FG: Nuclear War XXII - Nuclear Proliferation!

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
I agree. It doesn't matter how the cooperation is discussed/communicated. PMs, email, another forum doesn't really matter.

Well you weren't playing FG before; I wonder if you will feel similarly later. It's a tough distinction as I said, but the way PM alliances work acts as a natural constraint that yields the 'right' (my value judgement I accept) amount of co-operation for the games to function well for all players. I have played in virtually all the games so I speak from experience. Last time the fixing (Tassadar's word) was occuring was the lowest point in FG.

[Kassiopeia]

I think the use of the words "fix" or "rig" or "clique" is derailing the discussion. It's an alliance that strives to win the game. If you want to ban alliances, then we can ban alliances. If you want to put a size limit on an alliance, let's do that. If you want to deny alliances that last from one game to the other, go right ahead. But I'd prefer we keep the terms straight.

[Skanky Burns]

Cooperation breeds cooperation. In GO, a faction formed and did well that game. The next game, a second faction formed and tilted the balance of power well away from the original faction. The GO game after that, balance was achieved (as well as mutual destruction).

And we should really define what we are talking about here, as Kassi stated above.

[DrSpike]

I didn't introduce the word fix.

I do not want to ban alliances. I want to ban alliances open only to certain players in the clique. Yes I introduced that word and it fits IMO.

I agree it's not immediately obvious why it's different than PM alliances, but it is in practice, as I explained in the last post.

[Skanky Burns]

Banning people from organising off-site is stupid and also rather difficult to police.

[Kassiopeia]

I didn't introduce the word fix.

I know, but that doesn't mean we should keep using it.

I do not want to ban alliances. I want to ban alliances open only to certain players in the clique. Yes I introduced that word and it fits IMO.

I agree it's not immediately obvious why it's different than PM alliances, but it is in practice, as I explained in the last post.

So basically you want an artificial barrier on the efficiency of communication in order to limit the size and the extent of co-operation of an alliance?

Because the "only open to some" definition doesn't quite fly, the same people could just set up a "PM alliance" and keep anyone else from joining it.

[DrSpike]

Skanky: All FG cheating is difficult to police. It doesn't matter - the games work on trust and if people want to cheat they always can. The vast majority of the time they do not.

I've explained why off-site organisining in open forums that only some posters post in is IMO damaging to the game. I appreciate it's subjective, and you are free to disagree, but if you understood it my point is not a stupid one.

[DrSpike]

Kass: PM alliances are potentially open to all players. Off site alliances are not.

As I've said repeatedly, I know my argument is not an easy one to accept, but if you were around FG during the last fixing period you'd know what I am talking about.

[Kassiopeia]

the games work on trust and if people want to cheat they always can.

Not really, unless the GM is helping them. With the current way the rules are established, that is.

I've explained why off-site organisining in open forums that only some posters post in is IMO damaging to the game. I appreciate it's subjective, and you are free to disagree, but if you understood it my point is not a stupid one.

The players who are left out of the alliance can, certainly, establish their own to counter it? Two large alliances, "teams" fighting it out might be interesting, and will strip away the certainty of an alliance winning making them less attractive as options, promoting smaller alliances or the removal of alliances altogether.

Kass: PM alliances are potentially open to all players. Off site alliances are not.

This is just mucking about with semantics, an off-site alliance can also be potentially open to all players. I think your "it's better sportsmanship" argument is better.

I don't recall the last fixing period. Could someone summarize it for me somehow, so that I can decide whether we're on the same path again?

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Kassiopeia


I know, but that doesn't mean we should keep using it.

The alliance (leader?) thinks of it this way. Who am I to argue.

Last time it was explicitly called fixing by the members, and the members tried to hide it, denying it until it became obvious. Hardly the behaviour of people that believe they are engaging in honourable alliances, not fixing the game.

[Kassiopeia]

The alliance (leader?) thinks of it this way. Who am I to argue.

Our alliance did not have a leader, and those are Comrade Tassadar's words, not mine.

Last time it was explicitly called fixing by the members, and the members tried to hide it, denying it until it became obvious.
Hardly the behaviour of people that believe they are engaging in honourable alliances, not fixing the game.

Quite reasonable, would you reveal the presence of an alliance to other players until it's obvious? Again, if "fixing" is "establishing an alliance to win the game", then I guess it's "fixing".

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Kassiopeia


The players who are left out of the alliance can, certainly, establish their own to counter it?

I don't recall the last fixing period. Could someone summarize it for me somehow, so that I can decide whether we're on the same path again?

Say alliance members make up a substantial proportion of the game. They can easily reach an equilibrium with no infighting until all non-alliance members are gone.

Last time Event's popularity waned just as the fixing was getting rampant. Even so games were damaged.

If it continues now I will choose to step back from FG for a while and will be interested to return in a few months and see what opinions there are then.

[Kassiopeia]

Say alliance members make up a substantial proportion of the game. They can easily reach an equilibrium with no infighting until all non-alliance members are gone.

Yes, I do agree that the proportion problem is a serious one. That is why on Event we have, actually, attempted to downsize any possible co-operative efforts, partly because it also reduces the risk of backstabbing or the alliance otherwise falling apart. Altogether, I am in favour of more compact alliances than the five player one we now had in Nuclear War. Ideal would be, say, in GO four alliances of four players, it'd be balanced out yet allow for much skulduggery, backstabbing etc.

And I also think backstabbing is too difficult with a "forum alliance" - betraying a PM alliance is much easier somehow (as you yourself have probably noticed , memories of my first GO game here). Probably because the consequences aren't that big and you won't have a permanent reminder of it.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Kassiopeia


Our alliance did not have a leader, and those are Comrade Tassadar's words, not mine.

For all his faults, he is just more honest.

[Kassiopeia]

Or just an abuser of the language, take your pick.