Having played EU MP for half a year and participating in some 10 campaigns I have come to the conclusion that many members in our community lack one or more of those characteristics that I deem to be imperative for people I like to play with.
However, my love of this game is too strong for me to just give it up. Instead I will try and reform the community.
The first thing is the quitting phenomenon. And I am now referring to "bad" quits, not when one quits because his computer breaks down or his wife forbids him to play.
I will start by relating some incidents that I have experienced. I allow myself to give you my view of the cases. No doubt the quitter would present the cases in a somewhat other light.
CASE 1.
Player A is in war with me. He controls a COT of mine. I refuse to peace although down 20 or so in WS. It's a standstill. Now player B interfers and threatens to DOW me if I do not hand over the COT to player A. This is done the next session when I do not play. Some session later player C invites me to DOW player A and take back the COT. I of course accept. Now player A complains of a gangbang and do not defend himself vs me and later on quits because of this war.
CASE 2
Player A plays a far away nation and is remarkably succesful. I play ENG. However the GM decides to move A to USA and takes provinces from my nation to create the USA. Me and A are automatically in war and I peace out after some years, partly because he got help, partly because it would not be that nice towards him to cripple him that early. Later on the USA DOWs me twice (A himself once and a sub another time) when I am at war in Europe and have my hands full. They stab hit me for some 8-10 provinces in total and gets those provinces. Later on I get the possibility to release the Confederates states of America (the GM messgaes this to me and tells me that this means several of A's provinces will secede to my vassal). Yes nice I think and proceed to do that. An automatic war is created between A and the Confederates. After a while I see that A is crushing my vassal. I DOW A and after having liberated perhaps 7 out of 10 confederate provinces under A's control and started attacking the USA itself player A quits.
CASE 3
A player quits because he is tired of EU MP.
CASE 4
Player A and myself have few wars in between, mostly of more limited size. However I get the impression that his DOWs are more opportune than mine, made when I am in a bad situation in other wars, and thus I long for revenge. Towards the end I get the possibility when player B suggests a joint attack on A. This is the last or next to last session of the game and player A and B are two of the contendants for the title of "Winner of the game". B says I should take a lot of provinces, a suggestion I have no trouble of accepting. The war goes on for some time (with a sub for B by accident peacing with A) and when another sub for B in the last session reDOWs A, A quits.
---------------
These are merely four recent cases that cross my mind. Each one of you who have played some campaigns can add a lot of more cases. Each one probably unique. But more important: In each case the quitter probably believes he has a case, that he is somehow entitled to quit.
Thus the problem is really not the quit-phenomenon as such, No, the root of the problem is the discrepancy in what we believe justifies a quit.
I believe people allow themselves to quit far to easy. But other people have another opinion.
I have thought a little about what it is that for me justifies a quit and so far I have been able to recognise three cases where I believe it is OK to quit, what I would call "good quits". These cases are
1. That you ask for permission to quit and the GM allows you to
2. That RL means it become impossible or close to impossible to participate anymore (this is of course one of the more common cases where a GM would accept a request for resignation from the game)
3. That the GM allows a breach of the rules
I take for granted that among the rules there exists one saying you should behave politely vs your fellow gamers. If such a rule does not exist I need to add
4. When you are treated substantially impolite and the GM does not protect you sufficiently
While items 1-2 are black and white, rule number 3 and especially rule no 4 will in practice be a little more difficult to apply. But they are important one. N.b. with "impolite" I do not refer to you being ganged or similar. It has to do what people say in-game and in the game thread, i.e. personal insults etc.
All other quits are "bad quits" IMO.
-----------
The solution to the bad quit problem therefore appears to be easy, just
1. In post 1 of the game thread, before the game starts, the GM writes down what constitutes a justified quit. If you do not accept that, then do not enter the game in the first place.
However, in practice we will also need
2. That players are honest and do no invent a RL problem to cover up their quit
--------------------
As per today I have started to appy this procedure myself. I resigned from a game (before it started) because a well-known quitter was among the participants. I leave it to the GM to implement a quit rule that satisfies my needs, then I will again apply for participation.
--------------------
What do you say? Do we need a quit rule in each campaign?
However, my love of this game is too strong for me to just give it up. Instead I will try and reform the community.
The first thing is the quitting phenomenon. And I am now referring to "bad" quits, not when one quits because his computer breaks down or his wife forbids him to play.
I will start by relating some incidents that I have experienced. I allow myself to give you my view of the cases. No doubt the quitter would present the cases in a somewhat other light.
CASE 1.
Player A is in war with me. He controls a COT of mine. I refuse to peace although down 20 or so in WS. It's a standstill. Now player B interfers and threatens to DOW me if I do not hand over the COT to player A. This is done the next session when I do not play. Some session later player C invites me to DOW player A and take back the COT. I of course accept. Now player A complains of a gangbang and do not defend himself vs me and later on quits because of this war.
CASE 2
Player A plays a far away nation and is remarkably succesful. I play ENG. However the GM decides to move A to USA and takes provinces from my nation to create the USA. Me and A are automatically in war and I peace out after some years, partly because he got help, partly because it would not be that nice towards him to cripple him that early. Later on the USA DOWs me twice (A himself once and a sub another time) when I am at war in Europe and have my hands full. They stab hit me for some 8-10 provinces in total and gets those provinces. Later on I get the possibility to release the Confederates states of America (the GM messgaes this to me and tells me that this means several of A's provinces will secede to my vassal). Yes nice I think and proceed to do that. An automatic war is created between A and the Confederates. After a while I see that A is crushing my vassal. I DOW A and after having liberated perhaps 7 out of 10 confederate provinces under A's control and started attacking the USA itself player A quits.
CASE 3
A player quits because he is tired of EU MP.
CASE 4
Player A and myself have few wars in between, mostly of more limited size. However I get the impression that his DOWs are more opportune than mine, made when I am in a bad situation in other wars, and thus I long for revenge. Towards the end I get the possibility when player B suggests a joint attack on A. This is the last or next to last session of the game and player A and B are two of the contendants for the title of "Winner of the game". B says I should take a lot of provinces, a suggestion I have no trouble of accepting. The war goes on for some time (with a sub for B by accident peacing with A) and when another sub for B in the last session reDOWs A, A quits.
---------------
These are merely four recent cases that cross my mind. Each one of you who have played some campaigns can add a lot of more cases. Each one probably unique. But more important: In each case the quitter probably believes he has a case, that he is somehow entitled to quit.
Thus the problem is really not the quit-phenomenon as such, No, the root of the problem is the discrepancy in what we believe justifies a quit.
I believe people allow themselves to quit far to easy. But other people have another opinion.
I have thought a little about what it is that for me justifies a quit and so far I have been able to recognise three cases where I believe it is OK to quit, what I would call "good quits". These cases are
1. That you ask for permission to quit and the GM allows you to
2. That RL means it become impossible or close to impossible to participate anymore (this is of course one of the more common cases where a GM would accept a request for resignation from the game)
3. That the GM allows a breach of the rules
I take for granted that among the rules there exists one saying you should behave politely vs your fellow gamers. If such a rule does not exist I need to add
4. When you are treated substantially impolite and the GM does not protect you sufficiently
While items 1-2 are black and white, rule number 3 and especially rule no 4 will in practice be a little more difficult to apply. But they are important one. N.b. with "impolite" I do not refer to you being ganged or similar. It has to do what people say in-game and in the game thread, i.e. personal insults etc.
All other quits are "bad quits" IMO.
-----------
The solution to the bad quit problem therefore appears to be easy, just
1. In post 1 of the game thread, before the game starts, the GM writes down what constitutes a justified quit. If you do not accept that, then do not enter the game in the first place.
However, in practice we will also need
2. That players are honest and do no invent a RL problem to cover up their quit
--------------------
As per today I have started to appy this procedure myself. I resigned from a game (before it started) because a well-known quitter was among the participants. I leave it to the GM to implement a quit rule that satisfies my needs, then I will again apply for participation.
--------------------
What do you say? Do we need a quit rule in each campaign?
