21-04-2005 17:43									#31
	Got spare money?

Just to clarify, GoW and ND brought this up to me prior to this incident. They are not trying to claim victory now, and I made it clear that I would not accept a joint "Domination Victory" since it would be ridiculously easy for them to achieve that together. The point may or may not have been lost in the posting in the main forum, but they've explained to me simply that if either of the two teams wins a victory by normal means OR are the final two teams left (pseudo-conquest) that they'll claim victory together.

Anyways, the point is that they're not really doing anything unacceptable in my eyes. They have not said that they've already won, but if they had then I would not allow that.

	21-04-2005 20:40									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I understood the distinction and I do not have a problem with the final two players cutting the pie. I have done it in poker tourneys for years.

The thing we do not allow in the tourney is joining up during the game to get down to the final two players.

I just find it personally distasteful that they have been teamed up the whole game. It is their perogative, but it is not in the spirt of play IMO.

Being able to keep together the whole way is, shall I say uncommon. Anyway, it is a done deal now, so I would say nothing outside of the private forum.

	22-04-2005 02:32									#33
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I do not have a problem with teams joining up to get down to the final two players. (Something which I was almost sure was going on with GoW and ND from before the Bobian War.) I have a problem that to procure such an alliance they have resorted to "sharing victory". Otherwise they would both have had to have dealt with the drawbacks of extending themselves in relation to the other, which is the limiting factor in a 3 way power struggle. All teams would have had to be planning for the final showdown regardless of if/what alliances formed to help teams reach it, which would have possibly opened up diplomatic options for all teams to help one vs the other at a point where "lesser" civs were deemed out of the running. Which might end up being a bad assumption, giving the "lesser" team a chance to win.

GS has an alliance with RP, saving RP from elimination for repayment, but to procure that alliance neither RP or GS was given a shot at victory if the other were to win. RP would have had to have beaten GS to win, GS would have had to beat RP to win. I assume the same thing with any agreement between Lego and Vox, and that's the current offer from GoW to Vox. It is something fundamentally different than what GoWND has decided.

When two teams decide to share victory, they become one team. That is what each team in this game is, players working together for a joint victory. GoWND is now a team with 2 civs while every other team has been playing the entire game with 1 civ. 1v1v1.. is what FFA is, only one victor. This has turned into a 2v1v1... which is not FFA.

I am disappointed you didn't see a problem with it Trip.

Last edited by Aeson on 22-04-2005 at 02:43

	22-04-2005 02:45									#34
	Increase the size of your Attachments

That is what I felt, they have been two civs against a bunch of individual civs for maybe the whole game. They never worked at odds as far as I know.

This is unbalancing. Had it been publicly declared as a locked allinace at the start, others may have played differently. All teams not involved in the locked alliance would be nuts to work with the alliance againt another civ.

	22-04-2005 03:57									#35
	Support Apolyton

lame-o

	22-04-2005 03:57									#36
	Get a bigger avatar today!

lame-o

	22-04-2005 06:34									#37
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: And you still don't think the stakes are huge? It's all-or-nothing. There will be one winner. One group of select people who can lay claim to have been the winner of the first competitive democracy game in the world's biggest civ site. So much for being "just" a game. In this sense, the stakes may even be higher than the ISDG. Do we cross paths with CGNers, or GCAers or Firaxians every day? Nope. But we see each other here, the competeitive spirit is always with us, be it PBEM, MP, or just plain who kicks bigger ass in SP, and especially since many of the PTWDG teams have done much better than some of the ISDG teams from what I've seen. If the level of competition is more fierce, the satisfaction of winning, is invariably greater. We all have a little bit to prove here. If GoW wins we can claim that realpolitiking and opportunism won the day. If GS wins, they will be proud that all that time in the strat forum paid off and prove that they're not just good at kicking the AI's butt. If ND wins, well, imagine a rival site beating out the best Apolyton has to offer! You get the picture.

Guess who said that about this game?

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=94602

	22-04-2005 07:24									#38
	Got spare money?

quote: I am disappointed you didn't see a problem with it Trip.

What do you think I can do? Force them to fight each other?

I cannot force teams to play a certain way. Even if I had said no it would not have changed how this game played out. It's not as though they brought this issue up with me a year ago. By the time they had approached me the die was essentially cast.

In any case, what I say really has no weight anyways. I was voted by the teams to be a chronicler, not a moderator. I have as much of a legal right to veto their decision as they have to make this decision in the first place. In fact, probably less. If I were to say no and a team disputes it there's nothing I can do about it.

	22-04-2005 07:34									#39
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

That is why I said, "I am disappointed you didn't see a problem with it Trip" rather than, "I am disappointed you allowed this to happen."

I know there is nothing you can do about it. I don't blame you for it happening either. You are responsible for your opinion about it though.

	22-04-2005 07:42									#40
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Just because I believe it's legal does not mean I disagree or agree with it on a personal basis...

	22-04-2005 07:49									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

So what is your personal opinion of it then?

Also, can we get RP edited out of the game to avoid the crash?

	22-04-2005 08:35									#42
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Also, can we get RP edited out of the game to avoid the crash?

Is this possible with the CMT?

quote: Originally posted by Aeson So what is your personal opinion of it then?

Obviously the fact that the game was probably decided long ago is distressing. However, thus is the nature of the game. MPDGs are different from other games not only due to their scope and length but also because diplomacy trumps all else. You can be the best general and the best economist with the best land rolled into one but it means nothing if you're not able to rally allies to your side. That is the true challenge of a MPDG - balancing your own interests while also keeping strong friends.

What might have happened if GS and Lego had allied and taken out GOW and ND, then raced for a space victory? Any variety of situations may have changed the final outcome, and they all tend to rely on how the diplomatic chips fall. The key to diplo is finding the common ground with other teams to gain an advantage - and in this case ND and GOW found it in winning together.

	22-04-2005 09:48									#43
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: What might have happened if GS and Lego had allied and taken out GOW and ND, then raced for a space victory?

Then either GS or Lego would have almost certainly won a space race victory. Vox might have turned the tide for Lego, or RP might have turned the tide for GS, or one or the other might have betrayed their ally and swung the balance of power. Since only one team could claim the spacerace victory, all teams had a self-interest to look after as best they could.

quote: The key to diplo is finding the common ground with other teams to gain an advantage - and in this case ND and GOW found it in winning together.

That this is what happened is undisputed.

My question is what is your opinion of defining a "shared victory" in a FFA irregardless of in-game victory conditions?

quote: That is the true challenge of a MPDG - balancing your own interests while also keeping strong friends.

I agree completely. Which is why I say in this FFA environment it is critical that teams not share victory. It means you don't have to balance your own interests against your friends, because your friends interests are your own. As long as only 1 team can win though, the FFA remains an FFA, with each team having to work with others who are competing against them.

	22-04-2005 09:50									#44
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Is this possible with the CMT?

I don't know. All I know is that RP isn't going to play any more, so either this game is over, or they are removed from the game.

I would agree with GoW's determination that these crashes are due to corrupted trade deals though, so fixing them might allow the elimination of these civs.

	22-04-2005 10:19									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Aeson My question is what is your opinion of defining a "shared victory" in a FFA irregardless of in-game victory conditions?

What if ND and GOW agreed to destroy everyone else but each other and then fight it out? If that's the case you have essentially the same exact situation - everyone else is dead, and neither of these teams had to worry about a backstab. You may argue that since it's still a FFA that they would have to fear a backstab, but that's essentially what happened in this game. Each team had to trust the other enough not to try and cripple the other and take total victory. It would be incredibly easy to do so, after all. GOW could have easily destroyed ND during their first war against GS and RP or shortly thereafter. ND could have wiped GOW out while they were attacking Lego. And then GOW back again while ND was protecting its shores from GS. In the end it works out to be the same.

Fact is that human players will always find a way to bend the rules to what they want to achieve. Do you disagree with the very fact that they want a joint victory, or the effect that it has had upon the game - I suspect the latter (along with the majority of GS), from your recent posts. And in that case, just as I said above they could have easily made an alliance "until we're the last ones left" and it would have had the same effect on the gameplay. The only difference would be after everyone else was dead.

Is that against the spirit of a FFA game? Yeah, probably. That's true in all parts of life. Or maybe I'm just that cynical.

	22-04-2005 11:01									#46
	Put an end to popups!

I can see Trip's POV.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen a single one of these things that didn't run afoul of cheesey deals between teams. It seems to be the nature of the beast(s).

However, did we really try to talk to GoW about a team up vs ND, or at least try to set up a three way build off?

Diplomacy was always our Achilles heel, and I think the spear has just found the soft spot.

	22-04-2005 11:12									#47
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

That being said, I wouldn't wish to have been on any other team but this one.

We pulled off a few miracles, and truely exceeded our natural potential from the map. A long string of players, and many others put a lot into this, and I don't think we need feel let down by the undoing.

I find it far healthier to view these things for the joy of the journey and those with whom I share it, rather than of the arriving at the destination wherever that may be.

	22-04-2005 11:19									#48
	Support Apolyton

quote: Do you disagree with the very fact that they want a joint victory, or the effect that it has had upon the game - I suspect the latter (along with the majority of GS), from your recent posts.

The very fact that they want a joint victory (that is not an in-game victory condition). If there had been a joint victory type that everyone was made aware of before the game started, I'd have no problem with it. Modifying or creating victory conditions mid-game is not acceptable though.

You say that there would have been no difference at all, but you are wrong. If I had know that shared victory were an option, I can guarantee you I would have never have joined (or of course rejoined). Anything I've affected in this game is different. I suspect at least some other people would have done the same. Anything they have affected in this game is different.

Certainly team's diplomacy with each other would have been different. It would be most imperative to make the "shared victory" alliance with 3 other civs ASAP to guarantee yourself a place on the majority "team". That would have been the game. Stupid.

If you want, we can start up a FFA PTWDG III with shared victory as a published possibility. I'll give you good odds if you want to bet against a massive rush to form shared victory pacts...

	22-04-2005 11:34									#49
	Remove this text

Why not everyone just unite on turn one and say 'yay! we won!'?

It's absurd, and the height of cheese.

Our own diplomatic shortcomings notwithstanding, what this boils down to is that both ND and GoW have lost their nerve. The end is so close they can taste it. Like a cheap whore they seek an easy trick. Team up as one and two to pummel number three into oblivion and then declare that they won, yay!

How hard was that?

	22-04-2005 15:14									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Whether they declare victory after or before a war against us doesn't change a thing either. The outcome is certain... right after the Lego war, we were talking that if GoW and ND would team up, the game could stop at that exact moment. So, all they did is let us play on for a couple of months, just for the fun of nuking some of our cities. Great.

I agree... they are chickens to quit right now. OTOH, I can understand them as the game is growing old, and opportunity dicitates that they can officially 'win' by teaming up, instead of just quiting and losing for sure.

DeepO

	22-04-2005 22:49									#51
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Aeson The shared victory is cheese. Can't believe MZ would go for something like that. It's UN cheese^2.

Hehe, I posted something like that in the public thread.

(don't worry I edited it when I read the second post in this thread )