The Whore of Babylon Speaks - GoW Official Statement

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Hot_Enamel



I recall telling MZ that I think we should do this.
One of the forum pics showed that GS had reconnected the uranium with a worker.
I think I caught MZ on chat, and told him to nuke it and keep nuking it.

It was too late at that point. The tech steal had already failed. We wouldn't have left the Uranium hooked up otherwise, to possibly keep you from nuking it again.

Since it was hooked up, it was guaranteed to get nuked, thus one less nuke that anything useful could be hit with. So we left it hooked up to force the nuke.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Aeson

Like I said, a flaw.

A flaw in our perception of the game mechanics (i.e. thinking that tech steals was more expensive than it really was) not a flaw in the actual execution of the invasion.

[Kloreep]

I am not arguing with the necessity for the alliance. I definitely agree it was the best option for the both of you. However, we once again run in to the problem that plagues this DG: as the first one, we run in to all kinds of things we never anticipated.

Let me give an example to try to communicate why this bothers me. I forget how the F1 trick came up, but let's say it never did. Let's further say that Lego, GS, & RP all found it and decided it was valid for use, but that none posted publicly because it would let the other teams know what advantage they were getting through what they deemed a perfectly valid game mechanic. The other teams have no clue and do not use it.

Now, after the game, we post about using it as part of the AARs. You find out we played the game in a way you considered cheesy, perhaps a downright exploit. Perhaps it even helped one of us out of a tight spot in a way you thought would not have been possible and no team was considering. Would you be happy that the teams had been playing under different sets of rules? That we had not brought up what you believed to be a questionable tactic so that it could be resolved, and uniform rules set agreed to to clarify what you saw as a grey area?

This was a sticky one because bringing it up nullifies its use. Nevertheless, that does not make it any less the case in my eyes that our teams were effectively playing under different rules; and that bothers me.

[Hot_Enamel]

Originally posted by Kloreep


I'm not talking about the secrecy of the GoW and ND pact, I'm talking about shared victories being possible in the first place. Not quite the same thing. So far as I know, F1, unit chaining, and all the other examples you cite have all been brought up in the public forum so that all teams know about it, and can exploit it if deemed acceptable. The idea of a shared victory pact never was. Granted, bringing it up would have defeated the point, which sucks, but this situation we ended up in anyway rather sucks too, at least from my PoV.

One could also argue that because GoW didn’t know that the F1 trick, ship chaining & unit warping was acceptable, then we too were disadvantaged. GS & Lego used those tactics and never thought of bringing it up in the main forum. (Until well after the event.)

In fact, it was only after GS falsy accused GoW in the main forum, of getting double duty from some catapults, was there some discussion about tactics used by GS.


{edit} Kloreep beat me to it.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Master Zen
A flaw in our perception of the game mechanics (i.e. thinking that tech steals was more expensive than it really was) not a flaw in the actual execution of the invasion.

Your invasion could have stopped us from ever having any chance of building a Nuke. You didn't do what it would take, and so GS had a chance. Your execution of the invasion had a flaw. One that luck covered up for you, but it was still a flaw.

[Hot_Enamel]

MZ ... Let Aeson have his point.

Yes, it was a flaw in our plan.
EVERY plan has a flaw.

Big deal.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Aeson
I'm not the one whining that it was used. I think it's perfectly valid to use, GoW, GS, Lego, whoever. I just wanted to point out that GoW is trying to have it both ways. Using the tactic, and maligning others for using the tactic.

We're not maligning you for using the tactic, please read my posts carefully before responding. I'm maligning you for having voted it in favor. After it was voted I have no grounds of maliging anyone for using it since it was a legitimate move regardless of how cheesy we might think it is. Moreso I don't even know if you used it or not after it was voted, and honestly, I don't really care. I'd only raise a word if I found out you used it before it was voted since in my opinion it's as close to blatant cheating as you can get, but oh well, the fact we've been arguing about what's cheesy and what isn't for the past days without anyone ceding their position, it would be a pointless argument.

It was never against the rules. It's commonly accepted in some communities, outlawed in others. If you want to look at it as cheesey, feel free. It has nothing to do with whether or not calling shared victory is a double standard though.

A double standard is when one applies different reasoning to their own actions as the same actions of other people. That is what you are doing MZ, not what those calling shared victory cheese are doing, as they did not claim shared victory.

Double standards is whining about a team which did not follow the "standard" victory conditions when you allowed another civ which had no chance whatsoever at winning to be your vassal and openly assist you in winning (hence they weren't following the standard victory conditions either). I doubt the prospect of victory ever passed through the mind of Roleplay after the Bobian War at their best they could have hoped to be a "survivor" much like Vox now with the satisfaction that they aided GS in achieving their victory. Same with Vox.

Double standards is whining about why we kept this alliance a secret when your own team kept secret its alliances with others (us) long before Lego found out about it despite the fact there was clearly an in-game mechanic to mark an alliance. When secrecy benefited GS, you took advantage of it, when it killed you, now you complain.

Double standards is saying a secret alliance-to-destroy-the-non-Bobians-and-then-duke-it-out-ourselves would have been a perfectly acceptable strategy and yet maligning a shared victory when you know very well that the eventual outcome regarding Lego and GS wouldn't have just been similar, it would have been identical. Neither you nor anyone else has yet to provide even the most minimal evidence to the contrary other than "things would have been different, bla bla bla". Please, explain HOW different.

Double standards is insisting that only an in-game victory will be the one that "counts" when countless PBEMs and even other demogames (tsk tsk, ISDG) ended in out-of-game victories which hadn't even been agreed upon at the start of the game. What if GWT in the ISDG had insisted on continuing playing until an in-game victory was met and everyone else refused? For the same reason you cannot force ND or GoW to go ahead and do something we don't want to do. Double standards here is attempting to force your type of victory upon others and whining when we did the same to you (with the difference that we won and hence have a little more clout in deciding what outcome we want)

Double standards is saying that this victory really proves nothing when a GoW-ND war at this point would prove even less other than who had the balls (or luck) to strike first.

Sorry Aeson, but the only one who's been arguing this whole matter in double standards has been you and others which have argued similarly. What's most pathetic about this is that I'm sure some of you would have used any excuse had another team won to somehow diminish their victory. If Lego had won we'd be hearing "bah, they had a whole continent to themselves, plus they had a vassal state", if GS had won it'd be "no fair, they had a monopoly on the strategy gurus it was an uneven fight, plus they also had a vassal state".

Things would be so much easier if you just accepted the fact that this game is over, GS didn't win, and nothing would have changed this fact. Only then will you realize just how utterly pointless this whole debate has been.

-MZ

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Aeson


Your invasion could have stopped us from ever having any chance of building a Nuke. You didn't do what it would take, and so GS had a chance. Your execution of the invasion had a flaw. One that luck covered up for you, but it was still a flaw.

Our invasion sucked. Happy now?

-MZ

[Hot_Enamel]

Originally posted by Kloreep
This was a sticky one because bringing it up nullifies its use. Nevertheless, that does not make it any less the case in my eyes that our teams were effectively playing under different rules; and that bothers me.

Kloreep,
It bothers us all, that we did not have a set of rules at the start. Each team had it's own tricks/exploits. Within GoW, some thought the joint victory was cheesy. Some (Uno ) was still calling for ND blood.

We all would of prefered one winner.

It doesnt bother me that you call our win cheesy.

But it is posts that imply "we did not deserve to win because we cheated by using different rules" that gets up my nose.

As you and I agree... we all had different rules.
I have never used the F1 trick in any PBEM or SP.
Until I found out that GS did it.
I consider it an exploit.
GoW only used it, because it was defined as a valid tactic halfway through the game.

[Kloreep]

I'd just like to re-iterate part of a post of mine.

Originally posted by Kloreep
However, from what I've read, you guys seem to think the GoW-ND relationship ran deep enough that you would have both signed a wipe-everyone-else-out pact and honored it if the shared victory had been overruled by Trip. I must say, that's the only reason I am not pissed off about this.

This is why, while I am disturbed by the shared victory matter, I ultimately find it to be pretty academic. In fact, I should probably just shut up now, since this debate has not gotten anywhere in 4 or so pages.

/me goes back to rummaging through old Lego threads.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Hot_Enamel
It doesnt bother me that you call our win cheesy.

Exactly.

I don't think anyone in GoW could claim that this was better than having achieved a sole victory. I don't mind it being called cheesy either.

What pisses me the f*uck off is people who say "we're not going to congratulate you" or "I will not recognize this victory" and other such hypocritical nonsense. Because I for one would have been the first to congratulate whoever won by whatever means insofar as it was not blatantly cheating. Coming from teams which actually lost is even more insulting.

I would have thought that at least the endgame in this demogame would result in sufficient camaraderie and recognition to make up for all the trash all of us have had to endure at one point or another.

Guess I was wrong.

[Hot_Enamel]

Originally posted by Aeson


It was too late at that point. The tech steal had already failed. We wouldn't have left the Uranium hooked up otherwise, to possibly keep you from nuking it again.

Since it was hooked up, it was guaranteed to get nuked, thus one less nuke that anything useful could be hit with. So we left it hooked up to force the nuke.

Oh ... I realised that.
I wanted that uranium hit every turn.
We didnt do that.
It wasnt that I saw we didnt hit it, that I asked MZ to do it.

I posted in the GoW forum...

That ND should do more pillaging to protect the Uranium in Lego. (I think they had a worker on the tile) You could of captured the tile and used the worker to create a colony.

I even posted my concerns that Vox had connected up their uranium & might trade it to you.

[Kloreep]

Cross-post with HE.

HE, I do not think GoW or ND cheated. I would be calling for your blood if I thought that. Rather, I think it is an extremely gray area, which was mishandled.

I'm sorry you thought I was calling it a cheat, for I think it was not. Just as it had not been agreed to be acceptable, it had not been agreed to be unacceptable either, nor do I think you had any bad intentions; considering those two things there's no way I'm calling cheat or undeserved. And as I posted above, there's the fact that no, things would not have turned out differently if shared victories were outlawed altogether.

Since it was mishandled, there is quite some cheese to it, yes, but no more than that. (On the subject of F1, I believe I have said before that I made the mistake of voting for it because I wanted luxury trades to be uninterrupted. I did not consider there was the other option of allowing it for that purpose but disallowing it for build changing. But enough of this tangent)

[Master Zen]

Klo, I think you made it quite clear that you never mentioned it was cheating, just that it was cheesy.

I will not fundamentally disagree

[Hot_Enamel]

What MZ said.

I know I quoted you, but that doesnt mean I was directing my comments at you.
It's a bad habit.