Some thoughts about PBEM-Scenario-Etiquette

S

Strachwitz

Guest
This one I have I to get out. Maybe just to feel better or maybe preventing someone from similar experiences.

Today is one of these days I hate playing PBEM. Yet another promising scenario ruined by the "quitting-a-scenario-early-way-before-the-end-syndrome". And as this is not he first time and is hitting me now the 5th time in a row I feel kind of disappointed and outright mad.
To get faster to my point first some assumptions:
1. Scenarios are not always fair and balanced
2. Good scenarios are not around every corner and thus limited in quantity
3. Good large/huge/monster sized scenarios are even more limited and thus even more limited in quantity
4. Scenarios are best played double blind with no spoilers especially to the opposing forces and victory conditions
5. Scenarios are often asymetrical and reeinforcements arrive at different times what often leads to a special flow of a battle making it interesting and different from QBs
6. Scenarios are often a piece of art where the designer puts countless hours of working into it.
7. Large/Huge/Monster scenarios are really time consuming for the players and there are countless hours spent developing a strategy plan and then setting up, plotting moves and handling big forces in the map

So please do me, and as I think other players, a favor and take these points into consideration when agreeing in playing a scenario. If you quit early you ruin the scenario for the other player. And by quitting early I don't mean quitting if it really makes sense and the battle is basically over. But quitting after just 30 minutes into a 2,5 hours long scenario just because some tanks got hit is really annoying. Especially when the reinforcement haven't arrived yet and the objectives of the enemy are unclear and you know not much about the force composition of the enemy.

As I pointed out earlier. Scenarios are not balanced all the time. Be aware of that and cope with whatever situation is thrown at you! CM is not just about winning. It is about handling difficult tactical situations. At least for me. If someone can't handle that please stick to QBs. And also think about that at least in huge scenarios. Much can happen over the time. A 2,5 hour scenario is not won in the first 30 minutes and the assumption the game is lost if often based on limited intel.

This all refers just to scenarios. In QBs quitting/surrendering is a complete different story as both sides know about how big forces are, where the VLs are, that no reinforcements are along the way and so forth. So in a QB it is more easy to asses if the battle is lost or not. No need to play till the end when it is obvious someone has lost. But in huge scenarios this is not so easy!

Do I feel better now? Not really but I wanted to get that out and maybe have made some points worth discussing or thinking about...
 
@ Strachwitz: You should make this post your signature or send it to every of your opponents with the first turn...

Maybe we need some kind of "white list" where someone can recommend reliable opponents???
 
Hm, a white list is a bit harsh. It is not the case that these players were not reliable. The opposite is true. Nice guys, nice conversations, reliable turnrate, information of longer breaks in the game due whatever reasons. You name it. I guess it's just a different point of view or expectation what a scenario PBEM is. My expectation is to play a good designed scenario with briefings reinforcements, surprises and all the stuff you don't have in QB. QBs are the most played PBEMs by me. Kind of bread and butter whereas scenarios are a premium filet steak I want to play till the end (or close to it) to see what it ha to offer.
My post was kind of a reminder or explanation that scenarios are more than just a usual QB and to think about what scenarios could mean to other guys like me.

Your proposal, @Mehlsack, is a good one. In future I will clearly post what I expect from a scenario and my opponent to possibly avoid these disappointing situations. Thanks for the good tip!
 
Fundamentally, I think anybody at FGM should be considered on the white list. One of the reasons most of us joined FGM was to consistently find opponents who believe in fair play, and while I have been bitten occassionally, most of the old guard is good about sticking with a game or communicating when they cannot (which is usually due to work, computer problems, etc.). I most often run into challenges with new members that bite off more than they can chew (either more games than they can handle, unexpected realities of playing against a human opponent, disappointment with having a few turns go poorly, etc). This often results in abandoned games. As a result, I've been careful about taking on too many games with new members at any given time. And, to be fair, I've been lucky lately in that my opponents that are new members have been enthusiastic and engaged.
 
@Strachwitz:
Im just working on a 'balanced' small CMRT scenario. Its not done yet (no AI plans) but feel free to betatest it :)
Ill send u a copy via dropbox.
 
Hey @f_rock !

Maybe this is the proper thread to share our story with our fellow game mates and ask their opinions about our little disagreement.
 
Krieger said:
Hey @f_rock !

Maybe this is the proper thread to share our story with our fellow game mates and ask their opinions about our little disagreement.
Click to expand...

Before you guys start 'hanging out dirty washing' perhaps you both privately seek the advice of senior members/old hands at CM-ing to get their presective on the issue.

I myself have both let people down and been waiting up to ten months for a reply so I can't point the finger at anyone.
 
Indeed. If you have a disagreement just try to work it out in private and add one of the staf members.
 
Alright guys. It is not a dig deal, just an unreported ladder game.. I can bear with that. It is better than a wrong reported game. So its time to forgive and forgot.
 
Krieger said:
Alright guys. It is not a dig deal, just an unreported ladder game.. I can bear with that. It is better than a wrong reported game. So its time to forgive and forgot.
Click to expand...
Regarding the Ladder, A lot of Members do have difficulty understanding the workings of it, and mistakes can be made very easily, I for one are one of them, plus I have spoke to a lot of members who still have trouble, The words for this are tolerance & understanding
 
I have an other game waiting for result fix. No harm, he just messed something. But in this case the trouble is the willing of report. But does not matter.
 
lol, gamey boy strikes back :)
If you still dont get it send me a PM and dont spam someone else's post.
 
My two penneth would be that whilst I agree in principle with Strachwitz, it is a game and sometimes it is obvious when you are flogging a dead horse. Yes it is frustrating when you put loads into a plan and an opponent quits but that probably means you planned well and it worked. Kudos.

I agree with lt. Smash mostly the people I have played have happily played to conclusions, and I have tried to do likewise.

Perhaps it points to some house rules. As people have said, maybe like an agreed code of conduct. If players sign up to the code then that is how you play?

If I could add to that, I would like to see a time limit on non returned turns (yes I have a few) where after due warnings or postings , failure to send a turn forfeits the game. I appreciate this is a bit gamey and only applies to ladders, but having no recourse to ending games is too easy?

I have to say since I am a newcomer I have found most FGMs to be honourable players.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom