Bad quitting - a solution?

[Fredrik82]

But assume he had chosen the mature method. Who will then decide if it is gamey or not? I would say the GM does. Do you agree? I suppose you do. Perhaps the GM would consult other players but in the end it is he that decides. Well then it is time for the killer my dear Fredrik: it was the GM himself who suggested that I could release them and that thus several of the USA provinces would defect to the Confederates.

And if the GM would have changed his mind I would of course have accepted his ruling on the matter as I am quute sure he would have ensured I would not suffer from his error.

Didnt know this. It was a bad, very bad, move of the GM then.
As he allowed someone else to more or less ruin someones nation in a rather unsporty and gamey way.

It would have been different if CSA was to be played by a human, thus releasing it for that purpose.
But releasing it for the only purpose to weaken it and then dow it in order to get a good advantage is not.
Think about it, the USA loose several provinces and army support, thus maybe even have to disband troops etc just show how you prefer to play Daniel.
I would have quit the game aswell directly as USA, if the GM himself allowed this kind of behavior...

 

[unmerged(18425)]

I have considered to release the CSA too back then when I was England in New Order III, but I decided not to do it because I was afraid Byakhiam (the USA player) would quit

 

[unmerged(11216)]

I can directly say, and without shame, that it was I who quitted the US. I think my reasons for quitting was fully legimitate, and that's why I will take it from the start.

As said before, I began the game playing the Mughal Empire, and did it very successfully. Because of technical problems I could not participate in two sessions in the mid 1700, ending up in GM dropping my country the second session of my absence. This resulting in AI Mughals loosing its 4 CoT:s directly to the European vultures.

Some week(s) later I get offered to play the US, which I gladly accepts. (Hey, how often do you play US in an MP game who lasts to 1911?). Anyway at first in the war it is pretty clear that Daniel want to wipe out the US from the entire scene by demanding a redicilous ammount of provinces(I started with perhaps 12 provinces or so). Myself, after gaining support from shipped over Austrian armies, offers Adirondak(900 value CoT) to the UK. This is refused by Daniel, and ultimately a powerfull Denmark interferes and sinks the UK fleet, resulting in an all-around white peace. The US got its freedom.

After I(and a sub) attacked UK twice while they were waring in Europe, I gained a total of 6 provinces from those both wars. This while the UK and their allies got their hands on perhaps 2-4 high value CoT:s from their european wars(which I interfered in). In between sessions, somewhere around 1855, Daniel approachs me with an offer on ICQ;
- Either I accept eternal peace(to game end) in exchange of 6-7 provinces, or the UK would have to concentrate all their power to completely destroy my country. As I either didn't want eternal peace or complete destruction, I gave him no real answer.

In 1856 FAL(Spain - 800 income, US - 200) asks me for a one-on-one. I say I really dont want any kind of conflict right before the american civil war(Starting RR in provs 1861). FAL seems though decided to invade me, (board 200k on his grand fleet and place it outside Manhattan). I simply have to make the best out of the situation; I give Spain a free CB, in exchange of him promising to end the war before january 1860. The war is an annoying one in my eyes; The spanish assaults a coast prov, board their ships and sail to some other coast province, before I can stop them(nor can I afford having my 100k armies die of attrittion running half cross america). There were perhaps only two major battles; both which US won(having numerical and leader superiority). FAL however keeps his promise and the war ends december 1859 with Spain getting Ticonderoga.

My country is pretty exhausted from the war, but I realise I quickly have to rebuild my army(having about 85 MP), and by the time the ACW starts. In 1861 however, the UK releases the CSA, resulting in them getting the majority of my provinces. The CSA now have perhaps twice(definately more)of the US:s number of provinces, US having around 10 left. US:s MP is now down to 40; But I do have my quickly raised 200k army.

By event CSA directly gets a CoT in Bayou, cutting my Adirondak CoT value by half. While I try to finish the war as clean as possible(having around 5 provinces captured and 150k troops left), Spain DoWs the CSA and goes for the Bayou CoT. After pleading from several people, FAL says "Ok, I will let US finish the war, but after that I am GOING to have the Bayou CoT". Now Daniel arrives, DoW me, and land armies all over America, saying "I will protect my vassal, the CSA". Having all my troops in CSA land, the UK easily captures a number of my home provs, and recaptures lands for the CSA.

Daniel didn't lie; Either I would had to accept eternal peace, or complete destruction.

Myself having 80k troops left, place them in one of my few still controlled provinces, requests to the GM to quit; Do so, and transfer the save to the new host and leaves.

Edit:
So my conclusion of why I left would be;
- Daniel acted in a very gamey way in my eyes.
- FAL acted in a slightly gamey way in my eyes.
- A 10 province US with 40 MP would fill no absolutely no function. (This counting Daniel wouldn't demand anything from the US itself, however that is hardly sure he wouldn't)

 

[Hive]

Didnt know this. It was a bad, very bad, move of the GM then.
As he allowed someone else to more or less ruin someones nation in a rather unsporty and gamey way.

Heh. You don't know all the facts, dear Fred. The UK release of CSA was actually a part of a cunning plan I had been talking to Babur himself (USA) about. Babur was aware that I tried to lure Daniel into releasing them, and he was fine with it.

You see, there is an event that allows USA to annex CSA if they control all their provinces. So if USA had defeated CSA completely (which was not a far-fetched idea, since they were AI), they would get not just the provinces they lost themselves back - but also the provinces UK gave up to release CSA. Furthermore, CSA had an event that moved the Mexican CoT to Bayou - meaning that USA would gain a second CoT on this. Not to mention that couple of CCs CSA got by event as well...

So in fact, if everything had panned out according to plans, this would have been really good for USA. Yes, it was a gamble - a gamble USA lost - but in order to expand, USA *must* take some chances now and then...

And quite frankly, I had expected that Spain and Portugal wouldn't have allowed UK to rape USA... but they apparantly had no problems seeing UK expand even further.

Was it gamey of Daniel to exploit an event like that? Maybe so. But no more than when anyone else plans and uses knowledge of future events to their advantage. And that happens all the time.

But I do think that Daniel's demand to USA to either sign an eternal peace or die was bad taste. I know that me and Daniel have completely different views on how EU2 should be played, but the word 'eternal' is not a word I like in EU2. Takes too much fun and dynamic out of the game.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

Edit:
So my conclusion of why I left would be;
- Daniel acted in a very gamey way in my eyes.
- FAL acted in a slightly gamey way in my eyes.
- A 10 province US with 40 MP would fill no absolutely no function. (This counting Daniel wouldn't demand anything from the US itself, however that is hardly sure he wouldn't)

Eh.

First of all I would like to point out that Daniel did something that the GM allowed him to do and something you knew he was going to do and even accepted. This cannot be gamey.

Secondly, How can it be gamey that I dowed you?
Sure, it would be more nice if I did not dow you, but gamey? Since when are dows gamey?
Also, I peaced out before your civil war events hit in. Because you asked for that.
If I wanted to be nasty I would have attacked you when you were deep in those civil war events.
If I wanted to be very nasty, I would have attacked you together with the UK.
And I certainly would not have signed peace for one lousy province.

Aren't you calling players gamey because they don't act precisely as you want them to act them, my dear Hamster?

Finally, I dowed the CSA for that Bayou CoT for two reasons:

• I lost my CoT in Mexico and wanted a CoT back
• I wanted to provoke a war with the UK. I was more than ready for a one on one with the UK back then and I wanted them to attack me.

In fact, Spain would have dowed the UK very soon, but unfortunately the game crashed before I could fight it out with Daniel for supremacy.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

And quite frankly, I had expected that Spain and Portugal wouldn't have allowed UK to rape USA... but they apparantly had no problems seeing UK expand even further.

I wanted to let Daniel become the super badboy before I would dow him

 

[Tonioz]

well, while there is one discussion about hard question about quitting and it`s definition, bringing another discussion regarding "gamey" without it`s clear definition is more mess. For now i only see that most people intended to use word "gamey" for own speculations only.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Myself having 80k troops left, place them in one of my few still controlled provinces, requests to the GM to quit; Do so, and transfer the save to the new host and leaves.

Edit:
So my conclusion of why I left would be;
- Daniel acted in a very gamey way in my eyes.
- FAL acted in a slightly gamey way in my eyes.
- A 10 province US with 40 MP would fill no absolutely no function. (This counting Daniel wouldn't demand anything from the US itself, however that is hardly sure he wouldn't)

Did you ask for permission to quit? It would be nice if that was the case since I like you Babur.

The big error was of course that the GM by force transferred you to the USA instead of editing back your COTs in Mughal when you got your connection working. I as ENG would gladly have given back Kutch.

Regarding my war aims I had not decided but it is highly probable I would have tried to annex you in a few wars.

BTW, you did react to my proposal. Early on in the game you asked for 5-6 provinces and offered an alliance. However, as you know that was not what I wanted. I wanted my American back safe and that meant an eternal NAP or your destruction.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

I wanted to let Daniel become the super badboy before I would dow him

Exactly, and that was why I had not yet decided what to do with the USA. I know that if I behaved badly my friends in the game would dwindle in numbers. It was a very interesting situation.

Unfortunately the whole game collapsed after Babur quit and Art said something like "Perhaps this is a good point to end the campaign". After that game-killing comment he even got a prize from the GM for his good gaming. When I read about that I went out and vomited .

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Was it gamey of Daniel to exploit an event like that? Maybe so. But no more than when anyone else plans and uses knowledge of future events to their advantage. And that happens all the time.

But I do think that Daniel's demand to USA to either sign an eternal peace or die was bad taste. I know that me and Daniel have completely different views on how EU2 should be played, but the word 'eternal' is not a word I like in EU2. Takes too much fun and dynamic out of the game.

First of all I would like to make clear to everyone that I did not know anything about these events etc than what Hive told me: and that was that if I released CSA they would get some provinces from the USA. I did not even get any info if there would be a war between the USA and CSA.

If I had had any moral problems after my perfomance in this incident (not that I have) I would have lost them after having read how Hive tried to fool me. Nice try Hive, I like that GMship. Hehe, reallly funny actually.

Regarding the "bad taste" of an eternal peace that is what Babur told me on ICQ - that you would not like it. Well, I could not care less, unless it is forbidden I will go ahead and you know that, as you write yourself. It is nice when people get to know their fellow gamers' attitude to the game, it lessens the risk that a quarrel occurs later on. And that brings us nicely back to the start of this thread: by setting up a quit rule (and perhaps discuss it) we get to know what the GM in the game expects from us and what we have to obey if we are to take part in the campaign.

 

[unmerged(38752)]

If you read the thread of the new wednesday game, Conflicts and Converts, you'll see that in one of the latest posts the GM has included a quit rule. Perhaps we should just wait and see how that game turns out?

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Maybe we can dig this thread up when we'll have some first hand experience from them, instead of having NO4 players arguing and more or less throwing garbage at each other. Makes this thread so much less interesting for casual reader.

 

[unmerged(10915)]

Maybe we can dig this thread up when we'll have some first hand experience from them, instead of having NO4 players arguing and more or less throwing garbage at each other. Makes this thread so much less interesting for casual reader.

The NOIV game seems to have been cursed with whiners and quitters and all that ilk, so maybe it should be treated as a special case, no?

 

[unmerged(21937)]

The NOIV game seems to have been cursed with whiners and quitters and all that ilk, so maybe it should be treated as a special case, no?

Maybe. Or maybe those that did quit should rather hold their head high knowing they did the right thing and ignore accusations of bad quitting, rather than start building a powder keg with the "whiners".

 

[unmerged(6147)]

So you are comparing someone quitting a COMPUTER GAME with cowardice in the military? That is a really stupid analogy.

The expression defaitism is French in origin and nowadays is used to charaterize an attitude as the one you presented in the rows of you I quoted. For your convenience I will now repeat that statement:

People dont think about quitting at the beginning of a game. They intend to play on through to the end. Just like people want to be friends in good faith, but that sometimes friendships die.

You just have to accept that. It is life.

Thus you "give up" and that is what defaitism is about, it has nothing to do with "cowardice". Believing you will be "defeated". It should not be that difficult for for an English-speaking person to see the similarity between the English word "defeat" and the French "défaite"... Was it?

The second paragraph is a self-proving statement. "There is a difference between X and Y when they differ".

I tried to help you understand that even if the rule just meant we got one quit less it is still progress. Compare this to your statement:"You just have to accept that. It is life."

I have quit a large number of games. So have most veterans. Things go shitty, life intervenes, stuff happens. Deal with it.

Sad to hear this Ryoken. Very sad. Thus one can conclude that your (the "vet's") attitude is bad and apparently you do not show any sign of improving, or are you?

Hopefully the good forces can take over and establish a new mentality in the community.

I dont have a shortage of people asking me to play just because I have quit a few times. People like me in their games because I make the game more enjoyable, not because I agree to some unenforceable rule.

Yes, and what is wrong if you to your enjoyability add a restrictive attitude of quitting? Would they not wellcome you then? Would that not enhance your enjoyability to new unseen heights?

Were you perhaps tired when you wrote this hilarious statement?

Slargos has quit two games just as I was about to kick his ass. Will I still play with Slargos? Gladly. He makes the game more interesting.

I would rather have 3 interesting sessions and a quit than 10 uninteresting sessions and no quitters.

And what is wrong with having both? Both interesting sessions and no quits? Or do you consider yourself and Slargos as perfect examples of homo ludens, so perfect you cannot improve in your behaviour? Do you mean that the quitting tendency does not constitute one inch of a problem for the other participants.

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

If you consider responding to this post, then please think before you do that. It took me 30 minutes to write these obvious comments on your post. I have better things to do in life.

 

[ForzaA]

Either you continue playing, even if you don't enjoy it that much anymore, since you owe it to the group. Which would be honourable.

Or you just quit when you don't enjoy it anymore, be it because of losing a CoT of because you grow tired of eu2 mp. Which would be selfish.

Interesting position, but is it really so simple?

let us draw a bad analogy

Let's assume you're a third year student that wants to have some fun drinking.
So what do you do? Let's assume yuo go and connect yourself with a group of students. (I have no idea what the english word is, in Dutch it's corps)
You have a few fun nights drinking, playing innocent pranks (farting pillows and the like) all in all, you have a great time.
Then, one fateful day, they tell you that, to really be part of the group, you have to run around in a bar naked. They'll undoubtedly have a LOT of fun that night.

If you say "no sorry, I won't" and leave- are you then a bad quitter?

 

[unmerged(6147)]

I would have quit the game aswell directly as USA, if the GM himself allowed this kind of behavior...

I would not have done that.

I would have asked permission from the GM to quit the game after the end of the session.

And BTW, I would have refused to play USA in the first play instead of the Mughals.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

few comments on this first of all youre the last who should post all this crap
So, in the future, try not to pass judgement on other people before you know the facts.
you do this quite often so i advise you think twice before you say something like this before pointing fingers at others while youre guilty of the same thing is easy

No I do not. I try to get facts clear first. In contrast to you it appears. As will be clear when we now compare what you write with the facts.

You write

"there was no conversation about this and nobody mensioned anything about wanting to end when official endtime was there you Demanded and forced us all to quit suddenly not even allowed to reach jan . happend a little after kj mensioned war with you while he had crt
dow happend and you simple left the game without much change to talk it over"

It is a little difficult to interpret what you write since you appear to leave out periods and such.

But as I understand what you say is that there was no conversation about ending the game.

I will now quote from the game log. I have inserted some other things with dates to give the reader a chance to understand for how long this conversation occurred.

name = "November 23, 1722 : Austria acquired a monopoly in Veneto."
name = "Daniel A (France) :We must end now goys"
name = "December 3, 1722 : We won a battle against Rebel Scum in Meath."
name = "Daniel A (France) :It is way beyond 2.30"
name = "Dago (Ottoman Empire) :common"
name = "King John (Austria) :can't we have a longer session tonight?"
name = "Dago (Ottoman Empire) :let s play a bit more )"
name = "January 5, 1723 : We won a battle against Rebel Scum in Leinster."
name = "King John (Austria) :sleep in tomarrow"
name = "Daniel A (France) :No we MUST end now"
name = "Daniel A (France) :I have signed on to play until 2.30"
name = "King John (Austria) :be like me Daniel, never sleep"
name = "HolisticGod (Prussia) :Can you give us all a couple years to hit LT 41?"
name = "HolisticGod (Prussia) :Anyone who doesn't is going to be at a huge disadvantage between sessions."
name = "Daniel A (France) :Why, you will get it next week?"
name = "King John (Austria) :1726 or so would be nice"
name = "Daniel A (France) :What does it matter?"
name = "HolisticGod (Prussia) :We need to be able to spend powerpoints on CCs."
name = "Drake (England) :matters alot "
name = "Drake (England) :yep"
name = "HolisticGod (Prussia) :If we can't, Austria will have a very sizable advantage."
name = "HolisticGod (Prussia) :Just a couple years."
name = "May 13, 1723 : Our merchants successfully expanded our trade in Tortuga."
name = "Daniel A (France) :It does notmatter one iota"
name = "Drake (England) :it does "
name = "Drake (England) :doesn't matter if we end now or in 15min either"
name = "July 9, 1723 : Our merchants failed to expand our trade in Kutch."
name = "Daniel A (France) :So tell me: what is it it matters?"
name = "HolisticGod (Prussia) :Yes, it does. Austria will be able to spend powerpoints on CCs. The rest of us won't."
name = "Daniel A (France) :HoG asked for a couple of years"
name = "King John (Austria) :this is true"
name = "September 17, 1723 : Austria declared war upon France."
name = "September 21, 1723 : Russia accepted peace with China on name = "Daniel A (France) :I am going to sleep now"
name = "DonHALdeCracovia (Spain) :Myabe I will go fishing, 4am soon "
name = "Daniel A (France) :What kind of stupid DOW was this?"
name = "Daniel A (France) :I am leaving for tonight"
name = "Daniel A (France) :Good night guys"
name = "King John (Austria) :i mentioned a year ago i was going to attack you. come on"
name = "Drake (England) :rofl "
name = "Daniel A (France) :I have not seen that"
name = "King John (Austria) :drink some coffee, chill"
name = "Daniel A (France) :Respect the Official ending time of this game"
name = "King John (Austria) :you don't look at the chat sometimes"
name = "Drake (England) :kj can you wait till next week for war ?"
name = "Daniel A (France) :I am disappointed on the lot of you"
name = "Tsar Temujin (Russia) :We can end."
name = "Daniel A (France) :Good night"
name = "Daniel A (France) has left the game!"

So, no conversation took place? If you respond to this post, then please start your post by admitting

a) I suffer from amnesia
or
b) I was on drugs when I wrote that post
or
c) I am a liar
or
d) I am unable to clearly state in writing what I think

Off topic comment: Sadly I did not notice HoGs comments around the LT41 question.

Then you say

- you simple left the game without much change to talk it over

Do you remember Loafer's? In that game I paused the game to be able to talk calmly about the incident and solve it. You and the rest thought this was really bad. Pausing, very VERY bad was the reaction from all of you.

Heh, and this time I apparently should have paused, or what are you talking about?

And why should I talk with you about it? People that show so little respect for my gaming joy that when I am tired and (in my right) ask for the game to end you do not only refuse to do it, one of you even proceeds and DOWs me expecting me to conduct war at 03.40 in the morning when all I want is to go to sleep? What kind of shitty behaviour is that? You ought to read Ryoken's first post in this thread a couple of times and digest it. You and some of the other players.

When I asked for the game to end and did not let myself be persuaded by you the only fair thing for you to do would be to stop playing. But you did not do that. After that you are on your own and cannot demand 1 second of my time.

And if anyone of you were aware of this LT41 business already around 02.30 it would have been good if he had asked the players what the end time for the night was. Preferably the GM should have taken care of this. But he did not.

Then you say:

" the gm did not agree to the way you handled the situation with you he only agreed to youre right to ask to end the session the way you did it was uncalled for"

As you can see from above we passed Jan 1 1723 after I asked for the game to end. Was it very difficult for the GM to at least say we would end on Jan 1 the year after that, i.e. 1724? But instead he DOWed me in the autumn of 1723. I hope Zeit, when he reads, this understands what I did. I have little hope you will.

Then you write:
1more time i will refuse to play with you in any future game

Have no fear. I give you zero chances from today. So unless we are forced into the same game by some coincidence, like this morning, we will not play vs eachother.

 

[unmerged(19903)]

I would have asked permission from the GM to quit the game after the end of the session.

From your posts I conclude that he had right to leave the game - no permission is needed in such case - you just tried to finish him off in not the nicest way and that's all - it's only a game - and I think that you're taking it too personaly - talking about cowardice in comparision with leaving a game ?
What are you talking about ? How anybody can be afraid of playing the game ?

In this USA - ENG case I see lack of GM and other players intervention - they just agreed to eliminate one of them in such miserable way.

Please, remember, that even if there can be only one victorious player, EVERYONE should have pleasure from game - striking the USA player in such situation actually WAS gamey - GM could make some rule about it, for ex. some time, during which USA cannot be attacked by other nation ( historically no one helped CSA and recognized this country, even in the hardest moments of the war ).

In the case of the game time, I think that you're right - game time is a game time - especially if it's so late - there's no democracy about it - if one of the players will say "Guys, I've to end" after the game time, rest should also quit .

 

[unmerged(5161)]

Defeatism is a tactic used to terrorize troops, Daniel. The majority of defeatism cases were in WWII even though the term was invented in WWI. The reason why defeatism occured is because the commander was out of his damn mind and the troops knew it.

In WWI, the French were ordering their troops to throw themselves into impossible offensive actions; up muddy hills into entrenched enemies supported by artillery. After several of these actions, some lower officers began to question the wisdom of this. They intentionally "lost" the order or some other excuse. They were tried for defeatism. The point was to send the message to the troops if you dont die in the field doing what we say, we will kill you ourselves.

In WWII it was used mainly on the Eastern front for the same reasons. Hitler and Stalin gave their soldiers impossible orders, especially Stalin. The Red Army would shoot anyone who didnt suicide charge the enemy. It was a bloodbath.

That you would use such a term to JUSTIFY your position is ludicrous. If you had used the term in a vernacular sense, I would be more forgiving. But you specifically cited the military use of the term.

That being said, it is not "giving up" to accept an inevitable facet of gaming. You keep making references to other games; chess, for example. I would surmise that if you denied people the ability to RESIGN, there would be a lot more quitters in chess. The ability to just resign prevents this from being an issue.

YOU CANNOT RESIGN EU2

You can only quit. There is no game function to resign.

Now I cited "veterans" because that means that over time people quit. Everyone who has been playing this game for a long time (more than 6 months, you noob) has quit. And eventually you will quit. And you will feel JUSTIFIED!!

People are going to quit this game. That is not defeatism, that is a FACT. It is going to happen. ACCEPT IT and move on. Look for ways to actually improve the community instead of complaining about an inevitable thing.

And dont talk down to me like I am some little kid. You are talking to someone who plans on returning to the community soon. And I intend to make you quit a game when I do.