What is the reason...?

[Slargos]

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.

Wait a minute. You think *all* my posts are rude and unworthy of reading? That *is* pretty harsh.

Jeesh.

 

[DSYoungEsq]

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?

May I politely suggest re-reading what I wrote about a "game?" I never said you can only play a game to win. I said an activity that does not involve a) rules, b) competition and c) opposing parties is not a "game." It's a definitional thing.

May I also politely suggest that you stop and re-read (preferably with the intent of trying to understand, rather than with a porcupine "quills at the ready" attitude) what I said about playing a game? I have never said that anyone should play entirely with the intent of "winning." Please, please read my exchange with Slargos, especially my last message, on this point. I, personally, do not play with the sole intent of "winning" (at least not as I think you, Slargos and ryoken appear to think of it). I like both role-playing a game (see my posts in the AAR for the Chill game) and being a "Helpful Harry" (the sort of player who isn't insistent upon a major role, but likes to fill in the cracks where need be). I don't get ulcers over being #5 on a list, and I don't particularly find the Vince Lombardi opinion regarding "winning" particularly attractive.

Finally, may I suggest divorcing some of your emotion from your discussion? It is possible to have someone disagree with you without it meaning they think you have nothing of value to contribute to a conversation. Now, if I came into the thread and said, "You are all scum-sucking pigs if you think that there is any way to play but annihilation of all in your way!!!!" you might have some good reason to act offended and upset. Personally, I'd like to think that if I behaved that way, most everyone would simply laugh at the stupidity of it all and turn me "off." But I don't think that my tone, or my commentary, in any way modeled such behaviour. I don't expect anyone to roll over in awe; I do prefer rational discourse without personal insult. Don't you?

 

[unmerged(5161)]

I think perhaps there is a lack of appreciation for cruel debating. Maybe that is a Euro-vs-American thing, I dont know but I suspect it may be. You guys are a little nicer than us. With your "Vous" and "Usted" and various equivilants. We dump all that formal crap here in America, from what I have learned talking to various Europeans. That appears to annoy you guys, the lack of....deference I guess. I dont mean to stereotype and I admit I may be wrong, but that is my impression.

This has been a problem before, I roll in with language that is not offensive, violent, or directly threatening; but it is well-crafted to sting a bit.... and that seems to upset some people. Oh well, life aint all roses and peachy puffs.

Yes, I was angry, sorry. People get angry because they are human (well, maybe not Hive or Slargos, but most of us). However, as Slargos said.....

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.

and as Hive said.....

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.

Just because my words are eloquent and stinging doesnt make them less right. And why am I getting heat just for being a harsh unyielding critic? I see no criticism of my points yet.........

 

[unmerged(5161)]

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

Please, please read my exchange with Slargos, especially my last message, on this point. I, personally, do not play with the sole intent of "winning" (at least not as I think you, Slargos and ryoken appear to think of it). I like both role-playing a game (see my posts in the AAR for the Chill game) and being a "Helpful Harry" (the sort of player who isn't insistent upon a major role, but likes to fill in the cracks where need be).

This is the second time my name has not been capitalized. So what if it isnt my real name, dammit. I DEMAND RESPECT! This tone will no longer be tolerated! I shall report this to a moderator. This is a personal attack upon the very sactity of my humanity! AHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

 

[DSYoungEsq]

Well, I went to bed last night and got up today all refreshed and ready to engage in some rational debate about the concepts up for discussion. Having read what Slargos and ryoken posted, I see it's not worth the effort.

By "already been hashed out and discarded" I gather what happens to such discussions. Rather than engage in calm, rational debate, you simply raise up a bevvy posts, in which you declaim loudly and longly, with increasing "passion," your view on the matter. You ignore the actuality of what others say, mutating it to meet what you need in order for your views to seem to have merit, and hope that the cacophony of your increasingly strident, and based upon what was written last night, eventually insulting posts accomplish your goal: driving the poster out of the thread. Whereupon you happily congratulate yourselves on having once again established the "correctness" of your views. Gaaah.

Opinions aren't "right" or "wrong." I have made clear that I don't consider my opinions inherently correct. I do however defend the viewpoint I have with rational discussion; I dislike debate ad hominem and prefer the thought of finishing a discussion, even if it ends in disagreement, with the ability to look the other party in the eye and be quite willing to do something friendly with them the next time I see them.

I hope anyone reading the thread can see the irony in the fact that my post last night saying, in essence, "let's stop making personal attacks and get back to discussing the subject rationally" produced not one, not two, but three different posts in which there was an escalation of insulting tone or personal attack. And the one poster who, in a separate post addressed to someone else, in effect conceded exactly what I had been saying about the issue of "playing to win" nevertheless could not bring himself to say the same in a post directed at me. :rofl:

Now I was quite ready to take the discussion to an exchange of enjoyable PM's, perhaps some discussion on ICQ, which would release this thread to discussion of why people like the game. But I see no purpose in following up with people who behave the way of the two "gentlemen" in question. So I won't belabor the points I've made; intelligent people will understand what I mean whether or not they agree. And this way, I won't be feeding those who find insulting posts an acceptable means of engaging in discussion.

Merry Christmas, all (though goodness knows, the message is sure lost on some)

 

[unmerged(5161)]

Well, I went to bed last night and got up today all refreshed and ready to engage in some rational debate about the concepts up for discussion. Having read what Slargos and ryoken posted, I see it's not worth the effort.

3rd failure to capitalize. These ad hominem attacks must cease!

By "already been hashed out and discarded" I gather what happens to such discussions. Rather than engage in calm, rational debate, you simply raise up a bevvy posts, in which you declaim loudly and longly, with increasing "passion," your view on the matter. You ignore the actuality of what others say, mutating it to meet what you need in order for your views to seem to have merit, and hope that the cacophony of your increasingly strident, and based upon what was written last night, eventually insulting posts accomplish your goal: driving the poster out of the thread. Whereupon you happily congratulate yourselves on having once again established the "correctness" of your views. Gaaah.

As opposed to you, who without experience knows the truth and can educate us all on the matter. If we would only listen to you, poor Cassandra!

Opinions aren't "right" or "wrong." I have made clear that I don't consider my opinions inherently correct.

And I have made clear I am SURE that they are incorrect. And opinion are right or wrong. If it is my opinion that I can fly, I am wrong. You are of the opinion that you can make objective winning criterion and that would make the community better. You are wrong.

So I won't belabor the points I've made; intelligent people will understand what I mean whether or not they agree.

Who are you calling unintelligent, Mr. Ad Hominem? Obviously, those who dont understand (i.e. agree with you, almighty god) are stupid.




Now, your point was this, IF I AM NOT STUPID AND CANT UNDERSTAND, we arent listening to you or responding to your brilliant ideas. So lets take a look at what started it all!
*scratches balls like ape*

Further, even as computer games with multi-player go, EU2 has its serious drawbacks. It lacks the concept of a "win," which often leads to dead games where the only fighting that occurs comes at the artificial instigation of players who want desperately to be doing SOMETHING with their 1,000k troops and 6,6,7 leader. It is easily exploitable in a highly unrealistic way, as nations pile all their money into attempts to reach the magic steps of Infra 5 or Trade 3, and then manipulate their economies to race ahead of anyone else around. And a "game" lasts an interminably long time; to complete the GC, even with the 1453 modification, takes at least 18, and more likely 20, sessions. It is this sort of time investment that often forces very good players to take a pass on MP (e.g.: lawkeeper).

We enjoy the game as much as we do for two primary reasons:

1. We all enjoy the historical setting; it beats the artificiality of the Civilization franchise.

2. We enjoy the incredible complexity of the game; what other game attempts to model so much extraneous to what the player him/herself is doing?

Almost all the other reasons posted for enjoying the game are not limited to this game alone (e.g.: the fun of MP diplomacy, warlike interactions, etc.). Now if only more people would GM shorter scenarios, like the Thirty-Years War, or Reformation and Counter-Reformation (this game's version of A Mighty Fortress would simply rock!), with clearly defined WINS that can only be obtained at the expense of other players, we'd see some REAL MP fun.

Now you made 3 points here that we are all telling you are stupid.

1. That lacking a "win" concept is a serious drawback. I see no argument as to why this is needed. Thus us telling you that you dont know what you are talking about is not "a lack of rational debate" because there is nothing to support your position whatsoever. There is no data to discuss, no real examples, not even hypothetical examples. Just.."the game would be better if..." and that is just blowing smoke and we are attacking you for it.

2. There are no real goals in EU2, only arbitrary player-imposed goals. This goes in line with your "toy" argument about how EU2 isnt a game. I REBUTTED THIS ARGUMENT! I said that the community imposed goals are REAL GOALS and that the game is clearly winnable according to those goals; power, prestige, etc. I see no counter-argument from you on this point either.

3. The current fun is not "REAL", that "REAL" fun would commence if we just had a ladder system. This is again, totally unsupported bullshit opinion. No facts, no data, no examples, no theory. Just bullshit.

So lets see how well you are listening to us.

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.

I see no ladder game started by you. I see no proposal for a ladder game. I see no proposal for a ladder system. I see just a bunch of random thoughts that are wrong.

Your assertion that the "official" scoring system is VP is plain ridiculous. It doesn't matter what the ingame scoring system is when you have an MP community and a community scoring system. How many warcraft players seriously rank their fellow players by how many points they amass in a match? No one. They rate themselves by number of victories even through number of victories is not a scoring system innate to the game but rather to the ladder system.

I see no response to this point. I see no argument how people really seriously rank people according to point amassment. I see no explanation for the need of a scoring system besides "it would be better."

 

[Smirfy]

I'm kinda burnt out on EU2 atm actually

Time for EUIII before Enlightenment means you get death rays!

 

[Slargos]

Very well put, Ryoken. Let's see if the old guy can come up with anything besides unsubstantiated opinion.

 

[Hive]

May I politely suggest re-reading what I wrote about a "game?"

Suggest alll you want, it ain't gonna happen. Once was more than enough.

I never said you can only play a game to win. I said an activity that does not involve a) rules, b) competition and c) opposing parties is not a "game." It's a definitional thing.

Yes, I am fully aware that you wrote that - and it's still something I strongly disagree with. And the fact that Wikipedia agrees with me is all I need.

/me hugs Wikipedia

 

[Slargos]

game1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gm)
n.
An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime: party games; word games.


Dictionary.com says it and that's good enough for me. EU2 is a game.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

I am insulted... My name hasn't been mentioned for hours :rofl:

As a matter of fact I have two new ideas of how to be able to play to win this game, well at least one is new I think.

1. Play with a number of fixed alliances the whole game. The side who owns the highest number of provinces at the end wins. The first part is not new, but the second may be.

2. Suggest/convince Johan to rewrite the VP code to make it better reflect what people consider skilful gaming. This one I believe can turn out really good although it may be difficult.

Of course Hive is not interested but e.g. Ryoken (capital "R"! ) appears to play to win, and surely a lot of other players who today do not play to win in a normal way, i.e. reaching a specified - most often numerical - target, for the simple reason that it is difficult to define such a target.

Besides this attitude of yours you discuss when one player has grown "too" strong and you all quit a game. Heh. I guess he would get a hard time if most of the other players attacked him. He-he. But you perhaps consider it bad RP while some other persons might describe it as merely bad playing. It is however the normal thing to happen in those games where cooperation is possible. If one player gets far ahead the rest start to cooperate.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

game1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gm)
n.
An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime: party games; word games.


Dictionary.com says it and that's good enough for me. EU2 is a game.

That definition was really bad Slargos. It means that if I tell you a good joke (an amusing activity) we are playing a game.

 

[unmerged(5161)]

Actually, I dont really play to win. I play to neuter. I want to turn all my neighbors into neutered powers that cannot threaten me. Preferably, they cannot even survive without my support.

Of course, I have only actually ACHIEVED this goal a couple of times, but that is my goal; neutering.

I should change my name to The Sterilizer.

 

[Slargos]

That definition was really bad Slargos. It means that if I tell you a good joke (an amusing activity) we are playing a game.

As I know it pleases you, Daniel, here's the rest of it:

game1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gm)
n.
An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime: party games; word games.

A competitive activity or sport in which players contend with each other according to a set of rules: the game of basketball; the game of gin rummy.
A single instance of such an activity: We lost the first game.
games An organized athletic program or contest: track-and-field games; took part in the winter games.
A period of competition or challenge: It was too late in the game to change the schedule of the project.

The total number of points required to win a game: One hundred points is game in bridge.
The score accumulated at any given time in a game: The game is now 14 to 12.
The equipment needed for playing certain games: packed the children's games in the car.
A particular style or manner of playing a game: improved my tennis game with practice.
Informal.
An active interest or pursuit, especially one involving competitive engagement or adherence to rules: “the way the system operates, the access game, the turf game, the image game” (Hedrick Smith).
A business or occupation; a line: the insurance game.
An illegal activity; a racket.
Informal.
Evasive, trifling, or manipulative behavior: wanted a straight answer, not more of their tiresome games.
A calculated strategy or approach; a scheme: I saw through their game from the very beginning.
Mathematics. A model of a competitive situation that identifies interested parties and stipulates rules governing all aspects of the competition, used in game theory to determine the optimal course of action for an interested party.

Wild animals, birds, or fish hunted for food or sport.
The flesh of these animals, eaten as food.

An object of attack, ridicule, or pursuit: The press considered the candidate's indiscretions to be game.
Mockery; sport: The older children teased and made game of the newcomer.

----------------------

I believe anyone will have a hard time making a rational and logical case for EU2 not being a game. the reverened esquire certainly hasn't.

 

[Hive]

I am insulted... My name hasn't been mentioned for hours :rofl:

Only because we went to bed.

As a matter of fact I have two new ideas of how to be able to play to win this game, well at least one is new I think.

1. Play with a number of fixed alliances the whole game. The side who owns the highest number of provinces at the end wins. The first part is not new, but the second may be.

But that will take away much of the joy of EU2, the versatility in having alliances change over and over. It will simply become too stale and boring to play with the same alliances throughout the entire game imo.

2. Suggest/convince Johan to rewrite the VP code to make it better reflect what people consider skilful gaming. This one I believe can turn out really good although it may be difficult.

Removing VPs for exploration would be a start... however, I would personally rather see Johan concentrate on gameplay aspects rather than VPs in a possible new patch. They simply aren't important enough for me.

Besides this attitude of yours you discuss when one player has grown "too" strong and you all quit a game. Heh. I guess he would get a hard time if most of the other players attacked him. He-he. But you perhaps consider it bad RP while some other persons might describe it as merely bad playing. It is however the normal thing to happen in those games where cooperation is possible. If one player gets far ahead the rest start to cooperate.

Often, a nation getting too uber can indeed be stopped if the others unite. But sometimes, most people just realize it too late... and there's also the fact that a strong and rich nation can always find itself allies in one form or the other...

 

[Swuul]

I play to lose. And then, as tru crybaby, I complain about the unfairness of everything in the most zealotic way I can. If I didn't take a mighty beating every now and then, how could I vent my righteous fury? Why should I ever play EU2 MP then?

 

[Fredrik82]

Actually, I dont really play to win. I play to neuter. I want to turn all my neighbors into neutered powers that cannot threaten me. Preferably, they cannot even survive without my support.

Of course, I have only actually ACHIEVED this goal a couple of times, but that is my goal; neutering.

I should change my name to The Sterilizer.

Indeed, this is the way i prefer to play also. I think i have only succeeded once or twice though

 

[Tem_Probe]

I play to lose. And then, as tru crybaby, I complain about the unfairness of everything in the most zealotic way I can. If I didn't take a mighty beating every now and then, how could I vent my righteous fury? Why should I ever play EU2 MP then?

:rofl:

 

[saskganesh]

bit of a savage thread to read, this.

 

[Slargos]

bit of a savage thread to read, this.

We be a savage lot, we EU2 MPers. Rowr. Garr.