FG: Nuclear War XXII - Nuclear Proliferation!

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by 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.

Cheating is actually quite difficult, due to the fact that all actions take place through the GM. Now, if you happened to add new rules to the game such as no organising at another site, then this rule could quite easily be broken. However, the rules as they are now do not lend themselves well to cheating.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Kassiopeia


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.

Thanks for admitting that Kass.

But as you say, punishing backstabbing is easy in such a off-site forum alliance, and all off-site forum members have an incentive to join and close out non-alliance members in the game, raising their chances and the chances of all those in the alliance. No one has an incentive to block them joining as long as they believe backstabbing is difficult, as you do.

Therefore it is easy (from your own thoughts) to see how self-interested indivuduals can reach an equilibrium that damages the game, as long as there are enough off-site members, which there are. It's therefore clear that what happened last time (the exact same story) is indicative of what will happen this time.

Anyway, my case (and the counter case) is made. My proposal is that off-site alliances made in open forums should not be allowed. I firmly believe the future of FG depends on it, and certainly whether I want to play FG depends on it.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns


Cheating is actually quite difficult, due to the fact that all actions take place through the GM. Now, if you happened to add new rules to the game such as no organising at another site, then this rule could quite easily be broken. However, the rules as they are now do not lend themselves well to cheating.

All the games work on trust. You scratch my back when you are GMing and I'll scratch yours when I GM is a possibility. I trust that it does not happen. I do not know it.

Other FG depend on the GM being honest, like Hangman. I also trust that that is the case, and would do so unless confronted with a lot of evidence to the contrary.

All FG work on trust. If there was a rule banning alliances in open forums off-site I'd trust members to follow that rule, unless I had evidence otherwise. The fact that it's hard to police is irrelevant - do you or do you not believe the rule would be a good one is the question (and I see you do not), under the assumption that people will not cheat.

[Shogun Gunner]

Looking around, I realize I carry the n00b perspective and opinion.

It's clear most of you all have known each other for some time through Apolyton or elsewhere. Standing alliances made up by a tight-knit group of longstanding members could be very detrimental to getting new players in the game.

Nuke war is a fun game...and everyone's wacky comments combined with the humorous turn summaries makes it interesting. I'll play again....despite lacking an alliance and/or allies.

[DrSpike]

I completely agree; new players also have a better chance of joining a PM alliance than an off-site one.

[Kuciwalker]

All the games work on trust.

Of one person, that he isn't rigging it. Not of everyone that they aren't, say, communicating alliance stuff over another forum as opposed to by PM.

[Tassadar500]

I'd say it's pretty easy to join an out-of-forum alliance.

[Kassiopeia]

Nothing stops one from becoming a member of it via PM either, I guess, they just can't have that much input on it (they'd probably have to have a member of the forum as a representative of sorts).

I still don't think outright banning is the right way here. More of a gentlemanly agreement to limit the off-site alliances so that they do not grow too big.

[:) Smiley]

http://eventis.ssxh.net/viewtopic.php?t=1415

A little too blatant perhaps?

[Spaced Cowboy]

Wow, this sucks, I was afraid that this would happen. I do not have any issues with alliances setting up shop elsewhere, forums, pms, email, msm, etc.

What really bothers me is allied victories, they can't be allowed or these games will cease to exist. Player have to understand that they can ally with each other, but at some point, there can only be one. This tends to keep alliances in check. Allied victories do not!

As for the n00bs, you'll need to start pm'ing around and see who you can ally with, other n00bs, other players not in alliances, etc.

This is how we took down the big GO alliance that almost broke that game.

All parties interested in forming the anti-event alliance, please contact me via pm.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Kassiopeia
Nothing stops one from becoming a member of it via PM either, I guess, they just can't have that much input on it (they'd probably have to have a member of the forum as a representative of sorts).

I still don't think outright banning is the right way here. More of a gentlemanly agreement to limit the off-site alliances so that they do not grow too big.

Can you really look at the situation objectively (especially given your own admissions above) and make those conclusions?

Kass you are being naive IMO. There is already a gentlemanly agreement that this behaviour is against the spirit of the game. Look at Smiley's thread, which is EXACTLY the same in tone as the previous threads. The people posting know they are ruining the game, and they do so for the own advantage, even though they know its wrong. Some posts for those who haven't read it:

The aim is clear:

"Obviously, no attacks or spies on each other until every non-Event is dead"

"From now on, only events will win Nuclear war and GO. I have decreed it"

The thread posters know they are behaving in a way against the spirit of the rules.

"If you like, I can open a private forum for you to strategize in."

Reply:

"That would be good, but since all events are a part of this, it doesn't really matter."

i.e. private not to hide from prying eyes but to hide the evidence of fixing.

Open admissions that what is being proposed is wrong:

"Some Events are big stinky tattle-tales."

"Cheating
Adding me "

"So far no plans have been made to rig your game (ie a further game not presently rigged - Doc). However, if you want, I can arrange that."

Maybe I am naive in thinking a ban on alliances in forums off-site would stop this behaviour as well. However at least with a ban (if it is agreed of course) we can take action.

Seriously, am I the only one that will speak up? Does no one remember last time?

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Spaced Cowboy
Wow, this sucks, I was afraid that this would happen. I do not have any issues with alliances setting up shop elsewhere, forums, pms, email, msm, etc.

What really bothers me is allied victories, they can't be allowed or these games will cease to exist. Player have to understand that they can ally with each other, but at some point, there can only be one. This tends to keep alliances in check. Allied victories do not!

As for the n00bs, you'll need to start pm'ing around and see who you can ally with, other n00bs, other players not in alliances, etc.

This is how we took down the big GO alliance that almost broke that game.

All parties interested in forming the anti-event alliance, please contact me via pm.

I think the problem goes further, as this off-site alliance can credibly take out all non-alliance members first and only then fight amongst themselves, as decided in the posts I quoted.

The allied victory here (if it stands) was just a mixture of GM not around before and the tacit rule not being explicitly in.

[Shogun Gunner]

Is it really fun to win a game where so much effort is expended to "rig" and "cheat" (using terms from Event's own thread)?

I guess I don't understand that.

[joncha]

All I see here is a whole lot of whining.

Alliances organised off-site are just more efficient models of alliances organised by PM. And just like PM alliances, they don't always succeed.

[DrSpike]

Surprise surprise coming from one of the 'riggers' and 'cheats'.

Not my words of course, but the words of the participants of the Eventis thread.