 |
| |
|
|
Kloreep
|
 |
of the pillow
Jun 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
I am not arguing with the necessity for the alliance. I definitely agree it was the best option for the both of you. However, we once again run in to the problem that plagues this DG: as the first one, we run in to all kinds of things we never anticipated.
Let me give an example to try to communicate why this bothers me. I forget how the F1 trick came up, but let's say it never did. Let's further say that Lego, GS, & RP all found it and decided it was valid for use, but that none posted publicly because it would let the other teams know what advantage they were getting through what they deemed a perfectly valid game mechanic. The other teams have no clue and do not use it.
Now, after the game, we post about using it as part of the AARs. You find out we played the game in a way you considered cheesy, perhaps a downright exploit. Perhaps it even helped one of us out of a tight spot in a way you thought would not have been possible and no team was considering. Would you be happy that the teams had been playing under different sets of rules? That we had not brought up what you believed to be a questionable tactic so that it could be resolved, and uniform rules set agreed to to clarify what you saw as a grey area?
This was a sticky one because bringing it up nullifies its use. Nevertheless, that does not make it any less the case in my eyes that our teams were effectively playing under different rules; and that bothers me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hot_Enamel
|
 |
Melbourne, Australia
Aug 2002
time: 14:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kloreep
I'm not talking about the secrecy of the GoW and ND pact, I'm talking about shared victories being possible in the first place. Not quite the same thing. So far as I know, F1, unit chaining, and all the other examples you cite have all been brought up in the public forum so that all teams know about it, and can exploit it if deemed acceptable. The idea of a shared victory pact never was. Granted, bringing it up would have defeated the point, which sucks, but this situation we ended up in anyway rather sucks too, at least from my PoV. |
One could also argue that because GoW didn’t know that the F1 trick, ship chaining & unit warping was acceptable, then we too were disadvantaged. GS & Lego used those tactics and never thought of bringing it up in the main forum. (Until well after the event.)
In fact, it was only after GS falsy accused GoW in the main forum, of getting double duty from some catapults, was there some discussion about tactics used by GS.
{edit} Kloreep beat me to it. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aeson
I'm not the one whining that it was used. I think it's perfectly valid to use, GoW, GS, Lego, whoever. I just wanted to point out that GoW is trying to have it both ways. Using the tactic, and maligning others for using the tactic.
|
We're not maligning you for using the tactic, please read my posts carefully before responding. I'm maligning you for having voted it in favor. After it was voted I have no grounds of maliging anyone for using it since it was a legitimate move regardless of how cheesy we might think it is. Moreso I don't even know if you used it or not after it was voted, and honestly, I don't really care. I'd only raise a word if I found out you used it before it was voted since in my opinion it's as close to blatant cheating as you can get, but oh well, the fact we've been arguing about what's cheesy and what isn't for the past days without anyone ceding their position, it would be a pointless argument.
quote:
It was never against the rules. It's commonly accepted in some communities, outlawed in others. If you want to look at it as cheesey, feel free. It has nothing to do with whether or not calling shared victory is a double standard though.
A double standard is when one applies different reasoning to their own actions as the same actions of other people. That is what you are doing MZ, not what those calling shared victory cheese are doing, as they did not claim shared victory.
|
Double standards is whining about a team which did not follow the "standard" victory conditions when you allowed another civ which had no chance whatsoever at winning to be your vassal and openly assist you in winning (hence they weren't following the standard victory conditions either). I doubt the prospect of victory ever passed through the mind of Roleplay after the Bobian War at their best they could have hoped to be a "survivor" much like Vox now with the satisfaction that they aided GS in achieving their victory. Same with Vox.
Double standards is whining about why we kept this alliance a secret when your own team kept secret its alliances with others (us) long before Lego found out about it despite the fact there was clearly an in-game mechanic to mark an alliance. When secrecy benefited GS, you took advantage of it, when it killed you, now you complain.
Double standards is saying a secret alliance-to-destroy-the-non-Bobians-and-then-duke-it-out-ourselves would have been a perfectly acceptable strategy and yet maligning a shared victory when you know very well that the eventual outcome regarding Lego and GS wouldn't have just been similar, it would have been identical. Neither you nor anyone else has yet to provide even the most minimal evidence to the contrary other than "things would have been different, bla bla bla". Please, explain HOW different.
Double standards is insisting that only an in-game victory will be the one that "counts" when countless PBEMs and even other demogames (tsk tsk, ISDG) ended in out-of-game victories which hadn't even been agreed upon at the start of the game. What if GWT in the ISDG had insisted on continuing playing until an in-game victory was met and everyone else refused? For the same reason you cannot force ND or GoW to go ahead and do something we don't want to do. Double standards here is attempting to force your type of victory upon others and whining when we did the same to you (with the difference that we won and hence have a little more clout in deciding what outcome we want)
Double standards is saying that this victory really proves nothing when a GoW-ND war at this point would prove even less other than who had the balls (or luck) to strike first.
Sorry Aeson, but the only one who's been arguing this whole matter in double standards has been you and others which have argued similarly. What's most pathetic about this is that I'm sure some of you would have used any excuse had another team won to somehow diminish their victory. If Lego had won we'd be hearing "bah, they had a whole continent to themselves, plus they had a vassal state", if GS had won it'd be "no fair, they had a monopoly on the strategy gurus it was an uneven fight, plus they also had a vassal state".
Things would be so much easier if you just accepted the fact that this game is over, GS didn't win, and nothing would have changed this fact. Only then will you realize just how utterly pointless this whole debate has been.
-MZ
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kloreep
|
|
of the pillow
Jun 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
Cross-post with HE.
HE, I do not think GoW or ND cheated. I would be calling for your blood if I thought that.  Rather, I think it is an extremely gray area, which was mishandled.
I'm sorry you thought I was calling it a cheat, for I think it was not. Just as it had not been agreed to be acceptable, it had not been agreed to be unacceptable either, nor do I think you had any bad intentions; considering those two things there's no way I'm calling cheat or undeserved. And as I posted above, there's the fact that no, things would not have turned out differently if shared victories were outlawed altogether.
Since it was mishandled, there is quite some cheese to it, yes, but no more than that. (On the subject of F1, I believe I have said before that I made the mistake of voting for it because I wanted luxury trades to be uninterrupted. I did not consider there was the other option of allowing it for that purpose but disallowing it for build changing. But enough of this tangent)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vondrack
|
 |
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002
time: 06:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen
I find it rather ironic that despite now being accused as the epitome of cheese, GoW actually voted against most of the exploits which Lego and GS were adamantly in favor, particularly that borderline-cheating tactic which is F1/City Arrows (which IIRC has been banned from every other demogame).
GS and Lego's excuse: that it permits a broader array of strategies like hiding builds and last-minute changes, etc.
Of course, since both actively wanted to use such a trick to cover up wonder builds it was... well... not deemed "cheese", it was deemed "strategy".
And yet in an interesting change of terminology, GoW and ND's grand strategy of winning the game together is now labeled "cheese".
Double standards  |
You know, MZ... I guess I'm getting real pissed off and it's not because of the shared victory thing.
quote:
Originally posted by vondrack
After polling internally, Legoland approves using F1 + cursor keys (no tile double-duties, though) during the pre-turn phase. |
quote:
Originally posted by vondrack
Legoland polled on the proposal internally and decided to abstain. We will accept whatever others, having stronger opinions on the issue, decide. |
How does this equal to "being adamantly in favour" of these rules? How does this suggest why Lego voted in favour of the F1 trick rule? We haven't used the trick a single time before it was approved and voted in favour - as Kloreep pointed out - mostly because of needing to work around a bug interrupting luxury trades.
Wage your words, mate.
You may wish to take a deep breath and slow down a bit. If "we" are reluctant to see the situation from your PoV, then you are not trying to see the situation from our PoV either.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
 |
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen
We're not maligning you for using the tactic, please read my posts carefully before responding. I'm maligning you for having voted it in favor. After it was voted I have no grounds of maliging anyone for using it since it was a legitimate move regardless of how cheesy we might think it is. Moreso I don't even know if you used it or not after it was voted, and honestly, I don't really care. |
My apologies if you never meant to infer that GS did anything wrong in regards to F1.
(I'll let the "We're" pass... as definitely some on GoW did malign GS for using it... but I'm just not sure who the hell you are talking about by "we" given your tendancy to misuse pronouns.)
--------------
The rest of your post had nothing to do with what you originally posted. As you were responding to my response to that, my statement still stands. It is not a double standard to call "shared victory" cheesey and not apply the same label to game mechanices.
Are you going to address that statement, or simply throw up as many strawmen as possible so you don't seem to be avoiding the issue of the discussion we were having?
-------------------
I'll still address the rest of your post, because there is a lot to refute there. It's just nothing to do with what we were discussing.
quote:
Double standards is whining about a team which did not follow the "standard" victory conditions when you allowed another civ which had no chance whatsoever at winning to be your vassal and openly assist you in winning (hence they weren't following the standard victory conditions either). I doubt the prospect of victory ever passed through the mind of Roleplay after the Bobian War at their best they could have hoped to be a "survivor" much like Vox now with the satisfaction that they aided GS in achieving their victory. Same with Vox. |
Standard victory conditions are absolutes, trigger one and you've triggered one. How you get there is it's own topic. "Shared victory" in this case is an opinion. These are seperate things. Viewing one in a certain light is not a double standard even if the others are not viewed in the same light.
(I do agree with your underlying sentiment though... I don't think the agreement between ND and GoW was any different in this regard than any other agreement made in the game.)
quote:
Double standards is whining about why we kept this alliance a secret when your own team kept secret its alliances with others (us) long before Lego found out about it despite the fact there was clearly an in-game mechanic to mark an alliance. When secrecy benefited GS, you took advantage of it, when it killed you, now you complain. |
I agree this is a double standard. (Why didn't you use this instead of the patently false one you tried to pull?)
I'd like to point out, I haven't complained about secrecy at all. "You" is confusing, or you are wrong about what I have said. (Try quoting exactly what you are referencing, it will help.)
(ps. It would have been nice to have known that some would consider shared victory viable though. I could have saved a lot of time by not joining what I view to be a mostly pointless exercise. I'm greatful to ND and GoW for making it public in time so I could leave the C3C IDG before wasting any more time, especially on the same team as those who have shown a tendancy to invoke something that would cause me a great deal of embarrasment to be associated with.)
quote:
Double standards is saying a secret alliance-to-destroy-the-non-Bobians-and-then-duke-it-out-ourselves would have been a perfectly acceptable strategy and yet maligning a shared victory when you know very well that the eventual outcome regarding Lego and GS wouldn't have just been similar, it would have been identical. Neither you nor anyone else has yet to provide even the most minimal evidence to the contrary other than "things would have been different, bla bla bla". Please, explain HOW different. |
This has nothing to do with double standards. Nothing at all. This is a case of not understanding the nature of GoW and ND's relationship. That is not a double standard. That is a misunderstanding. Two completely different things.
And "you" is still confusing.
I've stated a couple times that I agree with you on how things would have probably been the same regardless of whether it was a shared victory alliance, or simply an alliance. I won't dispute your analysis of the relationship between ND and GoW, because I certainly am not in a better position than you to judge.
Your claim that it would have definitely been exactly the same is ludicrous though. We'll never know for certain, and anyone who honestly approaches the issue would realize that there is always a possibility that a difference viewed as insignificant or even non-applicable can still have an impact on events, sometimes of an extraordinary nature.
quote:
Double standards is insisting that only an in-game victory will be the one that "counts" when countless PBEMs and even other demogames (tsk tsk, ISDG) ended in out-of-game victories which hadn't even been agreed upon at the start of the game. |
Depends on how those other PBEMs and demogames' victories are judged. If they are judged the same, then there is no double standard.
I personally would say that in any case where "shared victory" hadn't been stated as a victory condition before the game began, that "shared victory" wouldn't be a victory condition I would observe. If for some reason an in-game victory condition couldn't be reached (or definitely would be reached), then an agreement of all parties involved on a solution would be acceptable to determine who would have won if gameplay hadn't halted.
Perhaps some here have double standards when it comes to this point. Certainly some don't. I can only speak for myself on this point.
quote:
What if GWT in the ISDG had insisted on continuing playing until an in-game victory was met and everyone else refused? |
The game probably would have died without a consensus on who won. But who knows. I had very little involvement in that game, only having a quick read-up of the events from a Apolyton perpsective after joining the C3C IDG group.
quote:
For the same reason you cannot force ND or GoW to go ahead and do something we don't want to do. Double standards here is attempting to force your type of victory upon others and whining when we did the same to you (with the difference that we won and hence have a little more clout in deciding what outcome we want) |
I'm not trying to force ND and GoW to do anything. I've stated my opinions on a few subjects. It's up to ND and GoW (and Vox) to determine how (if) to play out the rest of the game. I (and everyone) have the right to my (and their) opinion about how to view what does (or does not) happen though.
Can't take that away MZ, no matter how many "double standards" you try and come up with.
quote:
Double standards is saying that this victory really proves nothing when a GoW-ND war at this point would prove even less other than who had the balls (or luck) to strike first. |
Nope. You really have a problem with determining what double standards means, and also with understanding the nature of what GoW and ND are claiming.
Claimed victory is not triggered victory. I can view one as different than the other and not have a double standard.
I've already stated that I don't think triggered victory is all that meaningful, outside determining who actually won the game. That's sorta the definition though, triggering victory determines the winner. (Not necessarily how they are viewed for that victory of course.)
quote:
Sorry Aeson, but the only one who's been arguing this whole matter in double standards has been you and others which have argued similarly. |
You still have failed to show one instance where I have applied a double standard. (If you would quote where I have said one thing, and then failed to apply the same reasoning to another, it would be helpful. Your unsupported, poorly targetted assertions are logical garbage at best.)
quote:
What's most pathetic about this is that I'm sure some of you would have used any excuse had another team won to somehow diminish their victory. If Lego had won we'd be hearing "bah, they had a whole continent to themselves, plus they had a vassal state", if GS had won it'd be "no fair, they had a monopoly on the strategy gurus it was an uneven fight, plus they also had a vassal state". |
You can guess what you want to about how I would have reacted in different situations. Your derogatory assumptions in that regard are meaningless attempts at divination. Have fun with your crystal ball Cleo.
quote:
Things would be so much easier if you just accepted the fact that this game is over, GS didn't win, and nothing would have changed this fact. |
The game is over when ND, GoW, and Vox stop playing it. That's just fact. I haven't argued against that ever. That could happen with or without a victory condition being triggered.
GS didn't win. I've never argued against that either. We lost. You keep trying to make the point that I have somehow said otherwise, and have yet to ever support it. I'd hope you could at least have the integrity to offer an apology for your blatant and continual lying about what I have said.
The "nothing would have changed this fact" is completely wrong. Obviously if GS and/or other teams had played differently GS might have won or the game might not be over. (Which it doesn't seem to be quite yet anyways...)
Of course what you meant to say was that "and whether or not ND and GoW shared victory or had an alliance would not have changed this fact". I would agree with that, with the "probably" clause added to cover the unlikely possibilities of course.
quote:
Only then will you realize just how utterly pointless this whole debate has been. |
It may be pointless for you, that's your right to decide. I'd recommend you not take part in endevours you find pointless... it's just pointless.
Back to your crystal ball to determine my own regard for this discussion? I've enjoyed these discussions. Maybe the crystal ball needs a tune up?
quote:
Our invasion sucked. Happy now? |
My happiness isn't linked to what you do or do not conceed.
You are again wrong though. Your invasion didn't suck. It achieved the elimination of GS, it's primary objective (at least I'd suppose that was it). It just wasn't flawless. That was all I was pointing out.
Last edited by Aeson on 10-06-2005 at 13:33
|
|
| |
|
|
|
UnOrthOdOx
|
 |
Hello....
Jun 2002
time: 22:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Theseus
He *can* be a bit unruly at times... but what the heck.
|
What you mean? 
The only thing that really got under my skin was when GS, or at least a member of GS, attacked a poem that ND wrote.
This happened at the same time I saw a total, uncalled for, beat down of a new member in the Strat forum, and I had just received a warning from the mods that I should probably stop writing myself as people were complaining. Yeah, I totally lost it at that point.
1: I was not going to stand for anyone flaming newer poly members ever again. For any reason.
2: I was not going to stand for anyone flaming a creative work: poem, 'news', story, anything.
3: I was flat out pissed that someone would run to the mods instead of posting their complaints to my face.
Yeah, I totally broke down at that point. Damn near left poly all together, and certainly quit paying much attention here for almost a year after that. Had it not been for sheer boredom over a Christmas break, and MZ needing me to play a few turns, I may have never returned.
Anything other than that one instance, I was actually just playing with you guys because it seemed to get under your skin.
I don't have the time to read through the rest of this debate. I've made my feelings known on the whole shared victory thing anyway.
Last edited by UnOrthOdOx on 10-06-2005 at 18:07
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
ZargonX
|
 |
Space
Sep 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
What pisses me the f*uck off is people who say "we're not going to congratulate you" or "I will not recognize this victory" and other such hypocritical nonsense. Because I for one would have been the first to congratulate whoever won by whatever means insofar as it was not blatantly cheating. Coming from teams which actually lost is even more insulting.
I would have thought that at least the endgame in this demogame would result in sufficient camaraderie and recognition to make up for all the trash all of us have had to endure at one point or another.
|
MZ, I've mostly been trying to stay out of this, but I think you are missing an important factor here. There was a fundamental difference of understanding about how the game should be played between the various teams, and that obviously creates discussion. And the discussion should be more civil, for the most part. However, you are missing the fact that several points early on, you made very blatent statements about how clever GoW was, and how much better you did things than the other teams, and how genius all of your master alliance plans were. Of course that's going to piss people off. When there was a fundamental difference of understanding, telling the other people (indirectly) that they were stupider than you for not doing it is not going to elevate the tone of the conversation any.
I'm not saying you did it on purpose, and I'm not saying you were alone in it; but please do not entirely blame everyone else in this situation. That's just not fair.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Beta
|
 |
Prowling in a PBEM near you!
Nov 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen
Exactly.
I don't think anyone in GoW could claim that this was better than having achieved a sole victory. I don't mind it being called cheesy either.
What pisses me the f*uck off is people who say "we're not going to congratulate you" or "I will not recognize this victory" and other such hypocritical nonsense. Because I for one would have been the first to congratulate whoever won by whatever means insofar as it was not blatantly cheating. Coming from teams which actually lost is even more insulting.
I would have thought that at least the endgame in this demogame would result in sufficient camaraderie and recognition to make up for all the trash all of us have had to endure at one point or another.
Guess I was wrong. |
Mellow MZ.
I am impressed with the victory, and I do congratulate GOW. I apologize for not stating that earlier. Ditto to ND. 
In fact I was impressed with the whole game and all the teams(other than of course some bumbling moves made by the dolts in Vox ). Using the journey and destination analogy, it was the experience of the game more than the final outcome that was rewarding.
Ok - but that being said, I am still concerned with the 'shared victory' notion, and the fact that teams were playing under a different set of assumptions. And this in my mind is a lot different than a technical game exploit like F1 or ship chaining. It is fundamental to how a team approaches the game from a strategic and diplomatic perspective. Had GS and Lego known that a shared victory was possible, I suspect the game would have been very, very different. It probably would have been a Lego/GS vs GoW/ND showdown.
And the idea of shared victory is much different than a "we agree to kill each other last" agreement. Very different. That being said, I fully acknowledge why you don't want to finish the game off, but then again, that seems to me to be partly the result of the blurring of the lines between the "shared victory" and "we kill each other last" notions. If that point is nort clear I can explain my thoughts further.
As stated earlier, I am more worried for the precedent this sets, and the harm it can do to other demo games (the C3CDG comes to mind).
And I also acknowledge that this debate is detracting from the fun and camaraderie, but I believe it is an important enough issue to pursue. MP demo games are a big part of Apolyton, and the concept of shared victory as a victory condition has significant consequences.
I am not wanting to upset you or anyone else; but I do firmly believe this debate/dicsussion should continue.
Again - congrats on the game!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
|
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aeson
(ps. It would have been nice to have known that some would consider shared victory viable though. I could have saved a lot of time by not joining what I view to be a mostly pointless exercise. I'm greatful to ND and GoW for making it public in time so I could leave the C3C IDG before wasting any more time, especially on the same team as those who have shown a tendancy to invoke something that would cause me a great deal of embarrasment to be associated with.)
|
You knew knew because no other teams found such a strategy viable. Who could GS have allied with as an equal partner to win the game together? How about Lego? I've repeatedly stated that I myself would not have considered such a thing if I had been in GS or Lego.
As for leaving the C3C IDG, your loss not ours. I myself would not like to be in the same team as others who think themselves too self-righteous to be in our company. Maybe instead of making these sublime tanturms you could work so that the next demogame is as free of exploits or alternate strategies and then actually enjoy it. As it stands though, when I read comments like this I can't but think that you consider those who play differently than you unworthy of being your teammates.
Sad.
quote:
Your claim that it would have definitely been exactly the same is ludicrous though. We'll never know for certain, and anyone who honestly approaches the issue would realize that there is always a possibility that a difference viewed as insignificant or even non-applicable can still have an impact on events, sometimes of an extraordinary nature.
|
I can tell you this: had Trip not allowed us to share the victory, we would have made an alliance to defeat the others and then fight among ourselves in a way which was specifically described. Perhaps it would have been a bit difficult to agree on how to wage war, so it would have ended in a space race. I have no clue. But I'm willing to bet that until the turn GS was knocked out, things would not have changed.
quote:
Depends on how those other PBEMs and demogames' victories are judged. If they are judged the same, then there is no double standard.
I personally would say that in any case where "shared victory" hadn't been stated as a victory condition before the game began, that "shared victory" wouldn't be a victory condition I would observe. If for some reason an in-game victory condition couldn't be reached (or definitely would be reached), then an agreement of all parties involved on a solution would be acceptable to determine who would have won if gameplay hadn't halted.
|
And which parties agree? All of them? Nope. Did CDG or Firaxis, or the Grenouilles have a voice on how to end the ISDG? No, because they lost. The ISDG ended in an agreement between those teams still playing, namely Poly, CFC, CGN (what was left of them), GCA and GWT. Likewise this game ended in an agreement by the those which are still alive. ND does not dispute it. GoW much less. If Vox were to dispute it then we'd probably be taking them out right now.
quote:
I'm not trying to force ND and GoW to do anything. I've stated my opinions on a few subjects. It's up to ND and GoW (and Vox) to determine how (if) to play out the rest of the game. I (and everyone) have the right to my (and their) opinion about how to view what does (or does not) happen though.
Can't take that away MZ, no matter how many "double standards" you try and come up with.
|
I respect your opinion, I just happen to disagree with it and honestly find it deplorable. Why? Because I would have congratuled Lego if they had won even with the aid of a vassal and an entire continent. I would have congratulated GS if they had won despite being formed by the bulk of the strat forum community. I would have contratuled GS/Vox if for some strange twist of history you two would have allied and played for a joint victory yourselves.
Likewise I don't think you quite understand how downright disappointing it is to have your victory tarnished by people who simply disagree with the way it was achieved and have these people openly state that they will not recognize it or that they won't congratulate anyone, that it was invalid in their eyes etc. etc. Because I'm sure you would not like it if people started blasting GS if you had won because you were the strat gurus and that your victory was not fair. I doubt Vondrack or Zargon would like it if Lego was trashed because they were the most favored nation by the map generator and on top of it had a vassal state to aid them.
Sheesh, I'm not asking for people to bring out a box of laurels to crown on GoW and ND. Heck, if people want to label this a cheesy victory, fine, like I said, I won't disagree with that assessment. If people want to laugh and joke about our victory, great. But seriously, put yourself in our shoes and see how this gang of underdogs is now being maligned for not winning the way everyone else wanted to win. Try to think of what your reaction would be if people soured your own victory and I assure you, from what I've seen the last couple of days, there'd be plenty of evidence to sour anyone's victory if they wanted to.
Perhaps our mistake was not being taken seriously by the community. I for one have never claimed anything other than being either a goofball or an arse, depending on the situation. I do prefer to joke about things or argue my ass off instead of acting like a serious professional crack Civ-player they way most GSers like to be seen (and some non-GSers also). I guess people with that attitude and those like me and the other GoWers don't mix. Perhaps that's why having such a team win (err... half-win) was subconciously abhorrent.
quote:
I've already stated that I don't think triggered victory is all that meaningful, outside determining who actually won the game. That's sorta the definition though, triggering victory determines the winner. (Not necessarily how they are viewed for that victory of course.)
|
You've stated that you won't view anyone other than the team which wins the in-game victory condition as the legitimate winner. Which is it then, because this is a blatant contradiction.
quote:
You still have failed to show one instance where I have applied a double standard. (If you would quote where I have said one thing, and then failed to apply the same reasoning to another, it would be helpful. Your unsupported, poorly targetted assertions are logical garbage at best.)
|
I don't have to quote anything you said, I just have to show what you did to prove that your team did many of the things that fall under the same perspective you are now maligning GoW and ND for. And I've already explained precisely what.
quote:
You are again wrong though. Your invasion didn't suck. It achieved the elimination of GS, it's primary objective (at least I'd suppose that was it). It just wasn't flawless. That was all I was pointing out. |
One thing was our invasion, another entirely different thing was our strategy to deny you uranium. For the latter, I will defintely agree with you that it was far from flawless as apparently you had the chance to build the nukes had the RNG not prevented it. Many factors generated this flaw: my ignorance and hence naiveness regarding the cost of tech stealing as well as my confidence that if we didn't hit the uranium, ND would be hitting the aluminum. Apparently there was a turn in which neither was accomplished. Big flaw I agree.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
|
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ZargonX
MZ, I've mostly been trying to stay out of this, but I think you are missing an important factor here. There was a fundamental difference of understanding about how the game should be played between the various teams, and that obviously creates discussion. And the discussion should be more civil, for the most part. However, you are missing the fact that several points early on, you made very blatent statements about how clever GoW was, and how much better you did things than the other teams, and how genius all of your master alliance plans were. Of course that's going to piss people off. When there was a fundamental difference of understanding, telling the other people (indirectly) that they were stupider than you for not doing it is not going to elevate the tone of the conversation any.
I'm not saying you did it on purpose, and I'm not saying you were alone in it; but please do not entirely blame everyone else in this situation. That's just not fair. |
If I have acted arrogantly or boasted too much, my apologies, I honestly don't think I did but perhaps people saw otherwise. Of course I will mention those strategies which I think were GoW's best since I feel it was because of that that we won.
Nevertheless, if the beef is with me then just say so and I will not hesistate in either toning down my responses or openly apologizing to those who have felt offended. But don't use the shared victory issue as a proxy for that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kloreep
|
|
of the pillow
Jun 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
No wonder I don't seem to be getting my point across.
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen
You knew knew because no other teams found such a strategy viable. Who could GS have allied with as an equal partner to win the game together? How about Lego? I've repeatedly stated that I myself would not have considered such a thing if I had been in GS or Lego. |
Why would inequality matter in a shared victory alliance? I would have gone for it.
As I believe members of B.I.T.C.H. have pointed out, the GoW-ND alliance solved some matters of inequality between GoW and ND; it didn't matter if one was sending more commerce the other's way, or if ND got nukes from GoW. You never had to look down the road to competition between yourselves and you could thus form a tight, efficient alliance.
A GS-Lego alliance like the first ND-GoW one, to wipe the rest of the world out, would never have worked for the simple reason that, as you say, we would not have been equal partners. Lego simply had more land. Together we would have had a good chance of taking on GoW and ND, but if we had won, GS would have been left with bad chances in the final competition, whether war or space race, between us.
But none of that would have mattered if we had been intending to declare shared victory as soon as we wiped out Bob.
Sure, we had a chance of winning on our own. But it became quite clear when you guys broke off relations in the Ind that we could not compete on our own. I was resigned to it because, well, there can only be one, right? It would be nice to ally with someone, but the only way to do that would be to promise not to win the game or promise to otherwise mutilate ourselves to even things up. Ultimately, doing something like that was nearly as bad as losing the coming war since either would knock us out of the game, so no alliance was really possible due to us being on top - we were the prime target for the world because there could only be one winner, and we looked like it if left alone.
Perhaps you would not have taken a shared victory as Lego, but I can tell you I would have. Hence why I am bothered by the difference in rules we were playing under. There has been plenty of cheese like unit warping and F1 in this game, but in my view this is one of the few potentially game-altering pieces of cheese. Hence why I try to keep myself in the happy delusion that B.I.T.C.H. is your happy delusion, and the true victor (not that either of you, or really anyone, feels it matter) is soon to be decided by UN vote.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bongo
|
 |
TRBNGR
Sep 1999
time: 06:34
|
|
After thinking it over several times, I think I've come to a conclusion about this "shared victory" thingy. This is my personal view only and being one of the "shared victors" didn't make the process easier.
("shared victor" is going to look wicked in my sig btw  )
The question many ask here seems to be: "is shared victor civ?". We have chosen to answer this with "you are dead, therefore you are not relevant". Which is a wee bit arrogant even if it is true
At last I have arrived on the conclusion that "shared victor is not civ, at least not yet".
How can we have a "civ" ending on this game?
Problem with having a x-turn NAP, then jump each other is that with our geography, those who gets to fire the first shot wins. That would be decided by a coin-flip, and coin-flips are not civ either.
We could of course agree on special rules, like demilitarized RR-free zone, no combat settlers or a spacerace. With our level of trust that would be no problem. But those kind of special rules will alter the game even more than the "shared victor" concept.
Which leaves one final option: The Giant Backstab. That would be *very* civ but that is a path we don't want to follow.
(it has been discussed in NDs forum of course, and I am sure GoW has as well)
To those of you that wanted this game to end with Bob covered in orange goo: We're not interested, I am sorry you don't like it 
We may hold a "Biggest Cheese" vote in the UN some time though 
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-06-2005 11:03
|