What is the reason...?

[arcorelli]

... and would tend to prevent the sort of lollygagging stagnation common in the 1700's,

The 1700's are usually one of the most 'active' parts of the game. People like to fight long wars at that stagee

I am willing to bet that, if this message board kept a ranking of players in MP based upon their results according to pre-defined "winning" goals, you'd damn quickly see plenty of people who would be playing to "win." :rofl:

For some reason, all occasions where a system of that kind has been proposed, it has not been that popular.

 

[unmerged(10894)]

I have to agree with Hive here. When I build a nation for 10 sessions and suddenly I'm so powerful the rest of the players start quitting, it is frustrating because the game usually starts to get really interesting around then when everyone's consolidated and wars are starting to be fought for petty reasons. I also like to take my nation to the end of the game. If I've worked hard and all my ambitions have turned out so well that the rest of the game is ruined, it takes away from the fun. I'll usually go directly against my own interests to prop up weak nations in games where I perceive the balance is about to be thrown so badly out of whack.

Of course, one could argue that there's no point in going on with such a game and the argument would have merit. I solve it simply by not playing in such a fashion that I become that powerful any longer.

I see the final 100 years as the part of the game where your whole strategy for that game is unfolded. So yes, I am also upset if it doesn't get to that point.

 

[DSYoungEsq]

Hmm. God forbid that anyone challenges the notions of ryoken or Slargos. :wacko:

I'll address the various comments (at least, the non-ad hominem ones) tomorrow when I have more time.

For now, only two things:

1. Slargos, you apparently do not comprehend my meaning. Perhaps it is a language thing; I've only been using this one for the last 44 years (which, by the way, answers a question you asked), and I've only used it professionally for the last 21 years, so perhaps I don't use it very clearly. But if you engage in strategies intended to obtain a "victory" (however that may be defined), you are "playing to win." You may not be a person who is focused on "winning;" failing to "win" may not bother you much. Certainly there is nothing wrong with that. But that is different from engaging in strategies that are not designed to obtain victory. I think I made that pretty clear in the last post.

2. A question like, "How old are you, incidentally?" has no place in a discussion of an issue. It can only be interpreted (in the absence of some other cue indicating that it is the result of mere curiousity) as an attempt to establish that the points being made by the person of whom the question is asked have some lesser value because of the presumed answer to the question. The value of a point does not depend upon the age of the person making it. I might be 18, or I might be 80; the point has no greater or lesser value in either case. So unless you were simply being curious (in which case I answered above ), I, for one, would prefer the removal of ad hominem debating techniques from posts discussing my points.

I've been playing war games, board games, computer games, computer toys, multi-player games, chess, you name it for over 30 years. I think I comprehend something of value about the nature of games and gaming; I even have some education on the subject, it being the subject matter of more than one of my courses at college. I've organized and refereed chess tournaments, run chess clubs, run wargames clubs, played Dungeons and Dragons practically since its inception; I am not a gaming Newbie. I'm not even an EU newbie, though I didn't bother to post on this message board until recently. I believe I am entitled to an opinion on the subject.

Which is all I posted. An opinion. Subject to comment, certainly, and not with any intent that everyone agree with it. Disagree with it if you like; discuss it with me if you want (I enjoy discussion ). But please don't act like the two or three of you posting have the one and only correct answer to the question posed. It's a bit annoying; perhaps you gather that from the tone of this post.

 

[admiral drake]

I see the final 100 years as the part of the game where your whole strategy for that game is unfolded. So yes, I am also upset if it doesn't get to that point.

ya i was quite annoyed when tot3 ended before i could finish my plans

 

[unmerged(5161)]

It is hilarious that the two people you just cracked on (me and Slargos) are two of the most experienced people on this damn board. I had a good laugh at that one. You really are just like Daniel A. I just looked over the thread he started in this vein a while back. You can read it HERE. It is funny how these guys roll up with very little (or zero in Daniel A's case, to my knowledge) experience in real MP games. Playing against the AI isnt jack shit.

So here you are telling us all about how we, the people who have been playing EU2 for a few years, how our community would be so much better if we could just find a way to compare people and determine who is better. JEEZ! YOU ARE THE BRIGHTEST TOOL IN THE SHED! HOW DO YOU COME UP WITH THESE BRILLIANT IDEAS! Wake up and smell the horse shit, you are standing in it.

It isnt like you are running around bashing people over the noggin and you want the board to validate your ego by developing a ladder system. Maybe you think you are hot shit and want to put a ladder system in place so you can find a way to manipulate it to your benefit so all will bow before your insanely large penis. Bah, such indolence.

Slargos asked your age because people who tend to have these ideas are older guys who think they know everything about EU2 from just looking at the box. Imagine that, he was RIGHT ON TARGET. Lemme tell you, you have a lot to learn. I am only 23 years old, but I can teach you a thing or two. Start by reading my guides. Then play alongside some veterans in a rough position.

The reality is that Europa Universalis 2 is a very complex game. VERY COMPLEX! And it is virtually impossible to tell exactly who is winning. So you can come up with your little measuring stick; Daniel's was monthly income. And as Peter Ebbesen reponded in that thread I linked up there, that doesnt mean jack shit. It doesnt. The example Peter used was sports. In sports you can make points and once you make them you cant lose them. In Eu2, you can go into the final year with 4000 income and end with zero. So it is stupid to use this arbitrary measurements.

And all the veterans around here know that. That is why you find them gravitating to this thread to tell you that you are wrong. Just like they gravitated to Daniel's thread. Because when you have only played EU2 MP a few times or worse, just watched from the sidelines, you dont have a damn clue what you are talking about. So stop acting like you do.

Im sorry, it just makes me very angry to have been playing this game for over 3 years and some guys roll up and talk like they know everything that is going down. You dont. Accept the truth. Daniel never even tried MP and assumed he knew it all. And as you can tell from his weird suggestions, he doesnt have a clue. And neither do you.

I mean no offense, but you just dont know what you are talking about. There have been many before you with this ideas and they dont work. They just dont work.

So make your own MP game and try to force a ladder. Watch what happens! Then come back here and show us all what you have learned.

 

[TheArchduke]

I'm kinda burnt out on EU2 atm actually

Same here, although I still recommend Eu2 MP to everyone I meet. It's just that I have played it too often.

 

[unmerged(5161)]

Same here, although I still recommend Eu2 MP to everyone I meet. It's just that I have played it too often.

What you should do is design a mod. Use Moddir. Maybe spice things up. Make the player nations strange countries no one ever plays that are usually AI; Eire, Grenada, Bavaria, and so on. Then add a bunch of cool events to create an alternative history for this new world and populate it with new leaders and monarchs.........

You could call it "Warped" or "Mutated" or something like that.

 

[TheArchduke]

What a great idea.

 

[Owen]

I understand what you mean. I think you misunderstand what I mean.

Perhaps it's a language barrier issue.

"Play to win" seems to mean for you "Playing with the sole aim of winning the game" whereas someone who's not playing to win is someone who's just playing and doesn't aim at winning. Fair enough.

You're right Slargos, it's a language problem, and for once it's at your end.

In English, "I play to win" is not the answer to "Why do you play?", it is the answer to "How do you play?" strange as that may seem.


I think here I'll write a few lines that I've written before (you know who it was in reply to): The experience of the Russian MP crew, who Tonio often plays with, shows that EU2 is an excellent game for a long MP session, played in the style of Risk. That the community here prefer to play it as a game of balance of power and diplomacy where players are rarely removed from the game entirely is down to the length of an EU2 campaign. Players do not want to commit to 15 to 20 weeks of a multiplayer game of EU2 when they may be removed from the game within two or three. Conversely, the Russian groups play in the space of a day or two, and players who die can sit around and watch, chat or go home. Next week is a completely new game.

 

[Owen]

It is hilarious that the two people you just cracked on (me and Slargos) are two of the most experienced people on this damn board. I had a good laugh at that one. You really are just like Daniel A. I just looked over the thread he started in this vein a while back. You can read it HERE. It is funny how these guys roll up with very little (or zero in Daniel A's case, to my knowledge) experience in real MP games. Playing against the AI isnt jack shit...

Ryo, I really liked your earlier post about playing to win. That was great, and full of insight on why we do it. I'm really not so fond of this one.

Arcorelli's post a while back says most about why a ladder system has never taken off here:

I doubt it. It has already proposed (several times IIRC) games with clearly defined rules to win, or shorter scenarios. Usually, those proposals fail. I guess the community that plays EU2 MP got other aims when they play.

It's player attitude. Now that attitude has a solid basis in thinking about the length of a game, the few people you'd be playing against in total and the difference between countries, but the primary reason for there being no ladder system here is player attitude. The only time it was ever tried was by that antisemitic nutcase and a few others, and I don't think that game really went anywhere.

 

[Hive]

Which is all I posted. An opinion. Subject to comment, certainly, and not with any intent that everyone agree with it. Disagree with it if you like; discuss it with me if you want (I enjoy discussion ). But please don't act like the two or three of you posting have the one and only correct answer to the question posed. It's a bit annoying; perhaps you gather that from the tone of this post.

Heh. This is amusing. You come in here, saying that EU2 is a game and games can *only* be played to win.

Some EU2 vets who have played this game in MP for eons then come in here and say that they disagree, that EU2 doesn't *have* to be played like that.

We aren't the ones saying that our answer is the only right one, you are. We achnowledge that some people play with the sole purpose of "winning", we just state that a whole damn lot of us don't.

Now I'm sorry if you expected us all to roll over in awe because you, the great and destinguised gaming champ, come in here and tell us a thing or two. But you must understand that you are saying that the way many of us play is way not *possible* to play... so naturally, we question what you say.

Incidently, are you Daniel A's twin brother?

 

[Hive]

Ryo, I really liked your earlier post about playing to win. That was great, and full of insight on why we do it. I'm really not so fond of this one.

I really think Ryo hit the nail with that post, actually. Sure, it was full of insults and anger... but eh, noone is perfect.

He did still present some good points.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

In defense of Daniel A. and DSyoung I have to say the mp community sometimes slightly overreacts if a foreigner comes in with alternative ideas

I also support this post by Ryoken:

It is possible to win a game by consensus of the gamers; I know that may be difficult to understand if you purely think of winning in black-and-white-I-control-50%+1 Supply Centers-Ha-Ha-Ha. Even Diplomacy can be drawn by consensus. So it isnt that much of a leap to propose victory by consensus. At the end of the game, and you may not know this because you are a relatively new player, there is a fairly clear heirarchy of power. Austria > France > England > Spain, etc, etc, etc. This is not measurable in pure absolute terms; Austria could have 400 ducat income while Spain has 1000 income and Austria is still more POWERFUL. That is how you win EU2; with power. And power can be measured in a variety of ways and it is usually done through intuition. At the end of the game, you could ask people to rank everyone but themselves (to reduce bias, though you could never eliminate it). I bet people would have very very similar lists. You would be able to see a clear pattern. That is how you win. And this could even be taken to a more sophisticated level based on "opportunity". A very strong Spain, France, or OE at the end of the game is not that hard to pull off. But a strong Poland, Denmark, Brandenburg, or Venice? Much harder. So I would consider that player to more of a winner than another. But this is all on a relative power scale that is determined by the general consensus of the player base.

If a games manages to run till 1820, I like to have a country summary in the end. Many campaigns do that and it gives good insight which countries were the dominating ones and which countries stagnated in the progress.

Redphoenix' France clearly won Destiny of Nations 2, for example. I am also impressed with country performances in other games, like Spain in mgc3, Spain in Machiavelli I, Poland in Machiavelli 2, and the United Kingdom in New Order III ( ).

It is not necessary you play to dominate a game, you can be as Hive and have other goals (like: I want to have the USA released) and sacrifice yourself for that. You can try to powergame your country to a superforce though. I know a lot of players who want to do that. And that comes close to win a game.
But whatever you do, you should always have as a goal that most players have their share of fun too* and everyone wants to finish the campaign.

* Do not hesitate to exlude Forzaa and Hive

 

[Hive]

In defense of Daniel A. and DSyoung I have to say the mp community sometimes slightly overreacts if a foreigner comes in with alternative ideas

That's not true. Noone have anything against new faces throwing a few new ideas here.

No, the issue is when new faces come in here and say "what you think and do is wrong, here's how it *really* is..."

 

[Slargos]

1. Slargos, you apparently do not comprehend my meaning. Perhaps it is a language thing; I've only been using this one for the last 44 years (which, by the way, answers a question you asked), and I've only used it professionally for the last 21 years, so perhaps I don't use it very clearly. But if you engage in strategies intended to obtain a "victory" (however that may be defined), you are "playing to win." You may not be a person who is focused on "winning;" failing to "win" may not bother you much. Certainly there is nothing wrong with that. But that is different from engaging in strategies that are not designed to obtain victory. I think I made that pretty clear in the last post.

For all your professionalism, you just failed to notice that I already examined and established this point in a previous post. Sloppy.

2. A question like, "How old are you, incidentally?" has no place in a discussion of an issue. It can only be interpreted (in the absence of some other cue indicating that it is the result of mere curiousity) as an attempt to establish that the points being made by the person of whom the question is asked have some lesser value because of the presumed answer to the question.

Not at all. I was curious since the points you are making usually come from juveniles. As Ryoken pointed out, this is not the first time we've had this discussion in this forum. You're inferring out of my words what is not there.

The value of a point does not depend upon the age of the person making it. I might be 18, or I might be 80; the point has no greater or lesser value in either case. So unless you were simply being curious (in which case I answered above ), I, for one, would prefer the removal of ad hominem debating techniques from posts discussing my points.

The value of a point doesn't change, but understanding of the person trying to make the point improves and style of reasoning can be changed accordingly. I would seldom try to impress upon a 14 year old my argument by way of logical reasoning for the simple reason that it would in most cases be a waste of my time and his. In the same vein, Ryoken makes my case excellently in his post in the other direction.

Which is all I posted. An opinion. Subject to comment, certainly, and not with any intent that everyone agree with it. Disagree with it if you like; discuss it with me if you want (I enjoy discussion ). But please don't act like the two or three of you posting have the one and only correct answer to the question posed. It's a bit annoying; perhaps you gather that from the tone of this post.

Ah. Rolling your eyes, eh? Is that proper behaviour for a grown man?

As you should've gathered from the thread, this discussion has been hashed over time upon time upon time and every single time the majority consensus has been that which Ryoken and Hive basically agree on with minor differences in the details. This is why I and Ryoken speak with such self-assured tones. You asked and you were answered. If you'd asked in a less insinuating tone ("Hey guys, you all haven't realized something, let me point out to you why the community is such a ridiculous failure") you would've gotten less hostile responses. Live and learn, old man.

 

[Slargos]

You're right Slargos, it's a language problem, and for once it's at your end.

In English, "I play to win" is not the answer to "Why do you play?", it is the answer to "How do you play?" strange as that may seem.

I know. My bad. I didn't elucidate properly in my reply to the Daniel A clone.

 

[Wyvern]

I really think Ryo hit the nail with that post, actually. Sure, it was full of insults and anger... but eh, noone is perfect.

He did still present some good points.

Ryo's points were lost in the tone of the post. I for one didn't enjoy reading it even though I have agreed with virtually everything Ryo had posted up till then. Oh and I suspect I've got the same sort of gaming experience and am in the same age group as DSYoungEsq rather than Ryo; being older or younger really has little bearing on this discussion, it's all down to your own gaming style preference. I play to win in the confines of what the community finds acceptable. ie I like to expand but not to the point where game balance is irrevocably upset. Much like Slargos if I think my position is becoming unbalanced then I'll start playing in what others would class as sub optimally even to the point where it majorly screws my country for a time (as why my Austria stopped allying with Slargos's Spain and got lynched in Unleashed - the optimal thing would have been to remain allied with Spain the rest of the game). I play to have fun whilst also gaining enjoyment from doing well. Make sense?

Now I delurk and go back to the family Christmas party

 

[Owen]

Ryo's points were lost in the tone of the post. I for one didn't enjoy reading it even though I have agreed with virtually everything Ryo had posted up till then. Oh and I suspect I've got the same sort of gaming experience and am in the same age group as DSYoungEsq rather than Ryo; being older or younger really has little bearing on this discussion, it's all down to your own gaming style preference. I play to win in the confines of what the community finds acceptable. ie I like to expand but not to the point where game balance is irrevocably upset. Much like Slargos if I think my position is becoming unbalanced then I'll start playing in what others would class as sub optimally even to the point where it majorly screws my country for a time (as why my Austria stopped allying with Slargos's Spain and got lynched in Unleashed - the optimal thing would have been to remain allied with Spain the rest of the game). I play to have fun whilst also gaining enjoyment from doing well. Make sense?

Now I delurk and go back to the family Christmas party

Yes, and I think the same goes for Slargos's posts in this thread. Thanks for saying everything I was about to Gary, now go and enjoy yourself.

 

[Hive]

Ryo's points were lost in the tone of the post.

Yes, partially... but the key is to read *beetween* the lines. Or something.

No you are right, Ryo was too rude and ruined his point. Let's lynch him.

That is, let's lynch him after our Christmas dinners. I don't like lynching on an empty stomache.

 

[Slargos]

Yes, partially... but the key is to read *beetween* the lines. Or something.

No you are right, Ryo was too rude and ruined his point. Let's lynch him.

That is, let's lynch him after our Christmas dinners. I don't like lynching on an empty stomache.

Was it a good one? Mine was scrumptoulicious. I feel fatter already.

I think Gary's and Owen's critique is so harsh, their points are lost in the harshness, so I will not allow it to abate my passionate debate technique.

Come, Ryoken. Let us find a hapless toothless old bugger to lambast with our mean retorts and overly enthusiastic rethoric. There's bound to be one in the history forum.