Baalz' good player pledge

[Baalz]

As most of the more experienced Dominions players know, the scourge of playing pickup games is people just abandoning the game due to lack of interest or discouragement after a big fight, and throwing everybody left into a lurch. Sometimes this can immediately trash a game, but more often the impact is more subtle with a couple players reaping huge benefits from an absentee neighbor thus giving a much less satisfying game to both the somewhat hollow victory and the virtually unpreventable defeat if this happens several times in a game. I’ve seen much sentiment growing among vets that they’re only going to play private games with people they know to be reliable. The problem with this is that it’s not only unfair to the good new players who can contribute to the game, it’s also a sure way to stagnate the community as it chokes off the fresh blood. So, what to do?

I propose a good player pledge, and future games I host will only allow players undersigned in this thread (any other interested game host can link here). By posting “I pledge” in this thread you’re swearing to abide by the pledge at the bottom of this post. A little cheesy? Maybe. Gonna be 100% effective? Definitely not. Hopefully though it’ll make people think about the commitment they make to the other players when joining a game. Anybody who thinks this is a bit over the top to play “just a game” is free to play with whomever they want very casually, but I’m only interested in playing with others who share my commitment to the games I join given the amount of time and effort I put in. Note, this pledge is to put in a reasonable effort, so nobody should ever be put into a miserable situation by taking it. If you're honestly bored to death with a position that just won't die and can't in good conscience inflict it on another player...do what you gotta do with a clear conscience....but just don't ever walk away leaving a staling nation.

Here’s Baalz’ Good Player Pledge:

I pledge to do my part to bring to completion the dominions multiplayer games I participate in which link to this thread. I realize that while it’s “just a game” it also represents a significant amount of time and effort by all the other players of the game and I will make a reasonable effort to fulfill my responsibility to their enjoyment just as they are doing for me. If for any reason I can’t or don’t want to keep playing a game in progress I’ll try to secure a substitute player to fill in for me (generally just make a post asking for one in the forums). If real life prevents me from doing this (emergencies, lack of internet access, etc) I will at the very least try to contact the game administrator and ask him to do it – realizing this is an imposition that should be reserved for things other than lack of interest. I will not set my nation to AI until 1) No substitute is able to be found after a couple days or 2) My capital has fallen (feel free to play through this if you like). I’ll do my best to at least put up a token defense with the last of my forces when defeat is all but certain – this doesn’t take much time and makes the game much better for everyone else.

[Gregstrom]

Well, I'm willing to kick things off by taking the pledge.

[Jarkko]

I pledge.

[TwoBits]

Well, my first three MP games (plus one temporary substitution) are still ongoing. I'd like to say "I pledge", but until I earn it by finishing my current games, I know it's just words.

Even so, I take the pledge. Let's just hope I can match words with deeds. I'll do my best :)

[Stretch]

This is a great idea. I take this pledge, with the caveat that I will do everything in my power to fight to the bitter end!

[Black Sun Empire]

I pledge, even if I am currently playing my first MP game.

[Gandalf Parker]

Its always been my style. I will also take the pledge quite happily.
Its along the same line as the point I was trying to make when I used this sig sometimes.

Gandalf Parker
--
Do not go quietly into the night
rage rage rage against the dying of the light - Dylan Thomas
What does that mean? It means dont be a putz and quit the
multiplayer game before all of your candles are snuffed.

[LDiCesare]

I'll pledge.
However I'll only put token effort if staling because a reasonable delay I asked (less than 48h) hasn't been granted.

[Fakeymcfake]

Sounds good to me, I've only been in a couple games where sudden disappearances haven't played an important part in whom takes the lead.

Consider me pledged.

[Agema]

Pledged.

[analytic_kernel]

I pledge.

[Raiel]

I, too, will take this pledge.

[Mithras]

I'm quite happy to pledge, there's usually an interesting way to go out and always something to learn.

[Dimaz]

I pledge.

[Jazzepi]

I don't pledge, but...

I think this is fine if people know that they're going into a "commitment game" or something where they're expected to fight to the bitter end. I think it's also pretty clear that everyone has different definitions of at what point their nation becomes a hopeless train wreck. Losing one's capital is an arbitrary point, but at least an acceptable rule of thumb.

For example, I surrendered a rather large nation to the AI in Beyond after trying to fight off Pythium with a huge research deficit (I had just finished a twenty turn war) and just getting all three of my large armies smashed. I tried to appeal to other people that Pythium was a game ending threat, but I got absolutely no response, so I just went AI as it was a foregone conclusion to me that if Pythium gobbled me up he would more than double his gem production, and everyone else would be screwed. So I just went AI, as I couldn't provide any real defense besides hiding in fortresses anyways. To me the position, even the game for the other players, was clearly hopeless long before I lost my capital. I got attacked by Pythium wielding an amazing force of mages, and heavily artifact equipped SCs, backed up by several very strong armies, with zero help from neighbors.

It's also ironic to see this thread come up virtually at the same time that Burnsaber is abandoning EA Oceanian (without asking for a sub) in Legends of Faerun (that game + Beardaxe which are probably the impetus for Baalz making this post) with Baalz's blessing. I'm not really sure what to think of that, besides that any kind of "wriggle room" in the rules is undoubtedly going to be a dramafest when person A feels like person B shouldn't be allowed to leave their post.

So, that's a lot of stuff, but I actually have something useful to say too.

1. You should eliminate the wiggle room for people leaving their posts. It's going to cause you a TON of headaches.

2. You need to setup a simple way to determine who is, or who is not, "on the good list".

Even if you do 1, you're still going to have problems where something happens because you haven't setup some sort of structure for deciding who belongs on the list of players following these rules, and who doesn't. For example, Trumator set himself to AI in Legends of Faerun on accident, and I heard some grumblings that it was on purpose. Should he be "stricken from the honor roll" for doing that? Who would decide? Baalz? Or whomever the admin of the game was?

Obviously the same question would apply to a situation like in Legends as far as EA Oceanian is concerned where someone sets an untenable position to AI without discussing it with anyone until after the fact. Even if they do bring it up with everyone, and then say that they don't want to play it anymore, and nobody will sub, who gets to decide that they can leave? Is it a group vote from the people in the game? Or does someone outside the game get to decide? Or just the admin?

So, if you resolve those problems, I think I would be interested in playing to a "fight to the bitter end" game, but not until there are better procedures put into place. At least it would be better if everyone went in with the same expectations from a game, rather than people trying to foist their very narrow view of how people should play onto others simply by assumption.

TL;DR version - Great idea in the abstract, fix the implementation and I'd be happy to take this pledge for games labeled as "good pledge" games. I would never agree to something this sweeping for every game I ever played.

Jazzepi

[LoloMo]

I pledge.

[Lavaere]

I want to say that I pledge alligence to your ideal Baalz
LOL, that sounds so weird. But I can't. Yes I probably fight to the end. Probably even after my forts are all gone. But other times even with a relatively good sized nations. If I see no point because I forsee a certain nations win. I'd rather just set to AI and be done with it. Though thats more later in the game.

[Baalz]

I've got no interest in policing a whitelist or telling anyone they're not on the approved list (outside of very extreme cases). I've also got no interest in trying to compel anyone to play who is significantly disinterested in a position both unlikely to die soon and uninteresting to a sub (been there). At the end of the day the point of this pledge is to make sure evereyone I play with in the future weighs some importance for their responsibility to the other players who put hundreds of hours into a given game. Everyone can decide for themselves what reasonable effort etc. means and any drama caused is purely the responsibility of whoever brings it. The capitol rule of thumb is to set the bar a bit higher than "my main army just died"...which is the reason I did't say something really ambiguous like play until defeat is almost certain. In most cases if defeat is certain you can take your turns in 5 minutes and have your capitol fall in a handful of turns but it makes a big difference for everyone else.

[chrispedersen]

I'd rather see this applied to games. Some games take a lot of effort to set up - you'd like to see the players be 'good' players.

Other games, you want to goof around, try a different strategy, perhaps not be so exacting.

So, I'll definitely take the pledge on games where the administrator asks or sets it up that way.

[Alpine Joe]

I'd rather see this applied to games. Some games take a lot of effort to set up - you'd like to see the players be 'good' players.

Other games, you want to goof around, try a different strategy, perhaps not be so exacting.

So, I'll definitely take the pledge on games where the administrator asks or sets it up that way.

Yeah I agree with this. If, when a game is created, the game creator specifies the game is only for players who actually fight to the literal death, I would commit to fighting to the absolute last gold piece.

Which I suppose would be any game where the creator specifies they are abiding by the rules of this pledge, although it seems simple enough for that creator to state them out in the game's OP.

[TwoBits]

Which I suppose would be any game where the creator specifies they are abiding by the rules of this pledge, although it seems simple enough for that creator to state them out in the game's OP.

Yeah, you'd think. But who knows what goes through people's heads. I'm in the early stages of a RAND game just now, and someone just asked another player for a NAP! :shock: So not everyone plays by (or even bothers to read) the rules. It would be nice to have a list of players who were truly dedicated, if not to fighting to the bitter, un-fun, suicidal end, to at least agreeing to give it their utmost effort (define that as you will).

[statttis]

Fighting to the bitter, suicidal end is fun :). Plus it's a good way to learn some new tricks. When you're trying to beat an invasion army with half a dozen low level mages and a few gems, you learn to make good use of the spells.

I'll pledge.

[Hadrian_II]

I somewhat pledge

I will never leave games until defeated. But i might consider myself defeated, even if i still have my capitol (but nothing much else). Also if your capitol is close to the border, it might be captured fast even if after that you will have most of your power intact and when a player would do this even if clearly violating the spirit of the pledge it would be respecting the letter of it. For the pledge to carry some weight, i would define some clear rules until you have to stay.

Like for example:

Less than 5 Provinces and an army smaller than 300 points.

[Micah]

Yeah I agree with this. If, when a game is created, the game creator specifies the game is only for players who actually fight to the literal death, I would commit to fighting to the absolute last gold piece.

Oh no, this is the whole point of the thread: Fighting until the point where you are unable to affect the outcome of the game is what most experienced players in the community feel should be the default setting for MP games on this forum, not the exception to the rule. Games that want to depart from that ideal are free to do so, but the burden to specify that "setting" is on those that want less committed players.

I mean, seriously, would many of you really sign up for a game that advertised "staling and going AI are completely fine in this game, players are encouraged to do so if they wish." I think not, and hence it should not be the default assumption.

Addition: As for my personal pledge, I think my actions speak for themsleves.

[ano]

I'd second Hadrian here. Frankly speaking, I nearly never had to quit early and at later stages defeat may become absolutely obvious when you still have a lot of land. It will take a long time to kill you but that is decided for sure. You were in similar situation, Baalz, if I remember what I read correctly, in Artifacts game. You even had a Forge and everybody thought you're perfectly fine while you knew you had absolutely no chance of anything. So, probably, things are a bit more complicated here.
Personally I will lose all interest in the game when, say, something weird happens at first turns (plague, Bogus or mandragora attack on turn 2 is the most obvious). Who knows, how long it takes for others to kill you after that? A year? Or maybe two? Will you perform much better than AI? I doubt it.
I'd say I agree to do everything I can when it makes sense and also to find a sub when it doesn't. Also, I'd agree to make reasonable effort to make game more interesting for others even when it loses interest for me. But definitely this is not fighting till the last breath (or even the capital).

[Micah]

Ano - Hmm...Baalz stuck out Artifacts as Utgard until the (practical) end of the game, so I'm not sure why you're referencing it. And I've had bad luck on turn 1 to the point where I knew I was "defeated" and stuck the game out. (Dead pretender, for the record) I'm sure I played it a lot better than the AI would have and avoided creating a huge power imbalance in the game by fighting to the end as opposed to rolling over and giving my cap to my next-door neighbor without a fight. I actually managed to kill off HIS pretender when he got greedy and lasted quite a while (til level 6 research, I remember him casting arrow fend) The turns took 5 minutes and really weren't an issue.

[Calahan]

I would sign up to this, but to be honest, what I see outlined in the proposal is just an incredibly 'lite' version of the promise I made myself before I played even my first MP game. So if I signed up for this, I'd actually feel I was lowering my standards, which may lead me into bad habits. As to date I've never turned myself AI ever, and don't ever intend to either. But signing this might lead me towards thinking.......

"I'm not enjoying this game, and I'd never normally quit, but it's ok in this game because it's within the bounds of the pledge". Which to be honest is not a train of thought I even want to entertain.

And as has been pointed out already, having any sort of loose criteria for when you can set yourself AI just leaves everything open to an individuals interpretation, which can only lead to arguments if one player interprets it differently to other players.


But reading some of the comments here has made me think that not everyone has the same version of what the 'default' commitment to a game should be. My default is that I'll never set myself AI, while others have the 'default' of playing until they get bored, or they find something better to do with their time. With many choosing to play until they conclude they will eventually lose whatever war(s) they are fighting, and see no point in staying around for the inevitable. Which of course opens up another can of worms regarding when, and how early, a conclusion like that can, or should be made.

So maybe the solution is that every new game that starts up should be absolutely clear on whether it is a 'serious' type of game, which rightly brings with it all the associated commitments of fighting until the bitter end. Or if the game is designed more for just pure fun, and anyone signing up is free to play for just the enjoyment of playing, and isn't expected to stay committed long term if they don't want to for any reason. Not sure if this would solve the problem, but if during sign-up it was crystal clear to each potential player if that game was 'serious' or 'fun', then I think it can only help.


But then having said this, Baalz was pretty damn clear from the start about the level of commitment he expected from players signing-up for the Legends of Faerun game, but it didn't help one bit there. But if there is ever going to be a good 'vet' to 'new player' mix in future games, which I think is important for community health, then some sort of solution needs to be found I think. Since bailers and AI setters are easily my number one hate in MP games by some distance, and I haven't been playing anywhere near as long as most of the vets have. So I can only imagine what strong feelings and opinions they have on this matter.

So in light of this, it's easy for me to understand why the veteran players would want to severely limit their expose to new, unknown players. As who wants to take the risk of having potentially hundreds of hours of their time wasted by playing in games that could be ruined at any moment by unknown players bailing or going AI. Logic says it's safer to just stick with the small pool of players you know, even if it means that pool very rarely grows.


And for the record, my pledge is: Nothing in-game will ever cause me to set my nation AI. But of course I can not put any guarantee on events in Real Life.

[Alpine Joe]

Yeah I agree with this. If, when a game is created, the game creator specifies the game is only for players who actually fight to the literal death, I would commit to fighting to the absolute last gold piece.

Oh no, this is the whole point of the thread: Fighting until the point where you are unable to affect the outcome of the game is what most experienced players in the community feel should be the default setting for MP games on this forum, not the exception to the rule. Games that want to depart from that ideal are free to do so, but the burden to specify that "setting" is on those that want less committed players.

I mean, seriously, would many of you really sign up for a game that advertised "staling and going AI are completely fine in this game, players are encouraged to do so if they wish." I think not, and hence it should not be the default assumption.

Addition: As for my personal pledge, I think my actions speak for themsleves.

Yes but fighting to the last gold piece and fighting until a lost capital are two different things, and different still from fighting past the time you have no hope of winning. In the case Jazzepi described, he had no hope of winning but could still effect the outcome. Did his leaving violate an unwritten rule? If so, why not just state the rule clearly.

I suppose, as I think about it more, this thread makes sense in that context, as it provides a common context for standards that I don't believe are as clear as Micah lays out, at least not for all games. That being the case, I sign on, and would encourage others to do the same.

[ano]

I meant this post (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showpost.php?p=689569&postcount=699) when I spoke of Baalz' position in Artifacts. Of course I don't know what happened there but WL is referencing graphs here and I remember myself looking at them then.
As for your second point... Well, perhaps you're right but it would be very hard for me to act this way. Very hard to lose turn by turn and understand it's inevitable when you always aim to win.
However, there was one game long ago when I was ready to quit being pressed by 3 nations with no chance of success. Leaders were far far ahead and there was absolutely no light in the end of the tunnel. And the same turn I decided to quit my biggest enemy suggested eternal peace because of "senseless war". Well, that was when I decided I should win and did it.

[Calahan]

.....Will you perform much better than AI? I doubt it....

I'd personally find it impossible not to perform better than the AI would in any situation. Scripting a single mage sensibly means doing better than the AI. Not buying loads of militia means doing better than the AI. Equipping a single item properly means doing better than the AI. Not attempting a suicidal break siege is doing better than the AI would. Even if I had just one Indy tribe mage left, I'd put him front centre and tell him to cast Vine Arrow. And even just that token effort would be doing better than the AI.

Would the end result of all this, ie. defeat, be the same given a hopeless position? Yes probably. Would the journey be the same? Not even close. And the journey is by far the most important thing for keeping games balanced.

[chrispedersen]

Oh no, this is the whole point of the thread: Fighting until the point where you are unable to affect the outcome of the game is what most experienced players in the community feel should be the default setting for MP games on this forum, not the exception to the rule.

Micah, I know of no facts that allow you to represent what most experienced players feel. It is certainly true that many experienced players feel that way.

Even so, I have seen a *lot* of experienced players bow out of games, including probably half of the hall of famers.

As an example of both sides of this issue: In Faerun, TC has run away with the game due to skill -but also due to his taking territories from nations that dropped.

I volunteered to sub in for Sauromatia (one nation that was staling). Doing a turn is probably 6-8 hours of sheer drudgery. I have no chances in the game. There are no interesting plays in the game. Frankly, it is like running your fingernails down a blackboard. Not too many people play sub positions - but require them to play to the end - and that number goes way down.

I understand that when you're the best - you want to play the best. You want the game decided by skill - not by someone dropping.

I agree completely.

But I don't want to be compelled to play a game that is drudgery hour after hour, turn after turn, merely because I signed up for a game.

More casual games want to play a game, to less exacting standards, I believe. Thats why I believe it is appropriate to do this on a per game basis. Nor do I think it is beneficial, reasonable, or possible to hold new players to these standards.

A new player is just going to say, screw this. I signed up to play a game, not waterboarding.

So telling people what the expectations are at the beginning of the game I think goes a long way towards reducing everyone's frustrations.

I think perhaps giving some turns of notice before staling, might also be beneficial, giving multiple nations the opportunity to profit - rather than only immediate nations.

[Alpine Joe]

.....Will you perform much better than AI? I doubt it....

I'd personally find it impossible not to perform better than the AI would in any situation. Scripting a single mage sensibly means doing better than the AI. Not buying loads of militia means doing better than the AI. Equipping a single item properly means doing better than the AI. Not attempting a suicidal break siege is doing better than the AI would. Even if I had just one Indy tribe mage left, I'd put him front centre and tell him to cast Vine Arrow. And even just that token effort would be doing better than the AI.

Would the end result of all this, ie. defeat, be the same given a hopeless position? Yes probably. Would the journey be the same? Not even close. And the journey is by far the most important thing for keeping games balanced.

Heh Calahan the AI would probably be doing better than me in Cripple_Fight, where I have played about 20 turns in pretty much this exact situation waiting for you to finish me off. Although I have learned a ton from watching different things fail miserably in that position, so I guess even that game (and bogarus in general) has value :)

[Micah]

Ano - The post you linked was WRT a concession, as opposed to a abandoning a position-in-progress. Deciding to end a game as a group is a very different situation from a single player abandoning their position. I don't have any issues with people moving to end a game, just with them leaving a game that is yet to be decided. Sorry that I didn't make this distinction clear in an earlier post.

[rdonj]

Pledged.

[Stretch]

And I've had bad luck on turn 1 to the point where I knew I was "defeated" and stuck the game out. (Dead pretender, for the record) I'm sure I played it a lot better than the AI would have and avoided creating a huge power imbalance in the game by fighting to the end as opposed to rolling over and giving my cap to my next-door neighbor without a fight. I actually managed to kill off HIS pretender when he got greedy and lasted quite a while (til level 6 research, I remember him casting arrow fend) The turns took 5 minutes and really weren't an issue.

This is the example of what I think that this pledge is designed to promote. Even with a big empire, someone playing it half-assed is still much better than the AI. Maybe you can't go full out, but you can set up some scripting, queue some rituals and try and catch a big few armies off guard. It doesn't have to be perfect, but at least you won't have a huge unbalancing effect.

[Burnsaber]

Excuse me for grammar, I'm just watching a freaking Rocky marathon and I'm a bit drunk. But I feel like I must respond immediately.

Jazeppi just said that I was one player to start this thread because I went suddenly AI. Sure my position was poor, the definition of underdog. But that didn't get me. I'm fine with playing the underdog, just ask TC in crusaders or Baalz in Sentient Machines.

Sure I didn't have many late-game tools available. But I'm fine with that. Just ask those who stick out to the ending of Rothfuss game.

But Baalz advertised the game as roleplaying one. I really looked forward to it. Like chronicles, you know, without the requiment that you have to write something, even if you're not feeling like it. When Calahan made his first awesome in-character post, I was absolutely hyped and started to write my own stuff.

But I was EA Oceania. Really go ahead, go ahead and read the descriptions for the units in the nation. Trust me, it won't take long. Not much to work with, eh? I had all these cool stories in my head, but they just wouldn't have worked with vanilla Oceania. it was simply aggravating. Everytime I looked at the units, I just saw my writers block all over.

It was like being Bit*h-slapped by the game everytime I opened the recruitment screen. I just lost heart and did a half-assed job of the nation. I got provinces (because I got oceans uncontested because coobe left), I got pretty nice gem income, but I just didn't do anything with it.

Now the nations in the late game and all I see is lost opportunities. If I had started moving those triton kings in turn 30, if I had forged that in turn 40, if I had empowered that in turn 35... Trudt me in this, the nation might be doing well in the graphs, but it's just a air balloon.

But anyways, I pledge. I just won't make the mistake of joining a random EA nation game ever again.

[Micah]

Chris - Just stating my observations of what I've seen and heard, I spend a lot of time in the IRC channel with most of the active vets, and I've played in quite a few games with them, so I think I have a pretty good handle on how they act in games.

Faerun does bring up a good point though: Late game dominions sucks, and maps shouldn't be that big. Prepo did a great job ramming that point home, it's just too much mm. I pushed to have Prepo end because it was heading that direction at a very quick clip, and people were already burning out...I'd encourage the Fearun players to consider a draw/concession given the horror stories I've heard about it, though I have no stake in the game at all.

[Baalz]

Maybe I wasn't very clear but my intent was to standardize a pledge that specific games could optionally link to. That's what I meant by "games I participate in which link to this thread." The reason I put this in a separate thread from a game thread rather than just pasting it to every game I host is because I feel like plenty of "casual" players don't really read all that stuff (as witnesed by the dropout rate in the legends game...I *begged* people to not sign up unless they wouldn't abandon the game). If people have to at least come to this thread and read it enough to figure out what to do I'm hoping they'll at least appreciate the commitment they're making to all the other players.

[Jazzepi]

Jazeppi just said that I was one player to start this thread because I went suddenly AI. Sure my position was poor, the definition of underdog. But that didn't get me. I'm fine with playing the underdog, just ask TC in crusaders or Baalz in Sentient Machines.

I know you're drunk, but I just wanted to make it clear that I didn't think that you, in particular, were the impetus for this thread. Legends of Faerun, for whatever reason, has been mired in leavers including a Jomon who left in the middle of invading Sauromatia (who also left).

Beardaxe had some strange disappearances as well, including Atlantis who owned all the seas and had Forge of the Ancients up, clearly had some artifacts, and then just vanished.

Also, I personally had zero problem with you leaving. I've been in that situation before, and it's no good. There's no reason to trudge through the actions for a nation where you're just shepherding it to a slow, boring, demise.

Jazzepi

[Burnsaber]

Also, I personally had zero problem with you leaving. I've been in that situation before, and it's no good. There's no reason to trudge through the actions for a nation where you're just shepherding it to a slow, boring, demise.
Jazzepi

Yeah, I re-read your post now that my heads a bit more clear. I apologize for my sudden burst. Beer goggles make you read stuff funnily (Rocky 1 & 2 went like a charm, but in 3 I started to depend on drinks to pull me through :D).

[chrispedersen]

New nick for Burnsaber: Adrian!

[Stretch]

There's no reason to trudge through the actions for a nation where you're just shepherding it to a slow, boring, demise.

I thought that the point of this thread was that some people think there is a point of at least keeping it respectable so that the game isn't unbalanced by your sudden forfeiture.

[Black Sun Empire]

There's no reason to trudge through the actions for a nation where you're just shepherding it to a slow, boring, demise.

I thought that the point of this thread was that some people think there is a point of at least keeping it respectable so that the game isn't unbalanced by your sudden forfeiture.

In my understanding, this is exactly why there is a pledge. The person will do everything in their power to cause as much damage as possible. Surely when you're down to your last few forces, the turns will be short.

You owe it to everyone to spend those 5-15minutes completing the turn.

[vfb]

But who do you cause damage to? It's easy if you're being invaded. Here's a couple imaginary examples where it's a bit different:

1) You're the intended victim of an early rush. Your expansion is severely curtailed, but you manage to win a big fight against your attacker. Your neighbors who in the meantime have been expanding like crazy, now take the opportunity to fight it out over your rusher's capitol, while you're left with 3 provinces, a feebleminded and crippled god, and no reason to take sides in the current fight.

2) You attack a neighbor in the mid-game, but it was a bad choice because he turns out to be a dominions kung-fu master and he totally decimates your forces. You then beg and plead with third party for help, and he turns out to be Chuck Norris, and wipes out the kung-fu master. But now you've only got your saviour Chuck Norris as a neighbor, and you're MA Agartha so it's not like you're going to be sneaking or teleporting anywhere. You're too puny for Chuck Norris to even consider wasting his time invading.

That's just a couple ideas off the top of my head. Burnsaber's crippled Oceania position in Faerun is another example.

Here's another aspect to consider too: as the losing side in a war, you sometimes know when you've been defeated. As far as you can see, your opponent has outperformed or outmaneuvered or just plain outwitted you, and there's nothing you know of that you can do to even touch him. It was a totally fair fight, you just lost. So, how far do you go? Do you pillage your homelands and raze your capitol's castle and lab, and poison the wells, etc? On the other hand, is it fair to hand the nation over to a replacement sub? Maybe the sub knows something you don't, and can even turn the war around. It could be that the "fairer" choice as far as winning is concerned would be to go AI. Personal note though: if I was the "winning" nation, I'd prefer to fight the sub and lose, rather than fight an AI and win. I need my strategy lessons pummeled into me! :)

[Kuritza]

Do as much damage as possible?

You know, there is a difference between resisting till the end, mustering your forces and trying to survive while you can... And just turtling in your castles and, say, sending black minions with bane venom charms without even trying to give a good fight.
There are different opinions about Burning Earth strategy; I think its rather unportsmanlike. Do your best to survive, make him bleed for every province he takes etc - but if you know you are dead, just die already and try to do better next time.
Others will disagree and say Burning Earth is very fun and fair. Who's right, who's wrong? I doubt there is one true answer.

Where was I...
Ahem, there are situations when going AI is a good thing to do. When you just know you dont have any tricks left (your God has died, your research is low, your enemies are well ahead of you), you can just as well let the AI handle your troops. AI doesnt mind micro-management, and he doesnt stale.

[ano]

The latter is very important. Having no actual reason to play well people will be even more likely to stale. And even one or two stales can make AI more efficient in the situation (at least he recruits troops)

[Illuminated One]

Scorched earth -> you (my invader) are not going to win -> someone else has to win -> for maximum effect the person in the lead is going to get everything I have left in the lab...
Furthering the lead the leading player is not exactly more fair than just going AI.


Anyway talking about fair or balanced (see vfb's point) or when you can't do anything makes little sense imo.
Especially in the situation that A feels like there's nothing he can do (and therefore a sub isn't found easily) it's only a conflict between three player interests.
Player A: I can't win this war so I can as well give up.
Player B: Hahaha, all these territories without resistance. It's really sad to see you leave A.
Player C: Keep playing A. You don't have to play to win. But if you stop now B will secure such a huge lead I can't win anymore. You completely ruin the game. Why should I keep playing if I can't win?


All I'd say is that it is more fun to play against human than against AI, and in that spirit I'll try to get a sub when I go out in future games.
I wont commit myself to finishing a game where I've nothing left to do, or that I find hard to handle, though.
I'll also refrain from attacks on staling neighbours unless I'm driving his invasion army out or he has freespawn.

[Kietsensei]

Pledged

[Toran]

I pledge, although it's been my guide line all the time anyway.



Plus Beardaxe really saddens me *sniff*

[the Vanishag]

I pledge.

On a point related to the practical concerns here (rather than the ethical ones, e.g. "what is a player's responsability?") this brings up the general problem with the A.I. Is there any way for players to get "under the hood" and mod it? I don't have the skills necessary, but a friend of mine teaches AI for games, and I just *might* be able to get him interested.

[Hoplosternum]

This debate goes far beyond Dom 3. Most mp games have similar issues with the disappearence of players or switching to AI rather than fighting out hopeless positions to the end (or far nearer the end). Civ 4 and Age of Wonders has/had it and I am sure plenty of others do to.

In boardgaming circles there are similar issues in long games. Especially if they go over one session or were being played remotely (by post or email say). Would a down on his luck Prussia in Empires in Arms turn up for the next session? Would a weakened Italy continue to hand in turns after defeat was certain or he had become marginalised in Diplomacy? And if you think the AI is bad in games such as this they still put up a much better performance than boardgames where there is none or terrible 'uncontrolled power' rules.

There is also the related issue of the kingmaker problem. Where the players who can't win often decide who does by their actions. This kingmaker problem is well known and much hated in boardgame circles. Most boardgame designers would jump at the chance of being able to set players to AI rather than have them both have to play on when they are bored as they can't win and possibly arbitarilly decide who wins by their actions. Many are designed so that kingmaker opportunities are restricted or comebacks are far easier than in a game like Dom 3 where once you are behind you have little chance.

So some of us have been dealing with the problem of what and how should people behave once they can't realistically win for a long long time. And there is no right answer that I have come across. In the case of close friends or even just people you are staring at across the gaming table the issue of someone nipping out to make the tea and then never returning is not usually a problem. But on the internet people can just disappear easily.

But in both cases I don't think the obligation is purely on the loser. This game has a problem that powers doing badly are marginalised easily. Nor can allies help each other very easily even if they wanted to. You can't give research or units. You cannot (within the game) even give maps or details of what you know of enemy dispositions or abilities. And of course it is the culture that there are no joint wins so the allies will need to turn on each other at some point even if successful.

This doesn't make it a bad game but does mean that a game has a lot of marginalised players and therefore likely to have a lot of drop outs. I am not sure pledges - whether made or not - will stop people leaving games they no longer enjoy.

If you are really concerned then put in rules or conventions to encourage those who are unlikely to win to continue. A few months ago someone suggested setting up a Dom 3 ladder where you would get points for lasting a long time or for being second or third rather than just for winning. That gives incentives to people to play on. But the ladder idea never caught on and many people seemed to have a downer on the whole idea which I didn't really understand. Or there could be more games where ad hoc teams could form so that while you may be in a position where you couldn't win alone you might win as part of an alliance?

But in the end I suspect that you won't be able to stop drop outs. You may be better off trying to get people to adjust to them better. Personally I am far more concerned by people who vanish than hand over to the AI early. The AI at least does something (unlike someone staleing every turn). A pledge where all agree to announce when they are leaving the game (and to turn themselves AI) would be good. And it's not very onerous so people can fulfill it easily unlike playing on and on.

Possibly the leaver should also say who his neighbours are too. Then everyone in that game can adjust their own diplomacy and strategy to the fact that nation X has suddenly become easy territories for it's neighbours. After all this game has uneven nation strengths and uneven luck on battle, provinces, site finds etc. and it is all overcome to a greater or lesser extent by diplomacy and player skill. Why should the leavers problem be any different? And why is this different from someone taking advantage of the often wildly different skill levels of players?

[LDiCesare]

An option in some games would be to have a gamemaster take over the roles of all those who would drop. This would require a lot of dedication, because you'd have to play several nations keeping in mind they are not allied and not trying to win but just to survive. If one nation made a comeback, gamemaster could look for a sub.

[Gregstrom]

I think NvV's idea of alternates has a lot going for it, too.

[statttis]

once you are behind you have little chance.


I think this attitude is the real problem. Too often players will go AI after any setback when they still have an excellent chance of winning. Being behind doesn't mean as much as most people think. Get a surprise victory and a new ally and you can go from irrelevant to major player in just a few turns.

[llamabeast]

Pledged.

[Lingchih]

I'll pledge, but you have to include the "Artifacts Exception".

As in, the recent Artifacts game, which went on so long and fruitlessly that most players decided it was either go AI or blow their brains out. Although, oddly enough, subs were eventually found for everybody.

[DakaSha]

i pledge

[Septimius Severus]

I pledge.

Some games, particularly large ones or team games, often require a great deal of time and effort to create, organize, and/or participate in, so being a responsible/considerate player in this sort of game is essential and should be a given.

[Frozen Lama]

pledged

[Trumanator]

pledged

[JR77]

I pledge!

[Strabo]

I pledge

[Morpf]

i pledge

[Squirrelloid]

I so pledge, not that I wasn't going to do those things anyway...

[Fantomen]

I pledge

[Aethyr]

I Pledge

[Calahan]

:) Judging by the large number of players signing up for this Pledge, you'd swear that the vast majority of players fight to the last in every game. When in reality the opposite is closer to the truth for most MP games.

Be interesting to see/hear how MP games play out from now on, and to see if this Pledge does have any of its intended effect of encouraging players to fight past their initial thoughts of "I just lost a few fights, so therefore I'm outta here". Time will tell :)

[rdonj]

The hardest it will be for me is when I'm subbing for someone else. In my own games I will fight either to the last or global succession, unless I am in the most boring position ever (10-13 provs, surrounded by AIs and the two strongest players, neither of which feels like putting me out of my misery. i.e. Human War :hurt:). When I'm subbing, I don't really care about the nation I'm playing. I probably don't even like it. Yet I continue playing because the rest of the game needs me. If only it were more possible to get subs for burnt out subs.

[Calahan]

....When I'm subbing, I don't really care about the nation I'm playing. I probably don't even like it. Yet I continue playing because the rest of the game needs me. If only it were more possible to get subs for burnt out subs.
+ Me

Yep, I've taken on a lot of sub positions mainly because they were needed to keep the game balanced (then again that's the summary of all sub positions). I actually much prefer subbing into positions that are on their last legs, as they take less time than good positions, and in theory shouldn't go on that long either.

I mainly do this to help out where I can, and also because I, probably naively, hope that if I do this for the benefit of the other players in their games, that the players in those games might one day return the favour by offering to sub-in to similar positions in the games I am playing in. A futile dream though I guess, since most players never remember who the subs actually were in their games :(

[rdonj]

....When I'm subbing, I don't really care about the nation I'm playing. I probably don't even like it. Yet I continue playing because the rest of the game needs me. If only it were more possible to get subs for burnt out subs.
+ Me

Yep, I've taken on a lot of sub positions mainly because they were needed to keep the game balanced (then again that's the summary of all sub positions). I actually much prefer subbing into positions that are on their last legs, as they take less time than good positions, and in theory shouldn't go on that long either.

I mainly do this to help out where I can, and also because I, probably naively, hope that if I do this for the benefit of the other players in their games, that the players in those games might one day return the favour by offering to sub-in to similar positions in the games I am playing in. A futile dream though I guess, since most players never remember who the subs actually were in their games :(

Yeah, I have this habit of picking up sub positions that are heading towards a slow, torturous death. The one I'm currently subbing for, I apparently was fighting two nations for 12 or so turns and idiotically I offered peace to the human player who was slowly killing me off... so it could be a while before the nation dies. Playing a nation on its way out would be much less frustrating. You're pretty handicapped but there's an end in sight. I'll have to try it sometime.

Well, even if it doesn't work everyone appreciates the guy who subs. It is best when they appreciate it enough to sub for other games though.

[Starshine_Monarch]

Consider me pledged.

The only real problem I have is that I seem to have a lot of trouble securing a sub on my own. Nobody seems to want to reply to my ads for subs. I mean, if posting an ad for the position in the MP forum and as a post on the official "Games looking for players" sticky was all it took to get a sub, then I either have horrible luck or I'm doing something wrong that I don't know about.

[sevenwarlocks]

I hereby pledge.

Now back to learning how to play...

[Ishamoridin]

I pledge, for when my copy arrives.

I can see myself being held to this quite a lot in my first games ¬.¬

[AlgaeNymph]

I looked at the pledge, it's not particularly onerous nor does it affect my play style. That it's helpful to others is a bonus. Therefore, I'll take the pledge.

[aaminoff]

I will take the pledge

[vladikus]

Pledged.

[kianduatha]

I'll take the pledge. I'd rather go down kicking and screaming than roll over and die.

[Juffos]

Pledged. I would rather like not to be bound by such agreements but nonetheless I wouldn't quit without any good reasons so why not?

[GrudgeBringer]

I would rather my reputation proceed me than having to swear an oath.

But if it makes everyone feel more secure...I pledge

[SciencePro]

Pledged

[DakaSha]

should maybe update first post to include the people who pledged?

[Lingchih]

should maybe update first post to include the people who pledged?

And the people that pledged with caveats?

[chrispedersen]

And the people that already violated it?

[Sil]

Signed. Hopefully I have followed this already and will do so in the future.

[Baalz]

Heh, you guys have way too much faith in this if you expect me to keep track and police what everyone does. Regardless of what I do the only force this has is whatever people do to police their own behavior after having given their word. The primary purpose is to get (particularly new) players to consider the commitment they're making to everyone else by joining a community game. I've got less than 0 interest in tracking anything remotely like who agreed with what caveat and much less than that of determining and tracking who 'violated' their pledge. The bar is set at hoping most people put at least a minimum effort into supporting games they joined past when they lose personal interest...though I think a pledge with words literally like that would fail to clear that bar.

[zzcat]

Pledged

[Isokron]

Pledged

[WraithLord]

Just now noticed this thread in Baalz' signature.

I think the below is testimony of where I stand in the matter:
I'll pledge, but you have to include the "Artifacts Exception".

As in, the recent Artifacts game, which went on so long and fruitlessly that most players decided it was either go AI or blow their brains out. Although, oddly enough, subs were eventually found for everybody.
Given that I was the only player not willing to concede and miraculously somehow finding subs :D

I think the criteria to when a player can responsibly quit is when he can no longer influence the course of the game. So, for example, when all your lands are taken by early rush from three opponents and your castles are under siege and you have no army left to speak of - I'd say that qualifies to the criteria.

Speaking of winning by skill - I'm becoming ever more a fan of no diplomacy game. Diplomacy, while an important skill, sometimes tends to eclipse skill (even when the player in advantage is also very skilled). So when a player manages to make his neighbors sign deals with the devil (you'd be my forge whxxx, you'd give all your income to me etc.) diplomacy becomes too much of a deciding factor in the game. Don't get me wrong - I quite like diplomacy but sometimes it's too much.

No diplo games are about brute force (or rather wits) and take half the time to process turns as well.

[GrudgeBringer]

I agree that any treaty of that sort is a poor way to play this game and I personally would do a Kamikaze against a nation that tried to bully me, for no other reason that to slow it down and put it behind the others!!

However, Some nations honestly need a little time to get it together and a few 3 turn naps give you that option.

They will eventually be broken anyway, but they serve their purpose at the start of the game.

I would suppose VERY GOOD players might not need treaties, but us meduim to new players do.

So games with no diplo are fine and those that want to join them know what they get...

Me, the medium to poor player that I am will take all the help I can get!!!

[WraithLord]

A player of any skill should take any advantage he gets. I suppose being a very good player while not taking advantage of treaties is somewhat of a contradiction.

It's the same I guess with gem gens and tarts and what not. if the game rules allow a given tactic, strategy or any other advantage barring an exploit, a player in his right sense would be forced to take it. Not really a choice in the matter :)

I'm not advocating "death" to diplo games. Just saying I find the RAND game refreshing and, trying to put the finger on why exactly, I came to attribute that to the no diplomacy.

You know, what you're saying made me think back on the player composition in past/present RAND games. Perhaps there is indeed a majority vet players in RAND games.
If so, I wonder why?

Oh and sorry for taking this a bit OT. Back to pledges please :)

[RabbitDynamite]

Pledged.

[Trumanator]

I'd just like to say that as a result of this pledge I have managed to to hold my capital in WaterTotalWar to the point that my besieger has given up trying. Its amazing what you can accomplish when you stick to it!

[Calahan]

I'd just like to say that as a result of this pledge I have managed to to hold my capital in WaterTotalWar to the point that my besieger has given up trying. Its amazing what you can accomplish when you stick to it!
Good to hear it Trumanator :up: Your conversion to the 'Never turn AI' side is almost complete :)

Any player who becomes adept at defending fort storms can last out for an incredibly long time in games. And who knows what can happen elsewhere to your besieger if the bulk of his forces are tied up pinning you down inside your fort(s). Capturing the actual province of a well defended fort is just a very minor step towards actually capturing the fort itself.

So the number of players I see quit games just because "my capital is under siege" never ceases to amaze me.

[Squirrelloid]

Trumanator:
Two things are making me decide its not worth it - (1) your ample gem resources have been admirably bent to the task of protecting it. That's an amazing army of summons you've amassed. (2) I can't compete with your battlefield magic. I can match the water stuff, but the astral is eating me alive. (3) Getting attacked by another nation, at which point the armies needed to successfully siege your capitol are just too much of a force commitment at the moment.

That said, if you attack me, I will ground your armies into powder... eventually.

(Why god why did I choose to play a nation with such a crappy endgame? I feel like everything effective I am doing has *nothing* to do with my national strengths at this point).

[secretperson]

I pledge

[swapoer]

I pledge.

[Mardagg]

I pledge

[Deathjester]

I pledge.

[binarysolo]

For some reason I never saw this thread earlier, but here I pledge. :)

[thunderbird]

I pledge

[Kheldron]

I pledge

[Sensori]

Guess I'll pledge. :p

I don't go AI when I'm dying anyway, though!

[FAJ]

I will pledge.

I am so used to being the underdog and being in a losing position that it is just natural for me to stick with games that I have no chance of winning!

[AreaOfEffect]

I Pledge.

[Electro808]

Me too,

[pfloom]

I'll sign.

[Kref]

I pledge

[MartialDoctor]

Just coming back to some Dominions and I'll take this pledge.

[Skor]

I pledge.

[Tollund]

This is how I already play, so I'm happy to agree to it.

[militarist]

I'm in.

[SnallTrippin]

Sure sure, but frankly I prefer to play the underdog...being the most powerful in a game is meh..unless it's close of course. Then it feels o' so' good.

[Digress]

I pledge.

[Wrana]

I pledge.
The caveat being that I consider being beaten fair and square to be 'a completion' (meaning one-on-one fights, mainly at the end of the game). And that I hope that the game originator will, in his turn, try to accomodate player(s) asking to postpone hosting, so as to avoid stalls.
All other terms are quite good and fair.

[Grijalva]

I just noticed this in Baalz' sig; being new to PBEM but not Dom3, I certainly pledge from here on adhere to this promise and to play a losing nation as if I am in some bunker in some besieged city, desperately moving non-existent armies around on a map, clinging to any bizarre or remote fantasy that I can still somehow win...

[Belac]

I make this pledge.

[13lackGu4rd]

still looking to get into my first multiplayer game but this pledge certainly looks reasonable.

I pledge.

[GameExtremist]

I already play in this manner and thus will also pledge.

[Krec]

Krec has pledged

[Stagger Lee]

For whatever reason, I wanted to wait until after successfully completing an unsuccessful campaign. In my very first try, I was a miserable failure. Or, in this context, a success!

Pledged.

[Euarchus]

Pledged.

[Pablomatic]

Great thing to have in this community. I pledge.

[slayers_ai]

I pledge. :D

[Samhain]

Pledged.

A list of those who pledged in the initial post may be useful for admins of games that want to make this a requirement to joining.

[Executor]

Why would anyone make this silly pledge a requirement?
Most players hope their enemy turns AI when they hit him fast and hard anyway...

[ano]

Heh, I was also wondering...:)

[militarist]

What an Interesting thought. So, if you have reputation of the person who fights till end you will hardly be selected as a first target. But if everyone knows you tend to go AI after first battle you've lost, you are sweet target.

[pyg]

Great thing to have in this community. I pledge.

Fail! (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=45255)

[Executor]

What an Interesting thought. So, if you have reputation of the person who fights till end you will hardly be selected as a first target. But if everyone knows you tend to go AI after first battle you've lost, you are sweet target.

Well, both true and not true.
Vets and newb or quitters get attacked just as much. A vet will be attacked before he can became a real danger and a newb will be attacked for being an easy target, so it's really the same, well except that vets tend to get ganged up so the newbs have a advantage in fair battle there don't they? :)

And anyway, you ought to attack a nation that is geographically suitable, or easier to defeat, like Mictlan attacking Neif, etc... and not the player behind the nation, just my thoughts doe...

[Baalz]

Why would anyone make this silly pledge a requirement?
Most players hope their enemy turns AI when they hit him fast and hard anyway...

I've been in way too many games where very viable positions are abandoned when the pressure is put on. For me at least it destroys a lot of the enjoyment of the game if the winner is determined because somebody's early neighbor quit when his pretender died or he just got frustrated by a stalemate or he just got bored. Have this happen 3 or 4 times in a game and it starts feeling like we're playing a game primarily of chance which I don't personally find that interesting.

[Executor]

True, true...
But that doesn't chance the fact that what I said is also true.

I just don't see how taking a "pledge" or making it a requirement for a game, which I just find silly, is going to improve game quality.

Don't get me wrong, I respect what you tried to do here, raise the awareness of other players, but I just don't see this pledge as having any real power or impact on any game what-so-ever.
If you want a game without stales or quitters, etc, you need superb admining and a really competitive bunch, eg. the YARG game, btw, my congratulation to WL for creating such a game.

so I guess my question was, what's the point of making it a requirement?

[TwoBits]

Well, the problem is, while this pledge is nice in principle, it means absolutely nothing. Heck, I'm in a game right now where someone who had given the "pledge" has bailed from the game, no excuse given. The "pledge" is a nice idea, but ultimately worthless. Just ask Nevil Chamberlin what 'pledges' are ultimately worth ;)

At this point, I won't join a game unless I have a reasonable certainty that folks wont punk out. At the moment, that means only joining games advertised at the 'other' forum, figuring anyone who bails on one of those games can expect to be crucified unmercifully.

But I'm sure punks and bailers will eventually find a way to join there (just create a new ID, etc.), and muck up things up there too.

[Baalz]

As I posted originally the pledge has no teeth at all other than whatever conscience you bring yourself, the only point is to make sure that people realize the impact of what they're doing. Dicks are gonna be dicks and you're never gonna have 100% compliance, but that doesn't mean asking people to think twice doesn't prevent some people from dropping. I've seen too many times where people join a game and don't even read the mods, house rules, etc. for the game, so the idea was to put one little hurdle of going to another thread to acknowledge it so at least people have to actively be dicks rather than not thinking about it.

[GrudgeBringer]

I agree with all the above...

Regardless if you are playing Dom or going out of town on a Rugby Tournament, there is always a guy or two that said they will Play (or go) and you always wonder in the back of your mind if they will show up at the airport or have their turn in EVERY turn.

All you can do is make sure they know the impact that it can create for the rest of us that count on their word to play and either not play with them agian or Cut them.

When I fist saw the pledge I didn't take it for a while as I felt MY word was good enough and was offended that someone would ask me to actually put it in writing.

But the more I thought about it, the more I started to understand it wasn't about ME taking the pledge....it was about the pack mentality. If EVERYONE has signed it and you want out, it MAY be just a little harder to pull the trigger. That is all it is and I think in some instances it REALLY does work.

Of coursr if your a 'bailer' you could put a deposit down and you would still bail.

We have a guy (that is pretty well known) that loves to expand wily nilly until he is the biggest, with NO thought of what the Hell he is doing or why. He then just doesn't show up anymore and skews the game until we get a sub. It is twice it has happened now and I see him starting in another game. I won't play with him agian and the pledge wouldn't mean anything to him....but it MIGHT get a new guy thinking that he doesn't want to be known like that and hang in there.

Sorry so long, just my opinion.

[earcaraxe]

who is he?

[GrudgeBringer]

Sorry, but to smear a guy because I noticed something would not benefit the site and may start a Flame war which I don't want to be involved in.

I know you are a serious player and don't want to spend your time if that person is in a game with you, but in this case I would prefer not making a big case of it.

He has been around enough to be noticeable but isn't a MAJOR threat like Executor (hi buddy), Psycho, squirrelloid, and many more. Trust me, there are more and more people starting to notice it and his name will surface soon.

[TwoBits]

You know, there is a place where airing such grievances is more or less (pretty much more) acceptable ;)

[Jorus]

I think the pledge is a good idea because it communicates a major concern of many players to ALL players. I'm happy to abide by the pledge, but have a few questions;

1. What about a game administrator pledge? I have been in games where I have invested countless hours - but needed a short extension for RL concerns. I communicate the request in a timely manner, but it is ignored and I have a stale (or two) in a tightly contested game! Sheez.

2. Ethical Question: What if a player is part of a team (and is the weaker link - by far - of the team) and he advises his ally that the best thing to do would be for the stronger player to take over the provinces of the weaker player? In this way resources (gems, money, research, etc.) would be better utilized - for the team. On the other hand, it could be argued that the weaker player is not "fighting to the death".

[Lingchih]

What value is such a pledge, when it's own owner does not abide by it?

Not much value, methinks.

[Ragnars Wolves]

As A new player I feel like that EXACTLY!!!

However, if people do pledge and break it and I can see it, then I am prepared if I see them in a game and it is nobody's fault but my own if they do bail and I have known about it.

As a previous post said "You could make some players put down a deposit and they would still break it". Whether it is a good tool to judge the charecter of a player or not I have no opinion. BUT, as a tool to see if I want to spend 3 months playing and they have a record of 'exiting early and often' them I might pass on that game.

I am just a new guy on here, but saw the same things in MOO2 (shows my age), Civil War Generals 2, and a number of other games that I invested time in just to be dissapointed.

Thank you.

[rdonj]

Baalz has a record of AIing when being attacked by half the players in the game 2/10 of the time, oh noes.

He should have said something first, just in case there was a sub crazy enough to want to try. But I don't really blame him that much.

[Corvus]

In the game I'm running six out of nine player either went AI without a word or couldn't find a sub and went AI, so I know how frustrating dropouts are. Might not really mean much but I'll pledge.

[Kref]

I've decided to make a post with those who pledged for now.
I'll try to avoid playing with non-signers after mindblade.
I am putting " -- ?" symblols after people who, as much as I've understood, support at least significant part of pledge (I didn't understood from their posts that they fully support the pledge).

13lackGu4rd; aaminoff; Aethyr; Agema; AlgaeNymph; Alpine Joe -- ?; analytic_kernel; ano -- ?; AreaOfEffect; Baalz; Belac; binarysolo; Black Sun Empire; Burnsaber; Calahan -- ?; chrispedersen -- ?; Corvus; DakaSha; Deathjester; Digress; Dimaz; Elrctro808; Euarchus; FAJ; Fakeymcfake; Fantomen; Frozen Lama; GameExtremist; Gandalf Parker; Gregstrom; Grijalva; GrudgeBringer; Hadrian_II -- ?; Ishamoridin; Jarkko; JR77; Juffos; Kheldron; kianduatha; Kietsensei; Krec; Kref; LDiCesare; llamabeast; LoloMo; lsokron; Mardagg; MartialDoctor; Micah -- ?; militarist; Mithras; Morpf; Pablomatic; pfloom; RabbitDynamite; Raiel; rdonj; Samhain; SciencePro; secretperson; Sensori; Septimius Severus; sevenwarlocks; Sil; Skor; slayers_ai; Squirrelloid; Stagger Lee; Starshine_Monarch; statttis; Strabo; Stretch; swapoer; the Vanishag; thunderbird; Tollund; Toran; Trumanator; TwoBits; vladikus; Wrana; zzcat.

I am sure the list would be updated, so if I missed someone just post that.

[Lingchih]

This post has become useless.

[attackdrone]

I shall take this pledge. This reminds me of "I quit" moments in board games, where the sudden exit of a player with remaining forces in a board game throws out all balance and most enjoyment. Truly frustrating!

[Eximius Sus]

I've decided to make a post with those who pledged for now.
I'll try to avoid playing with non-signers after mindblade.
I am putting " -- ?" symblols after people who, as much as I've understood, support at least significant part of pledge (I didn't understood from their posts that they fully support the pledge).

13lackGu4rd; aaminoff; Aethyr; Agema; AlgaeNymph; Alpine Joe -- ?; analytic_kernel; ano -- ?; AreaOfEffect; Baalz; Belac; binarysolo; Black Sun Empire; Burnsaber; Calahan -- ?; chrispedersen -- ?; Corvus; DakaSha; Deathjester; Digress; Dimaz; Elrctro808; Euarchus; FAJ; Fakeymcfake; Fantomen; Frozen Lama; GameExtremist; Gandalf Parker; Gregstrom; Grijalva; GrudgeBringer; Hadrian_II -- ?; Ishamoridin; Jarkko; JR77; Juffos; Kheldron; kianduatha; Kietsensei; Krec; Kref; LDiCesare; llamabeast; LoloMo; lsokron; Mardagg; MartialDoctor; Micah -- ?; militarist; Mithras; Morpf; Pablomatic; pfloom; RabbitDynamite; Raiel; rdonj; Samhain; SciencePro; secretperson; Sensori; Septimius Severus; sevenwarlocks; Sil; Skor; slayers_ai; Squirrelloid; Stagger Lee; Starshine_Monarch; statttis; Strabo; Stretch; swapoer; the Vanishag; thunderbird; Tollund; Toran; Trumanator; TwoBits; vladikus; Wrana; zzcat.

I am sure the list would be updated, so if I missed someone just post that.

Seems your post is kinda pointless since some of those who signed didn't meet the pledge. I've never signed and I don't stale or go AI. You'd do better to choose opponents based on their record rather than some arbitrary pledge.