The Whore of Babylon Speaks - GoW Official Statement

[UnOrthOdOx]

You know....

I think we ALL understand the reasons behind both GoW and ND not wanting to play this out. Nothing would have changed, ND/GoW had a kill each other last agreement from WAAAAAY back. The current state would still be in place.

However, there are those of us who would LIKE to play it out/ see it played out.

How about putting up insert save here for play via PBEM's for those who want to see it played out. Trip can give out the passwords to the individual players. They can form whatever conditions they want (wait 5, 10 turns, no nukes, space race, etc).

[Krill]

I think it would be fun if we could relocate the resources, and the start positions, and play it out from the start again as a normal PBEM. I'm up for it if anyone wans to play... :hopes:

[UnOrthOdOx]

If you can manage that, I'm game.

[Krill]

Well, Trip ripped the game when they was the big crash, so we could always ask him (how) to do it. Or maybe he wants another go at keeping Lux alive...

I know it is possible to rip the game seed, and conditions, using Seedbeast, but I don't have a PTW editor to reconstruct the map with.

[Beta]

Originally posted by Master Zen

In either case it is pointless. No team can prove anything by beating the other at this stage of the game. And since ND and GoW would have probably had a "reach the end together and then duke it out" agreement had shared victories been deemed illegal by Trip, no outcome in this game would have changed.

It would have been nice to know that Trip had 'deemed' a shared victory possible, and when he 'deemed' it. This by itself would have been sufficient information to change the course of the game - and from what I can tell (and I well may have missed it), this was never shared with others.

That's honestly what I don't understand about this whole argument. Nothing would have changed except who the 6th loser would be. And considering GoW and ND's relationship throught the game we don't feel the need to prove anything to the other (and much less to the other teams).

Sorry - don't agree. Had all teams understood that this concept of shared victory was possible - the outcome could have, and likely would have, been very different.

And that's honestly what I don't understand about your whole argument. (Sorry MZ - couldn't resist)

[Krill]

MZ is now going to post that shared victory was acceptable, it's just that we did not think about it, or that we could have won alone.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Does anyone deny that a secret "we'll kill each other last" agreement was possible?

If not, the current situation would not have changed in the least, other than Vox would soon be finding themselves attacked.

I've already said, I DISLIKE the whole shared victory as much as any of you. However, I was also all for the killing each other last deal we originally struck. So, in essence, the world as it is now is just what would be if they hadn't changed it to a shared victory, because we ALREADY were going to remove everyone else before we had a final battle anyway. The turnplayers just cannot put in the time to fill that final battle out. And, honestly I can't blame them.

My own personal life has changed drastically over the course of this game, including the birth of a child, a new job, a new house, and a new car. Essentially, we are all older, and all have more responsibilities in RL than a few years ago. Not allot of young bucks left.

[DeepO]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Does anyone deny that a secret "we'll kill each other last" agreement was possible?

No, sure it could. No point in denying that, nor any gain. I've stated a couple of times before that it leads to the same result. A "we'll kill each other last" alliance, is just as well a shared victory if you view it from those who are defeated first. It's the same inbalanced advantage you get, without any repercussions.

DeepO

[Krill]

(Again, this is my personal view)

I don't (or rather, would not) have a problem if there was a "We'll kill each other last" agreement. There would always be the chance of a backstab (among other things), as the other team has to go at some point in the game.

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by Krill
(Again, this is my personal view)

I don't (or rather, would not) have a problem if there was a "We'll kill each other last" agreement. There would always be the chance of a backstab (among other things), as the other team has to go at some point in the game.

Agreed. (My own personal view. )

[Krill]

It is game breaking, no doubt about that, but when you look at it from another angle, it is the only way of forging an alliance where there is going to be a duel when there are three teams present.

[DeepO]

It's exactly the same with a shared victory. The turn after GoW invaded Stormia, ND could have swept their agreement aside, and invaded and conquered them. And claimed domination for themselves. Shared victories hold a risk, exactly because they aren't registered in the game. I'm simply saying that the risk of a backstab does not balance out the advantages, not even close.

DeepO

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Krill
It is game breaking, no doubt about that, but when you look at it from another angle, it is the only way of forging an alliance where there is going to be a duel when there are three teams present.

Krill, you're talking about a situation, where only 3 teams remained. GoW and ND signed their agreement when Lego was still one of the two teams with the most potential in-game. And GoW allied with the 4th power, to thin out the top a bit... it's different.

DeepO

[UnOrthOdOx]

See. I'm really confused by how the other teams approached the game, then.

From the beginning GoW sought to find someone to join in a 'we'll kill each other last' agreement. Our first choice, based on map positions was RP. ND filled the role nicely. I don't think we ever considerred another way of approaching the game. Frankly, it is a very sound approach to any such game. We signed it WAAAAAAAAAAAY back before the RP war.

We questioned ND's faithfullness on occasion, and considered backstabbing them before they could us more than once, but here we are.

RP, from what I understand sought the same type of deal from Lego???

When they open the forums, you'll see my original plan was precisely this, only to have Vox help us backstab ND. Of course, the plan was to finish Lego with cavalry, too...

(Actually, I believe I had the 'random ravings', and MZ had the 'Evil Plans'. To help you navigate the forum later.)

The true triumph of diplomacy in this game was ND and GoW sticking together dispite their differences. ND's refusal to let us have the Iron after Lux. Them being rather upset at the start of the RP war. Them refusing to help during Lego. Etc etc. Many things could have drove a wedge between us. Coupled with the, at times wider than others, language barrier, it was truly a great feat.

[Beta]

Krill raises the subtle difference. A 'we kill each other last' agreement is very different then a 'shared victory' agreement. The former has the element of doubt, and a clear understanding that at one point, the two teams will have to fight it out for victory. Which is much different that where we find ourselves now. GoW does not want to go for a spaceship victory - as they have clearly brought ND up to tech parity. Why would you do this if the intent was to eventually have to defeat them. And would you not have played the game somewhat differently, or prepared differently, had you really believed that you would have to attack each other eventually. So, I would suggest there was never a true 'we kill each other last' agreement.

And if there was, and you now decide that it is not worth playing out (and again - I fully understand why that is), then I say the game ends incomplete.

And I will restate, at this point I am arguing more for the sake of all future demo games. I am concerned what happens here may have severe repercussions for on-going and future MP demo games.