Casual vs High-Commitment conventions Thread - Dominions 3: The Awakening

There's been some talk about this around the forum, so I thought this discussion should have a home thread.
The concepts were coined in another forum by people that have largely migrated to Dom4, so I guess we can try to clarify the terms here at Desura and, hopefully, reach consensus.

I understand "casual" essentialy means it's OK to quit, while "high-commitment" means you are willing to take some responsability to avoid spoiling the fun for the rest of the players.

This doesn't mean casual games are for reckless players, because there are lots of different reasons that can lead to quitting (unreliable connection, tight work schedules, etc). For example: If I intend to spend the whole summer travelling I shouldn't join a high commitment game because come summer I'll abandon the game no matter what.
Further splitting of the hair goes beyond these two conventions, in my opinion, as gaming styles are a different subject altogether. After all part of the fun of any MP game lies in facing opponents with different mindsets.
I'm not criminalizing quitters either, shit happens in RL and players quit high commitment games too. The thing is: You sign up for a high commitment game if you expect to be available to play it to it's conclusion, and if you have to quit you do so in the least disruptive way for the other players. The same holds true for casual games, we should always avoid spoiling the fun for others no matter what the game tags are; but for casual games we accept more flexibility on that department (for players looking for quick gameplay, having low tolerance to defeat, or shifting schedules).
Dom3 is a complex, time-consuming game; some players are frustrated by the death of a game they have invested dozens of hours in, while other players are frustrated by long games with no real chances of winning. These two tags should sort one from the other. Commited players shift their objectives as the game develops (you cannot win this game? then focus on vengeance, or assist a player in a stronger position). The thing is: We should be honest with what we want out of the game beforehand.

All in all, this is a small enough community (Desura Dom3), we should be able to banish any controversy without disturbing the sleep of the elder gods in outdated threads.

I stand in awe. That's about the essence of It. I would polish it a bit in the "you are expected to be available to play it fullheartedly to it's conclussion" as I heard some concern around in people when they had oponents that were just "sending turns" (I suppose as in careless turns or do-nothing turns) to "get over with it". So I would add as High-commitment that If you find yourself uninterested and incapable of engaging fully any more with what is going on in your game you might as well say it so a replacement is looked for.

I think fullheartedness cannot be enforced, as it is more of a personal quality. You cannot demand full interest troughout the game, only continuity.

After all sometimes I use psych tactics that aim to deplete enemy morale, so the opponent feels defeated or frustated and starts making mistakes and caring less about the details. It would be unfair to enforce interest when interest fluctuates as the game develops. We all lose some commitment after staling a turn or losing the pretender, don't we? Sometimes you are sloppy, sometimes you lose focus, or RL goes wild and you barely can punch in the turn with the essential moves.
I can excuse poor gameplay, it's OK, players have different skillsets, coping with defeat is just one among many skills. Quitting is different because it halts the game for all involved.

It's not so much about enforcing interest, just about making clear that high commitment implies that you have the ability (as you mentioned early) to shift your focus when victory is not a possibility anymore. It's about making it clear that we expect full commitment from each other to do our best even when we are losing. Losing interest and drive is one thing, as you say our mindset will shift and move on acording to the events. But putting everybody on research and sending turns in is something else. Is the same thing as quitting really and Is not much better than turning AI so I think it should be clear that we expect a fellow player either to manage his expectations and try always at least not to play sub-par and if absolutely necessary look for a sub better than drag on just sending turns in doing whatever.
What would be the best way to imply that in a sentence?

High commitment means you keep on playing to the best of your ability even when you're losing.

It's not that hard to understand: Just give a plausible impression of a wannabe god threatened with extinction; the rest follows. There are different approaches to winning a game, and there is more than one way to fight a hopeless war. Go out with a boom, or turtle up and cling to the last shreds of life tooth and claw, stir up some shit in diplo, up to you.

And frankly, trying to answer all these questions from first principles is a useless waste of words. Get a few games under your belt, and the section about high commitment in the multiplayer rules will be clear enough.

Edited by: tenuki

ahh tenuki. it's good to see your condescending douchebagginess has not lost its edge now that you have crossed forums...

I did disturb the sleep of the elder gods after all .

Tenuki you mentioned the

Someone wrote: section about high commitment in the multiplayer rules

would you care to go to the multiplayer rules and read and quote here exactly what are you talking about? I haven't found a section about "high-comitment" there, hell the term is not even mentioned. So please go there and do quote if you care, so what you mean is clear to the rest. Either the section has been edited and you are refering to a section it's no longer there or maybe a section in another forum or is not under the forum multiplayer rules anymore?

Edited by: Fraggomon

Yes, it is not mentioned there.
"High commitment" games are a very special subtype, thus requirements for them are not general and are not common.
As well as RPG-inclined games not mentioned there, as well as anonymous games (not mentioned there either).
General rules are listed there.

Tenuki's explanation is brief and good.
"High commitment" is about special attitude to the game.
The rest is only consequence.

And certainly "high commitment" is NOT about ~'non quitting when you can't win'.
It has no relation to winning or losing.

Turns out I had it wrong. I should open a thread for NAP interpretation next (optional Muhahahahaw here).

Ok, To be clear. This is a thread opened so we can leave some common ground set and ready to read for everyone to save time explaining (or discussing!) what we *think* or *feel* high-commitment means. So that we can direct anyone who is in doubt there.
This is not a flame war let`s not turn it into one shall we? It's not a for or against nor a let's yadayada for ages about what High-commitment means Chelubey.
It's a let's put what we mean by high-commitment in 2 to 5 (maybe less maybe more?) well written sentences so we don't have to talk about it anymore when somebody new comes.
So I really don't understand your attitude, I though you of all would be most pleased that we are trying to settle some clear grounds so there is no more discussion and we can actually play the games that we want to play.
And yes, I agree that tenuki's first sentence would be a good ( clear and harsh) way to put what we are trying to imply. Aldough I'm a bit confused with what you say in the end.

Chelubey wrote:
"High commitment" is about special attitude to the game.
The rest is only consequence.

If you'ld care to ellaborate. I don't understand what are you trying to say.
And you also say:

Chelubey wrote: And certainly "high commitment" is NOT about ~'non quitting when you can't win'.

It has no relation to winning or losing.

Witch seems to be the contrary that you applaud Tenuki for

Someone wrote: High commitment means you keep on playing to the best of your ability even when you're losing.

Please clarify. And let's try to make clear positive sentences (as defining one thing for what it IS not for what is NOT) If we want to leave some common grounds they will have to be positive sentences anyway so we might as well think on that direction.

So summing up so far:

-You sign up for a high commitment game if you expect to be available to play it to it's conclusion.
- If you have to quit you do so in the least disruptive way for the other players.
- Commited players are expected to be able to shift their objectives/expectations as the game develops (you cannot
win this game? then focus on something else) High commitment means you keep on playing to the best of your ability even (specially?) when you're losing.

Did I miss anything?

Edited by: Fraggomon

Pretty much. I'm not excited about the shifting focus thing, especially when it comes to assisting another player. This can be very disruptive to the game balance. It also goes against the premise of the game, which is that there is only one winner, everybody else dies.

I know there is no clear distinction between fighting one opponent and helping another. What I do in a losing situation (i.e. when I'm so weak that there is no one on the map I can eat to get stronger) is to play in a way that I think maximizes my tiny odds of pulling a reversal. Usually this means preventing whoever appears to be winning from ending the game because that is the one event that reduces my odds to zero. Things do get a little fuzzy here however, no question about that. It's situational and I don't think it can be resolved in a general theory.

Edited by: tenuki

Edited. I understand Shifting focus as in: ok I cannot win, what do I do next? (as opposed to ok I cannot win so I stop playing)

BTW pretty much as in I missed pretty much? or as in that's pretty much it so far?

Also, conversationally, when you are reduced to a small underdeveloped nation in a war of titans and you wage war against one (ie because its winning) one could say that you are actually helping the other...

but I agree that is better keep the basic grounds as neutral of (in game) ideas as possible. So. Edited.

Edited by: Fraggomon

Oh, and

Fraggomon wrote: Tenuki you mentioned the

Someone wrote: section about high commitment in the multiplayer rules

would you care to go to the multiplayer rules and read and quote here exactly what are you talking about?

It's in this post. I'm not quoting the whole thing because it's a full-blown Calahan rant.

Otherwise I meant 'pretty much' as in 'yes, that's pretty much it'.

Minor quibble: Editing posts that others have responded to is slightly frowned upon in civilized circles. This is because it reduces comprehensibility to new readers and takes the responses out of context.

Henotheist wrote: I did disturb the sleep of the elder gods after all .

Too much honor. Just a humble Aboleth.

Edited by: tenuki