multiplayer people who quit on you?

[esdawg01]

I just had two multi games and in both the players all quit. It was hopeless they didnt even give the chance and i certainly wasnt the reason, i was in third! So i would like to no if anyone else is really pissed off because of this and to encourage people to stay in the game.
I mean I'm sixteen and I have more patience than these people

[Ybother]

well sometime people just run out of time.

its good to name your game "5 hour game, serious players only"

then start when u have 5 players. put the timer of quick. 5 hours shld be enough to get to modern age.

[Kolyana]

Join the MATURE PLAYERS GROUP, avoid the immaturity of people who only want to play if they're winning, and play with a known group of people who you know you'll get a good game with. It sucks thta you have to go that way, but unavoidable ... every internet game is the same; it has more than it's fair share of immature cheaters.

[playshogi]

I joined a game at random--- big mistake. There were only 3 players and the map must have been standard, normal speed. I was on this massive island by myself. It would take days to finish. I'm glad one player dropped out and I voted to quit which was the other guy's choice too. Besides that, I felt pressure to make my move quickly. I was almost happy when my exploring warriors got killed. I think I'll stick to PBEM.

[Smidlee]

Originally Posted by playshogi

I joined a game at random--- big mistake. There were only 3 players and the map must have been standard, normal speed. I was on this massive island by myself. It would take days to finish. I'm glad one player dropped out and I voted to quit which was the other guy's choice too. Besides that, I felt pressure to make my move quickly. I was almost happy when my exploring warriors got killed. I think I'll stick to PBEM.

I find this to be the case too often... playing on a standard map is too big if not the small map also. Even as a mature player I don't want to play a losing position for 8+hours. In fact I don't want to be in a winning postion either knowing the game not going to be finished. Atleast have a 3 city elimination rule. (I was told that city elimination of count the cities you builted not those you conquered. I wonder if anyone knows if this is true.)

[Coky]

I found a good player to play with and we grab a couple dedicated players from the lobby and we head off to play. Works pretty well except the 2 usually leave or bomb and don't come back. But there are definately mature and dedicated people to play with out there. When you find them don't let them go though.:P. And as for someone saying that they didn't wanna play a losing position for 8+ hours, Why not? I played in a losing position the other day and turned it into a great situation. If you play well, you can catch up and do some great stuff and even win. It's not as big a problem in Civ4. If you use your diplomacy right with everything else, then there is barely ever a position not worth playing.

[Smidlee]

I didn't meant I wouldn't play a losing position for 8+ hours, I've done that many times with HOI especially if you ppl stay in the game. I love play Hearts of Iron online. Out of the many game that got started only a few ever got finished even with those dedicated players. I too continue playing the losing position Friday even though my ally quit. Again it looked as if this game was going to continue for hours yet I've notice they quit the game not long after I was destroyed. I also join a game in progress which I could tell they been playing all day. Only 2 actually started the game out of 7 and still it looked as if 10+ hours lefted in the game looking at the map size. The turns was very long with so many units and battles on the map. My point is it helps to keep the map a reasonable size, no better than small so the game does have a chance of being finished.

[UglyElmo]

Hopefully we will get some MP players who know how to make some good MP maps for 2, 4, 6, 8 players. That would be ideal.