Game Discussion IV

[Donegeal]

At the begining of this game, these was a discussion about wether or not to even allow a UN vote victory. Arrguments against this was that no one could achieve this type of victory as everyone would vote for themselves as the Sec. Gen. I think that everyone agreed with this feeling, and since no one thought it was posible we decided to leave it in the game on the grounds that if someone were to pull off a victory this way then they deserved to win on the merits of their sear diplomatic shrewdness.

ND/GoW found a way to achieve this type of victory. One of the steps involved was to eliminate the question marks (ie: opponents) in the vote. We have successfully done this, and now an agreed upon game victory condition can happen.

[Theseus]

Originally posted by zerialienguru
There are to many "what if"-cases to analyse the last ~80 turns i think.

True, sad but true.

Would that we, the poor irradiated and dead have a vote in this fair thing called the UN.

[Donegeal]

Here are three threads I found in the archive that discusses the Diplomatic Victory:

Poll
Official Poll
Diplomatic Victory

[Theseus]

I miss panag. :tear:

[Master Zen]

Like I mentioned before, I totally respect each individual's take on the end of this game. Nevertheless there are three things that honestly bug me.

1) I seriously percieve (note the use of the word perceive, that means I could well be wrong) a sense of sore loserism among some people. As if to say "well, we lost, but at least we'll try and tarnish the other team's victory so we don't feel so bad". Of course, no-one will admit to this which means this is purely my often-flawed sense of perception. If you all want to label the victory as cheesy, I'm perfectly ok with that but outright denying it or refusing to accept it seems in very bad taste considering those complaining are (coincidence?) from the teams that lost.

2) I find it somewhat hypocritical that certain people are complainig that ND and GoW "set the rules" for everyone else. First of all, we set no rules until the instant we won and those rules were entirely legit. Once we did win we were in our very right to decide just how this game was to end for the simple fact that there was no-one left (or no-one willing) to challange this. Had GoW or ND been defeated, our "rules" would've meant squat and the rules to apply would be the ones that the other victor or victors set. I say this is hypocritical because the same people who complain about us "setting the rules" are likewise setting their own rules regarding what is an acceptable victory in their eyes or not. So I get it, it's ok for you to decide on what an "acceptable" victory is, but it's not ok for us (who being the victors are in far more right to do so) to do the same. That's called double standards and with all due respects, I find it highly deplorable.

3) Despite the many "what if" possibilities had things be different, there is one outcome which I doubt would have changed: GS and Lego would still have lost. The only difference being how and when that would've happened and also the fact that one of us, GoW or ND, would've joined you. Part of the reason that I sense this sore loserism on some people's part is that despite this plain fact people are still complaining that the victory was not of their satisfaction. Why complain about a victory which was out of your grasp regardless? Why ruin someone else's victory like this when you gain nothing out of it?

I guess that pretty much sums up what I feel right now.

-MZ

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Theseus
I miss panag. :tear:

Hear hear...


(NOT!)

[Krill]

Please note this is my personal view, so it is going to be skewed, and I don't expect anyone, not even my own teammates, to appreciate it.

---

1) I seriously percieve (note the use of the word perceive, that means I could well be wrong) a sense of sore loserism among some people. As if to say "well, we lost, but at least we'll try and tarnish the other team's victory so we don't feel so bad". Of course, no-one will admit to this which means this is purely my often-flawed sense of perception. If you all want to label the victory as cheesy, I'm perfectly ok with that but outright denying it or refusing to accept it seems in very bad taste considering those complaining are (coincidence?) from the teams that lost.

We lost. So what? I personally, don't mind that we lost. What I do mind, and still mourn for, is that both GoW and ND think that they will both win if it comes to a vote in the UN. Even via a diplomatic victory, only one team can win. You can vote for either GoW or ND, but not NGoWD, as that team does not exist.

---

2) I find it somewhat hypocritical that certain people are complaining that ND and GoW "set the rules" for everyone else. First of all, we set no rules until the instant we won and those rules were entirely legit. Once we did win we were in our very right to decide just how this game was to end for the simple fact that there was no-one left (or no-one willing) to challange this. Had GoW or ND been defeated, our "rules" would've meant squat and the rules to apply would be the ones that the other victor or victors set. I say this is hypocritical because the same people who complain about us "setting the rules" are likewise setting their own rules regarding what is an acceptable victory in their eyes or not. So I get it, it's ok for you to decide on what an "acceptable" victory is, but it's not ok for us (who being the victors are in far more right to do so) to do the same. That's called double standards and with all due respects, I find it highly deplorable. :

Again with the "We Won". Only one team can win, and you, MZ, said it yourself. I don't have a problem with your "Alliance until only ND and GoW are left", so long as one of the standard victory conditions was reached. Check the threads that Donegeal provided above.

Standard Conditions. Culture, Domination, Conquest, Spaceship, Histograph, Diplomatic.

Where the hell is "Shared Victory" in standard Conditions? If you can show me where it was, then I will feel a hell of a lot better. If it turns out, as has ben suggested, and admitted, that both ND and GoW created this condition where both teams could be "victors", then is it really a victory? As I said above, only one team can win.

[Krill]

This point deserves to be in a seperate post. I'm not 100% sure on what would have happened, and nobody could be, but I have a good idea what GS would have tried to do.

3) Despite the many "what if" possibilities had things be different, there is one outcome which I doubt would have changed: GS and Lego would still have lost. The only difference being how and when that would've happened and also the fact that one of us, GoW or ND, would've joined you. Part of the reason that I sense this sore loserism on some people's part is that despite this plain fact people are still complaining that the victory was not of their satisfaction. Why complain about a victory which was out of your grasp regardless? Why ruin someone else's victory like this when you gain nothing out of it?

Pick the point of divergence from the real game. The main points would be, IMHO, before and after The Bobian war, and both are in Legos' hands. Basically, how would ND have coped if a force of 15 Lego Knights were dropped into their core while the ansar were attacking Pamplona? How would GoW have managed without the insurance of Lego knights guarding against GS? I don't know, I just, dont know.

After the Bobian War, however, would GoW have been able to invade Lego without the assistance of GS in techs? ND were well behind both GoW and GS in industrialising, so they would not have been that great a help. And GS would not have sat on the ence, either, we would probably have helped Lego instead of Bob if shared victory was around, having written off victory if we tried going it alone ourselves. Imagine how powerful Lego could have been if we had helped them get Hoover, and Tanks.

---

If you are qualifying a victory using your standards, then a victory for Lego, GS, Vox and RP is by no means out of the question. It would be more than probable, it would be the most likely outcome.

If we qualify a victory as one that reaches standard conditions, then one of ND or GoW, in addition to Vox, has to lose.

[Darekill]

Ahhh crap!
I'm sad to read such things.
There can be only one? Yes? In an MP game played by humans?
Never.
How many games have been won by alliances?
Even if technicaly it is the case that only one participant can realy win. That is in my eyes just because the game was meant and built to be human vs. AI.
No one can force two partners to fight each other if they insist not to do so. If they are willing to share a victory they do so no matter what the gamemechanics tells.
A big part of this game was the out of game diplomacy.
It was acceptet from all and of course intensively played by all. This was O.K. and so is a shared victory.

Just my point of view.

[ZargonX]

I think the main point of contention is that the outlook on the game is greatly changed when half the people involved are playing on the assumption that there can be only one winner, and the other half involved have decided that they will win as a team. If everyone was playing with the same understanding, many different decisions would probably have been made. That said, we can't go back in time (yet...), so there you have it.

[Aeson]

I propose we settle the issue. Start PTWDG III. Specifically allow shared victory pacts to be signed between civs. See what it does to the game.

It won't take long... game will be "over" (either everyone winning, or a majority "victory alliance" forming that would be prohibitive favorites) before it starts most likely. The only way I could see it not working that way is if everyone wants to make me eat my words... and lose.

This is something that has to be addressed before there can ever be another DG of this nature that's worth playing.

[Krill]

Well, we could always play again with CIV...We should have enough experience with the game by the time that it is patched up to acceptable quality...

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by Aeson
Start PTWDG III.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

This has been a community service announcement by the People for a Demogame Community Not Stretched Beyond Breaking Point.

[Aeson]

It would be "over" in a month, guaranteed. Would you rather have CIVDG I ruined once it becomes known a year into the game that 4 of the 7 teams have a shared victory pact and that's why the first 3 went out so quickly?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Donegeal
ND/GoW found a way to achieve this type of victory. One of the steps involved was to eliminate the question marks (ie: opponents) in the vote. We have successfully done this, and now an agreed upon game victory condition can happen.

Yep, now GoW or ND can trigger one of the victory conditions agreed upon. Domination, Diplomatic, Conquest, Cultural, or Space Race. Unless you can find a way for both to trigger the victory condition though, that's still only one winner.

Look at it any way you want. Personally I see the loser of this "shared victory" alliance as the biggest sucker in the game. Giving away a victory for free to the other.

When I first read the shared victory announcement, NYE and I were discussing it. NYE made the point that it could just be a way of MZ getting ND to go along with the invasion of GS, and then get GS to hand GoW the game (which we basically offered to) by agreeing to an alliance against ND once we had been handicapped. I said something to the effect that if MZ could pull that off, he was my hero. All he had to do was accept the offer GS made...

To be honest I'm glad it turned out this way. "Some people" definitely wouldn't be a good hero to have.