Would you play to the death?

[thejeff]

I talk about the late game because that's where it's really problematic. Early on, I agree with you. There's not much cost to stay in, since turns are still fairly short, and there's a much better chance of being able to pull off a recovery if your opponent gets distracted.

But you are requiring everyone to commit for the long haul. Until they win or are completely eliminated. That means many will be staying into the late game.

The nature of the power curve in this type of game means once you fall far enough behind it's really hard to catch up. It's one thing if you're close to par on research and resources, but lose a few battles, even lose most of your armies. If you are far enough behind in research and resources, your opponent will not only be able to beat you in the field but keep getting farther ahead of you in research.

You say Dominions is less predictable than chess, which is true. But consider your example: An Air Queen can beat whole armies. Which means, when your opponent has Air Queens (& other SCs) while you only have armies, there isn't much you can do. Sure there are tactics for countering SCs, but they really require some level of parity. It's very possible to be outclassed with no real chance of catching up. You're already behind in research, devoting more mages to battle puts you even farther behind, even if it lets you win a few pyrrhic victories.

On the larger scale, it may be hard to determine who is actually going to win, but it's often much easier to figure out who isn't. Once it becomes clear that I'm outclassed, it's much harder to maintain interest. When you can't accomplish anything, except maybe raid a couple lightly defended province and prove a nuisance, but you're not being finished off because he has more important things to worry about, there's little fun left.

And frankly, it all comes down to fun. I don't play Dominions to get better at Dominions. I don't even play to win. I play because it's fun. Getting better does make it more fun, but if I spend to much time learning but not enjoying, it's not worth it. Maybe that makes me not hardcore. That's Ok.

[Bananadine]

Originally Posted by thejeff

The nature of the power curve in this type of game means once you fall far enough behind it's really hard to catch up. It's one thing if you're close to par on research and resources, but lose a few battles, even lose most of your armies. If you are far enough behind in research and resources, your opponent will not only be able to beat you in the field but keep getting farther ahead of you in research.

You are still only talking about one opponent. What about cooperation? Have you considered this? Cooperation is potentially HUGE.

Originally Posted by thejeff

You say Dominions is less predictable than chess, which is true. But consider your example: An Air Queen can beat whole armies. Which means, when your opponent has Air Queens (& other SCs) while you only have armies, there isn't much you can do. Sure there are tactics for countering SCs, but they really require some level of parity. It's very possible to be outclassed with no real chance of catching up. You're already behind in research, devoting more mages to battle puts you even farther behind, even if it lets you win a few pyrrhic victories.

For a non-hardcore player, you seem know an awful lot about what happens when a hardcore player plays!

Well, that was snide. You probably have more experience playing than I have, and I think you're probably right about a lot of situations. But are you right about the majority of situations? You seem to be assuming the two players in your scenario are of roughly equal skill (that, for instance, the one with the queens won't use them stupidly while the one with the armies cleverly takes advantage), but reality is much more complex than that. Well, suppose we all became experts, and played each other in a hardcore style. Would it then become the case that holding on to the end would almost always be bitter? Maybe it would. But do we really know that? Science, people--you have to try things!

Originally Posted by thejeff

I don't play Dominions to get better at Dominions. I don't even play to win. I play because it's fun. Getting better does make it more fun, but if I spend to much time learning but not enjoying, it's not worth it. Maybe that makes me not hardcore. That's Ok.

Ahhh and so a much bigger subject opens up. Is learning fun? Should it be? Is it better to accept pain while learning now, so that you can experience finer enjoyment later, or to... haha well I prefer not to get into all that.

Rather, what I'm wondering now is how a person might find enough folks interested in playing in a "hardcore" way to actually explore this matter. (I've suddenly put "hardcore" in quotes because it is kind of a stupid word.) That wouldn't be hard in Starcraft would it? Or some other huge game like that. Not in chess, obviously. Hm! Starcraft and chess aren't for people like me, people who love chaos and backstory and rich, colorful drama that comes from more than just cold, pure strategy. I think I want to roleplay, to some extent! While playing to win.

The last game that got me excited about this sort of thing was Sacrifice. The Sacrifice community was great fun! Then I had to watch it die. I hope I find some more satisfaction in Dominions, before its community dies!

[thejeff]

Originally Posted by Bananadine

You are still only talking about one opponent. What about cooperation? Have you considered this? Cooperation is potentially HUGE.

Cooperation is huge, of course. And if you can hook up with a powerful ally, might even let you survive the current fight, but though you stay alive, you're still way behind the curve. You've lost forts, mages, research time, gems, even those provinces you get back have unrest and pop loss. Again, early enough that's all recoverable. Later on, much less so. Consider research: Not only are you behind in research, but you've got less mages researching and less resources to get more so you're falling farther behind with every turn.

The first game I quit on, I was losing a war against one of maybe 3 major powers. One of the others was helping me, well keeping me alive really. I had nothing researched beyond 4-5 level and maybe 5-6 provinces at any given time. A couple of raiding parties out. Every time my enemy would siege my capital, my ally would drop an Air Queen on him because I had no chance of breaking siege. He could have kept me going indefinitely or at least until he started to lose, but there was no way I was going to get beyond nuisance.

Originally Posted by Bananadine

For a non-hardcore player, you seem know an awful lot about what happens when a hardcore player plays!

I've been playing for a long time, but mostly SP. I'm not really very good at MP, which is why I keep getting into these hopelessly outclassed situations.

Originally Posted by Bananadine

You seem to be assuming the two players in your scenario are of roughly equal skill (that, for instance, the one with the queens won't use them stupidly while the one with the armies cleverly takes advantage), but reality is much more complex than that.

I guess I was figuring that into the "outclassed assumption". It's not like I'm going to give up at my first sight of an SC. Now, when one destroys my main army, I see others in his backfield and any counters I can come up with are 4-5 turns away...
I'm assuming that someone far enough ahead of me to be moving into the late game(SCs) while I'm stilling stuck in the midgame, is probably at least as good as I am.

Originally Posted by Bananadine

Ahhh and so a much bigger subject opens up. Is learning fun? Should it be? Is it better to accept pain while learning now, so that you can experience finer enjoyment later, or to... haha well I prefer not to get into all that.

Learning is often fun. Learning by having your face ground into the dirt isn't. Nor do you really learn a lot.

Originally Posted by Bananadine

Rather, what I'm wondering now is how a person might find enough folks interested in playing in a "hardcore" way to actually explore this matter. (I've suddenly put "hardcore" in quotes because it is kind of a stupid word.) That wouldn't be hard in Starcraft would it? Or some other huge game like that. Not in chess, obviously. Hm! Starcraft and chess aren't for people like me, people who love chaos and backstory and rich, colorful drama that comes from more than just cold, pure strategy. I think I want to roleplay, to some extent! While playing to win.

I didn't play much Starcraft, but it's a much faster game right?
Playing to the bitter end is one thing when it's a couple hours, another completely when it might require a commitment for several months.
From the games I've played and from reading some game threads here, the most common victory condition is consensus. The players agree that someone is clearly enough the winner that there is no point playing it out the rest of the way.
It also seems to me that most of the non-newbie players are pretty good about not giving up too early. Which is different from promising to play to the end regardless of the situation, but might really be close enough to get you most of what you want.

[Illuminated One]

Well, honestly I'd say if you want more drama, then you should set up a game where noone tries to win (as in become strong enough to fight everyone) but to create the most drama. Trying to win (or not wanting to loose) is what generates these situations.

If you are trying to win would you rather...

attack someone who ...
a) is likely to quit
b) fights back

attack someone who ...
a) can't respond to your attack for whatever reason and might as well hand over his territory
b) can fight back

...
a) quit a game that you are going to loose and join another
b) fight on

...

[Bananadine]

Originally Posted by Illuminated One

If you are trying to win would you rather...

attack someone who ...
a) is likely to quit
b) fights back

attack someone who ...
a) can't respond to your attack for whatever reason and might as well hand over his territory
b) can fight back

Good point--everybody would have to be trying to win for this to possibly work out well. Which is what I am proposing!

Originally Posted by Illuminated One

a) quit a game that you are going to loose and join another
b) fight on

Well now you're being tricky! Of course I want people to try to win within the present game and not just within any old game with losses or surrenders in other games not counted.

[K]

I generally play until the end because I know that while I may not win, I can certainly improve the chances of my killer LOSING.