Game Discussion IV

[Krill]

s having 1/2 victory instead of 1 is our problem, not yours.

I disagree. A victory is only worthwhile if people respect it.

But then we reach the whole impassé that is, for example, so eloquently taken by Aeson and MZ earlier in the thread.

[asleepathewheel]

Proposal:

GoW and ND play a 1x1 winner take all PBEM to show the world who the king of Apolyton is.

The people demand a winner!

[bongo]

Lets have a UN vote regarding that. Oops, I forgot ND and GoW has 2/3 of the votes already

Sorry, I'll return when I sober up...

[Paddy]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
Proposal:

GoW and ND play a 1x1 winner take all PBEM to show the world who the king of Apolyton is.

The people demand a winner!

indeed.

tiny map, custom made and only these two civs

play hard

party harder

[Theseus]

That's actually not a bad solution, a tiny map face-off.

Wellll, sorta. Yeah, it can produce a "winner".

But I maintain that knowing shared victory was the goal *must* have had an impact from the point where it was agreed upon. And no, MZ, I obviously cannot create an alternative history of woulda, coulda, mighta. And thus, having created an unanticipated and undiscussed victory condition, you guys dramatically changed the nature of the game that I signed up for... sorry, but that's all there is to it.

Enough. Basta. Can I start discussing the similarities to Ashton Kutcher now... you brought it up, after all!!

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by bongo
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.

[Donegeal]

Was a diplomatic vidtory included as a type of victory from the outset of this game?

Yes.


Is it going to be reached in-game?

Yes.


What is the fuss about?

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
Proposal:

GoW and ND play a 1x1 winner take all PBEM to show the world who the king of Apolyton is.

As far as who's the PTW "king of Apolyton", that'd be GoW until a winner in the PTWDG II is declared.

As far as who's the "king of all Civvers" in PTW, well I guess that honor goes to GWT since they won the PTWDG ISDG.

This reminds me of the controversy in the Libertadores Cup (the Latin American Champions League) of which Mexico has been an invited nation (for the last 6 years or so) since we're in the North American confederation, not the South American one which organizes the cup. So even if a Mexican team were to win the cup (and we've been finalists already), we could not be labeled the true "winner" and go on to play against the European champion, that slot would go to the best ranked South American club.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Krill
(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".

Because GCA was a vassal state, not an equal partner. Why do you think Vox isn't claiming victory even if they made it to the endgame along with us? (Vox has never been our vassals btw)

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."

Like bongo said, if you want, call it a half-victory for each. Of a full victory for the ND/GoW alliance. Either way is fine with us. As for the thread you linked to, I remind you that thread was posted during the Bobian War. At that moment we had no plans of eventually sharing victory. History makes you take decisions you had no plan in taking previously. Hell when this game started ND was targeted as our main threat and RP seemed to be our logical ally. All of that changed during the "writing incident".

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.

"More people" = GS and Lego? So now we are playing merely so we can get the respect of the two teams that lost? How is this any different to us playing to our own set of "rules" if now we have to play according to your own?

Read again: There was no rule which said we could not win cooperatively. Trip was aware of our decision ever since we pacted it and fully endorsed it. Had he deemed it illegal he would have said so, and would have forced us to follow a different path. I would honestly like you to link to a public rule in this game which says it is illegal. Likewise I would like you to link to a public rule which says that this game necessarily must end with an in-game victory triggered because like I have mentioned, this did not happen in the ISDG (which was governed under a much more strict rule set) and I don't see anyone complaining about it.

-MZ

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Theseus
That's actually not a bad solution, a tiny map face-off.

Wellll, sorta. Yeah, it can produce a "winner".

Personally, I would really like to be a rehash of the PTWDG when Civ4 comes out. We can invite the Webringians again, and we could perhaps (if people are willing) create "serious" teams like happened here. Part of the reason I really did not find all other demo games here appealing is that people took things too humorously in terms of team names and ideas and such whearas in this game most teams had a clear and serious "ideology" behind them. Maybe in this future demogame we won't recycle the same teams as here but definitely under similar play styles (the SP strategy gurus, the builders, the warmongers, etc.). Remember that this game began from the SPDG and the logical branching of playstyles into different teams.

But I maintain that knowing shared victory was the goal *must* have had an impact from the point where it was agreed upon. And no, MZ, I obviously cannot create an alternative history of woulda, coulda, mighta. And thus, having created an unanticipated and undiscussed victory condition, you guys dramatically changed the nature of the game that I signed up for... sorry, but that's all there is to it.

The only difference is that GoW or ND would not exist right now. The main outcome (as far as GoW is concerned) I can think of is a massive GoW backstab/Rop-Rape of ND the turn we got nukes preceeding an attack on GS. Fear of GS's tech capability would have likely meant that GoW and ND would have cooperated regardless to out-research GS because like I said, both of us thought that it'd be better if a Bobian civ won over a non-Bobian war and having been common enemies with GS we sure as hell would not want them to win. However, how could we have worked up an agreement by which one team got the nukes and agreed not to nuke the other? Would ND have allowed GoW that one crucial turn with nuclear weapons?

And no offense but if that happened we'd be hearing Aeson and NYE whining that "bleh, GoW won by a RoP-rape, in our eyes that was so slimey it doesn't count" or "bleh, GoW betrayed ND and abused their knowledge of the english langague to make them sign a treaty with a loophole". Or whatever similar excuse.

-MZ

[Hot_Enamel]

Been lurking for the last couple of days.

Congrats to all of teams for providing such great competition
To Vox, for hanging in there for the entire game
To ND, our shared victors
And to my GoW team members who I have thoroughly enjoyed playing with


My 2c on the entire matter..
I am not surprised that the game ended in a sour note. Almost every PBEM & Demo Game I have been involved in has.
It’s normal human nature that ego wont allow an admission of defeat and an unconditional congratulation of the winner. Someone will always have a say as to why so-and-so didn’t deserve to win.


From my GoW point of view, I don’t really care if a joint victory is unacceptable to members of other teams. And I wont be voting in my team forum to push the game forward just to satisfy a few disgruntled players demanding that one of the in game winning conditions be met.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Master Zen


Again, how could the outlook have changed? GoW and GS made their alliance against you a secret, you figured out until it was too late. Likewise, GoW and ND made their alliance a secret because we knew that if the world ever found out that we planed to win together, it is likely that we'd have found ourselves on the receiving end of an alliance set to destroy us.

No ****, Sherlock.

What you did amounts to a locked alliance. Don't you think it would have been nice to let everyone else know there were going to be locked alliances before the game started?

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by notyoueither


No ****, Sherlock.

What you did amounts to a locked alliance. Don't you think it would have been nice to let everyone else know there were going to be locked alliances before the game started?

Ain't my fault you never considered it Watson.

Heck your team didn't even bother to try to ally with us against ND after the Lego War. If you felt you could do everything on your own, stop whining now that you found out you couldn't.

[notyoueither]

The Lego war would have gone quite a bit differently had we known this cheese was on the table.

Why are you whining about people not going along with your secret rules change?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Master Zen
And no offense but if that happened we'd be hearing Aeson and NYE whining that "bleh, GoW won by a RoP-rape, in our eyes that was so slimey it doesn't count" or "bleh, GoW betrayed ND and abused their knowledge of the english langague to make them sign a treaty with a loophole". Or whatever similar excuse.

At least make some attempt to stick to reality MZ. Your "knowlege of the english langague" is sorely lacking if you think that your hypothetical statements are an accurate corollary of what I've already said.

I plainly stated that I'd observe the victor in this game as the one who triggers a victory condition that was agreed upon before the game started. How GoW, ND, or Vox ends up doing so isn't a concern of mine, as long as they don't break any of the agreed upon rules in doing so.

You are claiming that I'd say the opposite of what I have actually said.