 |
| |
|
|
DrSpike
|
 |
Enthusiastic member of Apolyton
Sep 2001
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Spaced Cowboy
|
 |
Dallas TX
Nov 2001
time: 23:25
|
|
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
|
|
Enthusiastic member of Apolyton
Sep 2001
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
Enthusiastic member of Apolyton
Sep 2001
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jaguar
|
 |
Montgomery County, MD
Apr 2000
time: 00:25
|
|
My thoughts:
Firstly, on this particular game.
We chose to declare allied victory, and Jonny, who is in charge of the game, chose to accept it. It's an allied victory. That's final.
Perhaps, in future Nuclear War games, there should be no allied victory allowed. That will make for a more satisfying ending (at least from the loser's perspective, anyway) Also, it can help divide up the uberfactions.
Spaced Cowboy put it well:
quote:
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! |
But what I think people are really complaining about is that this alliance was more disciplined, organized, and successful than any alliance before. Every one of you has made at least one NAP in a game, or coordinated orders with someone else. We simply did it far better than any of you have.
There's no other way of spinning it. Are we a clique? No. We aren't exclusive. Any one of you is free to register at Eventis and post there. And if you make the effort to be our friend, we will consider you a friend of ours.
I allied with Skanky, Kuci, Kassi, and Tass because they are friends of mine. Not because I wanted to greedily improve my odds. I know Kuci in real life. I chat with Tass on MSN daily.
Do you really expect that I'm going to attack the people I care about, and leave people who whine at me alone?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ljube
|
 |
Belgrade
May 2003
time: 06:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jaguar
My thoughts:
Firstly, on this particular game.
We chose to declare allied victory, and Jonny, who is in charge of the game, chose to accept it. It's an allied victory. That's final.
|
This argument is flawed to the bone.
First Jonny is in charge of processing orders, not in charge of the game. The game is made for the entertainment of everybody on this forum, not just a select group.
Second, using your logic, Jonny could have declared me winner of this game because he fancies my name. Would that decision made by Jonny who is according to you "in charge of this game" have made me winner?
Third, you cannot change the rules of a game while it is still running. This game was played with the premise that there can be only one winner. Everybody else played the game with that fact in mind. Now you come to a brilliant idea four of you can be made winners if you agree so. And the GM says OK. I consider such ruling grossly unfair towards other players who would have, if they had known this was possible from the beginning, organised alliances of their own and possibly won. This way they stood no chance.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jaguar
|
|
Montgomery County, MD
Apr 2000
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ljube-ljcvetko
This argument is flawed to the bone.
First Jonny is in charge of processing orders, not in charge of the game. The game is made for the entertainment of everybody on this forum, not just a select group.
Second, using your logic, Jonny could have declared me winner of this game because he fancies my name. Would that decision made by Jonny who is according to you "in charge of this game" have made me winner?
Third, you cannot change the rules of a game while it is still running. This game was played with the premise that there can be only one winner. Everybody else played the game with that fact in mind. Now you come to a brilliant idea four of you can be made winners if you agree so. And the GM says OK. I consider such ruling grossly unfair towards other players who would have, if they had known this was possible from the beginning, organised alliances of their own and possibly won. This way they stood no chance. |
Where do you get this premise that allied victory isn't allowed? Here is the rules post. There isn't even a mention of victory. And the rules certainly don't say anything about how many people can win.
quote:
Originally posted by Jonny
Nuclear War XXII: "Nuclear Proliferation"
The Rules
Each player starts with 3 cities, and may perform 1 order each turn. Orders should be sent to the GM through:
PM
(When orders have been sent, please post a "sent" msg in the thread, to make sure the GM has received the order).
If you don’t send any orders for a turn, you won't be auto-set to do something (The GM won't deflect for you, the GM won't do anything for you... ), and since the GM posts a msg from time to time in the forum about who still needs to send orders, people can see who’s open for nuking, so be sure to send them. You can send the GM a default order, if you wish, but I recommend that you send a queue.
If you don’t send your orders, there will be consequences, unless you can come up with a good reason BEFORE you’re missing your orders (i.e. if you’re going on vacation tell us BEFORE you leave, not when you get home)
code:
# of turns missed: Consequences:
1: nothing
2: You’ll lose one city this round
3: You’ll lose two cities this round
4: ---------you get Wasted--------
Each turn takes about 24 hours; weekends, holidays, etc. may result in longer turns. (Turns tentatively ending at 5 PM CST (2300 GMT) each day, but this isn't set in stone.) If the GM has received all orders before time runs out, the turn has ended and he'll post the results early.
You will be able to change your orders up until one hour before the end of the turn.
Spy missions don't count as orders: e.g. you can sabotage an enemy and nuke him in the same turn. Each player starts with zero spies. You can send out multiple spies per turn if you have them.
Orders:
Launch Nukes:
The player can launch two nukes. The nukes can be launched at different players or they can be launched to the same player, depending on preference.
Stockpile nukes: *
When stockpiling nukes you can launch 2-4 nukes instead of 2 at a time. You can't stockpile stockpiled nukes, the max # of nukes is 4. You don't have to use the stockpiled nukes the following turn. If you've got stockpiled nukes and want to attack someone, but also keep the stockpiled nukes, you may.
Deflect: *
When deflecting nukes to a certain player, every second nuke to arrive that turn will be deflected to another player (Which has to be included in the orders). The nukes which get deflected is: 1, 3, 5… while 2, 4, 6… will hit
Use Bunker: *
Each player starts with one bunker. When used, ALL nukes fired at you are destroyed (Not deflected), and all spies sent against you are killed. After one use, the bunker is unavailable, unless rebuilt.
Build a Bunker: *
Gives you another bunker to use (up to a max of 2).
Train a new spy: *
Just like it sounds. (No-one starts with any spies) Up to a maximum of 3.
Build City:
You get one extra city. (No more than 5 cities can be built, this is not IPS).
Sabotage (Spy):
When using sabotage on another player, the other players orders will be cancelled. This kills the spy used. Sabotage does not work on energy shields; stockpiled nukes launches that are sabotaged lose the stockpile involved.
All orders marked with a * sign shall be referred to as "unknown projects" unless they specifically come into play that turn.
If you post a "sent" msg in the thread, but the GM doesn't recieve any orders, he'll auto-set you to whatever you want your 'default' orders to be - send them with your first orders (Of course he'll send you a msg that he didn't recieve your orders)
The only orders that can be combined are Sabotage with any other order. Stockpile cannot be combined with deflect, for instance.
**********************************************
No war has ever been fought between two nuclear-armed nations. It seems that in the past, wherever the nukes have gone, peace has also followed. Despite the obvious irony of man's most powerful weapons bringing peace, it is true: Nukes ended World War II, the threat of mutually assured destruction kept the cold war from becoming hot, and (so far) they have kept a major war from breaking out between Pakistan and India. But, now 19 different warlords have gotten their hands on nuclear weapons from former Soviet republics. These warlords have preexisting grudges for each other, often times with a great passion for wanting to destroy each other. They also don't fear death, and are willing to destroy each other. It seems as if the time of the nuclear peace is ending... who will survive?
**********************************************
|
Who will survive? Maybe zero players (this can happen), maybe one, and maybe four.
The rules said nothing on victory at all, much less allied victory, so Jonny was acting in his authority as the GM to make a decision.
And what authority, exactly, do you have to interpret the rules? None. You are obviously not impartial. The role of the impartial judge is the GM's.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ljube
|
|
Belgrade
May 2003
time: 06:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jaguar
Where do you get this premise that allied victory isn't allowed? Here is the rules post. There isn't even a mention of victory. And the rules certainly don't say anything about how many people can win.
Who will survive? Maybe zero players (this can happen), maybe one, and maybe four.
The rules said nothing on victory at all, much less allied victory, so Jonny was acting in his authority as the GM to make a decision.
And what authority, exactly, do you have to interpret the rules? None. You are obviously not impartial. The role of the impartial judge is the GM's. |
All forum games are made for a single winner. This game I have played since NW1. I believe that gives me some authority on the issue.
Furthermore, everybody who has played a game with me knows I'm not a sore loser. Sure I like to win, but don't want to do it at any cost, certainly not at the expense of the game itself.
The game is almost as old as mafia (about 16 months old). If the rules say nothing about it, that doesn't mean coop victories are allowed since this was a single winner game for all that long time. If a GM would decide to change such long tradition he would at least need to inform everybody before the game started.
For your information here is the transcript of the original Jamski rules of the game. I've taken the liberty to bold the disputed rule. How that rule got lost from the ruleset I can't tell, but it sure was there from the beginning.
quote:
Sign up now to play Nuclear War!
Following the success of the Mafia game, here's another game in which 'poly posters can kill each other.
The rules : (pretty simple)
- Each player is the general in control of the nuclear weapons of a country. He has the responsiblity of protection his cites, and destroying the cities of the other players.
- The game proceeds in turns. Once all players have posted, the results are shown, and the next round proceeds.
- Any player "forgetting" to PM orders is considered to "hide in the bunker" if they still can, otherwise they do nothing that round.
- Each player has 3 cities. A city is like a life. If you lose all three you are dead.
- The winner is the last one left alive. If noone is left alive then the
game is a draw.
In each turn the player has a choice from 4 options : to nuke an opponent, to shield himself in his bunker for that round, to deflect incoming nukes or to build a new city.
- Nuking opponents : You may launch up to two missiles per turn at any player. They each destroy one city.
- Hiding in the bunker : This may only be used once, and makes you IMMUNE to all nuclear attacks that turn. Afterwards the bunker is unusable.
- Deflectin' nukes : Instead of lauching two nukes, you can deflect 50% of the nukes that were aimed at you, regardless of thier target, to the player of your choice. i.e. nukes 1,3,5,7 are deflected while nukes 2,4,6,8 will hit the cities. If your are targeted by 3 nukes, one will hit, and 2 will be "bounced" for example. You must say who the nukes will be deflected to when you post. If the target is also deflecting then the nukes are "bounced" onwards, but any one nuke is only blocked once by each player.
- Build a new city : Instead of attacking or blocking you may build a new city. The city is considered "built" before the nukes are launched.
If a player is killed in a turn, his nukes and deflection still operate before his vaporisation at 1,000,000°C
Teams, ganging up and evil behavior are to be encouraged.
So... who's in? I reckon we can take 8 players as a trial.
1 - Jamski (Berlin, Hamburg & Munich remaining)
2 - Azazel (Earth, Venus & Mars remaining)
3 - ljcvetko (Beograd, Novi Sad & Leskovac remaining)
4 - Spaced Cowboy (Dallas, Austin & Houston remaining)
5 - DrSpike (Southampton, London, and Newton remaining)
6 - Vovan (Kiev, Sevastopol & Odessa remaining)
7 - Tass (Logan City, Salt Lake City & Ogden City remaining)
8 - Tuberski (San Antonio, Corpus Christi, & Laredo remaining)
9 - Sheep (Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne remaining)
This gives those killed in the Mafia game something to do while we wait for the next one to start
-Jam
|
Last edited by Ljube on 24-02-2005 at 04:56
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-02-2005 18:44
I'll play again....despite lacking an alliance and/or allies. 
|