 |
| |
|
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ZargonX
I think the main point of contention is that the outlook on the game is greatly changed when half the people involved are playing on the assumption that there can be only one winner, and the other half involved have decided that they will win as a team. If everyone was playing with the same understanding, many different decisions would probably have been made. That said, we can't go back in time (yet...), so there you have it. |
Again, how could the outlook have changed? GoW and GS made their alliance against you a secret, you figured out until it was too late. Likewise, GoW and ND made their alliance a secret because we knew that if the world ever found out that we planed to win together, it is likely that we'd have found ourselves on the receiving end of an alliance set to destroy us.
So again, what "different decisions" would have been made? You would not have known about any alliances, be them regular ones or joint-victory ones because secrecy was all part of the diplomatic deceit. Heck, you wouldn't even know now of our joint victory plans if we hadn't chosen to make them public.
Instead of just saying "things would be different if we knew", why don't you say exactly how they would be different, and prove that the outcome of this game would be considerably different if GoW and ND merely had an temporary alliance to become the last 2 teams in the game and duke it out among us?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
|
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aeson
I propose we settle the issue. Start PTWDG III. Specifically allow shared victory pacts to be signed between civs. See what it does to the game.
It won't take long... game will be "over" (either everyone winning, or a majority "victory alliance" forming that would be prohibitive favorites) before it starts most likely. The only way I could see it not working that way is if everyone wants to make me eat my words... and lose. 
This is something that has to be addressed before there can ever be another DG of this nature that's worth playing. |
You just don't get it Aeson. Seriously, you don't.
NO team would ever start playing a demogame with the intention of sharing a victory. Everyone starts by wanting to win by themselves and most of the trajectory of the game involves trying to find a way of achieving such a thing.
It was no different between GoW and ND. Things changed as time passed and we found out that due to geography posing such a menace (a united Bob would be by and large the greatest threat, much more than Lego), one team destroying the other would mean that in turn it would be on the receiving end of an anti-Bob alliance. Thus, we contemplated a joint victory because franky, we thought it was impossible for either GoW or ND to win by ourselves, so at least claiming "half" the victory was better than losing.
Lego and GS never thought of it that way because history and geography did not present such a possibility for you. That is not our fault. So, I truly doubt that given the possibilities of sharing victory in a hypothetical PTWDGIII would not mean that teams would use it because of confidence (Lego) or pride (GS) getting in the way. I would never have considered joint victory if I was in Lego or GS. If I were Lego I would have probably tried to ally with the Bobians to wipe GS out first, then would have tried to diplomatically get the Bobians to go to war over the spoils and then swoop in for the kill. With a continent all for me, I could have definitely thought a regular victory to be possible. If I were GS I would found things to be a wee bit more difficult and surely I would have lamented our terrible early game diplomacy since we had nobody we could consider "close". Still, I would've probably tried to make a war between GoW and ND erupt after the Lego War.
So as you can see, our options were a bit limited and that is why we considered this possibilty. Even if in a future demo game shared victories are allowed, I doubt I would ever consider it unless it was a do or die issue.
It was a do or die issue for GoW and ND here. We chose to do.
-MZ
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
|
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aeson
Yep, now GoW or ND can trigger one of the victory conditions agreed upon. Domination, Diplomatic, Conquest, Cultural, or Space Race. Unless you can find a way for both to trigger the victory condition though, that's still only one winner.
|
So, if we had to play everything by the book, why were secret alliances made during the entire game? Why was artillery shared, why were cities gifted? Could you have gotten RP to hand over cities to you in the Bobian War if this was a SP game? Could you have managed all the tech trades, the diplomatic deals, and what not that were clearly things one would do only in an MP game?
If your answer to that is "no", then I see no point in you arguing that victory had to follow the book also. GoW and ND proved their point: we defeated anyone who was willing to challange our victory objectives. As such we rightly claim victory. Vox does not challange it. GS and Lego are gone.
Many MP games end in a similar fashion also, perhaps if you had some PBEM experience you'd know that. The ISDG also ended that way and no-one complained.
quote:
To be honest I'm glad it turned out this way. "Some people" definitely wouldn't be a good hero to have. |
Trust me, I ain't losing sleep over not being your hero 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:18
|
|
MZ:
Do you not understand how some would take issue with the whole matter?
Oddly, I would be much more pleased (as much as one can while losing) with the outcome of the game if GS was disembowled, and then ND sat down with GoW and declared a joint victory. Same result, but without the aftertaste.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
 |
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen
NO team would ever start playing a demogame with the intention of sharing a victory. Everyone starts by wanting to win by themselves and most of the trajectory of the game involves trying to find a way of achieving such a thing. |
You're right in one regard. Generally speaking, no team would have the intention of sharing victory. When faced with losing if they don't share victory, and shared victory is considered a valid option, then they pass up the intention of winning on their own and settle for the shared victory. Just as GoW and ND showed.
But, even at the start of the game, shared victory as an option would mean any team that didn't have victory pacts with someone is almost sure to lose to teams which do have them. So that "fear" is there, driving teams to make shared victory pacts, because if anyone is sharing victory, it becomes the only way to win.
Anyways, like I said, we can settle this argument easily.
quote:
So, if we had to play everything by the book, why were secret alliances made during the entire game? Why was artillery shared, why were cities gifted? Could you have gotten RP to hand over cities to you in the Bobian War if this was a SP game? Could you have managed all the tech trades, the diplomatic deals, and what not that were clearly things one would do only in an MP game? |
Those examples are dealing with the rules of play. As I said, the rules were not clearly defined before the game started. Obviously that was a problem in some cases.
The victory conditions were defined though.
Since, as you say, it doesn't matter, will GoW let ND be the one to trigger the victory condition?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
|
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Krill
The ISDG ended in Surrender. It did not end in a joint victory.
I have never played any PBEMs that ended in a joint victory. Thay either ended in joint surrender to a single player, or a single player won the game under the previously agreed victory conditions. |
My point is that it ended in a way in which none of the original victory conditions were triggered, exactly like in this case. No team won by domination, nor conquest, nor UN, nor Space Race, nor by culture. Simply the game kinda stalled, GWT was in a very priviledged position, and all the other teams decided not to challange GWT's supremacy, thus calling an end to the game.
How is that different? No in-game victory conditions were met .
As per PBEMs, my very first PBEM ended with a joint victory by which an alliance between BigFree and Whitebandit obtained sufficient supremacy over an alliance between me and Togas that we decided to call it quits with them as victors. No in-game victory conditions were ever met either.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
|
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aeson
But, even at the start of the game, shared victory as an option would mean any team that didn't have victory pacts with someone is almost sure to lose to teams which do have them. So that "fear" is there, driving teams to make shared victory pacts, because if anyone is sharing victory, it becomes the only way to win.
|
But which team in their right mind would start the game with a victory pact with someone else as you claim? NO-ONE. Moreso, even late in the game, which team would actually find someone to agree to a shared victory with? Only very few. A shared victory would only occur between two teams which had exceptional diplomatic relations during the entire game, which both felt their chances of winning impossible alone, and which trusted the other one enough to follow through with such a pact. GoW could have never done this with any other team in the game save for Vox perhaps. You think Lego would ever had agreed to a shared victory with us? Never. Would GS? Never either. So don't take shared victories for granted. Given your diplomacy at the beginning/middle of the game, GS could never have managed it. And Lego would've just been plain stupid to have tried it since they were the only team which had realistic chances of winning this game by themselves.
That's the part which I've tried to explain in every damn post I've made here: that the shared victory was not a decision taken at random or just for the sake of it, it was taken because the historical circumstances forced us to. Neither of us would have allowed a non-Bobian civ to win this game, and if the issue came to us deciding the victory, why not just share it?
quote:
Those examples are dealing with the rules of play. As I said, the rules were not clearly defined before the game started. Obviously that was a problem in some cases.
The victory conditions were defined though.
Since, as you say, it doesn't matter, will GoW let ND be the one to trigger the victory condition? |
Both GoW and ND would be equally content in having the other trigger the victory condition. Given that, I think the optimal solution for the sake of egality will be to vote for... Vox. That way I can snicker whenever you say that Vox won the PTWDG
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Krill
|
 |
On a cold wet rock, in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.
Dec 2003
time: 05:18
|
|
(Ctrl-Q).
If you want to draw comparissons to the ISDG, fine, but remember that only one team declared victory. GCA did not attempt to say that they won, even though they were on "The Winning Side".
Here, there are two teams that are claiming to have won the game. The problem, as I see it, is that both are claiming to "Have been the winner of the first competitive democracy game in the world's biggest civ site."
You may, or you may not care much about this point, but when you play the game for so long, under these conditions, with everybody who took part, you would hope that people are willing to play the game within the rules of the Game, and within the spirit of the Game. Both GoW and ND had my respect from the moment I joined this game and read about its' past. But when you get right to the end, and then you say: "To hell with what everyone else thinks", and share the victory, you break the game, and you break the victory. Obviously a shared victory is not as good as victory from winning alone. I just wonder what would the difference be from playing along and losing. I reckon more people would respect you (and that applies to both ND and GoW) if both teams played along and fought it ought to the bitter end.
Last edited by Krill on 05-06-2005 at 05:07
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:18
|
|
Proposal:
GoW and ND play a 1x1 winner take all PBEM to show the world who the king of Apolyton is.
The people demand a winner!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Theseus
|
 |
The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm! Apolyton Spirit!!
Apr 2002
time: 00:18
|
|
That's actually not a bad solution, a tiny map face-off. 
Wellll, sorta. Yeah, it can produce a "winner".
But I maintain that knowing shared victory was the goal *must* have had an impact from the point where it was agreed upon. And no, MZ, I obviously cannot create an alternative history of woulda, coulda, mighta. And thus, having created an unanticipated and undiscussed victory condition, you guys dramatically changed the nature of the game that I signed up for... sorry, but that's all there is to it.
Enough. Basta. Can I start discussing the similarities to Ashton Kutcher now... you brought it up, after all!! 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
|
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Krill
(Ctrl-Q).
If you want to draw comparissons to the ISDG, fine, but remember that only one team declared victory. GCA did not attempt to say that they won, even though they were on "The Winning Side".
|
Because GCA was a vassal state, not an equal partner. Why do you think Vox isn't claiming victory even if they made it to the endgame along with us? (Vox has never been our vassals btw)
Like bongo said, if you want, call it a half-victory for each. Of a full victory for the ND/GoW alliance. Either way is fine with us. As for the thread you linked to, I remind you that thread was posted during the Bobian War. At that moment we had no plans of eventually sharing victory. History makes you take decisions you had no plan in taking previously. Hell when this game started ND was targeted as our main threat and RP seemed to be our logical ally. All of that changed during the "writing incident".
quote:
You may, or you may not care much about this point, but when you play the game for so long, under these conditions, with everybody who took part, you would hope that people are willing to play the game within the rules of the Game, and within the spirit of the Game. Both GoW and ND had my respect from the moment I joined this game and read about its' past. But when you get right to the end, and then you say: "To hell with what everyone else thinks", and share the victory, you break the game, and you break the victory. Obviously a shared victory is not as good as victory from winning alone. I just wonder what would the difference be from playing along and losing. I reckon more people would respect you (and that applies to both ND and GoW) if both teams played along and fought it ought to the bitter end. |
"More people" = GS and Lego? So now we are playing merely so we can get the respect of the two teams that lost? How is this any different to us playing to our own set of "rules" if now we have to play according to your own?
Read again: There was no rule which said we could not win cooperatively. Trip was aware of our decision ever since we pacted it and fully endorsed it. Had he deemed it illegal he would have said so, and would have forced us to follow a different path. I would honestly like you to link to a public rule in this game which says it is illegal. Likewise I would like you to link to a public rule which says that this game necessarily must end with an in-game victory triggered because like I have mentioned, this did not happen in the ISDG (which was governed under a much more strict rule set) and I don't see anyone complaining about it.
-MZ
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
|
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Theseus
That's actually not a bad solution, a tiny map face-off.
Wellll, sorta. Yeah, it can produce a "winner".
|
Personally, I would really like to be a rehash of the PTWDG when Civ4 comes out. We can invite the Webringians again, and we could perhaps (if people are willing) create "serious" teams like happened here. Part of the reason I really did not find all other demo games here appealing is that people took things too humorously in terms of team names and ideas and such whearas in this game most teams had a clear and serious "ideology" behind them. Maybe in this future demogame we won't recycle the same teams as here but definitely under similar play styles (the SP strategy gurus, the builders, the warmongers, etc.). Remember that this game began from the SPDG and the logical branching of playstyles into different teams.
quote:
But I maintain that knowing shared victory was the goal *must* have had an impact from the point where it was agreed upon. And no, MZ, I obviously cannot create an alternative history of woulda, coulda, mighta. And thus, having created an unanticipated and undiscussed victory condition, you guys dramatically changed the nature of the game that I signed up for... sorry, but that's all there is to it.
|
The only difference is that GoW or ND would not exist right now. The main outcome (as far as GoW is concerned) I can think of is a massive GoW backstab/Rop-Rape of ND the turn we got nukes preceeding an attack on GS. Fear of GS's tech capability would have likely meant that GoW and ND would have cooperated regardless to out-research GS because like I said, both of us thought that it'd be better if a Bobian civ won over a non-Bobian war and having been common enemies with GS we sure as hell would not want them to win. However, how could we have worked up an agreement by which one team got the nukes and agreed not to nuke the other? Would ND have allowed GoW that one crucial turn with nuclear weapons?
And no offense but if that happened we'd be hearing Aeson and NYE whining that "bleh, GoW won by a RoP-rape, in our eyes that was so slimey it doesn't count" or "bleh, GoW betrayed ND and abused their knowledge of the english langague to make them sign a treaty with a loophole". Or whatever similar excuse. 
-MZ
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-06-2005 23:58
)
|