Games have rules! Imagine if this were tried in Aces High

[beet1e]

Some of you may have read my Bridge thread, in which I observed certain game protocols and discipline. I've recently signed up with an online Bridge club, and as part of the welcome email that came today, I was alerted to one strict rule that they have in the gaming arena. I reproduce it here in blue text.

IMPORTANT WARNING:
-----------------
We value our reputation for providing a friendly but disciplined
environment for the maximum enjoyment of bridge.

You may occasionally feel tempted to abandon a hand before its
completion - e.g. wrong contract (through no fault of your own).
Such QUITTING is completely FORBIDDEN and if reported will end
your playing rights immediately!  (It is therefore important to
apologise as soon as possible to opponents, if you fail to
complete a hand through a lost connection. particularly if you
were about to get a poor score.)

ROFL!!!!!  Can you imagine if the equivalent rule were to be implemented in Aces High? How would the all the gottawins and Alt+F4 crybabies handle that!

[lazs2]

I think that you will be better seved by bridge than by AH... just as I believe that you are better served by living in england than here.  I am thankful that you can't vote here.   Now if we could just end womens sufferage things would get better instead of worse here.
lazs

[beet1e]

Lazs -

I think that you will be better seved by bridge than by AH...

In some circumstances I agree with you. I will be the antithesis of the Pizza-Map whiners. Those are the guys who say things like "Logged on, saw the pizza map, logged off". Or "I got a full 8 hours sleep last night - thanks to the pizza map being up". Now, I shall be able to say "Logged on, saw the pizza map was gone, went to play Bridge". Or "Logged on, saw the Tiffie suiciders/LA7 vulchers/P51 gangbangers, logged off and went to play Bridge".

[mrfish]

bridge references = strike 1
8 page multi colored  signature = strike 2

[lazs2]

don't see how playing bridge is any better than getting 8 hours of sleep.... or... how it is any better to talk about.
lazs

[lazs2]

mrfish... it is actually strike three... the third strike is content... the content for the sig ranges from the insipid to the missleading to the outright dumb..... in that order...  a possible fourth strike exists if repetitive is in the least anoying to you.
lazs

[Holden McGroin]

Are there strikes in cricket? If so, how many do you get?

[beet1e]

Holden

Cricket is very different from Baseball. Each batsman has only ONE life. It's not like Aces High or baseball, where you can re-up. The side has 11 players, and the act of eliminating a batsman is known as "taking a wicket". A wicket can be taken in one of the following ways: [list=1]

• Bowled - the bowler bowls to the batsman and succeeds in hitting the wicket (those three stumps) AND removing at least one of the bails - those bits of wood which lie horizontally on top of the stumps.
• Caught - the batsman strikes the ball, which is caught by one of the fielders before it touches the ground.
• LBW (Leg Before Wicket) - The batsman's leg obstructs the ball, which would otherwise have hit the wicket.
• Run Out - The batsmen try for a run, but do not make it to the opposite crease in time. If the ball can be thrown to hit the wicket (and remove a bail) before the batsman makes it to the crease, the batsman is dismissed.
• Stumped - my favourite! The batsman steps out of his crease to play a stroke, but misses. If the wicket keeper can retrieve the ball and with the ball still in his hands strikes the wicket (and removes at least one bail) while the batsman is still out of his crease, the batsman is dismissed. I was damn impressed by the Australian wicket keeper, Ian Healy. That guy had the reflexes of a mongoose. The batsman had only to be 1cm. out of his crease, and if Healy got his hands on that ball, the batsman was inevitably dismissed. Healy did it in the blink of an eye. Best wicket keeper since Alan Knott.

When 10 batsmen have been dismissed, the 11th has to retire because two are needed - one at each end of the wicket. (The "wicket" can also mean the 22 yards of grass between the two sets of stumps)

Yes I know there are strikes in baseball. The last one was in 1994, and resulted in cancellation of the World Series - ROFL!

[Toad]

Imagine a game where the developer provided the toys and all the kids in the sandbox were free to make their own choices about what constituted "fun".

For some of us, that'd be heaven.

For others, freedom of choice like that is scary or disappointing or "unfair" or something a nanny should do for them.

[beet1e]

Mr. Toad -

Imagine a game where the developer provided the toys and all the kids in the sandbox were free to make their own choices about what constituted "fun".

For some of us, that'd be heaven.

And for others, it would be Anarchy.

Goodnight, Mr. Toad.

[lazs2]

given a choice between your rules and anarchy.... anarchy sounds very inviting.   One only has to look at your prissy, lengthy and dishonest sig to understand why.... but then... maybe ya gotta be an American to understand?
lazs

[SaburoS]

beet1e,
Please post the rules of AH. You seem to make references to some rules but I haven't seen them yet. Maybe if there aren't any official rules of AH perhaps you can post your rules of AH so we can see if anyone might be breaking any rules.
Thank you in advance.
Regards.

[Toad]

Well, maybe bridge will turn out to be your game. Good luck.

After all, it's pretty clear you seek a well-defined structure in gaming and bridge certainly offers that.

Might as well let the rest of us            Anarchists Unite!

[Innominate]

Originally posted by Toad
Imagine a game where the developer provided the toys and all the kids in the sandbox were free to make their own choices about what constituted "fun".

For some of us, that'd be heaven.

For others, freedom of choice like that is scary or disappointing or "unfair" or something a nanny should do for them.

I've seen this done.  I've played it.
It ******* rules.

There is a game called jumpgate.  Currently it's in it's death spiral.  But a year ago, it was one of a kind.  It's a space trading/combat game, with virtuallly no "content".  There are a few AI monsters to shoot at, but back then there was a large segment of players who were totally anti-AI, so it was kept light.

For some players, this was horrible.  There was no "single-player" way to play the game and enjoy it.  To have fun you needed to actuallly interact.

The game was set up so as to lightly punish players for "pking", but also so that hiding from those trying to kill you was difficult.  Grief killers were hunted out of the game more than once.

So what was set up, was an otherwise empty universe.  Added were ships, guns, cargo vessels, and equipment and commodities to move around.  Different stations produce different commodities, which are used to produce other commodities and equipment.

Then the fun began.

Peacefull trader squads, small powerfull mercenaries, bands of pirates, smugglers, spies, and everything in between.  Politics was a stronger weapon as any gun, and a threat of force meant something.  Piracy had the potential of working(though it took a long time for the pirates to figure it out).  And unlike other online games, the ideal outcome from a pirate encounter left both pilots alive, and simply cut a bit into the merchants profit margin.  RP and rabid pking went hand in hand, the carebears and quake-ers played together, being forced to deal with each other, and coming out of it, an awesome game.

Blah, it was beautiful.

Then things started to go wrong. Someone created a cheat(a sickeningly easy one that had been reported long ago, and was ignored.)  And it spread.  The developers decided that it would be better to let the cheating continue untill they got a chance to patch the game.  The economy was hopelessly simplistic, and was being constantly exploited to print large sums of money, which by this time meant absolutly nothing, there was no longer any penealty for dying.  Instead of fixing the small problems with the game's systems, the systems were changed.  The community which was a mixture of all types of players, polarized into the carebears and the quake-ers.  It became players whining about getting killed when they got caught in between one of the never-ending, and pointless wars.

For some reason, it seems like no online game ever just dies.  The developers have to screw the game up first.  But I'll never forget the only truely NEW game I've ever seen.  There hasn't been, nor will there likely be anything like it soon.  All of the new games coming out can be summed up as "a mix of everquest an an here twist."

[beet1e]

SaburoS - I never said there were any rules in AH.  Where did I make a reference that says there are any rules? I quoted a rule that exists for an online bridge game. I was not talking about AH, hence this thread is in the O'Club forum.

The only rule I am aware of in AH is a ruling against profanity. Even the AH server is programmed to filter out some words. But take a look at this thread in which tronski attempts to discuss the profanity issue, and see how it ended up. Funny how skuzzy is the last person to post in so many threads. The BBS situation looks to me as being the same free for all as the game itself, in which many people show no respect for others. The BBS material in General Discussion is derived from events and experiences in the AH game issues, and clearly a great many people are upset. Why? No rules. Nothing to stop a bunch mass switching to the other side to reset a map they don't like. Nothing to stop a high ranking player from moving the CV, or another player from changing sides purely as a means of controlling the enemy CV, and sailing it to a place unfavourable to that country. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if some guys have two accounts (and I know many do) just so they can be logged in one one account on the enemy side to sail their CV to a place where it can't be defended, and then use their other account to launch a mass jabo attack to wipe it off the map. Yep, no rules. And see what happens when there are no rules? People get very upset and post in GD about their dissatisfaction about game issues. That's what happens when there are no rules, and that's why feelings get overheated to such an extent that Skuzzy has his work cut out padlocking so many threads. It occasionally happens in AGW, but I never saw it happen to the extent it happens here.

OK Saburo - name me any other game that has no rules. We know Bridge has rules. How about Chess? Monopoly? Tennis? Baseball? Football? Golf? Soccer? Hockey? Croquet? Cribbage? Formula 1 Motor Racing? Nope, they all have rules. Why? Because without rules, all games suck, and many would be downright dangerous. That's the reason for having rules in the first place. Otherwise you just get an uncontrolled rabble ruining the game for everyone. They might not be breaking a rule, but that does not mean they're not spoiling the game. BTW AKIron says Hi.

Ah, Mr. Toad!  I see that on the one hand you claim to be an anarchist, but at the same time in the bad language thread, you clearly support the ruling against profanity.

BTW, if you ever see a 13th pilot getting vulgar on text or on vox, please bring it to the attention of either Rude or myself. That's perhaps the biggest "no-no" we have.

Only the biggest no-no you have? You mean there are others? What, you mean to say that you belong to a squad that has RULES?

Well, I am surprised. Perhaps your anarchist stance is really your inner self harking back to the days of flower power, and pot smoking at Haight & Ashbury. America used to be a society without rules - the Wild West I believe it was called. And then people wised up. That's why you have laws - and heavily armed police to enforce them. Here in Britain, we are more civilised, and that's why there's never been a need to arm our police.  <<< lazs bait

And finally, my dear Lazs. Gawd, I wish I could quote excerpts from that email I received from the American who agreed with my sig to such an extent... can't say any more than that because I'm not even going to hint at his identity. That's a RULE I have. A personal one. I don't quote things said to me personally, without permission.  I don't think my sig. is dishonest. It's an opinion based on facts that I have researched. I knew that many people might think I was making it up, so I quoted my source. Of course, that makes the overall sig. length even greater, so then you whine about that - as well as earlier criticising the content of the Home Office document as a British Government conspiracy!!!

given a choice between your rules and anarchy....

...and what rules would they be, Lazs? I haven't quoted any AH rules because I don't know of any - except profanity. I mentioned the Bridge rule. Are you saying that American Bridge players walk away from the table when they're losing?