I personally would much prefer it if ND were the one who triggers victory, instead of GoW. If GoW believes that it doesn't matter, make it so...
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Game Discussion IV
Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
-
Originally posted by 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.
So again, what "different decisions" would have been made? You would not have known about any alliances, be them regular ones or joint-victory ones because secrecy was all part of the diplomatic deceit. Heck, you wouldn't even know now of our joint victory plans if we hadn't chosen to make them public.
Instead of just saying "things would be different if we knew", why don't you say exactly how they would be different, and prove that the outcome of this game would be considerably different if GoW and ND merely had an temporary alliance to become the last 2 teams in the game and duke it out among us?A true ally stabs you in the front.
Secretary General of the U.N. & IV Emperor of the Glory of War PTWDG | VIII Consul of Apolyton PTW ISDG | GoWman in Stormia CIVDG | Lurker Troll Extraordinaire C3C ISDG Final | V Gran Huevote Team Latin Lover | Webmaster Master Zen Online | CivELO (3°)
Comment
-
Originally posted by 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.
NO team would ever start playing a demogame with the intention of sharing a victory. Everyone starts by wanting to win by themselves and most of the trajectory of the game involves trying to find a way of achieving such a thing.
It was no different between GoW and ND. Things changed as time passed and we found out that due to geography posing such a menace (a united Bob would be by and large the greatest threat, much more than Lego), one team destroying the other would mean that in turn it would be on the receiving end of an anti-Bob alliance. Thus, we contemplated a joint victory because franky, we thought it was impossible for either GoW or ND to win by ourselves, so at least claiming "half" the victory was better than losing.
Lego and GS never thought of it that way because history and geography did not present such a possibility for you. That is not our fault. So, I truly doubt that given the possibilities of sharing victory in a hypothetical PTWDGIII would not mean that teams would use it because of confidence (Lego) or pride (GS) getting in the way. I would never have considered joint victory if I was in Lego or GS. If I were Lego I would have probably tried to ally with the Bobians to wipe GS out first, then would have tried to diplomatically get the Bobians to go to war over the spoils and then swoop in for the kill. With a continent all for me, I could have definitely thought a regular victory to be possible. If I were GS I would found things to be a wee bit more difficult and surely I would have lamented our terrible early game diplomacy since we had nobody we could consider "close". Still, I would've probably tried to make a war between GoW and ND erupt after the Lego War.
So as you can see, our options were a bit limited and that is why we considered this possibilty. Even if in a future demo game shared victories are allowed, I doubt I would ever consider it unless it was a do or die issue.
It was a do or die issue for GoW and ND here. We chose to do.
-MZA true ally stabs you in the front.
Secretary General of the U.N. & IV Emperor of the Glory of War PTWDG | VIII Consul of Apolyton PTW ISDG | GoWman in Stormia CIVDG | Lurker Troll Extraordinaire C3C ISDG Final | V Gran Huevote Team Latin Lover | Webmaster Master Zen Online | CivELO (3°)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Aeson
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.
If your answer to that is "no", then I see no point in you arguing that victory had to follow the book also. GoW and ND proved their point: we defeated anyone who was willing to challange our victory objectives. As such we rightly claim victory. Vox does not challange it. GS and Lego are gone.
Many MP games end in a similar fashion also, perhaps if you had some PBEM experience you'd know that. The ISDG also ended that way and no-one complained.
To be honest I'm glad it turned out this way. "Some people" definitely wouldn't be a good hero to have.A true ally stabs you in the front.
Secretary General of the U.N. & IV Emperor of the Glory of War PTWDG | VIII Consul of Apolyton PTW ISDG | GoWman in Stormia CIVDG | Lurker Troll Extraordinaire C3C ISDG Final | V Gran Huevote Team Latin Lover | Webmaster Master Zen Online | CivELO (3°)
Comment
-
The ISDG ended in Surrender. It did not end in a joint victory.
I have never played any PBEMs that ended in a joint victory. Thay either ended in joint surrender to a single player, or a single player won the game under the previously agreed victory conditions.You just wasted six ... no, seven ... seconds of your life reading this sentence.
Comment
-
MZ:
Do you not understand how some would take issue with the whole matter?
Oddly, I would be much more pleased (as much as one can while losing) with the outcome of the game if GS was disembowled, and then ND sat down with GoW and declared a joint victory. Same result, but without the aftertaste.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Master Zen
NO team would ever start playing a demogame with the intention of sharing a victory. Everyone starts by wanting to win by themselves and most of the trajectory of the game involves trying to find a way of achieving such a thing.
But, even at the start of the game, shared victory as an option would mean any team that didn't have victory pacts with someone is almost sure to lose to teams which do have them. So that "fear" is there, driving teams to make shared victory pacts, because if anyone is sharing victory, it becomes the only way to win.
Anyways, like I said, we can settle this argument easily.
So, if we had to play everything by the book, why were secret alliances made during the entire game? Why was artillery shared, why were cities gifted? Could you have gotten RP to hand over cities to you in the Bobian War if this was a SP game? Could you have managed all the tech trades, the diplomatic deals, and what not that were clearly things one would do only in an MP game?
The victory conditions were defined though.
Since, as you say, it doesn't matter, will GoW let ND be the one to trigger the victory condition?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Krill
The ISDG ended in Surrender. It did not end in a joint victory.
I have never played any PBEMs that ended in a joint victory. Thay either ended in joint surrender to a single player, or a single player won the game under the previously agreed victory conditions.
How is that different? No in-game victory conditions were met .
As per PBEMs, my very first PBEM ended with a joint victory by which an alliance between BigFree and Whitebandit obtained sufficient supremacy over an alliance between me and Togas that we decided to call it quits with them as victors. No in-game victory conditions were ever met either.A true ally stabs you in the front.
Secretary General of the U.N. & IV Emperor of the Glory of War PTWDG | VIII Consul of Apolyton PTW ISDG | GoWman in Stormia CIVDG | Lurker Troll Extraordinaire C3C ISDG Final | V Gran Huevote Team Latin Lover | Webmaster Master Zen Online | CivELO (3°)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Aeson
But, even at the start of the game, shared victory as an option would mean any team that didn't have victory pacts with someone is almost sure to lose to teams which do have them. So that "fear" is there, driving teams to make shared victory pacts, because if anyone is sharing victory, it becomes the only way to win.
That's the part which I've tried to explain in every damn post I've made here: that the shared victory was not a decision taken at random or just for the sake of it, it was taken because the historical circumstances forced us to. Neither of us would have allowed a non-Bobian civ to win this game, and if the issue came to us deciding the victory, why not just share it?
Those examples are dealing with the rules of play. As I said, the rules were not clearly defined before the game started. Obviously that was a problem in some cases.
The victory conditions were defined though.
Since, as you say, it doesn't matter, will GoW let ND be the one to trigger the victory condition?A true ally stabs you in the front.
Secretary General of the U.N. & IV Emperor of the Glory of War PTWDG | VIII Consul of Apolyton PTW ISDG | GoWman in Stormia CIVDG | Lurker Troll Extraordinaire C3C ISDG Final | V Gran Huevote Team Latin Lover | Webmaster Master Zen Online | CivELO (3°)
Comment
-
(Ctrl-Q).
If you want to draw comparissons to the ISDG, fine, but remember that only one team declared victory. GCA did not attempt to say that they won, even though they were on "The Winning Side".
Here, there are two teams that are claiming to have won the game. The problem, as I see it, is that both are claiming to "Have been the winner of the first competitive democracy game in the world's biggest civ site."
You may, or you may not care much about this point, but when you play the game for so long, under these conditions, with everybody who took part, you would hope that people are willing to play the game within the rules of the Game, and within the spirit of the Game. Both GoW and ND had my respect from the moment I joined this game and read about its' past. But when you get right to the end, and then you say: "To hell with what everyone else thinks", and share the victory, you break the game, and you break the victory. Obviously a shared victory is not as good as victory from winning alone. I just wonder what would the difference be from playing along and losing. I reckon more people would respect you (and that applies to both ND and GoW) if both teams played along and fought it ought to the bitter end.Last edited by Krill; June 4, 2005, 20:07.You just wasted six ... no, seven ... seconds of your life reading this sentence.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Krill
.... Obviously a shared victory is not as good as victory from winning alone....
As the game stands now, that's exactly what we got, 1/2 victory each. If we want to make sure *one team* reach 1 victory we can always fight it out among us but that won't benefit the rest of you. Us having 1/2 victory instead of 1 is our problem, not yours.Don't eat the yellow snow.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Master Zen
Both GoW and ND would be equally content in having the other trigger the victory condition. Given that, I think the optimal solution for the sake of egality will be to vote for... Vox. That way I can snicker whenever you say that Vox won the PTWDG
Comment
-
Note to MZ
Suggestion to end-game fight:
1: get rid of vox, we spend our remaining nukes on them.
2: 5-turn NAP after that.
3: Rulez of engagement: He who fires the first nuke are not allowed to follow up with conventional weapons the same turn.
3.1: Unless you send warriors.Don't eat the yellow snow.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Master Zen
But which team in their right mind would start the game with a victory pact with someone else as you claim? NO-ONE.
Comment
Comment