Would you play to the death?

[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.

[Gregstrom]

Originally Posted by Bananadine

Back to cooperation: Suppose non-leading players band together against the leading player, until there's a new leading player.

Wasn't that the Artifacts game?

[capnq]

I have never played Dom2 or Dom3 multiplayer, and don't expect to anytime soon, but I have some experience with Space Empires IV multiplayer.

I have stuck games out to the bitter end, and been complimented for doing so. If anything, I tend to start thinking I'm going to lose sooner than it's actually been decided, and adjust my strategy from trying to win to losing as slowly as possible. I have also conceded games to the only other surviving player when I couldn't see any way of winning.

A long time ago, I subscribed to an online TBS game that was only played as a two-player duel. I got good enough at it that I entered several single-elimination bracket tournaments, and actually won one of them. In that game, I won several duels when my opponent conceded from what I thought was the stronger position, simply because the game was taking too long to play out. I was also eliminated from a couple tournaments (along with my opponent) because our duel had exceeded the time limit for the round without a clear leader.

My point in mentioning that is that one cannot expect every player to approach the game in the same manner. One of the reasons I dropped that game was that I got tired of winning by concessions that I didn't think I deserved. There is no unanimously agreed upon way that the game should be played, and arguing that there is such a way is mostly going to drive people who aren't interested in that style of play away from the thread.

[Foodstamp]

I guess I am a fight to the death kinda guy. I joined a multiplayer game as MA Oceania on random map. Oh the joy of being put in a water province completely surrounded by land. Both of my land neighbors declared war on me and I spent the next 30 turns raiding the surrounding provinces and being pushed back in my little puddle while they figured out a way to invade me properly.

I doubt I had any effect on the game, but I had a blast wreaking havoc in my puddle + the five surrounding provinces I considered my domain.

[Bananadine]

Originally Posted by capnq

My point in mentioning that is that one cannot expect every player to approach the game in the same manner. One of the reasons I dropped that game was that I got tired of winning by concessions that I didn't think I deserved. There is no unanimously agreed upon way that the game should be played, and arguing that there is such a way is mostly going to drive people who aren't interested in that style of play away from the thread.

Ah! Another huge and interesting thread of potential questionry: Are some styles or methodologies within what is basically a competitive art (in our case, the art of fantasy war!) fundamentally better than others? Hm it's easy to run into big questions, when you are trying to answer what seems to be a small question.

Well you weren't quite taking a position in that argument; so leave it be--all you said about it was that the argument will drive people away.

I don't mean to say that everybody should play the way I want! I would like to have the opportunity to play that way myself, though. It's easy to sound fighty when you're frustrated because you feel like you're in some kind of dominated minority!

[Micah]

If the game is over I'm happy to concede to the inevitable winner with the consensus of the rest of the players in the game, but if I'm one of the first out and the game is still wide open I play it out til my last gasp. So when I go out I'm either dead or the game is over via concession.

[Dragar]

I keep playing until I am able to make no more impact than the AI would if in control of my nation. So if I'm obviously losing but can still do some things to make life hard for my conqueror, I will play it out hard.

Once I'm left with virtually nothing and can't do any better than sit there and get rolled over it's time for AI

It can be disheartening to keep playing knowing your time is up, but I never think it's a waste of time to let your opponents know you won't ever quit and make life easy on them

[happygeek]

This is one of the drawbacks of Dominions, as I see it -- making a meaningful turn takes me at least an hour. I guess that's a lot of commitment for many people. I'm still very new and havent tried MP yet, and this is certainly one of the reasons why.

[llamabeast]

MP turns don't normally take an hour till the late game.

You should try MP happygeek! It is very fun indeed.