Redcoat Posted February 19, 2001 Share Posted February 19, 2001 Out of 20 pbem games I've played in the last 3 or so months, I have only completed or still progressing in 13 of them. The other 7 opponents gave up sending mails when they started losing or had been taking a battering for a while. All 7 couldn't have been commited to hospital/gone on holiday etc and a few of those opponents still haven't replied after a couple months. So why do people do this? That is a pretty large ratio of bad losers. Why can they not have the courtesy to surrender or at the very least send a quick 8 word e-mail *I give up I am a bad loser* Sorry if this is considered OT but I figured I'd get a better response from this forum, and I'm sure other people have suffered from bad losers (or is it just me? I'm not abusive, I'm not a gamey player and I send out regular turns- I wish more people were like that =P ) On the bright side I have a couple of regular opponents who are fun to play against, regardless of whether they win or lose. BTW hello, I'm a long time lurker who can keep quiet about this no longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Babra Posted February 19, 2001 Share Posted February 19, 2001 Why do they do it? I don't know. In truth, I've done it myself once or twice over the years, though it was never deliberate. Sometimes interest just wanes. If you're like most of us, sooner or later you'll narrow your playing field down to people you know you'll enjoy a game with and view strangers with deep suspicion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPeng Posted February 19, 2001 Share Posted February 19, 2001 I'm with Babs on this one. I've been guilty a couple of times - GunnerDream comes to mind - we never did finish Riesberg after the 10th time playing the beta demo version. And Colin and I have THE GAME THAT WOULDN'T END where we exchange a turn approximately once per Ice Age... But mostly people who quit without explination or surrender don't play the same person more than once. Forget about them. Regards Peng ------------------ That which does not kill me postpones the inevitable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Space Thing Posted February 19, 2001 Share Posted February 19, 2001 Redcoat, Did you chat before the game and agree to finish or surrender? I insist on discussing all of the game's parameters beforehand. Things like Fionn's 76 rule, rarity, flags or no flags, point total, weather, etc... are all agreed before I ever click on the CM icon on my desk top. As to why, I believe that it has something to do with the competitive nature of ladder tournaments. If they never finish a game, maybe they think that they can claim that they were never beaten -which really isn't true. I imagine that it is hard to accept defeat in one of those things. Climbing on everyone to reach the top isn't my cup of tea in regards to any game. The ones that cut out are sore losers and bad sportsmen (or bad sportswomen). Don't play against them again. You'll be asking for it to happen again if you do. Also, there MAY be an important real life reason why they disappeared. Health matters or a death in the family come to mind. Keep an open mind and be willing to forgive if the other party is genuinely contrite. Lastly, forget the losers and only concentrate on the opponents that hang around. They are your friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Posted February 19, 2001 Share Posted February 19, 2001 Originally posted by Redcoat: Out of 20 pbem games I've played in the last 3 or so months, I have only completed or still progressing in 13 of them. The other 7 opponents gave up sending mails when they started losing or had been taking a battering for a while. Have you tried sending a reminder? I have founld that sometimes the emails are lost on the way and never reach the destination. Still, there are people who will not respond whatever you do. After trying unsuccessfully to contact them, put them on your black list and refuse to play them any more. Henri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redcoat Posted February 19, 2001 Author Share Posted February 19, 2001 Thanks for the replies. Yes I always discuss the game's parameters before a game. Finish or surrender? It matters not and I think people should be given the choice of either. I've never played a ladder match and never intend to. Competition is good but some people will do anything so they don't lose. These were supposedly friendly games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
therontmoore Posted February 19, 2001 Share Posted February 19, 2001 Personally, when I don't recieve an e-mailed turn after a while (3 days - week), I re-e-mail the last turn I sent and state "in cause I forgot to send this..." Usually I will get a response and turn within a day or two. But I still get 1 or 2 people who just give up and disappear from the face of the virtual earth ;( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted February 19, 2001 Share Posted February 19, 2001 Looks like you have just had a string of bad luck in your opponents. I've run accross one or two like that (in what seems like thousands of games), but for the most part people play to the end or surrender. Forever Babra has the right of it... you will eventually narrow your playing field (that's what the cesspool really is) to select players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefly Posted February 19, 2001 Share Posted February 19, 2001 In defence of the ladders, I think this is less of a problem in the ladder games as dropping out will result in a loss as much as a surrender will. As for over-competitiveness I can't say I've found it a problem, most of the people I've encountered use them as a way of meeting other players with the rankings just being a bit of fun, I haven't played any of the top ranked players though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 Originally posted by Redcoat: Out of 20 pbem games I've played in the last 3 or so months, I have only completed or still progressing in 13 of them. I believe you owe me the next turn. Last one I sent was file #51, which has gone unanswered for a couple days. Have you sent one back to me? Though my hamstertruppen are pulling back to more favorable terrain, they are not beaten, (not completely anyway). Yes come closer my precciiousssss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 Slightly touching this subject: How come some players send the file together with a message; "I've requested ceasefire" and expect the opponent to grant it? The correct way must be to either hit Alt-C, without telling the opponent, and continue to fight until the opponent does the same by his own mind. Or just hit Alt-U, if you feel you're in too deep trouble. Cheers Olle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diceman Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 I dropped out of a battle where the defender (me) had 3000 points. First game I just couldn't bare to open up the e-mail files on. To mak a loooong story short: all that time and effort just to watch my guys get fried by Crocodiles? What drudgery. Never again, and I wouldn't ask someone else to go through a long agonizing defeat either. I never ask an apponent to go beyond the point where he's having fun. If they're showing signs they're not having fun anymore I ask them if they want to surrender. I'm mostly out to have fun afterall. Cheers Eric. ------------------ Pair-O-Dice "Once a Diceman, Always a Diceman." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 Originally posted by Olle Petersson: Slightly touching this subject: ... The correct way must be to either hit Alt-C, without telling the opponent, and continue to fight until the opponent does the same by his own mind. Or just hit Alt-U, if you feel you're in too deep trouble. Not sure "correctness" can be gauged without context. It would seem to me to be appropriate to negotiate a ceas-fire if for instance ammo is low, and no out-and-out victor can be assumed by looking over the situation. Kind of like, "Hey Joe, I'm about out of ammo I suppose you must be too, want to call it a day and try another one?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Olesen Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 Originally posted by Redcoat: I've never played a ladder match and never intend to. Competition is good but some people will do anything so they don't lose. These were supposedly friendly games. I had the same feeling, but then decided to try it out. So far I'm enjoying it. The thing is, that you can pick ladder opponents that play for the enjoyment as well as anywhere else, and ladder playing is a bit more regulated than other playing. I don't have a lot of ladder experience, but at the risk og gross generalisation, I would say that the Rugged Defense ladder seems to be a nice and cosy place, while Tournamenthouse seems to be a bit more competitive . Other than that, just keep the good opponents and drop the bad ones. I have to say that I have been very lucky with my opponents so far. [This message has been edited by Robert Olesen (edited 02-20-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goanna Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 What you are sometimes being exposed to, Redcoat, is the Wuss. The suggestions above on reminders and discussions up front will help, but eventually you will run into the Wuss and there is nothing you can do but put a list on your computer (I use a Stickie™ on my Mac screen) to remind me never to play a Wuss again. Loathe as I am to admit it, Berli is also right. A good group of "friends" that can get together, beat the crap out of each other and always finish games is the way to go. I mostly play Cesspoolers since I know I can berate them about being a Wuss if they don't keep the turns coming. A real Wuss wouldn't last too long in the pool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 Good suggestions above both about the importance of pre-game discussions/negotiations and about sending reminders and follow-ups. There are things in real life that can interfere with and take precedence over CM afterall. I prefer rated games myself, they tend to make me concentrate better on the tactics I use. On the other hand, I've seen the same thing that started this thread happen all to often. The appropriate thing to do ofcourse, is surrender if your losing that badly, or attempt a cease fire. I would differ with a previous statement only in that it is my belief that there is nothing wrong with a surrender, even if abrupt in order to end a game. Though it really deserves an explanation to an opponent out of politeness. Never-the-less, a surrender is the honorable means to end a game that might be necessary for a variety of reasons, which conceivably might have nothing at all to do with the game. I believe however that the surrender option in CM probably encourages those who want to avoid admitting to a loss as it apparently was designed as a battlefield surrender rather than a game surrender. That is to say, it was I suppose viewed as a surrender of all forces on the board to the enemy rather than the player surrendering to the game conditions. Would not have been my design choice, but then I wasn't the one who did all the work to create CM either. I've always thought that the surrender option in CM should either take into account the full battlefield conditions and have the AI then determine the appropriate level of enemy victory, or there should be a withdrawal command option where this AI process would take place. The cease fire option only works if both agree. A withdrawal option would not be a battlefield surrender of all forces, but would recognize that under most circumstances when a force was tactically defeated, it would normally withdrawal from battle to some off the map defensive positions and this would then allow players a third option (non-negotiable, i.e., both do not have to agree), where a losing party can end the game without a total surrender leaving it up to the AI to determine the level of loss/victory. My thought is that this would not only help to prevent the slackards who stop responding by allowing for the possibility of something less than a total surrender, but would also help to prevent game slowdowns or slackardness, where a force is clearly incapable of securing the VL's, but still capable of attriting the enemy force and just hunkers down for the final ten moves where if nothing else the game can become either a fox hunt or a total bore. Well, thems me thoughts. Anyone else thought about a "withdrawal" option in addition to cease fire and surrender? ------------------ "Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth." -Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916) [This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 02-20-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 Originally posted by Bruno Weiss: Anyone else thought about a "withdrawal" option in addition to cease fire and surrender?I haven't thought of it before, but it's definately on my wish-list now. I've used cease fire somewhat in this manner, but the opponent rarely see it as desireable when I do. (Of course I've never told my opponent that I prepare cease fire...) Cheers Olle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wwb_99 Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 I think a withdrawl option would be great. One can do such a thing now, leaving a skeleton rearguard while moving your mobile forces off of the map in preparation for surreneder, but that can lengthen a PBEM game by 5-10 turns, or a week or so in realtime. So it would be a good expedient. WWB ------------------ Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say, Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Williams Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 A withdrawal option would be a good idea, but the player who didn't withdraw should be given credit for holding all victory locations when the points are tallied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 There are clearly three different terms being discussed now in this thread. There seems to be an intermingling of their meanings. Just for clarity sake... Surrender = 1 a) To yield to the power, control, or possession of another upon compulsion or demand <surrendered the fort> To give up completely or agree to forgo especially in favor of another 2 a) To give (oneself) up into the power of another especially as a prisoner To give (oneself) over to something (as an influence) Cease-fire = 1 : a military order to cease firing 2 : a suspension of active hostilities Withdraw = 1 a) To move back or away : RETIRE To draw back from a battlefield :RETREAT So, one is not surrendering by either withdrawing, initiating or agreeing to a cease fire. Though in terms of the scale of CM, a withdraw would more than likely result in the surrender of the battlefield, however not the troops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 Originally posted by Bruno Weiss: Well, thems me thoughts. Anyone else thought about a "withdrawal" option in addition to cease fire and surrender? I think it is a good idea; right now, I am playing a huge scenario as the attacker where there is no way I am going to take the objectives, but I still hoild the initiative for the most part. No commander in his right mind would surrender in such a case, he would either hunker down or withdraw.For the past 10 emails or so I have been doing nothing but pressing done and sending my moves without giving any orders, cause I want to see how badly I really did. Surrendering would give all my units to the enemy with a decisive victory, whereas there is a chance that he may have only a marginal victory due to heavy losses. Clearly an option between a ceasefire (which kind of implies a draw) and a surrender (total defeat) would be useful for circumstances like this. Henri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 Originally posted by Firefly: In defence of the ladders, I think this is less of a problem in the ladder games as dropping out will result in a loss as much as a surrender will. As for over-competitiveness I can't say I've found it a problem, most of the people I've encountered use them as a way of meeting other players with the rankings just being a bit of fun, I haven't played any of the top ranked players though. I have played both Tomcat and Eben Bratcher... I didn't find either of them to be overly competitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 That is what I meant by the AI figuring it out Doug Williams, in my estimation the AI would take into account the lines of potentially safe retreat for the units of the initiator of the withdrawal (canceling out units that were too closely engaged or too far advanced to safely do so), and as Dirtweasle pointed out this would be an intermediate condition between surrender and ceasefire. It might potentially need a modifier such as a condition where it takes 1 full turn to complete or something, where once selected the opponent of the initiator is notified of the impending withdrawal. Another idea in this train of thought would be that there could be a "safe line" somewhere on the map that the initiator had to pull back to on his own prior to receiving a completion of the withdrawal option. Possibly the original setup quadrant. That might make it even more interesting. Force you to fight a withdrawal action as a part of the tradeoff of not surrendering, maybe even make ceasefire more appealing to a winning opponent who would rather take his chances on that than have to try and advance. Conceivably one could hit the withdrawal button, and the next turn back at you would be a ceasefire request from the stronger force allowing you then the option to accept the ceasefire (immediately takes effect), or go ahead with an attempted withdrawal and take one's chances. I think I like that idea even better. It then adds quality to the game, rather than just a process mechanism alone. It would put a player to the test of whether or not they could manage an actual disengagement and withdrawal, and adds motivation towards keeping the game active on both sides. The opponent obviously at that point, being interested in preventing the withdrawal (if possible), or potentially then initiating a ceasefire of their own to prevent the withdrawal by enticing the initiator of the withdrawal option into a ceasefire. Maybe once a withdrawal was completed, the initiator would have a better chance with the AI for a final tally than a straight out ceasefire. The object being to provide motivation to both players to stay engaged in some fashion, and to utilize the end game mechanisms "Surrender", "Ceasefire", and "Withdrawal", as a means to keep the game focused upon the tactics of action rather than a strategy of inaction. I'm sure someone might state all this more clearly than I am at the moment, however what I'm envisioning is a multiple layered end game option system that interacts across boundaries where as Dirtweasle categorized it, the three segments would act upon each other in a fashion, and as in the case of a withdrawal the actual act of ending the game potentially becomes another fight in and of itself quite apart from the VL's. Don't know how complicated Steve and Charles would want to get with it. One option here would be just a straight out withdrawal AI calculated option, the other a cross matrixed interactive process where the three end game options play off each other in some manner. ------------------ "Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth." -Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916) [This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 02-20-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jshandorf Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 Originally posted by MrPeng: I'm with Babs on this one. I've been guilty a couple of times - GunnerDream comes to mind - we never did finish Riesberg after the 10th time playing the beta demo version. And Colin and I have THE GAME THAT WOULDN'T END where we exchange a turn approximately once per Ice Age... But mostly people who quit without explination or surrender don't play the same person more than once. Forget about them. Regards Peng Yes, especially the scenario we just started. For a guy who was chomping at the bit to get going your interest has certainly "wained". Or is that the chattering of your knees banging together? Anyway, you better not have sent me some sandbag like Mensch did. If so I will hunt you down like the dog you are. Cheers, Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted February 21, 2001 Share Posted February 21, 2001 Originally posted by Henri: ...For the past 10 emails or so I have been doing nothing but pressing done and sending my moves without giving any orders, cause I want to see how badly I really did.... and before that you hit Alt -C, giving your opponent the possibility to end the fight as well, right? Cheers Olle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts