Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Style Of Playing

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
unmerged(6147)

unmerged(6147)

Banned
Oct 22, 2001
8.242
0
Visit site
Recent incidents in two games raises an important question.


QUESTION

Do players have to conform to rules that exists only in the minds of some of their fellow gamers?


WHAT HAPPENED

In these incidents one certain player was DOWed by one or more nations and was IMO beaten back because of MP and or CRT. However, IMO mainly due to his great skill, his opponents were not able to really penetrate his nation. He was quickly down to -3 stab and low war score (because his border provinces was captured) but he was not really in danger of getting a government collapse, he held the rebs under control and kept his central provinves protected. I believe this is a truthful description of what happened, the details are not really relevant.

This player is a stubborn type. He does not lie down until he knows he will lose the war. He hopes for some miracle like having his opponent’s leaders died (as did happen at least once) or that he gets no great leaders himself (perhaps they play with random leaders or perhaps a historic super-leader will appear soon), or that a new nation comes to his rescue and DOWs his opponents, or that his opponents have a CW etc. The possibilities are many.

And thus the matter rested for a while, stab hits after stab hit was sent and taken. In one of the incidents, when he was Austria, he finally succumbed to the predominance and after a very long war (10-15 years?) was finally crushed (he was close to lose control of all his provinces I believe). A part of the reason was that SPA stopped financing him.

In the other example his opponents simply gave up (shortly after a 666-leader of theirs was killed IIRC). In that war rumour has it that he received some 30 stab hits.

THE PROBLEM

Now, what is the problem with this? The problem is that his opponents do not like this play style. They want him to give up much earlier and hand over provinces in the peace deal. The opponents of this player believe that his playing style ruins the fun for them and thus they intend to refuse to play with him, to ostracise him. They believe he must conform to their unwritten rule to give up when your WS is really bad and no sign of a recover is visible.

Is this the solution: ostracism?


RELEVANT GAME MECHANICS

What features in the game exists that helps us solve the problem? I believe there are three:

- stab hits
- and government collapse with forced peace (happens when rebs control more provinces than the owner of the country)
- and forced peace when you control none of your provinces on the same continent as your capital and nor anyone with a land connection to it (I believe this is how this seldom used thing works)

But as we can see from these incidents those mechanics are perhaps not always enough, some players wants more than that. What can we do then?


A BAD SOLUTION

IMO a bad solution is to whine in-game and write derogatory posts afterwards and then refuse to play with this player. Not only is it unpleasant for all involved, but in cases like this, when no clear rule exists that forbids this playing style, it is undignified to portray the player as one that destroys the game because you yourself believe his style should not be allowed. Whenever a person promotes his personal views to a law governing all, he is opening a can of worms. Disputes are almost sure to come.

A basic rule should be never to complain of another player’s behaviour as long as that player is within the boundaries of the rules. If there is a border case: well then it is up to the GM to decide.

It is extremely important that we all try hard not to allow ourselves to get angry/disappointed and/or show this, because it lessens the joy of gaming not only for those engaged but also for the rest of the players.


A GOOD AND NICE SOLUTION

As usual in such a situation, were the game mechanics and the current set of rules do not protect our view, we need to construct a rule that does protect it, a rule that eliminates the problem and thus enables us to continue as friends. And such a rule exists, it is an old one, it has been used in many games and is currently discussed in the relevant game threads.

It is to have a formalised rule when you must accept peace. Something along “if you are on -99 warscore and have stab -3 and the war has been going on for X number of years you have to accept the peace proposal”.

X may be e.g. 3 years and the reason for this is that we do not want blitzkrieg vs a nation with low stab to start with to be covered by this rule. The rule intends to portray a situation were a nation clearly lost the war but the game mechanics listed above are not enough to force a peace.

Well, if such a rule existed then it is up to the GM to decide if it applies to the current case and that is.

In some cases this rule has an addendum: something like “and it is not probable in the view of the GM that the player can stage a comeback soon”. Personally I do not like this type of requisite because it puts too much burden on the judgement of the GM.


A FINAL WORD

And thus the final word as so often is: have a clear and simple rule from start and stop bitching. If you do not like the rule then either do not join the game from start or try to convince the other players that the rule should be changed or accept the rule.

Unfortunately many of the vets in this community dislike rules but incidents like this one yet again show the necessity of clear rules that covers the potential areas that endangers the joy of gaming.
 
Daniel,
why start a discussion that you already answered yourself? :D
What the point with starting a discussion when you taken one of the sides in the second row you wrote? :rofl:


You forgot to mention half of what happend here.
And i dont think there is any point of creating this thread.
I dont need to justify anything why i kicked Tonio from my game.
But i will, but not in an open discussion like this.

It only worsen the problem instead.
 
The reason is that I believe you and other need to be informed on the subject - the subject on the need of clear rules. You may well regard the thread as a sermon rather than a discussion.

What happened yesterday was derogatory not only for your and your opponent's enjoyjment of the game, it was as well for my own game enjoyment, both on short and long term.

Short term it is never nice to listen to the bitching in the game log. Our own pleasure from gaming normally is in direct proportion to the pleasure experienced by the rest of the players.

Long term this kind of incidents when players leave their nations destroys much of the possibility to play longterm - playing longterm is not only fun it is e.g. even one of the basic rules you wrote up for your own game BF3. Well, when players leave a game your long term diplomacy with that nation is often gone, you have to build up relations from start with the next player who takes over. E.g. in FN I had just started working on improving my relations with you, we had a good start. Then you now leave that campaign and probably most of that work and investment are lost.

I hate it when players quit nations, regardless of the motives. I.e. they may well have a good reason for quitting, one that I respect, but the fact is that it still ruins some of the game.

-------

The reason I started a new thread was that you explicitly asked for us not to discuss what happened in your own game thread.
 
Ok I've not read the thread yet (might do it later, but right now I don't want to :p) but might I point back to what happened with the last thread Daniel opened to discuss attitude? (The one about bad quits)

;)
 
Yes, it behooves us to show restraint. Quite the opposite of what Fredrik did ingame as well in the game threads.

But the perfect thing is if there was no debate, because everyone agrees with these self-evident truths, as Mr Jeffersson would have put it. ;)
 
Last edited:
Excellent analysis Daniel :). I agree with you, it should be a very good thing to have an open discussion, err, sermon on this topic ;). And your post opens it up very well.

Stabhit rules are indeed a good thing to have. If you have a stabhit rule, you don't run into this problem. Without the rule, one would think that the risk of being totally dismembered in a fanatical war in the case of defeat would be enough to deter the kind of stubborn warring players like the one you mentioned like to wage, but it doesn't. The reason is, all you have to do is quit the game.

It's not like RL, where if you stubbornly refused peace with a stronger nation and your country was then demolished, you'd have to live with the after effects of poverty and foreign rule. The incentive for some players is really quite small, because they can just take off and let the unfortunate victors clean up the mess. It doesn't matter to them if after they leave, the players left have less of a historical feel because an important country is wiped out, or if playing is less interesting for them now.

Which is a big reason why you need a stabhit rule. Some players don't care about the enjoyment of their fellow players. You've gotta have a solid rule to force these types to play decently, otherwise you eventually run into these same problems.
 
Just read it all, and generally agree with it.

Btw Daniel, you mention the word "rule" 20 times in your first post :D I believe you are secretly trying to influence us :eek:
 
King John said:
Which is a big reason why you need a stabhit rule. Some players don't care about the enjoyment of their fellow players.
Click to expand...

KJ, personal questions :rolleyes:
1. Do you think permanent gangbangs and fighting without chances gives enjoyment and fun of players ?
2. Do you think resisting that doesn`t give enjoyment and fun of players ?

Well, talking from theory to personailties i explain my point of view in this post, no need to double it: http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4662225&postcount=1033
 
Tonioz said:
KJ, personal questions :rolleyes:
1. Do you think permanent gangbangs and fighting without chances gives enjoyment and fun of players ?
2. Do you think resisting that doesn`t give enjoyment and fun of players ?

Well, talking from theory to personailties i explain my point of view in this post, no need to double it: http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4662225&postcount=1033
Click to expand...


1- As I said on ICQ, you always have the option of talking. You are thick sometimes Tonio, but I shouldn't have to repeat this to you over and over. Gangbangs can be combated with diplomacy when military fails.

2- It can, which I also said on ICQ. I think it's fun to combat gangbangers because 1# you look like you're doing really awesome, fighting 2-3 other nations by yourself :p and 2#, it's easier to inflict major losses on the enemy, because it has to fight on your home turf most of the time, which is a lot of fun. What's your point anyway?
 
John,

To be truthful Tonio have had some hard times lately. FN and BF3 has been hard experiences for him, as they would have been for anyone of us. I can well understand his feelings, it can't be that fun to repeatedly be gangbanged or at least attacked without much chance to resist and then hear his counterparts argue that his, that is Tonio's, style of play ruins the fun for them :wacko:; well that is Tonio's point in referring to "fun" I believe.

BTW I believe know several players that would have quit in his position. I give Tonio credit for his decision to stay and fight. Much more credit than I give them who fight him and quit the game when they cannot force peace on him bythe help of neither the game mechanics, nor the rules of the game.

But of course you are right: gangbangs normally follow as a result of a failure in your foreign policy, most often a failure in diplomacy. In BF3 e.g. I was not that happy when Tonio refused to make a losing peace after I sent some 2000d, although I asked him to do it, and then I sent some more money and then afterwards I was told that all the money I sent was too little and down the drain... :( That meant the end of Spanish sponsorship in that game.
 
Daniel, i suppose that is kind wrong position. That is classical dependant case when sponsor is much more rich than receiver, and as sponsor you need to decide beforehand the way you do the funding
- no funding
- limitted funding - absolute amount of ducats or based on year, WE or other basis
- unlimitted funding, coz there is one coalition with same interests.

I believe you chose worst solution, because then you don`t need to send ducats at all and save them. Half measures like invest/stop produce worst effective result.
 
Daniel A said:
A FINAL WORD

And thus the final word as so often is: have a clear and simple rule from start and stop bitching. If you do not like the rule then either do not join the game from start or try to convince the other players that the rule should be changed or accept the rule.

Unfortunately many of the vets in this community dislike rules but incidents like this one yet again show the necessity of clear rules that covers the potential areas that endangers the joy of gaming.
Click to expand...

As I claimed in the Finding Neverland thread, I think this is a problem that is in the heads of players. If there is a rule to be made, the rule should be:

'If you can not recapture a province that has been captured from you, nor can you capture any of your opponents territory, you must cede that territory in peace after X years".

Because the EU2 engine can't recognize de facto control.
 
smn said:
As I claimed in the Finding Neverland thread, I think this is a problem that is in the heads of players. If there is a rule to be made, the rule should be:

'If you can not recapture a province that has been captured from you, nor can you capture any of your opponents territory, you must cede that territory in peace after X years".

Because the EU2 engine can't recognize de facto control.
Click to expand...

WOW. That is an incredibly good idea :).
 
smn said:
'If you can not recapture a province that has been captured from you, nor can you capture any of your opponents territory, you must cede that territory in peace after X years".

Because the EU2 engine can't recognize de facto control.
Click to expand...

so number of controlled (captured) provinces = number of gained provinces ?
 
smn said:
As I claimed in the Finding Neverland thread, I think this is a problem that is in the heads of players. If there is a rule to be made, the rule should be:

'If you can not recapture a province that has been captured from you, nor can you capture any of your opponents territory, you must cede that territory in peace after X years".

Because the EU2 engine can't recognize de facto control.
Click to expand...

Yes, I like the inherent logic of this rule, and that is why I believe there should be some kind of rule that forced Tonio to peace in the actual situation.

However, it is very difficult to construct a rule along the lines you suggest. Because the defender could often muster together a huge army and attack each province that he was in danger of losing. And what would happen: say there is one province the defender cannot liberate. Will there then be peace and this sole province be given to the attacker? Perhaps he wants more as well? Ot should that province be considered won and always included in the eventual peace treaty? Will we edit it to him at the next rehost?

But sure, if you can construct such a rule it would be nice. I have thought about a rule along these lines myself but failed to come up with a satisfying wording.
 
Tonioz said:
I believe you chose worst solution, because then you don`t need to send ducats at all and save them. Half measures like invest/stop produce worst effective result.
Click to expand...

Indeed Tonio, but your attitude afterwards did little to make me more favourable disposed towards you in that game. :)
 
Daniel A said:
However, it is very difficult to construct a rule along the lines you suggest. Because the defender could often muster together a huge army and attack each province that he was in danger of losing. And what would happen: say there is one province the defender cannot liberate. Will there then be peace and this sole province be given to the attacker? Perhaps he wants more as well? Ot should that province be considered won and always included in the eventual peace treaty? Will we edit it to him at the next rehost?

But sure, if you can construct such a rule it would be nice. I have thought about a rule along these lines myself but failed to come up with a satisfying wording.
Click to expand...

I think there are two situations where this sort of rule comes to play.

First, a land power A losing its colonies to a naval power B. No biggie there, the rule is exactly because otherwise A can just sit back and wait, without being in risk to lose anything. Referencing the recent FN Portugal/Austria affair.

Secondly, in a situation where the front 'stalls' because forts and attrition makes it too hard for country X to advance, but country Y can not recapture either. If it can recapture those provinces, even for a very short time, it is clearly strong enough to fight on. Rationale: This rule aims only to cut the sitzkrieg wars, not those wars where there is actually fighting going on.

As you said, there is confusion if X is trying to 'time-capture' 3 provinces from Y, but Y manages to recapture 2 of those before the limit is reached. Should X be still allowed to peace out for the last province? IAbsolutely yes. If he only wants to. Referring here to the part "nor can you capture any of your opponents territory". That is, if you are making such a huge comeback, go first capture some of your opponents lands and keep a hold on them to get insurance against the 'time-peace' :).

I can see some deadlocks coming if both nations have colonial empires, but it is already possible to force colonial empires to peace with stabhits, so then the rule would not need to be invoked.
 
smn,

Your present formulation (in your first post) unfortunately does not cover for instance the situation we had yesterday. Here Tonio could probably momentarily liberate just about any province, and he certainly could get control of one of his enemy. This because of is naval mobility. Thus if we want a rule along "de facto"-control I believe the current suggestion by you is not enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back