And so it begins

[Jon Shafer]

Just to clarify, GoW and ND brought this up to me prior to this incident. They are not trying to claim victory now, and I made it clear that I would not accept a joint "Domination Victory" since it would be ridiculously easy for them to achieve that together. The point may or may not have been lost in the posting in the main forum, but they've explained to me simply that if either of the two teams wins a victory by normal means OR are the final two teams left (pseudo-conquest) that they'll claim victory together.

Anyways, the point is that they're not really doing anything unacceptable in my eyes. They have not said that they've already won, but if they had then I would not allow that.

[vmxa1]

I understood the distinction and I do not have a problem with the final two players cutting the pie. I have done it in poker tourneys for years.

The thing we do not allow in the tourney is joining up during the game to get down to the final two players.

I just find it personally distasteful that they have been teamed up the whole game. It is their perogative, but it is not in the spirt of play IMO.

Being able to keep together the whole way is, shall I say uncommon. Anyway, it is a done deal now, so I would say nothing outside of the private forum.

[Aeson]

I do not have a problem with teams joining up to get down to the final two players. (Something which I was almost sure was going on with GoW and ND from before the Bobian War.) I have a problem that to procure such an alliance they have resorted to "sharing victory". Otherwise they would both have had to have dealt with the drawbacks of extending themselves in relation to the other, which is the limiting factor in a 3 way power struggle. All teams would have had to be planning for the final showdown regardless of if/what alliances formed to help teams reach it, which would have possibly opened up diplomatic options for all teams to help one vs the other at a point where "lesser" civs were deemed out of the running. Which might end up being a bad assumption, giving the "lesser" team a chance to win.

GS has an alliance with RP, saving RP from elimination for repayment, but to procure that alliance neither RP or GS was given a shot at victory if the other were to win. RP would have had to have beaten GS to win, GS would have had to beat RP to win. I assume the same thing with any agreement between Lego and Vox, and that's the current offer from GoW to Vox. It is something fundamentally different than what GoWND has decided.

When two teams decide to share victory, they become one team. That is what each team in this game is, players working together for a joint victory. GoWND is now a team with 2 civs while every other team has been playing the entire game with 1 civ. 1v1v1.. is what FFA is, only one victor. This has turned into a 2v1v1... which is not FFA.

I am disappointed you didn't see a problem with it Trip.

[vmxa1]

That is what I felt, they have been two civs against a bunch of individual civs for maybe the whole game. They never worked at odds as far as I know.

This is unbalancing. Had it been publicly declared as a locked allinace at the start, others may have played differently. All teams not involved in the locked alliance would be nuts to work with the alliance againt another civ.

[asleepathewheel]

lame-o

[asleepathewheel]

lame-o

[Aeson]

And you still don't think the stakes are huge?

It's all-or-nothing. There will be one winner. One group of select people who can lay claim to have been the winner of the first competitive democracy game in the world's biggest civ site. So much for being "just" a game. In this sense, the stakes may even be higher than the ISDG. Do we cross paths with CGNers, or GCAers or Firaxians every day? Nope. But we see each other here, the competeitive spirit is always with us, be it PBEM, MP, or just plain who kicks bigger ass in SP, and especially since many of the PTWDG teams have done much better than some of the ISDG teams from what I've seen. If the level of competition is more fierce, the satisfaction of winning, is invariably greater.

We all have a little bit to prove here. If GoW wins we can claim that realpolitiking and opportunism won the day. If GS wins, they will be proud that all that time in the strat forum paid off and prove that they're not just good at kicking the AI's butt. If ND wins, well, imagine a rival site beating out the best Apolyton has to offer! You get the picture.

Guess who said that about this game?

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=94602

[Jon Shafer]

I am disappointed you didn't see a problem with it Trip.

What do you think I can do? Force them to fight each other?

I cannot force teams to play a certain way. Even if I had said no it would not have changed how this game played out. It's not as though they brought this issue up with me a year ago. By the time they had approached me the die was essentially cast.

In any case, what I say really has no weight anyways. I was voted by the teams to be a chronicler, not a moderator. I have as much of a legal right to veto their decision as they have to make this decision in the first place. In fact, probably less. If I were to say no and a team disputes it there's nothing I can do about it.

[Aeson]

That is why I said, "I am disappointed you didn't see a problem with it Trip" rather than, "I am disappointed you allowed this to happen."

I know there is nothing you can do about it. I don't blame you for it happening either. You are responsible for your opinion about it though.

[Jon Shafer]

Just because I believe it's legal does not mean I disagree or agree with it on a personal basis...

[Aeson]

So what is your personal opinion of it then?

Also, can we get RP edited out of the game to avoid the crash?

[Jon Shafer]

Also, can we get RP edited out of the game to avoid the crash?

Is this possible with the CMT?

Originally posted by Aeson
So what is your personal opinion of it then?

Obviously the fact that the game was probably decided long ago is distressing. However, thus is the nature of the game. MPDGs are different from other games not only due to their scope and length but also because diplomacy trumps all else. You can be the best general and the best economist with the best land rolled into one but it means nothing if you're not able to rally allies to your side. That is the true challenge of a MPDG - balancing your own interests while also keeping strong friends.

What might have happened if GS and Lego had allied and taken out GOW and ND, then raced for a space victory? Any variety of situations may have changed the final outcome, and they all tend to rely on how the diplomatic chips fall. The key to diplo is finding the common ground with other teams to gain an advantage - and in this case ND and GOW found it in winning together.

[Aeson]

What might have happened if GS and Lego had allied and taken out GOW and ND, then raced for a space victory?

Then either GS or Lego would have almost certainly won a space race victory. Vox might have turned the tide for Lego, or RP might have turned the tide for GS, or one or the other might have betrayed their ally and swung the balance of power. Since only one team could claim the spacerace victory, all teams had a self-interest to look after as best they could.

The key to diplo is finding the common ground with other teams to gain an advantage - and in this case ND and GOW found it in winning together.

That this is what happened is undisputed.

My question is what is your opinion of defining a "shared victory" in a FFA irregardless of in-game victory conditions?

That is the true challenge of a MPDG - balancing your own interests while also keeping strong friends.

I agree completely. Which is why I say in this FFA environment it is critical that teams not share victory. It means you don't have to balance your own interests against your friends, because your friends interests are your own. As long as only 1 team can win though, the FFA remains an FFA, with each team having to work with others who are competing against them.

[Aeson]

Is this possible with the CMT?

I don't know. All I know is that RP isn't going to play any more, so either this game is over, or they are removed from the game.

I would agree with GoW's determination that these crashes are due to corrupted trade deals though, so fixing them might allow the elimination of these civs.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Aeson
My question is what is your opinion of defining a "shared victory" in a FFA irregardless of in-game victory conditions?

What if ND and GOW agreed to destroy everyone else but each other and then fight it out? If that's the case you have essentially the same exact situation - everyone else is dead, and neither of these teams had to worry about a backstab. You may argue that since it's still a FFA that they would have to fear a backstab, but that's essentially what happened in this game. Each team had to trust the other enough not to try and cripple the other and take total victory. It would be incredibly easy to do so, after all. GOW could have easily destroyed ND during their first war against GS and RP or shortly thereafter. ND could have wiped GOW out while they were attacking Lego. And then GOW back again while ND was protecting its shores from GS. In the end it works out to be the same.

Fact is that human players will always find a way to bend the rules to what they want to achieve. Do you disagree with the very fact that they want a joint victory, or the effect that it has had upon the game - I suspect the latter (along with the majority of GS), from your recent posts. And in that case, just as I said above they could have easily made an alliance "until we're the last ones left" and it would have had the same effect on the gameplay. The only difference would be after everyone else was dead.

Is that against the spirit of a FFA game? Yeah, probably. That's true in all parts of life. Or maybe I'm just that cynical.