The Top Ten Multiplayer occurences that piss me off

[artemis667]

Originally posted by BiB
I vehemently dislike tyrannical game masters

Tyrannical game masters are a lesser evil than a game master that allows the game to descend into anarchy.

Is there a happy medium? I dunno, I haven't been in that many games yet.

On the peace discussion issue, I think keeping the clock ticking is very important, no matter what the speed is.

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by Mowers
This can surely only be me

Hehe, it's a joke about me actually (see the Machiavelli thread), but I have been called dictatorial in the Mowers brand so it does apply to u too

 

[TheArchduke]

Originally posted by artemis667
Tyrannical game masters are a lesser evil than a game master that allows the game to descend into anarchy.

Is there a happy medium? I dunno, I haven't been in that many games yet.

On the peace discussion issue, I think keeping the clock ticking is very important, no matter what the speed is.

Best to do is peace talks between the sessions. I can remember the peace conference lasting 3 hours between Drogo, Maur and me.

Else I think we need at least short pauses for peace conferences. Things tend to get complicated big time sometimes.

 

[BiB]

Knowing ur wargoals before the war tends to help too, esp in large alliances

 

[Prince Eugene]

Originally posted by BiB
I vehemently dislike tyrannical game masters

Without them no one would be dogging on me. So, they have to stay.


A lot of this stuff has been directed towards me, you know....

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by Prince Eugene

A lot of this stuff has been directed towards me, you know....

Remember, if you think you are one in a million.... There are a thousand Chinese just like you

Though you might fit a lot of the points D), I cannot think of any point in either Damocles' list or mine that do not apply to an (unfortunately) large number of players

 

[Count Drew]

Being China

Wait a minute now before you condemn China, despite it's events you have no real competition means you should be able to dig a hole to the New World or meet the Ottomans and Russians within 50-100 years. Especially with the new Popularity of Persia she isn't such a bad choice. Just her events make her too 'weak' to want to play sadly...<seems a doomed mission>

I hate to be mean but a country like Spain doesn't have any real competition until 1600+ anyways I've noticed and stacking on the pancakes in Europe makes for a bunch of vicious CakeEating European Minors... Minor Clashing is kind of boring early in the game and drives insane inflation and you always lose 1-2 valuable players cause it's not ethical to let them re-enter is a less destroyed country but how can you fight 5-1? Of course the meaning of the game is to do well whatever happens but still there should be greater MP BB than we have to force penalties upon nations for being Insanely expanionist against AI or MP players<though friends tend to group together and stay together, which is gamey but unavoidable. I'm sorry but even I get emotionally attached!>

It's really difficult to get anyone to want to be Portugal, BB, Denmark <or any other minor> when it's likely to been eaten by 1600 by the obvious Majors...

Pausing depends! Sometimes Peace is not so easy with 8+ players involved in the War. I would say in most my current games the teams are well balanced. Perhaps in the future we shall place an edit of -50 gold per minute after 10 minutes for any pause whatsoever. Speak to Johann about that one an option anyways in the game

 

[Hive]

When I was more inexperienced, I used to pause while discussing peace terms... and I have probably also commited some of the other 'crimes' mentioned...

I can most certainly say that most of the points mentioned piss me off, but here is one you forgot that pisses me off BIG time:

When you are in an ongoing game with other people in vnet, and some guy asks to join. You don't really need him, but agrees to let him in as a new country anyway. Then, after he has downloaded, he says something like "hey guys, let's just start a new one instead"!

That has actually happened to me more than once, and I feel like destroying something every time!

 

[Count Drew]

Hive:

The moral of the story goes don't play on V-Net. I've never finished a game on there. Most of the time on there I play for a few hours and the game crashes, a few people don't come back. Nice meeting people although the Paradox boards here is for serious gameplay. V.Net is great for newbies to get a couple nights of experience

 

[Damocles]

I think everyone has committed one or two faux pas. The difference is that, some people are more consistent.

 

[Hive]

Originally posted by Count Drew
Hive:

The moral of the story goes don't play on V-Net. I've never finished a game on there. Most of the time on there I play for a few hours and the game crashes, a few people don't come back. Nice meeting people although the Paradox boards here is for serious gameplay. V.Net is great for newbies to get a couple nights of experience

Yeah I guess... but I just hate to have to manually type IP-adresses...

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Bump..

Adding a point to my list

j) Players who force-burn manufactories. There is no excuse for doing it. It is a deliberate spiteful circumvention of the game mechanics that a manufactory has a small chance of being destroyed when an enemy army arrives (and then a small chance of destruction thereafter). Not only does it equate to a 100% chance of burning down a manufactory that cannot be prevented in any way, it most likely also spams the screen of the target player with popups, hindering his play.

Could, in principle, be prevented by a programming fix that prevented any given army from doing a "burn" check more than once per month.

 

[SJG]

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen
Could, in principle, be prevented by a programming fix that prevented any given army from doing a "burn" check more than once per month.

The manufactory burn chance rule is dumb anyway. It should just be removed and replaced with a bigger burn chance if the province is captured.

 

[kurtbrian]

actually the whole burning of manufactories by armies is not something I feel is adding anything to the game....

 

[Mowers]

I am afraid that I do think it’s reasonable. I have always felt there is too much cash in the game. I would rather prefer that the exploit was removed and the chance just increased though.

Although the damn gold mines still need to be reduced properly. Makes a monkey out of play.

 

[RedPhoenix]

Originally posted by Mowers
I am afraid that I do think it’s reasonable. I have always felt there is too much cash in the game. I would rather prefer that the exploit was removed and the chance just increased though.

Although the damn gold mines still need to be reduced properly. Makes a monkey out of play.

'

the gold mines in relation to other income, they are not as meaningfull later on though anyway, so in that sense they deteriorate as is.

And in many cases new gold veins were found later and new mines. Where do you draw the line for each spefic mine?

 

[Mowers]

Originally posted by RedPhoenix
'

the gold mines in relation to other income, they are not as meaningfull later on though anyway, so in that sense they deteriorate as is.

And in many cases new gold veins were found later and new mines. Where do you draw the line for each spefic mine?

The relative proportional value that they decline by is minimal and deeply inaccurate.
As for new gold mines etc. A good example is Spanish sliver mines, production actually went up over time! But relative value went down. It is difficult to draw a line, but sometimes an unfair system is the most effective, as it effectively simulates an economic shift.

I am not going to get into a full blown discussion- this is the incorrect thread. But its enough to say that I understand the complexities of this issue and why there is no functionality for “decline” at present.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by Mowers
I am afraid that I do think it’s reasonable. I have always felt there is too much cash in the game. I would rather prefer that the exploit was removed and the chance just increased though.

It is reasonable enough that manufactories can burn down, certainly (actually representing a loss of a considerable part of the industry rather than a single building, really), but I would much rather have a situation where it was a relatively high chance whenever a province was captured from the owner, rather a small chance each time the province was besieged.

That way, not only would the damn force-burning exploit be avoided, the owner of a province would have a compelling reason to relieve provinces with manufactories before an attacker captured them.

 

[unmerged(10146)]

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen
It is reasonable enough that manufactories can burn down, certainly (actually representing a loss of a considerable part of the industry rather than a single building, really), but I would much rather have a situation where it was a relatively high chance whenever a province was captured from the owner, rather a small chance each time the province was besieged.

That way, not only would the damn force-burning exploit be avoided, the owner of a province would have a compelling reason to relieve provinces with manufactories before an attacker captured them.

Yes, that's a really good idea. Perhaps only to stress owner, so that it doesn't end with manufactories having relatively high chance of being burned whenever control over provinces switches from one country to another. I presume owner of the province wouldn't deliberatelly destroy his manufactory. Well, soldiers after the battle could... so perhaps much lower probability of manufactory being burned when the province is recaptured by owner.

 

[Smirfy]

Definately my number one is in a long term campaign when people cry off and abandon the game. The reason is they are not doing so good and this is quite pathetic leaving to protect their sad ego.
They make decisions with countries and dont have the courage to see them through to the conclusion. They may have played a major while others have had to endure poor countries and are only seeing the fruits of long term labour after 4 sessions then quit.
Why they start the game in the first place? I have never seen one of these sad individuals quit yet when they are ahead
If they are in multiple games they stay with the one they are doing well or if not they plan another game!

This is a simulation from 1492-1820 not I'll play till i don't do so good but if I'm doing well I'll stay and take the glory