fill out just as well. So Babur didn't ruin anything by quitting.

True enough. Babur could drop as the USA without harming the game much. But there are of course always exceptions. In general countries cannot be missed this easily.

In general, players don't want to just drop human played countries to be run by the AI. In general everyone tries to find a new perm and when that fails, everone thinks that it sucks that someone has left.

Weren't you one of the prime complainers that people left games too easily?

UK was uber, and only you could stop him. You showed no interest at all in doing so, you didn't even hint that you would try later or that you were waiting for the right time. You appeared to simply not be caring.

I was too weak. Also, Denmark was first too uber, remember? You even advocated for gangbangs against Denmark.
After Denmark was defeated, the UK became the top dog, for a whopping two sessions. You simply lost your patience after you were defeated by the UK.

We're NOT talking about a UK dominating the game since start and a Spain able to withstand the UK but not willing to do so. We're talking about a UK that managed to defeat France and Denmark because of a super admiral and a Spain getting ready to challenge the top dog.

Noone here reads minds, you know.

Then why do you claim that I would not have attacked? How can you know this?

You showed no interest in dealing with UK, so how was it to be expected that you were secretly scheming to do so?

I was too weak before that. Again, do you remember me being slapped around by Austra in 1740-1750? That was only 4 sessions before the game ended...

The game looked to continue for the last 50 years as it had the previous 100 years: UK and Spain individually slapping around all other nations in turn, together with Portugal.

That is simply not true. Do I need to give you the multiple posts in which you were screaming for intervention against Austria? Against Denmark?

We had enough of that at some point, why would we bother to play on for another 50 years with the same?

Because your view on the game situation is not the correct one.

 

[Hive]

True enough. Babur could drop as the USA without harming the game much. But there are of course always exceptions. In general countries cannot be missed this easily.

In general, no. But in all cases where a much stronger player wants to annex another player and noone else bothers to prevent it; the player is excused to drop, I'd say.

Perhaps Daniel would get more of a kick out of annexing Babur than the AI, but tough luck.

In general, players don't want to just drop human played countries to be run by the AI. In general everyone tries to find a new perm and when that fails, everone thinks that it sucks that someone has left.

Of course, I never claimed that wasn't the case in general.

Weren't you one of the prime complainers that people left games too easily?

Oh yes. And I still think there are too many people who quit too easily and for the wrong reasons. I was just defending Babur's particular quit in NOIV, since Daniel used that one as an example.

I was too weak. Also, Denmark was first too uber, remember? You even advocated for gangbangs against Denmark.
After Denmark was defeated, the UK became the top dog, for a whopping two sessions. You simply lost your patience after you were defeated by the UK.

I always advocate for someone uber to be put down a bit, yes. But this particular UK was friends with Portugal, Russia and Prussia - had destroyed Denmark together with Portugal, and looked to remain neutral towards the only other naval power left throughout the game (you). And there were NO ingame indications that this situation would change before the game ended.

I'd rather just call it quits and declare you and Daniel "winners" (a term you both, especially Daniel, like a lot anyway) and end the game than playing 2 more sessions in the tiny hope that the situation would, in all it's unlikelyness, change.

We're NOT talking about a UK dominating the game since start and a Spain able to withstand the UK but not willing to do so. We're talking about a UK that managed to defeat France and Denmark because of a super admiral and a Spain getting ready to challenge the top dog.

We are talking about a UK that had no enemies left (that is, enemies who actually had navies!) and with 2-3 friends ready to help her if needed.

Then why do you claim that I would not have attacked? How can you know this?

I can't know that, but it sure didn't look like you would! And like I already said, I see no point playing 2x4 hours more just in case you would do something about UK 5 years before the game ends...

I was too weak before that. Again, do you remember me being slapped around by Austra in 1740-1750? That was only 4 sessions before the game ended...

It was more than 4 sessions before we ended - but yes, I remember it. What's your point? What does that have to do with UK?

That is simply not true. Do I need to give you the multiple posts in which you were screaming for intervention against Austria? Against Denmark?

And both of those were defeated and taken out of their uber-status. Your point being?

Because your view on the game situation is not the correct one.

Whatever.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

Of course, I never claimed that wasn't the case in general.

Well, then you should stop trying to refute point of views with one example.
Also, you seem to mix my posts up with those of Daniel a lot

I always advocate for someone uber to be put down a bit, yes. But this particular UK was friends with Portugal, Russia and Prussia - had destroyed Denmark together with Portugal, and looked to remain neutral towards the only other naval power left throughout the game (you). And there were NO ingame indications that this situation would change before the game ended.

Again: I agree the UK was uber, but also again: The UK was only uber for two sessions. To be more precise, she was declared uber when she won the gangbang France and Denmark started against her, because she had an uber admiral (5/6/6).

You say that there were NO indications that this situation would change, however, when I mention that Austria and Denmark were uber before the UK, you post this:

And both of those were defeated and taken out of their uber-status. Your point being?

My point is: There are always nations uber for a certain while and they will lose that position after a certain while too. Austria was ultimately gangbanged and defeated. It happened to Denmark. It would happen to the UK too. The previous cases of nations that were uber, prove this.

Why do you think the UK was a special case and won't be opposed till 1913?

What I try to point out constantly is that the UK being uber was only temporary and hardly something you need to kill a game for.

I can't know that, but it sure didn't look like you would! And like I already said, I see no point playing 2x4 hours more just in case you would do something about UK 5 years before the game ends...

So, you admit you declared the game dead because you thought the UK would not be attacked?
You were not willing to see if the situation would change?

So, if someone is being uber and you get no clear signals that the uber-one will be opposed, you declare the game dead?

It was more than 4 sessions before we ended - but yes, I remember it. What's your point? What does that have to do with UK?

Like I said: It was a perfect example that Spain was simply too weak to attack the UK. The fact that I was being slapped around silly quite recently before the end shows that I simply wasn't ready to do something against a top dog for a long time.

Your point of view is: Argh! The UK has defeated me! She is uber! Spain/Portugal don't attack her right now! The game is dead!....

Whatever.

Well, let's end this discussion then. Our viewpoints on how feasible the game still was clearly differ and it's hard to prove things which are in the future...