Game Discussion IV

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Master Zen FOR THE LOVE OF GOD NO RULES WERE CHANGED!!! We chose to ally because we otherwise though we couldn't win this game! You never thought it because you had NO-ONE to ally with at such a level as well as the fact that you were too proud to accept anything else than full victory. We weren't.

Is that so hard to understand? Because frankly I'm getting a bit ****ing tired of repeating it for the umpteenth time.

-MZ

BULL****!

Everyone else was concerned with backstabs.

But that was no longer possible between GoW and ND after 1200AD or so.

The rules changed for two teams. It went from 1v3 to 2 v1v1.

Do you honestly not see the difference?

[Master Zen]

So now its our fault that we found a way to eliminate the risk of a backstab? Boo ****ing hoo that you didn't think of it first.

You know, just when this thread had gotten civil and interesting it goes back to the same crap again. I've just about had it so this is my last post regarding our joint victory, it's obvious I won't convince anyone be it those who are legitimately arguing the mechanics of the whole thing, or those who are just plain whining whatever nonsense they can come up with which just for the sake of souring a victory that they didn't deserve in the first place.

I'll just leave the whole argument with the following points. I'll be convinced if somebody successfuly argues against them.

1) Was a shared victory legitimate? Yes.

2) Is it possible to end a demogame without triggering an in-game victory condition? Yes.

3) Did all teams do things throughout the game that were "not-in-the-book"? Yes.

4) Is it common for similar situations to arise in other PBEM and MP games? Yes.

and last and most importantly.

5) Would GS and Lego have been defeated if GoW and ND merely agreed to a "reach the game together before duking it out" pact? Yes.


'Nuff said. The defense rests. I was happy to have played this game, I think all of you made great opponents, and even greater friends. I am sad that so much controversy was stirred in this demogame since the beginning, sadly its the price to pay for this being the first multiplayer demo game in the history of this site and hopefully the ambigousness will be much less next time around.

To those that have argued in this thread regarding the way the ending was played, I respect your personal points of views even if I do not share them. Hopefully the lessons learned here will serve to make the next game less controversial and I look forward to having you all as teammates, allies, and enemies.

To those who have been whining for the sole sake of tarnishing someone else's victory... I'm not even going to bother saying what I feel like saying.

G'night.

-MZ

[Hot_Enamel]

Give it up MZ

Do we really care what they have to say ?

Had Lego won, everyone would of complained about the map generator.
Had GS won, everyone would of complained about the teams being unbalanced. (GS containing the bulk of the strategy forum)

This game was always going to go sour whoever won.

The party is in the GoW forum. Open bar & as many bearded women as you want

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Master Zen To those who have been whining for the sole sake of tarnishing someone else's victory... I'm not even going to bother saying what I feel like saying.

I didn't tarnish your victory. You did.

[DeepO]

Phh... this thing is progressing so fast, you spend on night at a bar and everything changed so drastically you can't even comment anymore. Oh well, who cares.

Originally posted by Master Zen
5) Would GS and Lego have been defeated if GoW and ND merely agreed to a "reach the game together before duking it out" pact? Yes.

You fail to see the point. You just proposed a similar change of the game rules. A locked alliance until everyone is gone is one game, and no matter what kind of victory conditions you agree to after that is a second game. If you are first in a locked alliance, it doesn't matter one single bit how the game is ultimately decided, as it is effectively a second game. Whether you fight it out, or go for a UN win, or declare victory doesn't change the fact that the first game was rigged.

This is a very thin line, I know. Personally I think that Trip should have forbidden it before it happened, but I think it wouldn't have been possible. Aeson is right: we did discuss the possible alliance, but at the time (when Lego was gone), we felt it would have been offensive if we just mentioned to GoW:"If you are allied to ND, there is no point anymore of continuing, as ND and GoW together reached dominance. Maybe you could continue with us". In hindsight, maybe we better said it.

Do you see the effect of this? GS knew that we had to go for Lego, as left alone they would have won or at least be a lot stronger than us. We also knew that in going for Lego, we gave the game to ND, and they would become a tougher nut to crack. We also knew GoW would aim straight for nukes. There was no choice for us, the order in which we had to fight was fixed. And because nobody really has ever considered us a true partner (in order: Vox before declaring war, RP before accepting our 'help', Lego when trying to get them to fight on our side of the Bobian war), fighting was the last option.

So, you may think that we were easy in being your thugs to take out Lego (BTW, don't forget we invited you, and we put the most resources into the war. Without us there never would have been a Lego war), but we had no choice. If we knew there would have been a locked alliance, or if we even had realised that it was a possibility instead of something which should have naturally repulsed, even offended all teams, the game would have ended after the Lego war.

Would it make me feel a winner, after we had such a decisive victory? Not more than now. Our victory is that we were able to forge a large power from a tiny island, and got along superbly even with a lot of strong characters on the team. We never had one fight, not once names were called in our forum (well, between our own, of course. Cursing at MZ has become our national hobby ). That is our victory. So, in-game we lost, and I personally have no problems with that at all. However you really have to think on your own position, because if you feel you won in a fair way, or even half-won in a fair way there might be one side of the story you just want to fail to see.

Last point: why we never asked for your help against ND: We did ask you how to continue after the Lego war. But frankly, we reached a point were we were a bit tired from the diplomacy side of the game. The last year or so up until the end of the Lego war, it basically came down to both CH and me doing the external side of things, and we were very busy right about then: CH with his band and the recording of his CD, and myself with finding a job. Both of us kind of let go of the chatter with other teams. This might have been the reason why you never felt it was formally asked, as it was discussed in team. But don't use that as a point right now, you could have suggested it to us and didn't. Instead, you either ignored all our important questions("Interest in sharing research?"), or made something up (your "ND doesn't like you having uranium" was hilarious). Don't put the blame on our side.

And frankly, I hate it to hear that this debate is only about whining and sore-loserism. What is important is that we settle this before ever starting something else. If we continue to view things differently, and are only able to decide on rules in hindsight, we are bound to meet the same problems again in every serious poly DG we start. So let's just for a moment try to see the other side of things, please. I understand GoW and ND's position on sharing a half-victory, as it would have been better then losing. I don't agree at all, but I see their point. Now please, try to see our point, try to get why this is so cheesy and gamebreaking to us.

DeepO

[Hot_Enamel]

Originally posted by DeepO

Now please, try to see our point, try to get why this is so cheesy and gamebreaking to us.

DeepO

I'll sum it up for you...We don’t care.

We can commiserate your loss with you. Open up our forum. Explain some strategies. Discuss our decision reasoning.

But if you keep b1tching about how we didn’t deserve to win, then you wont get anything from us except "up yours"

We are happy with our game..so is ND.
That’s what’s important to us.

[zerialienguru]

I can only say that we at ND have a lot of fun in this game and i hope all other teams have the same. The discussion here the last sites is to much for me (and of course, i understand less than the half so i don't read it).
The victory of GoW and ND is clear and i think we should now end this game with that "ingame-result".
I can't speak for ND but if there will be a new game (with forbidden alliance-victorys ) ND would like to join the game if that is ok for you

[bongo]

But please wait with starting a new game until civ4 is out, OK?

[Donegeal]

Okay... next game: No diplomatic victory and an in-game victory condition MUST be met.

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Hot_Enamel
I'll sum it up for you...We don’t care.

We can commiserate your loss with you. Open up our forum. Explain some strategies. Discuss our decision reasoning.

But if you keep b1tching about how we didn’t deserve to win, then you wont get anything from us except "up yours"

We are happy with our game..so is ND.
That’s what’s important to us.

C'mon, H_E... while the last few days of posts have been, uh, argumentative, the attitude is unnecessary.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Master Zen
So obvious that we didn't even have that planned back then...

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
1) ND and GoW were allied for a shared victory from almost the beginning of the game.

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
No, it wasn't a shared victory, it was a "we'll have a big war between us at the end" alliance.

Who's telling the truth?

Likewise another aspect where perhaps my view of this game differed than yours was that to me, this game doesn't prove anything definitive and thus I didn't see the need for there to be a sole undisputed leader.

The definitive thing is that at the beginning of the game, every team set out with the goal of being the winner. The victory conditions were voted on, and all of them are single team conditions. One team will (would?) accomplish in-game victory.

Does it mean they played the best? That's subjective. Everyone's free to their opinion.

I doubt any of us would have considered an alliance with Lego at that stage. They were just too powerful. Heck, they STILL have the biggest score in the game right now!

So you see the pickle GS was in.

That's what I never understood about GS, why you witheld many things that if I were in your shoes I would have definitely considered. It would not have been insulting to us, heck, it would be a bit frightening since we'd be like "oh sh*t, they know".

We thought it would be insulting. We obviously differ on that point, but it is how GS views it. It's the same reason we wouldn't accuse a team of cheating without proof. We didn't want to insult your team.

Besides, if we had sent that, and you realized "oh sh*t, they know", what difference would that make? You wouldn't have waited as long before acting against us. It couldn't have helped GS in the least, only hurt us. We certainly didn't want to frighten you...

Likewise I never understood why you never approached us for an alliance against ND. What was the worst thing that could've happened? We'd say no.

By asking for an alliance, our plans would have been compromised. We wanted GoW and ND to think we were being passive and as small a threat as possible. It seemed to have worked for a while...

When it became obvious your reluctance to keep that Uranium tile (the first hint was your acceptance of my Lego-split map, despite handing you the Uranium - which I had no choice since keeping it on our side would look real crooked - I placed the border conveniently where an ND city could target it with artillery) they decided to strike RP.

We knew that if we had Uranium, we became a much bigger target. We also knew there was no way we could defend the Uranium where it was, against GoW or ND, let alone both. You each had much easier access from your homeland to Lego, and much larger economies to produce units with.

Everything went to hell when you got Uranium.

Exactly. That should make it very clear why we didn't push hard about Uranium on Lego.

Getting Uranium at that point screwed up what little chance our plans had of working. As an "irrellevent" team, maybe we'd get the chance at ND 1v1. The Uranium jumping diminished the chance of that perception being held.

It was this fact, that you weren't even willing to attempt to ally with us against ND, that made us think that you'd have used those nukes against us without fliniching if you had the chance. In our eyes that meant only one thing - you had to go, you had to go soon, and you had to go by whatever means necessary.

I thought it was obvious we would lose the game in any war situation, as to win militarily we'd have to invade Bob, and invading Bob would always trigger "Bob for Bob". We'd basically have to beat ND and GoW, both with larger economies and militaries, in one turn. Even with nukes that couldn't happen.

The only way we'd have a chance in war was by signing up with ND or GoW against the other. We thought that was so obvious, that to try to sign either of you up would let you both know that we wanted war, and thus we would lose. Our only chance was to make you both think we didn't want war, and let the Uranium situation "obsolete" us, so we wouldn't be the default target.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by DeepO
Phh... this thing is progressing so fast, you spend on night at a bar and everything changed so drastically you can't even comment anymore. Oh well, who cares.

You fail to see the point. You just proposed a similar change of the game rules. A locked alliance until everyone is gone is one game, and no matter what kind of victory conditions you agree to after that is a second game. If you are first in a locked alliance, it doesn't matter one single bit how the game is ultimately decided, as it is effectively a second game. Whether you fight it out, or go for a UN win, or declare victory doesn't change the fact that the first game was rigged.

This is a very thin line, I know. Personally I think that Trip should have forbidden it before it happened, but I think it wouldn't have been possible. Aeson is right: we did discuss the possible alliance, but at the time (when Lego was gone), we felt it would have been offensive if we just mentioned to GoW:"If you are allied to ND, there is no point anymore of continuing, as ND and GoW together reached dominance. Maybe you could continue with us". In hindsight, maybe we better said it.

I think my previous assesment was correct: most GSers find a shared victory to be "breaking the rules" because most GSers have little or no multi-player experience. Have you ever played a PBEM DeepO? Aeson? Part of this is the reason most other teams felt GS to be so "rigid" during most of the game, because perhaps you guys felt this was just another SP game in terms of its mechanics. Take your terminology for example, use of the word locked alliance to describe the GoW-ND situation. First of all, its an incorrect term to use since a locked alliance in C3C terms means that two or more teams begin the game as allied and thus win cooperatively. This was not true in our case as we did not start the game allied and our "locked" alliance only occured during the final 1/4 of the game (time-wise).

Perhaps if more of you had multi-player experience you'd see such out-of-the-book situations are not only valid but actually quite commonplace. Things in PBEMs happen which would be outrageous to imagine happening in an SP game, and while a set of rules are usually defined (no trading of maps until the required tech is obtained, perhaps no use of fortifying or F1 exploits) everything else is not only valid but encouraged since MP gaming involves a dominance of not only in-game abilities but out-game ones also.

Like I said, there were so many things that were not done by-the-book in this game that I'm astounded that GS is finally complaining about them now that the game is over. Trading F11 info and unit stats without Intelligence Agencies is impossible. Yet it was done. Trading maps in which units were actually shown on screen is also impossible. It happened also. Alliances forged out of war are impossible in SP also and they were quite commonplace in this game (take the statement of Bobian unity when Vox landed, take GS-GoW's cooperation long before the actual Lego War started etc etc.). Try to have an allied civ "gift you" some cities for protection in SP like GS did to RP. And convince them to give them back in the end. Could a continental split have been possible too? I mean, about 1/3 of ND's "historical" territory - including two of their biggest cities - ended up being ours after the Bobian war. Try and get an AI ally to agree to that.

I'm not going to bother listing every single out-of-the-book situation which occured since my point should be more than obvious by now. These things happen in every PBEM and that is why the PBEM cracks are in a league of their own just like the SP strategy gurus are in another. They involve a different set of skills to be dominant, and mastering one aspect of the game does not guarantee that you'll be just as good in the other. Bad micromanaging might be compensated by good diplomacy (a skill which no matter how many SP games you play will never prepare you against a human). Likewise beating the AI at war on Sid will not necessarily prepare you when facing a human which will not fall for the AI's typical stupidites.

In conclusion, for an MPer, it was nothing out of the ordinary to find alternatives to victory. It was not "rule breaking" to act in such an unorthodox (pardon the pun UnO) fashion. Rule breaking to us means blatant cheating, everything else, from forging the most complex trading pact, to organizing secret alliances, to agreeing to win the game together, was definitely part of this game's strategy.

Do you see the effect of this? GS knew that we had to go for Lego, as left alone they would have won or at least be a lot stronger than us. We also knew that in going for Lego, we gave the game to ND, and they would become a tougher nut to crack. We also knew GoW would aim straight for nukes. There was no choice for us, the order in which we had to fight was fixed. And because nobody really has ever considered us a true partner (in order: Vox before declaring war, RP before accepting our 'help', Lego when trying to get them to fight on our side of the Bobian war), fighting was the last option.

You do realize that if you didn't have a partner to ally with that was because of your own doing? I'm not going to critizice your handling of diplomacy DeepO because I think both you and CortHaus did a wonderful job and it was an honor for me to scheme and fight alongside you. But I will criticize your diplomacy before that and it was not really what I would call good. I will point to two examples:

1 - Vox made a blatant act of aggression against GS. Under most circumastances this would have resulted in huge mass of support for your team. Why did the exact opposite happen? Because Vox not only used good pre-war diplomacy with everyone else, used some very good humor during the war, and acted very humble in defeat. GS on the other hand had acted like a hermit before the game, nobody knew who you were and what you wanted, hence no-one really felt any compassion that you got invaded. Then of course there were some rather un-diplomatic incidents during the war that made the rest of the teams side even closer to Vox.

now here's the flip side:

2 - When Vox invaded Bob the exact opposite happened. Not only did we manage to make them look like evil agressors but all three Bobian civs rallied in unison against them. And what was probably one of the finest diplomatic maneouvers in this entire game (kudos to GF for this) we got Vox to channel their strength against their neighbor subsequently not only dooming them (this was not our intention as we thought Vox would win) but saving our own skin (Vox could have probably defeated GoW and ND put together back then, and only distance might have saved RP).

Now, here's what I find interesting. Given the relative imbalance of power between the three main continents, the most likely one to have joined forces to win this game together should have been Vox-GS. Vox was the most penalized team by the RNG. GS was much more favored but still behind the other 4 powers then. A united Stormia/Estonia coupled with some good divide-and-conquer diplomacy vs GoW and ND might have gotten you a win, or at least gotten you closer to one. Just think about it, Vox's immortal strength against GoW/ND, and just 10 turns of mobilization by GS used agaisnt Roleplay. Goodbye Bob.

Don't blame me for never having considered this.

(well, between our own, of course. Cursing at MZ has become our national hobby ).

Suddenly I'm scared to have a peek in your forum

Last point: why we never asked for your help against ND: We did ask you how to continue after the Lego war. But frankly, we reached a point were we were a bit tired from the diplomacy side of the game. The last year or so up until the end of the Lego war, it basically came down to both CH and me doing the external side of things, and we were very busy right about then: CH with his band and the recording of his CD, and myself with finding a job. Both of us kind of let go of the chatter with other teams. This might have been the reason why you never felt it was formally asked, as it was discussed in team. But don't use that as a point right now, you could have suggested it to us and didn't. Instead, you either ignored all our important questions("Interest in sharing research?"), or made something up (your "ND doesn't like you having uranium" was hilarious). Don't put the blame on our side.

I understand it was not your fault if your diplomacy slacked after the Bobian war. Real life tends to get in the way and you can't blame people for not being active because of this. Plus, you were very hard pressed to find someone as good as CortHaus for your diplomatic work - or yourself too since you had the added burden of being the turnplayer. This is truly one case of nothing more than bad luck, but it should not diminish the work you guys did manage when you were active.

As per why we didn't ask you for such an alliance was simple: we wanted to play the part of the guy sitting on the fence watching the other two clobber the hell out of each other and then swoop in to pick up your rotten carcasses. Even if we were not allied to ND, it would have been our best interest to remain neutral until a killer blow was landed by one or the other. And like I said to you, if GS was to intervene in Bob we would go to war against you. You accepted this and never complained, yet in your first paragraph here you seemed to suggest that such type of deals were also "rule breaking".

And frankly, I hate it to hear that this debate is only about whining and sore-loserism. What is important is that we settle this before ever starting something else. If we continue to view things differently, and are only able to decide on rules in hindsight, we are bound to meet the same problems again in every serious poly DG we start. So let's just for a moment try to see the other side of things, please. I understand GoW and ND's position on sharing a half-victory, as it would have been better then losing. I don't agree at all, but I see their point. Now please, try to see our point, try to get why this is so cheesy and gamebreaking to us.

DeepO

DeepO, I never said all the debate was about sore loserism because I clearly mentioned both people who seemed to be honestly arguing the mechanics of the game and others who I honestly percieve to just be whining for the sake of it. The tone of each post is a clear indicator of who is who, and it should be more than obvious that posts like yours aren't senseless whining but thought-provoking arguments.

-MZ

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Aeson
Who's telling the truth?

Well considering I wrote the damn pact and the date is recorded in our "official history", I guess I am. Also I'm surprised you can't notice what was an obvious GhengisFarbian troll. In any case, once our private forums are opened you can see for yourself when it was signed as well as reading the whole thing (it's in German too!). Or you can simply ask Trip.

[Aeson]

Well considering I wrote the damn pact and the date is recorded in our "official history", I guess I am. Also I'm surprised you can't notice what was an obvious GhengisFarbian troll. In any case, once our private forums are opened you can see for yourself when it was signed as well as reading the whole thing (it's in German too!). Or you can simply ask Trip.

GF is always trolling. UnO isn't. It was his quote that supported my assessment, not GF's.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Aeson

GF is always trolling. UnO isn't. It was his quote that supported my assessment, not GF's.

That was the idea that was toyed around with (amongst us GoWers). You should know that when Vox landed the three Bobian civs signed a sort of "Bobian Monroe Doctrine" (I believe it was Roleplay's idea, it was pacted in 1075 BC) in which we three explicity agreed to ally whenever a non-Bobian attempted to land or settle in our continent.

The reasoning behind that is that in our 3-power continent, it would be easy for a foreigner to attempt to invade and take advantage of the quarells between us. A real-life analogy would be the pact between the Chinese communists and nationalists during WW2 in which they united against the Japanese only to resume the war once the outsider was defeated.

This was the first step of achieving some sort of Bobian unity though by this state GoW and RP's relationship had deteriorated to the point that we were actively scheming against them. This was more or less precisely the moment where I joined the game.

The idea of a shared victory was mentioned during and after the Bobian War but nothing ever came of it. In fact there were quite a number of frictions between GoW and ND during the post-war period, our relationship wasn't precisely without any hitches and both teams became rather paranoid of each other to the point that ND actually sacrificed much of their development for the sake of a buildup to achieve parity - and eventually a rough 25% superiority over us. That's the reason ND's development lagged compared to us later on, because we spent the entire post-war period building nothing buy civilian production (to the chargrin of my teamates whenever I would boast that I didn't build a single military unit for something like the first 600 years of my rule )

During this period it seemed logical that we could nevertheless get ND on our side in any quarrel with one of the non-Bobians and then settle things between us in the end.

-MZ