What is it about this game? Why are you a quitter?

[deity]

What type of people are we?

Why are there so many nasty moments?

Why on Earth does someone quit a game after weeks of investment just because of a failed attack; or the loss of a city?

There seems to be a spoilt element in some of the MP players.
I'd call it the John McEnroe syndrome.

False accusations fly. Cheating is always mentioned, otherwise how could he possibly lose?

Maybe it's a characteristic of the personality type that loves this game.

I guess we are a lot of perfectionists and when we played the AI we could get away with it but against other like-minded types there is no escape!

So, are you like this type?

Have you ever quit a game as the bad boy?

In a couple of cases players have quit very abusively, questioned the rules or called others cheats and then claimed they'd wiped Civ from their hard drive and said bye to this community!

Just because things didn't work out - they lost a few units or something!

---

Having said that I really don't like playing pally games where everyone is too nice. I love the competeive element and people who take the game very seriously - it's just that there is a point where it tips over...


I can just hear Rah/Ming/War saying, "That's why I like playing with my buddies, people I can trust and just have fun with "

That sound s a bit too boring though...

A game's gotta be real serious, devious, competetive and "nasty in character" but off the tennis court you have to treat each other with respect and be prepared to apologise if you have treated a fellow online player badly or falsely accussed them quite openly.

Sounds like I'm angling for an apology.... LOL

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=47343

[Ming]

Originally posted by deity
I can just hear Rah/Ming/War saying, "That's why I like playing with my buddies, people I can trust and just have fun with "
That sound s a bit too boring though...

At least they don't quit... As long as you can play...

[ColdWizard]

games are supposed to be fun, not serious

i'd rather not play in the first place than quit in the middle of a game, quitting is rude

[DrFell]

Worst thing is zoners just quitting halfway through the game, for NO reason at all, and with no warning - not even a 'see you later' message. After spending half an hour setting up a game, you just think, what the ****???

[Deity Dude]

i'm used to that Dr - it comes with the turf in the zone.

I do have to agree with deity on this one. We spent weeks setting this game up - people adjusted work schedules - played 2 weekly sessions. Then someone quit a game ( a diplo game at that) without even really trying to work it out with the others players. I don't know who was right or wrong in the argument I just know that the way it terminated stunk!!

[-Jrabbit]

So this is Diplo...

[Alexander's Horse]

I'll concede games if I think I can't win and its no longer fun - but I won't quit and make accusations. Anyone who has played me knows that.

[Frank Johnson]

Its easy to get caught up in a feeling like the game is forming up against you, espically in these large games with 7 players.

But it seems alot of players don't sit back and see that all things are relative in a game. But it works both ways.


So there's a failed attack, or you get defeated in a battle. Big deal. This is why we play 7 player games diplo games. Hopefully your utter destruction isn't a good thing for another player and the world community should bail you out, or keep you alive at least to plot another day. If they don't then you're just a bad diplomat.

Yeah I can see there's a point in every game where it ought to be "called" and theres no more point in playing, but too many players write off these large complex changing games way too early.

In those game its actually possible to survive and remerge to do something important in anthoer part of the game, espically when tech trading and alliances are more liberal.

[Rasputin]

depends on the game type, Diplo 7 palyer you just have to keep playing,,, Tribe, Duel or arena , if you get a bad war it probably all over anyway !!!!

[rah]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I'll concede games if I think I can't win and its no longer fun - but I won't quit and make accusations. Anyone who has played me knows that.

Our last saturday game was a good example. I got off to one of the worst starts in a long time. Didn't get monarchy till 1650. Languised in last in all the demos for the first 2500 years.
BUT, I was still having fun. And never thought of quiting.

By the end of the game, I had crawled back up to a respectable 2nd position. (I had a ways to go to catch Markus) I was getting ready to put some heavy pressure on the other two players. (but still didn't know where any of Markus's cities were)
I made myself a pain in the A** to Smartfart. (I did warn him first)

If everyone always quit when I got off to a good start, what fun would that be?

RAH

[markusf]

Originally posted by rah


Our last saturday game was a good example. I got off to one of the worst starts in a long time. Didn't get monarchy till 1650. Languised in last in all the demos for the first 2500 years.
BUT, I was still having fun. And never thought of quiting.

By the end of the game, I had crawled back up to a respectable 2nd position. (I had a ways to go to catch Markus) I was getting ready to put some heavy pressure on the other two players. (but still didn't know where any of Markus's cities were)
I made myself a pain in the A** to Smartfart. (I did warn him first)

If everyone always quit when I got off to a good start, what fun would that be?

RAH

lol my start was worse then yours... lost an original set and was completely in the middle of tundra.. had a mountain range of 18 mountains and trapped Between SF and the english.. I could only build about 8 citieis and i conquered a bunch of the english ones..

[rah]

And you didn't quit either. Fun can still be had.

RAH

[Frank Johnson]

Here in lies the problem. With a when we learn a board game as children or whenever.....if we are good people we learn that you'll lose alot more often than you'll win, espically when you play a game like risk with 5, or 6, or 7 or howerver many players.

Enter civ2. We all play it against the AI first. No matter what the heavy odds are against us playing with the AI, we intend to always smash the AI, and almost every game of civ2 is winnable against the AI. So we get spoiled. We "have" to win every game.

Its a clashing of worlds. A game we train on to always wins, meets the inventiable long odds of a real board game with real people. Add in the inpersonal nature of the internet and we get all our problems.

[rah]

I would be willing to bet that most of the older folks here, were board game fanatics. Ming and I were. So we were used to losing frequently. But we won more than our fair share.

RAH

[Alexander's Horse]

I was a wargamer and a board game fanatic. Some games can't be won. But that doesn't mean they aren't fun.

So I understand what RAH is saying very well.

Some people seem to use the game to nourish fantasies that they are some kind of genius. Add to that this game attracts perfectionists and you get combustion.

[rah]

Yeah, Play the Confederates in Avalon Hills Gettysburg. Unless you can block the Unions reinforcements from coming on the board in the first few turns. It is very unlikely that you can prevail.
But we still played. And the Confederates usually lost.
At least in the version we played back in the stone age. (before PCs)

This can be said for quite a few games that were based on historical battles.

The big difference is then was that the person that played the Union troops won, he didn't stand up on the hill in the neighborhood and proclaim that he was the GOD of Avalon Hill games. But more importantly, the Confederate General never accused the winner of cheating.

RAH

Any other board game fanatics?

[DaveV]

Originally posted by rah
Any other board game fanatics?

I lived in a great neighborhood for board games. My two brothers played, and we could always find a few others to fill out a game: Life, Monopoly, Careers, Risk. We played a number of all-day Risk games when school was snowed out (even going as far as chaining three boards together on one memorable occaision). I loved Risk because negotiating skills were the whole game: the strategy was pretty elementary, so the winner would be the one who made the best deals and avoided p*ssing off the other players (we didn't play with those stupid cards, so growth was usually gradual).

I never played Gettysburg, but I played several other Avalon Hill games: 1776, Midway, Luftwaffe, Panzer Blitz, Panzer Leader. A lot of the scenarios were lopsided, but it was the best fun available at the time.

One of the underappreciated things about computer games is how much they've reduced the setup time. I remember spending an hour or more just sorting through those little cardboard squares or plastic pieces and positioning them on the board.

[rah]

While the setups could be long, it was the combats where PCs make the biggest differences. One turn could take hours as you moved down the front moving your (hundreds of) units, calculating all the odds and resolving the combats, and the occasional minor arguments over whether a specific unit had already moved/attacked that turn. PCs were WONDERFUL.

D&D type games were helped even more, but you sacrificed the more obscure options. Like the first time a player claimed he was touching the trolls chest and invoking a close portal spell to close a heart valve in the troll. The computer could never handle such inventiveness.

RAH

[DaveV]

Originally posted by rah
While the setups could be long, it was the combats where PCs make the biggest differences

Agreed. I remember using a ruler to determine line-of-sight obstructions on the Panzer games, and still having arguments about whether that hill was really in the way. AH games in general required a lot of table lookups and dice rolling, which the computer does so much better. And it took a looong time to roll all the dice when you had 75 armies attacking 60 armies in Risk.

Another area where the PC is really helpful is the ability to save and reload a game. Much better than pushing the board into the corner and hoping the cat didn't jump onto it...

On D&D games: computer games are, by their nature, less satisfying than having a human dungeon master. Either the game comes across as pre-scripted (which can still be fun, but replayability is limited), or arbitrary and random. I finally gave up on NetHack because I felt like I was just playing against the random number generator.

[atawa]

Originally posted by rah
D&D type games were helped even more, but you sacrificed the more obscure options. Like the first time a player claimed he was touching the trolls chest and invoking a close portal spell to close a heart valve in the troll. The computer could never handle such inventiveness.

RAH

good one, like destroying a beholder with fabricate and a gust of wind

[ColdWizard]

i used to play board games, war at sea, victory in the pacific, midway, a little king maker, football (both college and pro), monopoly, risk, stratego (before i lost some of the pieces), plus i learned poker games at an early age and never managed to develop a poker face thus getting used to losing (he's smiling again, time to fold ).

D&D is awesome though, i love it when i can get a DM to say "you know that i'm making this up as i go along right? and you're not making it very easy..." never thought of anything like that troll thing though, have to try to use that some time

[Frank Johnson]

My mom bought me 100 dollars worth of the latest axis and allies theatre games.....and my friends promptly went back to their various colleges/military posts and I was left with no one to play! Wahhhhh!

[rah]

Originally posted by ColdWizard
D&D is awesome though, i love it when i can get a DM to say "you know that i'm making this up as i go along right? and you're not making it very easy..." never thought of anything like that troll thing though, have to try to use that some time

That's what's missing from PC D&D games. No computer could possible be programed for everything.

Or the first time Ming read that Gargoyles "were intelligent enough to develop a game plan". The next time we were randomized by them, nothing happened at first. (because later we figured out, much to our dismay) that they saw the strength of our party and figured we were to strong to attack straight up so they set an ambush/trap that we triggered 30 minutes later. Lost a third of the party on that one.

RAH

[-Jrabbit]

Ah, the good old days... when a good night of D&D was counted in quarts of beer.

Now I only play in my daughter's dungeon. (sigh)

[ColdWizard]

Originally posted by rah
That's what's missing from PC D&D games. No computer could possible be programed for everything.

yeah, there have been times in Baldur's Gate 2 that i wanted to do something that wasn't one of the possible options. its also what makes me doubt the hype of Neverwinter Nights (above and beyond the fact that infogreed is now the publisher )

[Jac de Molay]

BG and Icewind Dale are a bit linear. I have great respect for them following D&D rules to the letter, but a whole lot of the human aspect is taken away even in multiplayer.

DAve

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by rah

Or the first time Ming read that Gargoyles "were intelligent enough to develop a game plan". The next time we were randomized by them, nothing happened at first. (because later we figured out, much to our dismay) that they saw the strength of our party and figured we were to strong to attack straight up so they set an ambush/trap that we triggered 30 minutes later. Lost a third of the party on that one.

RAH

If I didn't know better, I'd swear that Ming was GMing a few of the games I used to play!

Brings back happy memories of the gang of NPCs that used to trail our party, ambush us on the way home after a tough fight, and relieve us of of our (ill gotten) booty. Ahhh... good times.

STYOM

[rah]

Ming was the most prepared God in our group. He had quite a few binders filled with his world maps and more binders with the associated underworld. He maintained a great story line too. Every adventure was a new experience.

On the other end of the spectrum we had a one God who whenever you went into his ONE dungeon, the trips seemed a little similar. You'd wander around for 5-10 minutes and eventually touch something, and he'd say "you're feeling queasy" and you be teleported to an areana on his 12th level fighting a party that was the exact copy of yours. I'm sure that required tons of imigination and preperation Maps were totally unnecessary because eventually you'd be teleported.

RAH

[Rasputin]

I can remember playing Avalon Hills D-Day as a youngster agaisnt my older brother and becoming addcited to that style of game.

He later bought AH Third Reich which to me was the best Wargame ever. We spent many a long weekend palying that to keep showing the Allies had the advanmtages, but occasionally the Axis won..

We updated to Advanced Third Reich but then I moved interstate and dont play anymore....

I long for those kind of games again

[Flatlander Fox]

I cut my teeth on boardgames, playing quite a few AH games (Tactics 2, War at Sea, ViP, having an addicted family helping me along so they could beat the hell outta me and make me cry didn't help MY addiction at a young age.

I never quit though, and while many tears were shed in my younger years, I later learned to appreciate the beatings and even won once in a while.

The bottom line though was the feeling you got when you sat down at the table with another player, smelled that musty cardboard, picked out the counters and prepped for BATTLE.

It was fun, and that's all games SHOULD be. I only quit when I cannot continue (Sleepy, Drunk, or Work being my impediment), or if dueling when the game is a forgone conclusion, and we are then wasting our time.

How many of the "board-gamers" have EVER had someone quit on them in a boardgame? Doesn't happen too often. Maybe the relative safety of the internet helps out.

I once quit a game of War at Sea once in my later years, when leading by 3 points at the end of the game as the English, the Germans deployed three ships to three different areas, and soundly defeated me in two of them...

I had 16 dice to kill or disable one friggin U-Boat.

After the rolls were made the game, dice, and pieces were all on the floor and I had to go for a walk. After that I started to play more Diplomacy (No dice!).