A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.

[zlefin]

Squirrel and I had a talk while trying to hash out some of the community standards issues more formally.
Below is the transcript of that talk, i dare you to read it all! (this dare applies to each individual reading this post for the first time)
Before responding to something you just read, keep in mind this is a transcript, and some points made may have been amended later in the discussion, so please read the whole thing before responding.

edit: i had to change all > to ) and likewise for the counterpart symbol so names would show in the log. So I used an autoreplace that apparently affected some actual talk as well.

* Now talking in #logicisfun
*** Join: Squirrelloid (~Squirrell@adsl-68-255-110-138.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net)
*** Join: archae_vanjarr (~no@d75-156-150-160.abhsia.telus.net)
(archae_vanjarr) just watching
(Zlefin) make your opening case!
(archae_vanjarr) have to go out
(Squirrelloid) 'throwing a game' , definition - causing yourself to lose the game by your own action
(Zlefin) sounds reasonable, i can't currently think of anything wrong with that.
(Zlefin) but for simplicity of argument, we'll just accept that as the definition for our purposes here.
(Squirrelloid) beneficial, definition - advantageous, a preferred outcome
(Squirrelloid) note: what is or is not beneficial is inherently subjective to the person for whom it is beneficial
(Squirrelloid) ie, not subject to outside verification
(Zlefin) that is certainly a valid definition of beneficial.
(Squirrelloid) First order of business: To throw a game requires you were capable of winning it
(Squirrelloid) First thing to note: this is a subjective statement, because your capability of winning is assessed by you during each of your turns, and thus through lack of experience or epiphany may fail to see an avenue for victory
(Squirrelloid) so the only person capable of determining whether he is in a position with a chance of winning is the person playing that position
(Zlefin) can we number those statements 1-3 for easier reference?
(Squirrelloid) as in: 1 - To throw a game requires you were capable of winning it. 2: claim of subjectivity. 3: claim that person playing is the only one who can determine capability?
(Zlefin) yes.
(Squirrelloid) k
(Squirrelloid) Proof of: To throw a game requires you were capable of winning it.
(Zlefin) while normal usage of "to throw a game" might allow for other cases, for herein, i accept that statement.
(Squirrelloid) you accept 1 that is?
(Zlefin) yes, i accept 1.
(Squirrelloid) ok, nevermind then
(Zlefin) 2 and 3, i'm still pondering disputes for.
(Zlefin) does your nevermind mean that disputes of 2 and 3 are irrelevant to your ultimate conclusion, or did it refer to something else?
(Squirrelloid) um, nevermind on a proof of 1 if you're accepting it
(Squirrelloid) I mean, it was going to be tedious word-wanking anyway that ends up being a tautology i think
(Zlefin) possibly it may have. so we're working on 2 and 3 now?
(Squirrelloid) yes
(Squirrelloid) i mean, in part this seems obvious to me. Sometimes you get blinded by a particular set of ideas that you fail to see the right strategy. Sometimes you just don't know what the right strategy is
(Squirrelloid) So when assessing your chances for victory, you're inherently working with whatever pre-conceived notions and ideas you can come up with
(Zlefin) certainly such things can happen, we're just trying to be thorough here so we can get this all sorted out properly. could you restate 2?
(Squirrelloid) Basically, the only person who can assess chance of winning is the person playing the game
(Zlefin) why?
(Zlefin) why can't someone else look at the position and assess the chance of winning?
(Squirrelloid) because the functional unit is not the game set up being played. Its the union of that player and the game set up
(Squirrelloid) Because that other person may have access to knowledge or experience different from the player, and see things the player did no
(Squirrelloid) not
(Squirrelloid) Made worse by this particular game being a game of imperfect information
(Zlefin) so, while the position may be winnable, the combination of position and that player, may be unwinnable
(Squirrelloid) so a later review may know things he had to guess at
(Squirrelloid) or the player may assume things to be true that are not true
(Squirrelloid) For example, you're playing against BL, and gem gens are allowed
(Squirrelloid) player assumes BL has been clamming like mad since they could summon or find a caster who can do so
(Squirrelloid) BL doesn't have a single clam
(Squirrelloid) the difference in the actual situation and the assumed situation are vastly different
(Squirrelloid) and while an observer could have perfect information about what BL is doing, the other player cannot during play of the game
(Squirrelloid) (this is what permits bluffing, for example)
(Zlefin) i think i see the perspective you're going for here, can you cover what steps 4+ will be in your proof? at least in a broad sense?
(Squirrelloid) A player who cannot win cannot obviously play to win
(Squirrelloid) call that 4
(Zlefin) ok, 4 : a player who cannot win can't play to win.
(Squirrelloid) 5- at which point which actions are beneficial for him need to be defined in terms of something other than getting closer to victory
(Zlefin) 5, agreed, since victory is unattainable.
(Squirrelloid) 6- the relevant agent here is not the game state, but the player playing the game. Ie, beneficial is defined from his perspective
(Squirrelloid) so you can't say that its beneficial for the nation to do X, as the player might not find that beneficial because his nation state is not necessarily relevant
(Zlefin) 6, i miay still dispute, along with 2 and 3, but i see the line of reasoning you're going down. as which line depends on which conclusions you're trying to reach.
(Zlefin) please continue onto the concluding statements.
(Squirrelloid) 7 - A player should take actions he finds to be beneficial
(Zlefin) query on 7, within what rules?
(Squirrelloid) permitted by the rules of the game would be my general standard. Ie, in the case of a computer game, can accomplish it without altering or hacking the game engine
(Zlefin) i would assume you also add an yexplicit rules set by the game.
(Squirrelloid) Yes, choosing to play a game means voluntarily agreeing to abide by house rules
(Squirrelloid) (not all house rules are necessarily good, but you chose to play)
(Squirrelloid) House rules should be explicitly stated so there is no confusion later
(Zlefin) it is certainly far better that way.
(Squirrelloid) Anecdote, but i was in Wales for a week this summer, and i got to play cricket
(Squirrelloid) they did not explain all the rules to me
(Squirrelloid) when i did something wrong (as was wont to happen), it would have been unacceptable to accuse me of not following the rules
(Squirrelloid) fortunately, they just told me what the rule was, and we moved on
(Zlefin) that is certainly reasonable, as you were not informed of the rules.
(Squirrelloid) anyway, onward
(Zlefin) though on occasion some people might get angry when rules are violated unknowingly, aye onward.
(Squirrelloid) 8 - Given a person who believes he cannot win, and who has chosen ensuring the defeat of a particular enemy is beneficial to him, then (A) giving the win to another player is not throwing the game (1), (B) Doing so is beneficial for him by his own standards and is therefore the proper action
(Squirrelloid) (7 most directly)
(Squirrelloid) 9- further, one might argue that the most efficient and direct method of giving this other player the win is in fact the most beneficial action, and therefore the preferred one
(Zlefin) 8a follows from the prior statements. b seems to be as well.
(Squirrelloid) (9 requires some dithering on values, if you really want it)
(Zlefin) i don't think the values dithering will affect our results here.
(Squirrelloid) its not a perfectly solid proof - i'd need to spend time crafting better language, and probably short cut some steps, but that should be serviceable
(Zlefin) proceed, i gotta go set up some bread, brb.
(Zlefin) it's a fine proof, but on its own it just says what it says, this issue comes out of the issues in asiatwist, so what happens when you apply this to the asiatwist game?
(Squirrelloid) Do i need anything more? I mean, from here its just a matter of fitting example behavior to the statements
(Squirrelloid) Well, I'm not aristander
(Squirrelloid) I believe his actual actions demonstrate he didn't believe he could win
(Squirrelloid) I don't *know* that
(Squirrelloid) but no one else except aristander knows that
(Squirrelloid) I mean, I could further state that, if offered VPs by Aristander, WL would be a fool to refuse
(Squirrelloid) I'm also assuming that all players began the game by playing to win
(Squirrelloid) If some players began the game for RP purposes, or to watch glorious battles, or some other reason, that matters
(Squirrelloid) For example, if WL was playing for glorious battles he'd probably announce 'Rlyeh has declared their capitol free to any who can take it. I'll meet you there"
(Squirrelloid) That he didn't suggests he was playing to win
(Zlefin) certainly people playing for other reasons woudl affect things.
(Zlefin) my understanding, is that archae's original charge is one of collusion.
(Squirrelloid) Right, but collusion is just an accusation of trade
(Squirrelloid) i mean, if aristander offers WL a VP, and WL says yes, that's collusion
(Zlefin) if archae believes, that aristander thought he had a chance of winning, but instead choose to give his vps away, then what would you say?
(Squirrelloid) Archae wasn't the person who had to make decisions that were self-beneficial for Aristander
(Squirrelloid) Archae also wasn't the person who had to decide whether Rlyeh had a chance of winning the game during play and act on that decision
(Zlefin) i agree on that. but in order to reach step 9, the prior steps have to hold.
(Squirrelloid) its true
(Zlefin) and reaching step 9 is about ensuring that your actions are acceptable.
(Squirrelloid) my entire argument is couched in terms of the person playing the nation/side/whatever in question
(Zlefin) i know, but even weithin that the issue remains, let me try to be more clear.
(Squirrelloid) which # do you have a specific problem with?
(Squirrelloid) (or #s)
(Zlefin) Let us imagine a scenario, regardless of whether or not it is true, though it will use the rela names for ease.
(Zlefin) do you consent to lettimg me explain the scenario?
(Squirrelloid) sure
(Squirrelloid) i've made my case - the floor is yours
(Zlefin) suppose aristander believes he is capable of winning the game. and that he nonetheless decides go give away his vps to wraithlord.
(Zlefin) what would your proof say about such a situation and it's acceptability?
(Squirrelloid) it would demonstrate one of at least two things
(Squirrelloid) (1) Aristander threw the game. Generally considered bad form
(Squirrelloid) (2) Aristander wasn't playing to win
(Zlefin) i agree that it would demonstrate one of those.
(Squirrelloid) ie, a different argument could be construed around RP reasons
(Squirrelloid) i don't care to make such an argument
(Squirrelloid) but its possible
(Zlefin) let us call that scenario A
(Zlefin) if i understand correctly, you do not believe that scenario A is the case in fact in asiatwist?
(Squirrelloid) I don't, but i'm concluding that, um... crap, i forget the latin. after the fact because its the most reasonable conclusion in my mind based on the results
(archae_vanjarr) a posteriori
(Squirrelloid) indeed
(archae_vanjarr) sorry not following yet - will read later
(Zlefin) that's fine, it's long and can be posted later.
(Squirrelloid) part of this is I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt
(Squirrelloid) especially regarding things that are subjective judgement calls
(Zlefin) certainly people have different opinions, and read situations differently. Now, if Archae believes that scenario A is in fact the case, then what?
(Squirrelloid) ideally, aristander would have made a statement explaining his views
(Squirrelloid) lacking that, archae is perhaps unjustly thrusting sinister motives on aristander
(Squirrelloid) I mean, yes, i agree, archae is disappointed with the results. He didn't expect it, and its annoying to him
(Zlefin) archae might be wrong certainly, but people often believe things on less than fully complete evidence.
(Squirrelloid) I can empathize with archae
(Zlefin) if archae truly believes that A is the case, then his actions in response make a great deal of sense.
(Zlefin) though i would prefer if they were toned down more.
(Squirrelloid) oh, i agree
(Squirrelloid) on both counts
(Squirrelloid) in archae's shoes i would probably have tried to talk about the matter discreetly with aristander
(Squirrelloid) discretely even?
(Squirrelloid) sigh, one of those is math, and i'll have to look it up
(Zlefin) either way. This is why i suggested that a panel of vets be mutually chosen to decide the matter.
(Zlefin) etely is math i think
(Zlefin) eetly is the one you seek.
(Squirrelloid) indeed
(Zlefin) i'm not sure what to say next.
(Squirrelloid) If you assumed this was a court of law, I'd say that not only has a burden of proof not been met to say A was the case
(Zlefin) well, we haven't been thru the evidence archae looked at and found
(Zlefin) we've jsut been talking more generally.
(Squirrelloid) But that one is unlikely to ever be reached because of the subjective nature of aristander's position
(Zlefin) there's also a few other issues.
(Zlefin) aye, that relates to the issues i had with #2,3,6 iirc.
(Squirrelloid) the only hope of resolution is for Aristander to come out and state his case honestly
(Zlefin) Well, that's certainly one thing that could resolve, though with people oyu can always doubt that they stated tings honestly.
(Squirrelloid) because ultimately this is about Aristander's motives.
(Squirrelloid) well, yes
(Zlefin) thouhg it woudl still be hlpeful to hear him speak on the topic.
(Squirrelloid) but the crux of the matter is the only person who knows is aristander
(Zlefin) I need to look back and get some numbers to make an important point.
(Zlefin) I am now constructing a scenario Z, an extreme case meant to showcase point.
(Zlefin) in Z, the player in question is a noob.
(Zlefin) Note: it may take some time to craft this scenario so that it properly fits all the number rules
(Squirrelloid) that's fine
(Zlefin) On turn 2, the noob player realizes that all the other players in the game are vets with several wins to their name.
(Zlefin) The noob player determines that he is strictly unable to win the game.
(Zlefin) Since the noob player is unable to win, he must decide what to do on a broader definition of beneficial.
(Zlefin) he decides that the most beneficial thing for him, is to get himself out of the game as soon as possible.
(Zlefin) does this so far conform with the rules set forth in 1-9?
(Squirrelloid) granting everything on face value, yes
(Squirrelloid) One wonders how he realizes every other player is a vet on turn 2, but didn't realize it before the game started
(Zlefin) the player decides the best way to do this is to contact another player with an awake sc god, and ask that player to attack his capital, giving that player his location. further, he will tear down his own fort and suicide all his units on indies, to make the battle as easy as possible for the attacker.
(Zlefin) indeed it is odd, as i said, it's an extreme example to showcase a point.
(Squirrelloid) ok, i have two things to say on the matter
(Squirrelloid) 1) the n00b is making some poor choices. It would probably have been more beneficial to play the game and get clobbered by the vets while making an honest effort. However, people make bad decisions all the time
(Squirrelloid) I won't quibble he did decide that quitting was beneficial to him
(Zlefin) i concur with 1)
(Squirrelloid) 2) There are numerous ways to achieve his most beneficial result (leave the game). The particular example you have chosen is no better than, say, setting AI, from the player's perspective
(Squirrelloid) we of course haven't covered how to choose between multiple equally beneficial options
(Zlefin) aye, we have not.. and we don't know whether he might find settin ghimself ai to be distasteful, yet not mind giving someone a free extra cap.
(Zlefin) which would be a rather odd belief to have.
(Zlefin) or maybe he jsut wants to see an sc god attack his pd.
(Squirrelloid) indeed. I'm sure as a thought experiment it would be possible to justify any particular action as being beneficial. People, however, tend to have feelings about what's beneficial for concrete reasons
(Zlefin) what I intended scenario Z to show is this:
(Squirrelloid) (Ok, i know someone who might do something crazy and random like that just because - i believe Neil Stephenson gave this a description of 'Poor Impulse Control'
(Zlefin) most people in the community would consider scenario Z to be unacceptable behavior. the rules set forth in 1-9 would technically allow it, some form of reconciliation is required.
(Zlefin) In my own personal opinion, when dealing with issues 2&3, people in the community (again in my opinion) think that while it's partly subjective, there's also partly a reasonableness to the belief that you cannot win.
(Squirrelloid) well, that will certainly color the impression your actions foster
(Squirrelloid) I mean, an important resource in a game like Dominions3, where you'll likely play with some of the same people multiple times, is reputation
(Zlefin) i agree, reputation is relevant, which brings a whole other set of things that constitute "beneficial" in the broad sense.
(Squirrelloid) which, no matter how justified your actions may be, you may still develop a negative reputation because of them
(Squirrelloid) If i were going to fault anyone, however, it would be aristander and not WL
(Zlefin) I'd be fine with that.
(Squirrelloid) and I'd do that mentally, in my head, when making decisions about how much to trust or rely on them in a game
(Zlefin) i didn't expressly think of that before, but as you say it, that's a resolution i'd be fine with.
(Squirrelloid) i mean, similarly, if you set AI because you lose a battle, people remember that
(Squirrelloid) there's definitely a meta-game aspect to this
(Zlefin) aye, and that gets things complicated.
(Squirrelloid) So, does aristander get a bad rap for this in the meta-game? Or does he become a preferred ally?
(Zlefin) there are basically a few issues that come out of asiatwist, but only a few, as the game has clearly ended.
(Squirrelloid) that's going to depend on player preferences
(Zlefin) from the dom3 game's view, wraith clearly won. Whether a win is a more complex question, obviously some wins have been discounted if they happened throug hdirect cheating or hacking. whether such would apply to this case, is another question.
(Zlefin) The other real question at this point, is whether the game should be included in the standings in the hall of fame, which serve a purpose of recognizing playeres and nations which are successful.
(Squirrelloid) (some people, eg archae, dislike what he did and are going to give him a black mark in their head. Others may be inclined to see that as an ability to count on his support to end a game. Yet others, like myself, would probably be ambivalent on the matter, but would keep in mind what to expect
(Zlefin) aye, i'm going to dislike him simply fo rmaking me explicitly put rules i follow implicitly
(Zlefin) but that's a side matter.
(Squirrelloid) That's a matter for whomever maintains the HoF i imagine, since ultimately they control what qualifies
(Squirrelloid) Personally, if WL was likely to win the game regardless, I'd give it to him without question
(Squirrelloid) If he was unlikely to win the game without that help, I'd probably flag it with a special mention about it being a diplomatic victory, and explain that
(Zlefin) if he was likely to, as opposed to near certain to?
(Zlefin) i know there is a dispute as to whether he was factually likely to wi nthe game anyways.
(Squirrelloid) like an 80% likelihood or better, perhaps
(Zlefin) that seems reasoable, one of the purposes of the HoF is balance, that is, recognizing the balance of nations by noting how often they win.
(Squirrelloid) right
(Squirrelloid) of course, diplomacy seems more important than actual nation played
(Zlefin) Which is a subject of community interest, rather than simply a minor thing for the person keeping the list to decide.
(Zlefin) aye, i've heard that remarked many a time.
(Squirrelloid) I'm winning WTW by a rather large margin, despite playing one of the weakest nations in it
(Squirrelloid) (I can't actually *end* the damn game, but i'm at least as powerful as the rest of the nations combined)
(Zlefin) i know i've heard people break down how various components account for wins, and placed diplomacy at like 35-50
(Zlefin) %
(Squirrelloid) i'd believe 50%
(Squirrelloid) the key to winning strategic games with diplomacy is arrange to never fight a fair war
(Squirrelloid) which entirely depends on the success of your diplomacy
(Squirrelloid) anyway, I think the initial reason for discussion has been as resolved as its going to get
(Squirrelloid) unless anyone can convince aristander to speak for himself
(Zlefin) i dont' recall what you said in response to my note that using some degree of reasonableness is way of reconciling scenario Z with 2&3.
(Squirrelloid) oh, i hadn't. I sort of agree.
(Zlefin) iin general, i agree, i think we've basically agreed on alot of theories and scenarios, and in this instance, there's simpmly facts we don't know well enough to say to a certainty.
(Squirrelloid) I think more important than hemming and hawing over whether an action was reasonable or not, it would be better to *encourage* community standards that avoid the most flagrantly offensive actions
(Zlefin) oh yeah, the other reason for the discussion is understnading the distinction between the giving of the gems to archae, and the giving of vps to wraith
(Squirrelloid) not require, just encourage
(Squirrelloid) For example, encourage a 'losing is fun' mentality, so n00bs stick out those games where they're surrounded by vets
(Squirrelloid) i mean, that's basically what's being done to combat people setting AI
(Squirrelloid) and it works, to a point

[zlefin]

(Zlefin) i concur it is beneficial to encourage such things. but i did remember that this all started when you were not noting a difference between the giving of gems to archae, and the giving of the vps to wraith.
(Zlefin) so i want to get that matter settled.
(Squirrelloid) i don't see a difference in *kind*
(Squirrelloid) i do see a difference in degree
(Squirrelloid) but slippery slopes are dangerous beasts
(Zlefin) well, the end of this slope is actions that cause you to lose the game directly.
(Squirrelloid) So, lets assume that there are two nations battling it out for the win. There exists some amount of material advantage which will let A defeat B and win the game
(Squirrelloid) lets call that amount of material advantage X
(Zlefin) ok.
(Squirrelloid) how much of X can you give a nation and have that be acceptable
(Squirrelloid) Knowing other nations could also be contributing to X, how does that effect that judgement?
(Squirrelloid) i haven't seen an endgame with gemgens, but 1300 gems strikes me as a *lot* of material
(Zlefin) what if it isn't?
(Zlefin) from what they said, their income was about 500 gems/turn
(Squirrelloid) that's what, a couple hundred tartarians they didn't otherwise have?
(Zlefin) so is 3 turns of gem income a LOT of material?
(Zlefin) maybe 100 tarts, though it'd depend on gem type, but what if you already have a thousand tarts?
(Zlefin) it may be a lot of material in an absolute sense, but in relative sense, not so much.
(Zlefin) But there's another important distinction to make.
(Zlefin) given the nation A and B
(Squirrelloid) ok, on is 3 turns of income a lot: you're making 1k gold net. You get the 3k gold lucky event. Is that a lot? My experience says it is
(Zlefin) suppose A has an advantage over B.
(Zlefin) and that the difference in that advantage is an amount of material Y
(Zlefin) what about giving B material equal to Y so that the two nations are evenly matched?
(Squirrelloid) it does change the eventual outcome of the game. It is also unlikely to make bystander nation C the win, imo
(Squirrelloid) I mean, i don't have a problem with giving gems at all
(Squirrelloid) but it is an attempt to change or ensure the winner of the game
(Zlefin) Is C more or less likely to win the game, than if A just rolls over everyone?
(Squirrelloid) If we assume there's some ordering of nations: A,B,C... such that A)B)C)...
(Squirrelloid) And A,B )) C+
(Squirrelloid) I would likely judge that any improvement in C's chances to win are negligible. And that D+ don't see any real improvement in chance to win
(Zlefin) they may be negligible in an absolute sense, but in a %wise sense it may be large, like, it might double your chance of winning from .1% to .2%
(Squirrelloid) Lets think about this a different way - we're ok with Kingmaking play as an acceptable practice, yes?
(Zlefin) certainly in competitive games, optimizing unlikely chances is part of success.
(Zlefin) i'm not sure what the community stnadards are on kingmaking, that's kind of what we're discussing right now :)
(Zlefin) and there's sorta two issues: what is properly acceptable behavior, and what behavoir makes for a more enjoyable game for everyone.
(Squirrelloid) i see kingmaking as integral to diplomatic strategy games, i suppose, so this is a hard discussion because I'm looking at those lesser nation's motives as 'we'd rather have B win than A', not 'I could win if they exhaust themselves'
(Squirrelloid) which i would guess the latter motive is applicable to maybe one or two of them
(Zlefin) my understanding is that the community is very accepting of the latter reason, and fairly acepting, but certainly less so, for the former.
(Squirrelloid) its just the latter reason is vastly implausible for most players, and likely highly implausible for someone not already in contention themselves
(Squirrelloid) I mean, if there are any AARs of a nation winning because he gave gold/gems to B, and A and B exhausted themselves, allowing C to win, i'd love to read them
(Zlefin) that reminds me, there's a project for this i've considered doing, which would be to specify some number of (preferably plausible) examples, and have the community vote/discuss, as to whether they think each are acceptable. to get a better sense of community standards.
(Squirrelloid) the game just doesn't favor underdogs coming from that far behind
(Zlefin) it depends on the power difference between AB and C, i'm sure if they're closer in power levels, so that C is somewhat still in contention, then there are cases
(Squirrelloid) well, the thing is, if C is close enough he probably doesn't want to send gems himself
(Zlefin) indeed, the game does not. though if the two who are fighting both leave you alone, and you can say, devote 100% of yoru gems to making even more clams
(Squirrelloid) (although he may encourage other nations to do so)
(Squirrelloid) (assuming he can't gain their gem gifts for himself)
(Squirrelloid) it might vastly improve the game if losing your capitol, and failing to regain it in some timeframe, meant you were removed from the game
(Zlefin) it also sometimes has to do with national matchups, especially earler in the game, where some nations are good/bad vs other nations.
(Squirrelloid) i've mostly been thinking about late game scenarios - sure, i can accept a time component on it
(Squirrelloid) but once you get to lategame that's all there is. Things aren't getting better
(Zlefin) things cna change, the research level doesn't change
(Zlefin) so you'd have to get an advantage some other way. the most obviuos way with gem gens, is to be try to make more gem gens than the other players
(Squirrelloid) indeed
(Squirrelloid) I think the removal of gemgens is going to further entrench early dominance as the key to winning, as an aside
(Zlefin) there may be other ways depending on the victory conditions.
(Zlefin) to a degree, but dominance too early in the game gets you piled on.
(Zlefin) the removal of gemgens is really more about mitigating the late game micro, that gets relaly stupid when people have 500+ gems/turn and are making 30 new clams a turn
(Squirrelloid) yes, i'd believe it
(Zlefin) it also leads to the annoying strategic situation where (without vps especially) territory doesn't matter much, since the bulk of one's income comes from gem gens, not from sites in teritories or gold from territories.
(Zlefin) and usually all those gem gens are on units sitting in the capital, behind 6 different domes.
(Squirrelloid) I don't know, i find it hard to stomach blanket acceptance of gem gifting by assuming 'they're just trying to wait for the powers to exhaust themselves before making a grab at victory', which feels like praying for the tooth fairy to be real
(Zlefin) i'm not sure i'd stomach blanket acceptance, there may be other more specific cases where it makes more sense.
(Zlefin) especially things that have more to do with national matchups, like nation C is good vs B, but bad vs A, but nation B is good vs A.
(Squirrelloid) no one's really questioned those 1300 gems though, which i doubt all came from might-be's looking to wait for their opportunity
(Zlefin) well, with those gems there's a lot more grey area.
(Squirrelloid) i mean, i'd bet you'd find most gem gifting is a player who wants a rival to lose than is actually planning for the win himself
(Zlefin) the fact that it's possible for those to encourage mutual annihilation fo the top 2 powers.
(Zlefin) yers, that may be the case; thoug halot of gem gifting is also done at the point where a player decides they can't win themselves. though in that case, it sounded like the gems were more payment for service than anything else
(Zlefin) (i.e. help me defend vs them and i'll pay you some gems)
(Squirrelloid) i mean, again, bad judgement is possible, but that sounds a lot like "i'm going to lose, but if you keep me in the game i'm willing to dig a deeper hole for myself"
(Zlefin) with the gems, there IS a grey area where it could help you in the long run, with giving awy the actual win, there is NO grey area.
(Zlefin) also, the actual community stnadards for this game have a partial role-playing element in my experience, the role-playing of a pretender god.
(Zlefin) well, being in the game means you technically have a chance, when your'e out of the game you have no chance at all.
(Squirrelloid) there's no roleplaying niche for the leader of a defeated nation to invite his friends in as occupiers rather than suffer under a conqueror?
(Zlefin) i think there's some leeway there.
(Zlefin) but from what i heard, r'lyeh wasn't being conquered by arch.
(Zlefin) if r'lyeh got trashed and was being invaded by van, and had no way to sotp it, that'd be another story
(Squirrelloid) Some things do become inevitable
(Zlefin) well, when we get into communtuiy standards things get a bit vaguer, i'm reporting my impressions here.
(Squirrelloid) its turn 6 and (crazy dual/triple blessed unit of choice) is massed on your border. Do you (a) assuming they'll wander on to someone else or (b) realize they're going to eat you, and you can't stop them
(Zlefin) my impression, is that allowing an ally to take some of your stuff, when you're being invaded by an enemy you can't stop is rather different from when you still have defenses, and they're not invading you, and they might not be able to invade you without leaving themselves vulnerable to someone else.
(Squirrelloid) i mean, clearly aristander's situation wasn't that hopeless, but everyone can make projections about where they think the game is going
(Zlefin) from a role-playing perspective, it seems rather like, hmm, A&B are well matched, while either could crush me if they fully committed to it, doing so would cuase them to lose to the other.
(Zlefin) therefore, any attack they do will only represent a part of those forces, and i may eb strong enough to repulse that part.
(Squirrelloid) don't get me wrong, i'm an eternal optimist
(Squirrelloid) but i have some friends who can be pretty defeatist when things look down for them
(Zlefin) i'm a cuatious person in terms of making judgements, far more cautious than average.
(Zlefin) i know, i'm more of a fight to the end person
(Zlefin) i can call it a win if i'm alive at the end of the game :)
(Zlefin) even if i didn't win.
(Squirrelloid) i fully support 'screw my enemy', but i like being the one directly doing the screwing. Passing stuff to other people isn't my style
(Zlefin) i prefer to screw the enemy as mcuh as possible and bleed them as much as possible, and I only giveaway stuff when it's at the final moment, or if giving away stuff is to my benefit
(Squirrelloid) i can understand that sometimes you're in no condition to do that, however. Re: Marveni in VC3
(Zlefin) (like giving fire res rings to an ally so they can beat back abysia)
(Squirrelloid) (who ultimately gave his cash and gems to me right before he died because none of his actual neighbors would intervene)
(Squirrelloid) which gives me a longterm goal =)
(Zlefin) i certainly prefer to limit transfers to right before death.
(Squirrelloid) at some point i think alliances where one nation is really propping up a bunch of client states gets into a grey area
(Zlefin) i agree.
(Squirrelloid) I mean, ultimately those nations are just extensions of the larger nation, and the idea of them 'giving' VPs to the real nation involved is more like a recognition of that reality
(Zlefin) of course if there's enough client stats, then they could conceivably try to ally with an outside power at some point and overthrow the conqueror.
(Zlefin) from a role-playing point, staying alive for an opportunity.
(Zlefin) and there's certainly degrees to how clienty they are.
(Squirrelloid) at the point it becomes 'i would have been conquered if you didn't militarily intervene', they stop existing as a separate entity in my mind
(Zlefin) hmm, as i think about it, it rather seems like an anti-suicide rule.
(Squirrelloid) (assuming that's an ongoing state and not a one time thing)
(Zlefin) they become a vassal entity; i'm pretty sure in real history, they sometimes had enough local power to break free at times, at least if the conquering power waned or had to go focus elsewhere.
(Squirrelloid) indeed
(Squirrelloid) but real life doesn't have victory conditions
(Squirrelloid) Hmm... i should set up a game with explicit rules for vassals
(Zlefin) i guess the point isn't so much that they are a separate entity, but that they are a reasonably separable entity.
(Zlefin) explicit vassal rules would certainly make things clear.
(Squirrelloid) i mean, i have this feeling that vassal VPs should count towards your total
(Zlefin) that's reasonable, though the game itself doesn't support that of course.
(Squirrelloid) of course, but most games end in concession anyway, right?
(Zlefin) yes.
(Squirrelloid) if graphs are on, its independently verifiable
(Zlefin) though one of the points of vp games is to make it so the game can actually end by the game code rather than by concession
(Squirrelloid) heh
(Zlefin) concession is more often used in nonvp games
(Zlefin) i don't know what percentage of games iwht reasonable vp conditions actually end in concession, that may be much smaller.
(Squirrelloid) i've seen a lot of games which are 'hold N capitols for K turns', which also is basically a pre-agreed concession

--- end of transcript, ate dinner ---

[Trumanator]

I'm not sure how this comment will relate to the discussion, but it has a lot to do with some of the specifics of the endgame in AT.

First, it was noted in the IRC channel that Jot and TC both cast multiple crumbles at R'lyeh's cap. R'lyeh itself also cast one crumble. It was briefly remarked that it would have actually only taken one to bring down the walls.
Further, two of Archaelopt's main assertions as to the game being thrown were
1- Jot's assault force was equipped w/Gatecleavers, and thus unprepared for an attack by R'lyeh's army
2- that R'lyeh had a highly mobile gateway army.

What strikes me about these circumstances are a couple things.
1- I would assume a veteran like WL would realize that it would only take one crumble to reduce the walls of R'lyeh's cap.
2- Assuming this, the only logical reason for him and TC to multicast it at R'yleh's capitol would be his/their assumption that it was protected by a dome. Arming his assaulters with gatecleavers also plays into this, as it implies that he was unsure if he would manage to breach the walls. Also, I am assuming from his stated pretender design (E9N9 Great Mother) that his assault force flew in, as opposed to teleporting.
3- the existence of a dome would ALSO (if I am understanding the underlying mechanics correctly) prevent R'lyeh's previously mentioned highly mobile teleporting army from arriving to reinforce, which would allow his assault force cover while their gatecleavers did the business. In the event that the dome DID go down and R'lyeh's army arrived, it would have arrived in the fort, and would not have been able to attack right away, giving Jot time to teleport in a suitable force to defeat it.

In the event, R'lyeh crumbled his own fort, leaving it open for Jot to take it with the existing, rather minimal assault force.

One more point that I think could be made is that I would think it fairly obvious that obtaining a win in the way being discussed would be highly controversial. Assuming that Jot would know this, why would he send in such an obviously understrength force for assault of the castle? Would it not have been much less controversial to send in an army, as opposed to siege engineers?

Obviously the entire above is a hypothesis, but I felt that there were some odd inconsistancies with the current known events.

The real lesson I am taking from the discussion that has been spread around, is that while WL has taken most of the hits, Aristander is really the one whose story needs to be heard.

[Squirrelloid]

Typo: somehow my > became ). Just in case anyone was confused.

[archaeolept]

1- I would assume a veteran like WL would realize that it would only take one crumble to reduce the walls of R'lyeh's cap.that's a pretty strong assumption, as there are many small dominions facts that are not generally known, even by us vets. Myself, I "knew" that, but was not at all "sure" of it, as I had not tested it myself, and, anyways, things are sometimes cleaned up in patches w/out being mentioned. Ask any veteran whether they are aware of all such little bugs... The action of casting multiple crumbles is perfectly in line with how the spell is supposed to work.

as there were no units to cast a dome in the turn prior to WL sieging, aristander would have had to teleport in a caster that same turn.

Anyways, the non-existence of the dome, which could have been easily checked, would rather argue for WL being afraid that Rlyeh's forces would be there defending. They weren't, and wraithlord's assault force was too minimal to deal w/ any significant opposition.

often, the obvious solution is the correct one.

1- Jot's assault force was equipped w/Gatecleavers, and thus unprepared for an attack by R'lyeh's armyno, the assertion would be that a couple scs such as that is not the sort of force you would send in to capture a fortress when you knew the potential capabilities of the defender, unless you were assured of success by some other means.

As to sending in such a small force; most likely it was convenient, and he did not expect me to either know the vp had been thrown, or complain about it. Why in the first place would you send in such a small force when you were perfectly aware of rlyeh's defensive capabilities, having, in fact, partially designed the teleporting defense force yourself (as per rdonj)?

I would think it fairly obvious that obtaining a win in the way being discussed would be highly controversial.A win is a win. And it is only "controversial" and being discussed because I made enough noise about it, bringing upon myself all sorts of complaints, both from mods and those who know little of the situation.

WL has taken most of the hitsI'm not sure what you mean by "hits", but assuming you mean some sort of public complaint, then surely counting them up would have me having taken "most" of the hits, taking everyone as equal... which, of course, I don't :)

[Trumanator]

I would say that Aristander's casting of crumble on himself is not so much proof that he was in collaboration, as proof that he was ready to end the game.

Also, if Aristander and WL were in collusion, wouldn't Aristander TELL WL how much defense his fort had, and therefore how many crumbles it would take?

I am a bit confused as to why it matters that there wasn't a mage to cast a dome, since several domes, perhaps all, domes stay up for several turns at least, if not indefinitely in the case of some. Also, I consistently see posts that encourage people to "dome their caps." I see no reason why WL could not have assumed R'lyeh would have followed this advice, and thus cast many more crumbles than were necessary in order to break the dome.
I still think my other point is valid though. If WL and Aristander were in collusion to throw the game, why would they do it so obviously. I don't think anyone could seriously think that something like that would go unchallenged. Of course,it is always possible that they didn't think it through.

Often, the obvious solution is the convenient one.

Edit: I should have said this in my first post, but thanks very much to zlefin and Squirrelloid for this post/topic, as I think it will be very helpful in keeping the discussion civilized and on topic. As for the actual logs, I am still digesting them, thus my perhaps slightly OT comments.

[archaeolept]

Trumanator, the game itself says that crumble causes 150 pts of damage to walls. There is no need to tell anyone a publicly known fact, easily checked by right-clicking on a fort. The dark citadel has 600 defense. Thus, 4 crumbles are needed, unless you know the spell is bugged. Also, only 4 if there is no defense, and rlyeh had moved out his remaining troops the turn before. For crumble to work you still need more pts sieging than defending, so 4 is exactly sufficient if you are aware that the defense has run away.

there are many ways to test whether a province has a dome. But, the simplest answer is that domes are shown in the battle screen, so it would have been evident the turn before when WL laid siege, even if he hadn't bothered to previously check. There was no need for anyone telling anyone anything as far as that goes. It is a red herring, afaict.

[Trumanator]

Oh, then you can disregard my thesis entirely.
my apologies.

[Illuminated One]

Interesting thread, I was thinking about some sort of "kingmaking" in all future games I play. I.e. eliminating nations until the game get's to tedious/boring and then giving up. I would play competitively (i.e. any nation I have harmed or helped I'd have harmed or helped if I was intending to stay till the bitter end). I didn't feel entirely good about it so I guess I'll have to check back with the players.
This is also a point that convinced me to buy dom3, the good game theory/rules discussion, so thanks for it.


I guess if you wanted to have a general definition of kingmaking mine would be simple. Any action I take in order to help someone win is kingmaking.
It is irrelevant how this looks or how helpful this is.
Sending gems away, scorched earth tactics before going out, diplomacy.
However it is fine to do these actions if they serve a strategic purpose.
Scorched earth while waiting for your ally to fall into the back of your conqueror or that certain spell or even him making peace? No kingmaking. Sending stuff to a weaker player to give a competitor a tougher fight? No km. Helping a stronger player with some strategic consideration? No km.


Now there is another thing of importance, the reason of kingmaking.

1) Fun/Time. I.e. you can't/don't want to play anymore and see the game finished. Better find a sub or go AI.

2) Metagaming. I think the thing about "doing what is beneficial" is not clear enough. Beneficial to your nation? Or beneficial to you in later games?
I don't agree that kingmaking can be only done by players able to win (quite the contrary is the case - I guess there's not many players giving up a game that they could win).
Sure you can't "play to win" without being able to win, but I've often argued that you shouldn't play to win, but instead play competitive and strategically sound securing and expanding your power (as little as it may be) to the best of your abilities.
In fact the "play to win" attitude might account for those situations through metagaming. Scorched earth for no other purpose than to up your rep as a nasty ***** (I said female dog, you darned censorbot) you don't attack? Helping someone else win to have a diplo advantage in another game?
In any case I don't care if the out of game advantage of a player comes from hacking or from metagaming, so this is clearly unacceptable imo.

3) Thematically/RP. This is fine imo. For example you play a good pretender and once you realize you cannot become the one true God you are sacrificing yourself to help the pretender that will be the most beneficial to your people (which doesn't necessary mean your ally, as you might be allied to R'lyeh or Ermor for example). Imo this might be actually a great house rule as it would be an incentive to play kind and virtous pretenders instead of opportunistic and heartless ones.

[Squirrelloid]

Clarification: I was not intending to equate kingmaking with throwing a game. Quite the opposite, kingmaking happens after you can no longer throw the game because you're not capable of winning, so instead you dedicate your resources to helping someone else win.

[Trumanator]

Having a discussion about this with Arch, I left to get some dinner, and came back to find this, which I consider one of the most passionate defenses I've heard. I feel that it would go a long way to explaining motives, so I am posting it below.

18:07 archae_vanjarr> eh, the game was epic... why vets are less likely to be pleased with this than noobs is that we all know the draw of the vast fight
18:07 archae_vanjarr> and how much time and effort we put into these marvelous constructs of empires
18:07 archae_vanjarr> it gets to the heart of why (when, sometimes) dominions is truly great
18:08 archae_vanjarr> i could play any scrub free browser MMO and try and do whatever i can
18:08 archae_vanjarr> but that's ****
18:08 archae_vanjarr> and it's why feelings fly so high with these games
18:09 archae_vanjarr> people create these vast intricate idiosyncratic structures
18:09 archae_vanjarr> and it can be incredibly painful when some *** comes and stomps on you :D
18:09 archae_vanjarr> but that's what makes it exciting
18:09 archae_vanjarr> *not speaking for all vets, or anything, just my opinion
18:10 archae_vanjarr> so to end a game so cheaply, in the name of a win, as it seems to me to have been done... you see the depth of my response that this is not fitting
18:11 archae_vanjarr> even though it is of course true it is hard to draw any strong line between something like this and normal diplomatic behaviour
18:11 archae_vanjarr> but, still, one can, and does
18:11 archae_vanjarr> which is why I've not seen this in any dominions game I've played
18:12 archae_vanjarr> or heard of, on these forums
18:14 archae_vanjarr> but of course it is my emotions that are wrapped up in this event
18:15 archae_vanjarr> and not all that I have said has likely been the most politic
18:16 archae_vanjarr> but someone more polite and... deferential to things, would likely not have said anything really
18:16 archae_vanjarr> for good or for ill

[chrispedersen]

A few observations.

1). A player does not have to be capable of winning the game to be capable of throwing it.

1.5 > 1.

So even if a player is third, he is more than capable of throwing a game.

2). The reason we play against real players is for the challenge of it. We hope for a contest of tactics, of wills, of strategems, win or lose.

3. I would say that it is beneficial for the dominions community overall, that players do not 'throw' games - as this leads to the most satisfying games. I would define 'throwing a game' as joining a contest for the purpose of making it inequitable.

On the other side of the matter:

4). Suppose one had been trounced - and gradually losing. Same three player argument. I don't really think it is unrealistic to ally, or throw the game 'against' the player that is defeating you.

Mictlan attacks arco.
Pangaia aids arco - as arco gets close to losing - arco throws all available forts etc to pangaia.

While it is unsatisfying, I see nothing wrong in it. Mictlan saying 'lose the way I chose you to lose' seems illogical.

Concluding: I know this thread arose because of a game. I am not taking sides in the game, I don't know the relevent facts.

I think it is incumbent on every player to attempt to win the game. Once winning is not possible how they choose to lose is up to them. Diplomacy is a huge part of the game. If you are courteous to your opponent he is more likely to be courteous in return. If not - he is more likely to gift his forts or items to other players.

Good sportsmanship suggests that they should endeavor not to spoil the enjoyment of the other players in the game.

[vfb]

I thought crumble was broken, and you just need one cast of it to destroy walls, as long as you're doing at least minimal wall damage with sieging forces?

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?p=511083#post511083

Did that get patched at some point?

[archaeolept]

I believe it is broken, and while I cast it a few times in this last game, they were weak forts and I was sieging with superior forces, so I am not sure.

I have heard it is from people who's opinion I trust.

[archaeolept]

oh, as a note, after a discussion with our esteemed Balbarian, I was going to create a thread for abstract discussion of the topic(s). This thread has preempted it, however.

it would be best, I think, to stay on the questions in abstract, and keep references to the events of a specific game to a minimum.

[Squirrelloid]

A few observations.

1). A player does not have to be capable of winning the game to be capable of throwing it.

1.5 > 1.

So even if a player is third, he is more than capable of throwing a game.

There was a reason a definition of 'throwing a game' was given. That you can't throw a game you are not *capable* of winning necessarily follows from that definition.

Also, i think you misinterpret 'capable of winning'. A player in 3rd may well be capable of winning the game, in which case he would also be capable of throwing it. A player in 10th place in the late game is almost certainly not capable of winning the game (bar some bizarre and elaborate set of assumptions that would never be achieved in reality).

You do seem to understand this distinction, since you make an identical point at the end of your post.


2). The reason we play against real players is for the challenge of it. We hope for a contest of tactics, of wills, of strategems, win or lose.

That's the reason *you* play against real players. There are many reasons for playing, and expecting everyone to play for your reason isn't warranted. Someone should not be punished or ostracized for playing for a different reason than someone or ones else.


3. I would say that it is beneficial for the dominions community overall, that players do not 'throw' games - as this leads to the most satisfying games. I would define 'throwing a game' as joining a contest for the purpose of making it inequitable.

I don't think anyone has argued that actually 'throwing the game' is acceptable practice.

[Ballbarian]

oh, as a note, after a discussion with our esteemed Balbarian, I was going to create a thread for abstract discussion of the topic(s). This thread has preempted it, however.

it would be best, I think, to stay on the questions in abstract, and keep references to the events of a specific game to a minimum.

Thank you archae. This can be an interesting discussion, so every effort should be made to keep it on track and out of the mud.

[Sombre]

I personally think kingmaking is pretty frickin lame. I'd never do it. I also believe trashing your provinces to spite an attacker is a crappy way to play and giving all of your stuff to an enemy of your enemy because you're going to die is even worse. It leads to the situation where you have people using 'diplomacy' along the lines of 'if you attack me with even a single thing, I am going to throw every single thing I have at you and give all my land/resources to your enemy'. When that happens it leads to turtling because attacking /anyone/ will lead you to a worse position unless you are confident you can beat /everyone/.

I am all for people playing the game the way they want, but people do generally know when what they're doing is crappy (seen as crappy by other people) and if they go ahead and do it anyway, they can't complain when people are mad at them or feign innocence.

[Burnsaber]

I'm with Sombre Kingmaking is pretty lame. I used to do it, due to RP justifications. But I've realized that you can't make the game worse and blame it on RP, since it's meant to enchance the gameplay experience. Nowdays I often just spend all the gems I can to burn my attacker and then just die with the ones I can't spend.

In Crusaders game, my poor Agarthan start got steamrolled by T'ien C'hi and he had to endure a long hard siege against my constantly re-appearing CBM pyre Phoenix. The player kept on devising clever methods to bypass the exploding phoenix and the battes were extraordinarily fun. In the end I decided to give my final few gems to him, because he deserved them with his good playing.

So instead of using my last gems for a bitter and whinetastic move, I used them as a method for saying "GG". When I make such contributions, I'll make sure that they're not too small to be neglible but not too huge as to be unbalancing.

[quantum_mechani]

I also believe trashing your provinces to spite an attacker is a crappy way to play and giving all of your stuff to an enemy of your enemy because you're going to die is even worse. I don't think that's really kingmaking. It seems totally legit to trash provinces in a losing war, just so you can hold out longer.

[thejeff]

At some point, pretty much anything you do, unless you're really in contention for winning yourself, is kingmaking.

If I help take down the leader, that's likely to throw the game to the next most powerful. If I don't, that leaves the leader winning.
Obviously this only really applies when the end is near. Taking an early leader down still leaves the field wide open.

If you're just talking about last gems and items when you're beaten, that seems a small part of kingmaking. I'd be more likely to give stuff to a surviving ally than to just a random enemy of my enemy.

[Sombre]

Edit: This reply is to qm.

Well there are two statements there. I believe one of them, while not kingmaking, is effectively the same. You aren't trying to win by doing it, just trying and make your opponent lose for daring to attack you, via proxy. I think you're mainly talking about scorched earth, so I'll address that:

I don't think burning down your stuff because you are about to get conquered is kingmaking but I do think it's a crappy way to play.

I don't really see how burning down all of your territory and hiding in your (also burned down) home province is worthwhile. I mean you've already lost, you're just taking turns for the sake of it and burning down all those provinces isn't really helping you, it's just spiting your attacker. You're also ignoring the possibility of recovering that territory in order to weaken a foe that you aren't going to beat. You're weakening them for someone else - why? Unless it's an allied game, you shouldn't have any interest in your enemy's enemy prevailing.

I'd say this is rather different from fighting to the bitter end, which involves defending those resources you can and inflicting maximum casualties. There you are honing your skills, giving the opponent a good fight and, to an extent, still trying to win (who knows, maybe they'll be savaged by a bunch of other nations and you'll claw your way back). Razing everything you own just to deny it to the attacker could possibly help you live a few more turns (since they'll have less income to use in cracking your home fort), but for what? The extra turns will be spent hiding in a fort doing nothing.

[Sombre]

If you're just talking about last gems and items when you're beaten, that seems a small part of kingmaking. I'd be more likely to give stuff to a surviving ally than to just a random enemy of my enemy.

Unless you're talking about a team game or one that allows allied victory, they are only your ally as long as you have that temporary agreement to work together for mutual benefit, or at least not attack eachother. Once you're dead, they aren't your ally, so I don't see why you'd give them anything. Giving away stuff to make people come to your aid, that makes sense. Giving it to someone other than your attacker, or even giving it to your attacker himself (which happens generally to spite people who DIDN'T come to your aid) doesn't make sense to me other than as an attempt to influence the game post death, which ideally people wouldn't care about.

[thejeff]

While in the end there can only be one, so all allies are temporary, all I was saying is that I'd rather give gems to someone who has been helping me out, rather than to someone who hasn't but is likely to fight my enemy soon.

And if you want to parse words, while they might not be my ally once I'm dead, I also can't give them anything once I'm dead. Any giving of resources must be done while I'm still alive, so they are still my ally when the gift is sent.

[Calchet]

I'd say a lot of this begins in a sensible strategy of looking less juicy - you'd reasonably expect your opponents to weigh the pros and cons of attempting to take you out, and you can work against this in two ways - either to minimise the pros, using a scorched earth-type maneuver to make their conquests less useful, or to maximise the cons, by fielding a powerful defense that will cause losses, and by strengthening the enemies of your attacker.

This, of course, only applies while you still have a theoretical chance to survive to win the game - and, as far as I can see, some people ask that players, once they reach the (quite subjective) point of no return, immediately stop any such actions and let themselves be gracefully conquered by whoever is rampaging through their armies - I find this to be a bit much to ask.

Allow them instead to die as they've lived - to spit in the face of their executioner, as it were. Sure, it's not fun to have someone spit in your face, especially if it blinds you enough to give another enemy a chance to strike, but that is something a would-be executioner should be prepared for.

[Gandalf Parker]

Its early for me and I lack caffeine but some rambling notes:

(A) Throw in Data Tactic (as in the example of the character Data playing a game against an expert on Star Trek). Knowing that he cannot win, he plays to not lose. He passes up obvious ways to take chances for a big win in order to take safer moves even if they only result in a draw. Eventually his win appears based on the frustration of the expert player who quits rather than continue the long drawn out game. For some people a win is a win, but others would consider that to be crappy tactics.

(B) The conversation about the noob making a "bad decision" to lose the game quickly when faced with a game full of veterans. In such a situation the goal might have been to quickly leave the game and move on to another. His reputation would not be damaged nearly as much by a quick loss (noob losing to vets) as it would by other options such as just leaving the game or going AI. Some veterans prefer the only-one scenario and such a noob would be appreciated more than the more RP honorable fight-to-the-end version which is revered by some other vets.

(C) In the chat that was posted I seem to see a strong interest in gold, gems, provinces which would seem to denote a specific type of Dom3 game, settings, map sizes, etc. As just one example it doesnt seem to recognize that a nation might be willing to use all of those to purchase a neighbors aid in holding off an aggressor if their strategy is one of "I can really kick tail if I can just achieve xxxxx" (research level, spell, ability to create certain items or units). Of course there are varying opinions on whether or not such a strategy can win but I feel the game parameters tend to define that.

(D) I dislike HoF as a rating of players, and strongly dislike the idea of recording players to avoid. However I do appreciate it as a source of "nations that win" info. To those comments in the chat I would have mentioned that "win" defined as kill all other nations by force presets a variable which I do not feel the game was built around altho I know that some feel it is. IMHO there is a basis for some nations being built around the ability to hold out or turtle so to me an acceptable win would include being able to play until the other players gave up.

(E) As far as getting noobs to continue a game to the end as a full combatant even when its obvious they cannot win I feel thats a losing premise. It would be better to make it community acceptable to offer allegiance. In that case I feel its the vets who are at fault when they talk about a NAP being always temporary and susceptable to sudden surprising endings. The option for an alliance as an option for reaching end-game is removed thereby denoting the game as a "I want a single winner" game. In general I would consider that to be perfectly acceptable in blitzes but an unreasonable expectation in an epic game. Im not getting into whether or not thats general opinion. I only wanted to point out the cause and affect as far as noob impressions of their options. To change one you might have to change the other.

(F) Which brings up that options for noobs to fully play games with vets can be accomplished simply by the creation of other game scenarios than the simple take-all-the-map there-can-only-be-one games. There are many such games being played. I feel that the smoothness and happy end-game for many of the games here are achieved by avoiding "I took it for granted" and plainly laying out games parameters.

(G) By the end of the chat material I was beginning to get the feel that the community you feel you were representing was not as large a community as you seem to feel. As in many such discussions I began to get an impression of the size and characteristics of the games you were referring to which is only a portion of what Dom3 supports.

(H) Minor question. Some seem to be arguing alliances. Would not Pantheon making be different than King Making? One would denote an alliance win while the other would denote selecting a take-all winner. Just my own impression but it appears that there is far more ill feelings toward pantheon making than king making so the overlapping examples seems to lead the conversation toward preset goals.

Now my own soapbox:
The concept of "community standards" might be best redefined as "game standards". It has been recommended in the past that someone such as Llama server might post some of the more extensive rule sets that have been developed in order to make it easier to create games. A game thread initial post could include a line such as "Rules: set A on Llamaserver with the following changes".

In a way, CBM and some other mods have become a version of that by closing out some game options or opening up others. Some of the Rules Sets could include acceptable and unacceptable end-game scenarios so that the initial creator of that game could easily select one forestalling the later conversations along the line of "I took that for a standard". I often see rants here which seem based on "This is how I play. And I feel the game is meant to be played that way. And everyone agrees." which I feel is very unmatching to the games parameters.

A number of such sets have come into use but are being referenced as "just like the previous game xxxxx". If such sets were posted and one began to get common use, THEN it might be accepted as a general community standard but based on the conversations along this line in the past I would be willing to bet against that happening. But I do feel we can save many hassles if we could create some game definitions in a central place which can be referenced in the initial game post. It would also provide some recognition for some of the many many different game options available.


Gandalf Parker
--
For some people, unlimited options appears the same as no options at all.
Without a menu of selections, they are lost.

[quantum_mechani]

Edit: This reply is to qm.

Well there are two statements there. I believe one of them, while not kingmaking, is effectively the same. You aren't trying to win by doing it, just trying and make your opponent lose for daring to attack you, via proxy. I think you're mainly talking about scorched earth, so I'll address that:

I don't think burning down your stuff because you are about to get conquered is kingmaking but I do think it's a crappy way to play.

I don't really see how burning down all of your territory and hiding in your (also burned down) home province is worthwhile. I mean you've already lost, you're just taking turns for the sake of it and burning down all those provinces isn't really helping you, it's just spiting your attacker. You're also ignoring the possibility of recovering that territory in order to weaken a foe that you aren't going to beat. You're weakening them for someone else - why? Unless it's an allied game, you shouldn't have any interest in your enemy's enemy prevailing.

I'd say this is rather different from fighting to the bitter end, which involves defending those resources you can and inflicting maximum casualties. There you are honing your skills, giving the opponent a good fight and, to an extent, still trying to win (who knows, maybe they'll be savaged by a bunch of other nations and you'll claw your way back). Razing everything you own just to deny it to the attacker could possibly help you live a few more turns (since they'll have less income to use in cracking your home fort), but for what? The extra turns will be spent hiding in a fort doing nothing.As thejeff says, at some point anything you do as a player is just screwing over one of the leading players, not winning the game. The real question when doing scorched earth is 'how far in the future could I ever expect to recapture this for any length of time?'. In a lot of cases the answer is 10 or 20 turns, if ever. At that point it is perfectly reasonable to try and deny your opponent the resources at the risk of some long term detriment far down the road.

As you say, your best hope to ever escape a losing situation is a pile on by other people, and the longer you can hold out, the more likely such a rescue becomes.

[Sombre]

Well your enemy isn't your enemy once you're dead. I guess I just don't get why you'd care that the resources you give when you are 'alive' (yet to be finished off is more appropriate perhaps) will be used after your death by someone who is no longer your ally against someone who is no longer your enemy.

I understand the concept of revenge of course, and there's a place for it in dom3, I just think you shouldn't aim to influence the game in a way that has nothing to do with the success or even story of your nation.

[quantum_mechani]

Well your enemy isn't your enemy once you're dead. I guess I just don't get why you'd care that the resources you give when you are 'alive' (yet to be finished off is more appropriate perhaps) will be used after your death by someone who is no longer your ally against someone who is no longer your enemy.

I understand the concept of revenge of course, and there's a place for it in dom3, I just think you shouldn't aim to influence the game in a way that has nothing to do with the success or even story of your nation.I suppose because I do believe in bounce backs to some degree. Maybe not to the point of winning, but I think you can go from stuck in your sieged capital to a viable power. I also think it's extremely difficult to kill off someone who mounts a competent, conservative defense. So given that, I have a hard time not pulling out all the stops for survival both from a RP and strategy perspective.

That said, I do recognize I tend to get caught up more with winning a war than winning a game, so I can understand other people have different perspectives.

[Sombre]

Allow them instead to die as they've lived - to spit in the face of their executioner, as it were. Sure, it's not fun to have someone spit in your face, especially if it blinds you enough to give another enemy a chance to strike, but that is something a would-be executioner should be prepared for.

Except everyone is a would-be executioner and if everyone responds to a war they don't seem to be able to win by burning all their lands down or threatening to do so and give all their stuff to another player, it seriously reduces the incentive to attack. Creating turtling. Creating lategame mm.

[thejeff]

Possibly because we're not thinking about it in game theory terms.

Assume nation A has helped me throughout the game, even sometimes when it was not to his immediate benefit. We've traded things back and forth, come to each others aid when attacked, plotted attacks together, etc.
Sure we both know if we survive long enough we'll have to fight each other, but until then ...
Why shouldn't I do one last thing to help him before I die?
Maybe it's RP, though it's not something I'd really think of as role-playing. More just human nature.
We're not calculating odds of winning. We're not aiming to influence a game. We're helping someone who helped us one last time. Or hurting our enemy one more time.

If you want to look at it strictly in terms of winning, the logical thing to do would be to drop the game once your chances got too small and start another game.

[Sombre]

Well the issue of giving stuff to another player is easy enough to avoid with no trading or no diplo games.

I'm more concerned about people launching or threatening spite responses to being conquered, since there's no easy rule to restrict that behaviour. As crappy as I may find it, if it's really common I'll just live with it and not do it myself. I just don't like the fact that it seriously disincentivises conquest. If you know that if you attack someone they'll almost immediately burn all their stuff down and turtle up to sit there and try to cause you as much aggravation as possible, it leads to you not wanting to attack until you can do something along the lines of taking every province in a couple turns. Which leads to some serious stagnation imo.

[thejeff]

Completely agreed that an immediate rollover, followed by burning down their own forts and labs is pretty much unjustifiable.
Though a little pillaging/overtaxing in provinces soon to be taken to get cash to fund more resistance and maybe destroying buildings you're not going to be able to defend while preparing a counterattack is valid tactically.

I really can't see why anyone would go full turtle without even attempting to defend themselves.

[Calchet]

See, the problem here is that there's really no good way I can think of to judge when someone should be allowed to give things away or ruin their lands - you pretty much have to stick to either extreme, either always disallowing it or always allowing it.

Of course, you could attempt to put together a neutral "turn review board" that'd check every turn file for unacceptable plays before allowing anything to be submit to the game server, or less extremely, a neutral "game review board" that decides when any nation no longer has a reasonable chance of winning and bans them from doing certain things, or just forces them to go AI...

[Micah]

I think all of this reductionism is a bit much. Dominions is a very open-ended game, and there is a lot of gray area, especially when you throw diplomacy into the mix. I feel that most actions really need to be considered IN CONTEXT, as opposed to in absolute terms.

Several examples follow, I'd like to hear how my personal feelings on what is and is not appropriate match up with the opinions of other people, feel free to comment/object to them.

Scorched earth: Always alright to try and swing the current conflict/survive. Alright as a response to broken diplomatic agreements (NAP violations and the like) just to get revenge on the attacker. Alright in a grossly unfair conflict (e.g. 5 on 1 ganging). Not alright in other circumstances.

Gem/item gifting: Generally alright in any circumstance if not prohibited by house rules. This makes sense because any gems that are given away can't be used to defeat the attacker, meaning that their war is made easier, even if it makes a later war more difficult.

Allowing another player to take territory you control: Always alright if it represents a strategic advantage for the player, such as getting something in trade or opening up a route for an allied attack. Alright in small quantities when the defense of the territory needs to be abandoned to defend elsewhere and its capture is imminent. Not alright to just hand an ally your provinces because you're tired of playing.

Handing over VPs: Very rarely acceptable, though a few situations exist. A trade involving a VP that did not end the game would be acceptable. Prioritizing the defense of one VP over another if multiple VPs are being attacked is obviously alright. Abandoning a VP in the face of overwhelming odds is also legitimate when it does not end the game to do so. Simply giving away a VP to an ally is unacceptable. Obviously some judgment calls are required here, and 1 gold for a VP is not an acceptable "trade." I hope that players can be reasonable on the matter though.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

[chrispedersen]

I've been thinking of this thread a bit - I think there are things on the winning side that are also gray area.

For example, I've been involved in several games where someone found an amazing site. Call it a 50% construction bonus. Two people - or three people - share the site.

To me, this just sucks. 50% construction bonus sites are really too powerful to be in the game. The introduction of the site into the game - especially when hidden, and therefor not known by all players essentially means that the all the players in the game except maybe 2-3 are wasting their time. They often have *no* chance of winning.

I think I will make it as part of the balance mod that there are no sites with more than a 20% construction bonus. I think I would like to make it a house rule that all bonus sites, when found, must be announced. I think I would like to make it a rule of honor that they cannot be shared.

[Zeldor]

Mod like that already exists. And it's supposed to be a part of next CBM, afaik.

[Baalz]

Well, it's pretty silly to say there are rules of conduct, or even house rules that can be codified. As Micah says the game is so open ended each situation is unique. I will say, ethically and from a sportsmanship point of view it's pretty crappy to do things for the explicit purpose of screwing up your opponent *after your defeat*. That's obviously a very ambiguous way to put things, but you know what I'm talking about. I doubt anybody would say any action was not justifiable if you did it to increase your own chances but there is certainly some behavior which is well over that line. If a nation attacks you and you decide you're (essentially) defeated it's nothing but sour grapes to try and make sure he doesn't win the game by razing your capital, sending gems to an uninvolved 3rd party, etc. You can try to justify it with RP, but it's just poor sportsmanship and detracts from the fun of the game. RP or not you can't lose sight of the fact that we are indeed playing a game, and when you get outplayed (or unlucky) the appropriate response is "gg", not "F-You".

[Baalz]

I just wanted to clarify what I meant since its apparently a bit ambiguous. A bogus RP justification is "I'm playing Lanka, what did you expect when you attacked demons?". That's some BS. I do agree with Micah that diplomacy can certainly justify vengeful acts. If you violate a NAP, or bring a 5-1 dogpile then you can't really expect the recipient to give you a "gg". :)

[DonCorazon]

Pretty simple to me: play to win, and when it looks like you cannot win, play to last as long as you can, maybe things will change and your prospects will turn around. Remember one game where a player was immediately sieged and almost domkilled, but incredibly managed to slay the offending carrion dragon with a handful of units and despite the horrific start went on to become one of the leading contenders. Ironically, the aggressor in that game quit as soon as his pretender was killed.

I think if you follow those guidelines, you will pretty much be following everything Micah said e.g. you wouldn't give up your last VP since that would be suicide.

[K]

Well, it's pretty silly to say there are rules of conduct, or even house rules that can be codified. As Micah says the game is so open ended each situation is unique. I will say, ethically and from a sportsmanship point of view it's pretty crappy to do things for the explicit purpose of screwing up your opponent *after your defeat*. That's obviously a very ambiguous way to put things, but you know what I'm talking about. I doubt anybody would say any action was not justifiable if you did it to increase your own chances but there is certainly some behavior which is well over that line. If a nation attacks you and you decide you're (essentially) defeated it's nothing but sour grapes to try and make sure he doesn't win the game by razing your capital, sending gems to an uninvolved 3rd party, etc. You can try to justify it with RP, but it's just poor sportsmanship and detracts from the fun of the game. RP or not you can't lose sight of the fact that we are indeed playing a game, and when you get outplayed (or unlucky) the appropriate response is "gg", not "F-You".

But sometimes "F-you" is the only response you are going to get.

Let's take a game I was in: I'm a small empire in the early game because my local indies were super heavy. Sensing weakness, three players launch attacks on my empire at the same time.

So what do I do? Three players going into their first war vs one player means either they win, or I fight them off and I don't win.

I can tell you what I did. I ground up their armies, I blood hunted my capital, I send research mages to the front, I pillaged my own empire, and when I was done all three were out of the game and so was I. When a fourth player who had turtled the whole time came in, he took the smoking remains of my empire and the other three empires. While it lasted, it was a lot of fun.

Is that "bad sportsmanship"? I knew on turn 12 that I was not going to win the game, but I fought it out to turn 30 and made sure those guys didn't win either.

The thing is, every time someone starts talking about "fair play" and "good sportsmanship" they are basically saying "play in a way that is good for me and my play style, and bad for my enemies." Its the same discussion you hear about Attack Commander orders or Battlefield enchantment spells or gem gen items and a host of other things.

At the end of the day, it is a pointless discussion. I play computer games instead of tabletop games because I don't want to talk about rules that I should follow out of some sense of fair play and other people can break without getting caught. I mean, this is a game where you can totally set up a fake nation under an assumed name and double-team people and send yourself gems, items, and even mages; why even assume fair play is possible?

[Alpine Joe]

There is also the important consideration that a reputation for being a player who is going to do everything possible to make a victory against him a pyrrhic one will make it less likely you are attacked in future games. People who roll over and go AI at the first sign of defeat make tempting targets. If you are a small nation but have the reputation of being hard to swallow, an aggressor might look elsewhere for targets. This community is small enough that you can to some extent learn other players' styles.

[Sombre]

I mean, this is a game where you can totally set up a fake nation under an assumed name and double-team people and send yourself gems, items, and even mages; why even assume fair play is possible?

Because the people we play with aren't douchebags?

[K]

I mean, this is a game where you can totally set up a fake nation under an assumed name and double-team people and send yourself gems, items, and even mages; why even assume fair play is possible?

Because the people we play with aren't douchebags?

LOL. I know that's not true. :P

[Sombre]

I should probably just put 'I' there, not 'we'. I don't play with people who act that way. If they did I'd cease playing with them. In order to have a better idea of who I might like to play with, I don't find these discussions pointless at all. Micah for example - I disagree with him on some points, but I can see his rationale and would play with him, accepting that we have differences of opinion.

Evidently there are douchebags out there. Evidently.

[atul]

There is also the important consideration that a reputation for being a player who is going to do everything possible to make a victory against him a pyrrhic one will make it less likely you are attacked in future games. People who roll over and go AI at the first sign of defeat make tempting targets. If you are a small nation but have the reputation of being hard to swallow, an aggressor might look elsewhere for targets. This community is small enough that you can to some extent learn other players' styles. Strange sentiment. One of the most disappointing games I played went so that each of the opponents I fought either went AI after the first setback or were really green. Nothing would've been more boring, the fun part of the game all spent killing AIs.

On the other hand, I know some people who like to hole up, burn the ground and whine for all the other nations to fight their fights for them. My current reaction is to weed those out before they can become strong enough to be actually able to hold out for long. After all, you need some heavy castling and magic for that strategy to work well.

But, to each their own.

[K]

I should probably just put 'I' there, not 'we'. I don't play with people who act that way. If they did I'd cease playing with them. In order to have a better idea of who I might like to play with, I don't find these discussions pointless at all. Micah for example - I disagree with him on some points, but I can see his rationale and would play with him, accepting that we have differences of opinion.

Evidently there are douchebags out there. Evidently.

But you'll never know if you are playing with those players because they will never admit that they do those things.

I mean, some people think I have a bad reputation even though I have never broken a pact or a rule set by the game I was playing in. My opposition to the removal of various parts of the game most often comes when someone is campaigning against some legal tactic I am currently using and that person is currently attacking my nation in a game.

Seriously. This discussion is pointless. Trying to add unenforceable rules to the game just cripples the honest players like me.

[Sombre]

You do have a bad reputation. At least in the circles I travel in. And your reputation /is/ what people think of you. If people 'think' you have a bad reputation then you do. But this is getting off topic. Fortunately since the discussion is pointless you won't be posting again and there won't be any risk of me going blind or having a nervous breakdown.

[vfb]

I think all of this reductionism is a bit much. Dominions is a very open-ended game, and there is a lot of gray area, especially when you throw diplomacy into the mix. I feel that most actions really need to be considered IN CONTEXT, as opposed to in absolute terms.

Several examples follow, I'd like to hear how my personal feelings on what is and is not appropriate match up with the opinions of other people, feel free to comment/object to them.

Scorched earth: Always alright to try and swing the current conflict/survive. Alright as a response to broken diplomatic agreements (NAP violations and the like) just to get revenge on the attacker. Alright in a grossly unfair conflict (e.g. 5 on 1 ganging). Not alright in other circumstances.

Gem/item gifting: Generally alright in any circumstance if not prohibited by house rules. This makes sense because any gems that are given away can't be used to defeat the attacker, meaning that their war is made easier, even if it makes a later war more difficult.

Allowing another player to take territory you control: Always alright if it represents a strategic advantage for the player, such as getting something in trade or opening up a route for an allied attack. Alright in small quantities when the defense of the territory needs to be abandoned to defend elsewhere and its capture is imminent. Not alright to just hand an ally your provinces because you're tired of playing.

Handing over VPs: Very rarely acceptable, though a few situations exist. A trade involving a VP that did not end the game would be acceptable. Prioritizing the defense of one VP over another if multiple VPs are being attacked is obviously alright. Abandoning a VP in the face of overwhelming odds is also legitimate when it does not end the game to do so. Simply giving away a VP to an ally is unacceptable. Obviously some judgment calls are required here, and 1 gold for a VP is not an acceptable "trade." I hope that players can be reasonable on the matter though.

Just my thoughts on the matter.


My (current) philosophy:

Every nation has a responsibility to try to win. When victory is not possible, every nation has a responsibility to hold out as long as possible against invaders. Each nation should defend itself as best it can.


Scorched earth:

Do not like: pillaging your provinces down to pop 0 and destroying your capitol etc, because of some disagreement over a NAP/agreement. It's spiteful, not fun, and the disagreement quite possibly may have arisen out of some misunderstanding of the NAP/agreement. And more importantly, it hurts the long-term survival of your nation.

Acceptable: Taxing provinces you think you will lose, at 200%. You need the money! Razing a lab or fort if it will be captured by your opponent and used against you, and you are unlikely to be able to recapture it soon.

Do not like: Razing the lab in your capitol (or last fort, if your last fort is not your capitol). Once you are dead, there is nothing left to defend.


Gem/item gifting:

Do not like: quitting the game because you are bored or your girlfriend is nagging you about playing too much dominions, and sending your gems to some nation you happened to have a NAP with. I've sent gems back in this case.

Do not like: not using your gems in defense of your nation, and then giving them away to a friend.

Acceptable: sending a crapload of gems to someone to dispel or overwrite a global of someone you are at war with.

Acceptable: giving loot to your conqueror, assuming that you don't screw up and think you are dead before actually are, or fail to see some way you could have used those gems to survive longer.

Acceptable: giving loot to an ally in thanks for their support (but if they are such a good ally, why are you dead? :)) I think I prefer the above option, but I will not return gems sent to me for this reason.


Allowing another player to take territory you control:
Handing over VPs:

What Micah said.


Posting info about the game revealing sites or your opponent's strengths or weaknesses, after you are dead:

Do not like. You are dead! How is your nation communicating this information? Okay, I suppose there are refugees or stragglers or something. But it seems like it could be done just out of spite in some cases.


Alliances:

Do not like: Alliances with terms like "allied until there are only 6 or 4 or 2 nations remaining." Alliances like this need to be treated like a single nations with all the resources of the alliance. And probably ganked.


Gankfests:

Do not like: Ganging up > 2 to 1 on an equal-strength nation. This is just my personal preference though, I don't really expect others to play like this.

Acceptable: Complete ganging up of all nations against someone who is running away with the game or in a position to win. I will whine and moan about it if that's me though. :)


My thoughts on RP:

This doesn't mean you should do stupid stuff. Or that, for example, MA Marignon should necessarily avoid summoning tartarians or something like that. But put yourself in the skin of your nation. Do you want to be wiped out? No! So defend yourself.


Vassals/Forge B*tches:

Acceptable: If you are doing it temporarily while you research up some awesome tech that you really need in order to overthrow your evil oppressor. Preferably in some intended-to-be-devastating sneak attack.

Do not like: Using this as a permanent survival strategy. This does not qualify as "holding out against invaders". This qualifies as selling your soul.


NAPs:

Acceptable: Attacking before the term on your NAP is up, casting damaging rituals while the NAP is up, is acceptable if it is necessary for the survival of your nation (or ultimate victory, if that's in the cards).

Acceptable: Complaining about getting attacked when a NAP was in force. I prefer this is done in the context of the game: nations, not players.

Not acceptable: Complaining about getting attacked when a NAP was in force, when actually there was no NAP ever discussed, even if it's in character. Even I have limits to my treacherous behaviour. :) If this is explicitly allowed in the game OP rules, then it is acceptable.


Metagaming:

Really really do not like: Gem/item gifts or alliances because another player is a friend IRL or on the forums. Attacking a nation because of a personal issue with the player of that nation.


Exploits:

Do not like: filling up the lab.


I realize that not everyone feels the same way I do about these issues. It's probably a good idea to define what's acceptable in each game OP.

[K]

You do have a bad reputation. At least in the circles I travel in. And your reputation /is/ what people think of you. If people 'think' you have a bad reputation then you do. But this is getting off topic. Fortunately since the discussion is pointless you won't be posting again and there won't be any risk of me going blind or having a nervous breakdown.

Wow. Thanks for the personal attack. Good thing you've never played with me and have no idea what you are talking about.

Nice you know that people are still willing to go out of their way to demean people.

[Ballbarian]

You do have a bad reputation. At least in the circles I travel in. And your reputation /is/ what people think of you. If people 'think' you have a bad reputation then you do. But this is getting off topic. Fortunately since the discussion is pointless you won't be posting again and there won't be any risk of me going blind or having a nervous breakdown.

:wave: Proceed with caution. :poke:

[Sombre]

You do have a bad reputation. At least in the circles I travel in. And your reputation /is/ what people think of you. If people 'think' you have a bad reputation then you do. But this is getting off topic. Fortunately since the discussion is pointless you won't be posting again and there won't be any risk of me going blind or having a nervous breakdown.

Wow. Thanks for the personal attack. Good thing you've never played with me and have no idea what you are talking about.

Nice you know that people are still willing to go out of their way to demean people.

What personal attack? I'm agreeing with what you said. You do have a bad reputation amongst some people. Why would I need to have played with you to have heard about it? You seem confused about what 'reputation' means.

Ballbarian: I don't see why you'd feel the need to say that. Do you think I'm on the verge of slandering K or something? He mentioned his bad reputation and I'm backing him up on that. I admit to making a joke about his professed ability to cause nervous breakdowns in arguments, but I don't see why that's off limits.

[chrispedersen]

Perhaps because forum topics should be to discuss ideas, not people.

[Illuminated One]

Scorched earth: Always alright to try and swing the current conflict/survive. Alright as a response to broken diplomatic agreements (NAP violations and the like) just to get revenge on the attacker. Alright in a grossly unfair conflict (e.g. 5 on 1 ganging). Not alright in other circumstances.

What I don't get is why you would include revenge as acceptable reason.
The only thing that you are going to get in that game is some emotional gratification, but then why not just be plain and say if it makes you happy ...?
Otherwise I can agree.

[Squirrelloid]

*sings "If it makes you happyyyy, it can't be that baa-aa-aa-aad."*

*Gets booed offstage*

[Squirrelloid]

Crossposting this from the HoF thread, as its the clearest statement to date from WL on what happened in the game which sparked this discussion:

I covered all the angles and you didn't stand a chance to win. I am willing to share my turn files with anyone who wants to verify that. I have had no nefarious cabal with any player to win the game, nor have I persuaded, threatened, mind controlled or did in any other way influenced my allies actions. I gave a fair warning before attacking his VPs. Yes, my ally went ahead and helped me of his own volition, so what?- I don't condemn him for this, quite the opposite, had I been in a similar situation: hating nation A enough and wanting to help nation B enough then I'd probably find a way to help . Be it by sending all my gems, or items, or armies or whatever I can to make sure I influence the end result.

Aristander's actions go back to the initial discussion on beneficial, who the agent is for which an action needs to be considered beneficial, and what appropriate play goals are when you determine victory is not within your grasp. Ie, WLs defense of Aristander's actions mirrors my comments regarding the player ought do things beneficial for himself as a player, and thus personal preference in game outcome is a very relevant factor.

This is most important because it means the initial discussion is exactly on target as to why that game ended that way, and provides suitable justification for why such actions can be warranted.

I'm actually dismayed that many people posting here believe that a player's opinion on which nation they feel should win the game is not a valid motivation to act upon. (Obviously such an opinion should be based on the play of a particular game, but in the situation where you're at war with one contender and allied with the other, that's a clear case for an in-game motivation to prefer one winner over another).

I'm also dismayed that people are against the idea of Kingmaking, since its unavoidable in a diplomatic game. Something as simple as agreeing to ally with one nation against another at the right time can be kingmaking.

(Consider a game with nations A,B,C, A>B>C, but B+C>A. C is in a kingmaking position because they could side with either A or B and determine the victor of that conflict and thus that game. According to the logic of many posters here, siding with A against B would be 'unacceptable' since it only makes A's win more certain. But if we add some more depth to the example, and find that A was a staunch ally of C all game while B was an enemy, it seems unreasonable to decide that C is compelled to ally with B to prolong its own not-lost-yet status. And if B+C>A -> B wins, and A+C>B -> A wins, and A>B -> A wins, then C has no choice which is not a kingmaking play, and so is neither permitted to ally nor fail to ally according to the logic which says kingmaking is bad play).

Basically, Kingmaking is an essential element in the play of games where diplomacy *of any degree* is permitted. It occurs in games that only involve trade. It occurs whenever a third party can be persuaded to make one of two choices, and at least one choice materially effects the outcome of the game. The game doesn't even need to allow communication - the history of a player's actions in the game send a message to his opponents and based on those actions another player might favor or disfavor that player for victory, and might take actions which further that occurrence.

The take-home lesson here is making strong allies early in a game leads to a much improved chance of winning the game because you can expect those allies to make kingmaking plays in your favor should you look to be capable of winning and they do not. I fail to see why playing the diplomatic game well is not equally as valid as fighting out a mega war.

[vfb]

Well, for me, it goes against the whole spirit of the game. See those black candles? Enemy dominion. You can call him your ally if you like, but if his pretender ascends, that's the end of your pretender. Your would-be god is now banished forever to oblivion.

[Executor]

Ahh, my eyes hurt from all this reading. If only I spent all this time reading the thread in studding...

Scorched earth:
Do not like either, but there are certain situation when I feel it should be done. For examle a gangbang, I refuse to give my lands to the nations that who took then so undeservingly. Armageddon goes in this category.

Gem/item gifting:
Can't say really, I usually use up all my gems defending. I support the idea of the nation you conquered giving you gems and items in the name of RP, looting.
And I also sometimes send my gems/items to my allies if they proven themselves a good ally.
But I do not support gifting on a friend bases, or another game return favor.

Alliances:
I support alliance until there are 8,4 or whatever nations left, although I prefer until we're the only once left.
I see nothing wrong with this. But the above described isn't really even an alliance, it's a pre-set longterm NAP.
An alliance defines supporting your ally nation, a mutual defense treaty and such. You attack my ally I'll attack you etc.

I don't approve of pre set alliance before the game ever starts.

Gankfests:
I hate those. And I dislike the people who play like this, and defend themselves in the name of "good strategy". No, good strategy is when you outsmart you opponent not outnumber him to impossible odds.
To me there is no honor in ganging up on a equal-strength nation.
And I dislike ganging in any form, although clearly sometimes it must be done if there is a evident leader.


Vassals/Forge B*tches:
I don't support this, but that's mostly because I'm to proud to be someone vessal. However if he's my ally, I will help him out.

NAPs:
So far I never broke a single NAP since I find NAPs honor bounding, but in no way an obligation and that they HAVE to be enforced.
Acceptable> Disregarding a NAP if there is a victory threat, certain spells cast, BOT, AC, AN, UD.

Not acceptable> Complaining about breaking a NAP when you never in fact answered the NAP proposal
Not acceptable> Refusing to admit that there was a NAP when there are clear evidence that there in fact WAS one, just admit you're a backstabber.

Metagaming:
I agree with VFB completely.


And here are some things I'd add.

-Attacking a player not a nation
-Enforcing vendettas for some other games
-Reviling information about another nation

-And this is possibly the thing I hate the most,
Attacking a staleing nation! Not an AI nation, this is of course a very logical thing to do, but to attack someone the moment you see they are gonna stale. This is just low tactics.
-And also, winning a game due to stales!? That's not a win. Letting someone stale out the game while you win is just, wrong, and I for one will never recognize such a victory.

Well, off to get some eye drops now...

[WraithLord]

Dear friends. The subject of discussion was presented in a clear manner for open and constructive discussion. However it does reveal a very sensitive "nerve" (if you like). Possibly lots of past hard feelings or feeling of being cheated of victory or lost/won unfairly can surface and throw this constructive, welcome discussion into the mud.
I thus implore you to keep it civil and to the point, lets keep those skeletons in the closet and concentrate on improving the future.

Now as to the specifics of a given recent game I saw a lot of inaccuracies here, but since this one is over and done with and following my own above advice I'll do my share to keep this closed. Anyone that is truly interested in hearing the details, seeing turn files plus my explanation on what happened is welcome to contact me and then make up his own opinion. Enough of that, let's tackle the subject at hand in an abstract manner as we should.

I'll present my opinion in the form of what I believe to be mere facts. This is not dogma but a basis for further discussion.

1. In diplomacy games players characters matter. Some players will fight to end and scorch earth and pass all the gem income to attacker's enemy just to take revenge. Other players will always try to avoid a fair fight. Others like to follow a charismatic leader and are very happy to give all they have just to see that leader win.
None of this is wrong. It is all part of diplomacy games and must be accepted. Any artificial prohibitions will lesser the game experience for some class of player characters.

2. Kingmaking is king-making is King making. The act defines itself. It's context or pretexts doesn't alter the act.
I heard a lot of statements like "Yes, I gave these 1k gems to make nation A king but that was ok because of..."
or "That play for making B king is foul b/c ..."
lot's of variation on the theme and in the end the same as a back-stab is just that no matter what the reasons so are King making acts. Your reasons and rational makes sense to you and your friends but you must realize and respect that there maybe and indeed is a different faction that disagrees with you.
So leave the subjective stuff out. Accept that king making is what it is and then you can start to tackle it if you find it disturbing.

3. For the purpose of kingmaking attaching moral score to different acts and making distinctions between them is artificial and self centered. Some players find some king making acts acceptable while others find the very same acts unacceptable. To make a constructive progress one must bundle together all king making acts and either allow or prohibit *all*.

Saying that giving VPs is bad but giving gems is ok leads to a dead-end in dealing with this issue. First, since the statement is subjective and not in consensus. Second, because in some situations gems can contr. more to victory than VPs can. Third, b/c in some respects giving gems/items/gold is *worse* then giving VPs. This is b/c of the game engine. It makes giving gems/items/gold a secret act while giving VPs can be discovered (intel). Also, giving gems/items/gold can't be countered in any means while giving VPs can.

My suggestion is to agree on the term kingmaking, bundle all acts that qualify as such into it and then state clearly at start of game whether or not kingmaking is allowed.

My personal opinion is that prohibiting kingmaking in diplo. games will make the game much less fun b/c it will not allow players to bring their character and preference into the game - what will make the game experience shallower.
I think that diplo and kingmaking prohibition are mutually exclusive.

[WraithLord]

Well, for me, it goes against the whole spirit of the game. See those black candles? Enemy dominion. You can call him your ally if you like, but if his pretender ascends, that's the end of your pretender. Your would-be god is now banished forever to oblivion.

I think this cuts to the heart of matter. Your assertion completely disregards that the other player may not share your sentiment. Perhaps he is a newb and is content to follow a vet. Perhaps he received so much help during all the game from his ally that he is willing to make all sacrifice for him and so on and so forth.
The fact of the matter is that different players have different personalities and get their kick out of the game in different manner.
I personally would always fight to last drop of blood. I would never bow to another player.
I am aware however that we are not all the same. I think we - the die hard, alpha types need to show more respect and understanding of different personalities.
If we want to eliminate kingmaking as a source of unbalance we either prohibit diplo or prohibit all kingmaking acts is what I think.

[thejeff]

But as Squirrelloid said before, there will always be kingmaking in anything but a two person duel. It can't be prohibited, unless you restrict the definition to just refer to a handful of specific acts you dislike.

[chrispedersen]

Bleh.

Liddell Hart, (who after Sun Tzu wrote probably the second best book on military tactics) paraphrased said "never fight an even fight".

Fight fights you are going to win.

Most of the vets here, do this, one way or another. Baalz and executor are *famous* for the 2 turn blitzes.

'Even' fights by definition maximize the casualties for both sides.

Asymmetrical fights occur in many ways - military advantage, mage advantage - or even diplomatic advantage.

More or less I find that the term kingmaking roughly equates to diplomacy: Y/N.

It would, perhaps, be good when choosing a game on llamaserver to be able to have a drop box, or post a statement about what was expected in the game.

Sure, I'll support adding
GoodPlayerPledge: Y/N
Kingmaking: Y/N
to any game.

But not allowing kingmaking directly decreases the fun in the game for some people. Suppose I'm comfortably in third place - saying I am not allowed to work for an ally removes a *lot* of the incentive to play the game.

You may find it fun to be required start a fight against an enemy against which you will lose - I am way too proud to want to be forced to take a bad choice. I'd rather stale than do it, to be honest. So in the games where you remove kingmaking - you remove a lot of the reason people stay in the game in secondary positions.

We play games to have fun.
We play players, generally, because the challenge is sharper, and the game more enjoyable.
Generally, the conduct we expect from our players we all learned in kindergarten - or the foreign equivalent thereof. Play nice. Try to win. Don't cheat. If it doesn't violate one of these, I figure its ok.

Its a *game* - ok you didn't expect your opponent to talk a player into surrendering. Congratulate him and move on - maybe you can learn something to elevate your own game.

[DonCorazon]

I respectfully disagree - gems are like bullets. Whether fired from my gun to kill Player #1, or fired from Player #2s gun to kill Player #1, I am indifferent, and may in fact prefer Player #2 to do the shooting, especially if he has a bigger gun in the form of paths / levels I do not have.

Turning over one's final VP is suicide. Its not the same at all.

I realize there are gray areas and its easier just to say, everything is permitted so we can avoid having to think it through. If that really is the consensus then I will probably avoid open games and try to find like-minded players that understand that suicide is not acceptable.

[thejeff]

Well, for me, it goes against the whole spirit of the game. See those black candles? Enemy dominion. You can call him your ally if you like, but if his pretender ascends, that's the end of your pretender. Your would-be god is now banished forever to oblivion.

Spirit of the game can be interpreted many ways. Many of the pretenders served or were banished or imprisoned by the previous Pantokrator, why should they not except the new one to fall and to have another chance in time?
The mechanics of actually being defeated (province loss or dominion death) seem to rule against it, but does ascending actually rule out bringing former allies back as servants?
Or if they expect this ruler to fall eventually as well, then perhaps favors or enmities will be remembered when they return from this next imprisonment?

Even without that, once you start basing decisions on how the pretenders feel anything is justifiable. Bringing the hated rival down with me. Some pretenders might even feel concern for their subjects and hope their last act of generosity will lead the eventual ruler to treat them more kindly or ensure a kinder ruler. Come up with your own justification!

Sure, they may all be enemies in the end, but there's still a difference between the theoretical enemy you've been, temporarily, allied with and the hated foe who's been hounding you since your return.

[WraithLord]

I respectfully disagree - gems are like bullets. Whether fired from my gun to kill Player #1, or fired from Player #2s gun to kill Player #1, I am indifferent, and may in fact prefer Player #2 to do the shooting, especially if he has a bigger gun in the form of paths / levels I do not have.

Turning over one's final VP is suicide. Its not the same at all.

I realize there are gray areas and its easier just to say, everything is permitted so we can avoid having to think it through. If that really is the consensus then I will probably avoid open games and try to find like-minded players that understand that suicide is not acceptable.
So long as you respectfully disagree and acknowledge that your opinion is not universal that's cool with me :)

"Turning over one's final VP is suicide. Its not the same at all."
That's not an opinion. You are stating as a fact that it's not the same, however in some situations it is exactly the same. Say, you have 1500 gems stockpiled and you give it all to a given nation in a game context that ensures that this will give him the victory. In that case this is exactly the same. It is a fact, not on opinion.

There is however a difference. Giving gems is, in a way, more sinister since it's both inherently hidden and can not be countered in any means whatsoever. From fairness perspective (which in itself is flawed since fairness and good strategics counter each other) giving gems is that much worse since the "losing" party doesn't even know he has just been heimlich-ed and even if he suspects he can't counter that.

[DonCorazon]

Hopefully it is not necessary to precede every statement with a legal disclaimer that I am not representing the universe. :)

Giving up your last VP is suicide, there is no grey area. It is the end of the game for you. Giving up gems does not end anyone's game. It might end someone's game in a turn, but even then it requires time for the enemy to receive and make use of them. At any rate, trying to analogize the two requires you taking a very extreme case of gem gifting to even come close to the suicidal impact of giving up the last VP.

Taking that extreme case aside, giving gems has much more nuanced and strategic purposes then killing yourself. It seems pretty close to fact. I went to law school and am comfortable with terms like "reasonable efforts" or "prudent standards", in other words - using your judgment.

I would not waste 3-4 hours to play a board game where one player was just going to quit, by granting his points to another as the game neared its conclusion. Why should I waste 12 months and 100s of hours to do so in Dominions?

[K]

You do have a bad reputation. At least in the circles I travel in. And your reputation /is/ what people think of you. If people 'think' you have a bad reputation then you do. But this is getting off topic. Fortunately since the discussion is pointless you won't be posting again and there won't be any risk of me going blind or having a nervous breakdown.

Wow. Thanks for the personal attack. Good thing you've never played with me and have no idea what you are talking about.

Nice you know that people are still willing to go out of their way to demean people.

What personal attack? I'm agreeing with what you said. You do have a bad reputation amongst some people. Why would I need to have played with you to have heard about it? You seem confused about what 'reputation' means.

Ballbarian: I don't see why you'd feel the need to say that. Do you think I'm on the verge of slandering K or something? He mentioned his bad reputation and I'm backing him up on that. I admit to making a joke about his professed ability to cause nervous breakdowns in arguments, but I don't see why that's off limits.

Sorry, I'm a little sensitive about the fact that you've been cyberstalking me across multiple threads.

And yeh, if you haven't played with me you don't know what kind of player I am. You are just slandering. The fact that you will never be able to find a player who has a grievence against me for in-game behavior makes you a liar and a bad person.

Apparently, if you strongly defend positions in these forums some people will attempt to get people to not play games with you by telling people you are a dishonorable player. Like the "who's a vet" discussions or attempts to nerf tactics being used in currently running games, this is just one way that weak players try to defeat other players: by fighting them in the forums and not in the game.

--------------

That being said, kingmaking happens when the game has already gone on for 20 turns longer than it has to and no one is having fun. Better to have an ally win than spend another month of RL time micromanaging an empire that will never win.

[Micah]

I think a large part of the distaste over VP gifting is because they're a somewhat artificial measure. In theory they are supposed to roughly correspond with control of territory and the overall position of the player that controls them. Because of this it is very uncommon to see a game with non-cap VPs, because players have found that a single turn teleport win is detrimental to the enjoyment of the game. Similarly, a VP gifting scenario causes the game to end abruptly, with no recourse for the losing player. Stating that late-game VP gifting is able to be countered is, frankly, a load of crap, especially if the colluding players plan things properly.

1500 gems sure sounds like a lot, but is only about 3 turns worth of income in the example scenario or any large late game.

[Micah]

K- I don't see where Sombre said your bad reputation had anything to do with in-game behavior, could you please point out where that was stated?

[WraithLord]

I said "Saying that giving VPs is bad but giving gems is ok leads to a dead-end in dealing with this issue."

Then DonC & Micah just went right ahead and proved my point. I disagree with you and certainly am not the only one, I think I even saw similar opinions in this thread (although I admit to not having read it all). So you disagree with me and I/ppl that think the same disagree back :)

You'd say that gem giving is ok and VP giving is not. I'd say they are ultimately very similar - actually equivalent in the abstract manner of how many steps it gets one closer to winning. Then you'd go back and say they they are not the same since VPs are suicide while gems are not. I beg your pardon but that's not true. 1500 gems are a big deal. Use 1k for AN and you practically ensure winning. Imagine nation A is 10% stronger than B in end game. Nation A is en route to winning when B gets 2k gems. Now B can cast a bunch of globals or do whatever it wants and grab the victory. Those 2k gems would translate if you like to VPs.

Micah, you said "Stating that late-game VP gifting is able to be countered is, frankly, a load of crap, especially if the colluding players plan things properly."
First of that's somewhat rude phrasing you chose. You are blatantly disregarding and demeaning an opinion different than your own. Second, that's absolutely true. The exchange of VPs in end game is very likely to be monitored so nation B can intervene directly and prevent that from happening. When 2k gems are given to nation B nation A can do nothing about it, knows nothing about it and will surely lose due to this. The same will happen to nation C that gave the 2k gems - so it's suicidal for C as well.
Edit: you also said "1500 gems sure sounds like a lot, but is only about 3 turns worth of income in the example scenario or any large late game."
Micah, that is not the point, the point is the principal that X amount of gems, or Y amount of items or Z amount of VPs are all "mathematically" equal in the "winning factor" they represent. What is the exact ratio is of course elusive, depends on context and many other circumstantial factors. 1.5K gems can certainly be worth a victory in certain circumstance, if not 1.5K then 2K or 2.5K etc. Enough gems wins games and that's a fact, the only difference with VPs is that there's no accumulate gems victory condition so the player actually has to translate gems to victory conditions.

We can go and on forever. There will never be an agreement b/c this is a matter of opinions and we don't all think the same. That's why I suggested that in order to make progress with the matter at hand ( if that's indeed what this thread is about and just a sparring arena ;) ) we need to put all king making acts in the same basket and treat them the same. Otherwise dissension may always result and this discussion will just go off track to what is actually a side issue.

[DonCorazon]

I didn't prove your point at all Wraith. I said only that when you take gem giving to ad absurdem levels, does it even come close and even then it still falls completely short of a game ending suicide move as we just saw. Recent real world example: Did my gem giving end the game? No. Did another players surrendering of VPs? Absolutely. Could I have given my VPs to another player and ended it? Yes. Does that totally defy my sense of honor? Absolutely.

Ultimately, I'd like to rely on players sense of judgment, in the same way the legal system has abstract standards such as reasonable care that are used to determine if someone was negligent. Your arguments are destroying my worldview, however, that I can rely on such standards since you are an expert player and we clearly do not see eye to eye on what I once thought was fundamental.

What I thought was common sense, clearly is not. Ultimately it leads me to the conclusion that I need to make sure I am playing with players who share my own standards of good sportsmanship and honor, which don't include suicidal moves that hand another player a victory, among other things.

So I will drop out of this debate and heed the lessons that this discussion has taught me.

[WraithLord]

...
I would not waste 3-4 hours to play a board game where one player was just going to quit, by granting his points to another as the game neared its conclusion. Why should I waste 12 months and 100s of hours to do so in Dominions?
Hey, b/c this is a war game. War is not fair and diplomacy plays a crucial part in wars. If said scenario happened to you then it represents a failure on your part on the diplomatic front and this can lead to you losing a war, in dominions same as in RL.

I can also say the same see if you find the difference ;) "I would not waste 3-4 hours to play a board game where one player was just going to quit, by granting his 3k gems to another as the game neared its conclusion. Why should I waste 12 months and 100s of hours to do so in Dominions?"

Bottom line, if you want more "fairness" then either remove diplo or prohibit king making acts altogether. I personally like the former while thinking the latter would end up being boring.

[WraithLord]

I didn't prove your point at all Wraith. I said only that when you take gem giving to ad absurdem levels, does it even come close and even then it still falls completely short of a game ending suicide move as we just saw. Recent real world example: Did my gem giving end the game? No. Did another players surrendering of VPs? Absolutely. Could I have given my VPs to another player and ended it? Yes. Does that totally defy my sense of honor? Absolutely.

Ultimately, I'd like to rely on players sense of judgment, in the same way the legal system has abstract standards such as reasonable care that are used to determine if someone was negligent. Your arguments are destroying my worldview, however, that I can rely on such standards since you are an expert player and we clearly do not see eye to eye on what I once thought was fundamental.

What I thought was common sense, clearly is not. Ultimately it leads me to the conclusion that I need to make sure I am playing with players who share my own standards of good sportsmanship and honor, which don't include suicidal moves that hand another player a victory, among other things.

So I will drop out of this debate and heed the lessons that this discussion has taught me.

DonC, you proved my point by your very adamant disagreement with me as that was my point exactly :)

Why are you always going back to that same example? I'm trying to bring a broad perspective to the discussion and limiting to one example does, well, limit the discussion.

you said: "What I thought was common sense, clearly is not."
and I couldn't agree more. My personal experience leaves a very bad taste of gem/items transfer as I lost games directly to these king making acts. So I personally very much dislike that part although I am forced to "play the game" in diplo game since everybody does.

Then:
" Ultimately it leads me to the conclusion that I need to make sure I am playing with players who share my own standards of good sportsmanship and honor, which don't include suicidal moves that hand another player a victory, among other things.
"
I think this will work. However this will not help all the good players who are not "on par" with these said standards or not included in this select hypothetical group you refer to.

I have the same advice for that larger audience. Either accept king making is part of diplomacy games or prohibit it altogether or don't play diplo games. I think this is a constructive advice. If you disagree with that as well I'd be interested in hearing why.

[DonCorazon]

DonC, you proved my point by your very adamant disagreement with me as that was my point exactly :)

What? So by disagreeing with you I proved your point. That makes any further use of my time debating you pointless.

[Micah]

Wrath - Pardon my phrasing, but I'm having trouble with the idea that an experienced player such as yourself can really and truly believe that a third party can reasonably do anything about a well-executed VP gift.

I'll spell it out for you. First turn the gifting player drops any domes on their VP by suiciding the casters. There is no way to know this without witnessing an attack or launching a spell at the province the same turn. The next turn the attacker teleports in with a good-sized force including a few good anti-SC units and drops a crumble at the VP. The turn after that the attacker storms the fort while the gifting nation casts domes with a few units that remained in the VP province, scripted to retreat.

A third party seeing the teleported attack squad now has to throw his army at a wall of domes with no way of properly scripting his forces to account for the units that will be picked off by them. Additionally, the person being gifted with the VPs has the powerful first-turn advantage as they are defending from the third party. Plus, of course, all of this requires that the third party has forces on-hand to respond to an attack immediately, so they have to be equipped and sitting on a lab, ready to go.

I can't fathom how you could begin to say that this is in any way a preventable tactic, and hence the strong phrasing of my position. If you had simply failed to properly consider your position I apologize for my vehemence.

As to the gem issue, clearly the nation sending the gems must be getting them from somewhere, and sending them means not spending them. It's the same as ganging. A good player can overcome a 2:1 war (which is essentially what gifting gems to one player results in) or being set back a few turns of gem income, and in fact where their superior skill really can shine through.

By contrast, VP gifting is the equivalent of informing them that their nation is now dead because they were outnumbered and removing them from the game, since it happens too fast to be countered and there is not interactivity. Gem gifting is, of course, non-interactive, but it must be turned into interactive units and spells to be of value. Obviously, as with ganging, there is a point at which even the best player cannot hope to compete with enough pressure, but that's a situation that shouldn't arise if people are playing to win, as nations will either want to remain sovereign since they are still contenders, or else will have too few gems to have more of an impact on the outcome than player skill.

[KissBlade]

Giving up your last VP is pretty stupid IMO. I do find other forms of scorched earth fair game because IMO as long as you have your capital standing, (sometimes even less) you have a shot at winning the game. it may be slim but 0.00001 > 0. Pooling gems to someone to support their win is kind of weak but honestly, I think pooling gems to global dispel is weak so meh. (mostly cause I like to gem whore and cast huge globals ...)

[vfb]

Okay, I admit, RP can interfere with my philosophy of acting in the best interest of either achieving victory for my pretender, or maximizing my nation's long-term survival. I'm sure I'm guilty of this! But if my nation is going to exact revenge on another nation, for me that revenge has got to be delivered personally. It makes a nicer story if I blow my nation up while destroying my tormentor. I wouldn't get any satisfaction from going AI and giving all my gems to the game leader, even though the result is the same in the end.

And if I hypothetically survive to the end-game as a weak little nation of Man, with no hope for victory, I could see myself actively supporting a Marignon in his war against Ermor, if Ermor had at one point cast BoT and made a bunch of my guys old and dead. I guess that would make me Marignon's vassal. :shudder: I still wouldn't try to end the game by giving Marignon one of my VPs though.

Crap, now that I think about it, I do a whole bunch of dumb non-optimal stuff for RP reasons! And it's not likely I'm going to stop either, since I play more to escape the drudgery of reality, rather than engaging in some sort of intellectual competition.

Well, for me, it goes against the whole spirit of the game. See those black candles? Enemy dominion. You can call him your ally if you like, but if his pretender ascends, that's the end of your pretender. Your would-be god is now banished forever to oblivion.

Spirit of the game can be interpreted many ways. Many of the pretenders served or were banished or imprisoned by the previous Pantokrator, why should they not except the new one to fall and to have another chance in time?
The mechanics of actually being defeated (province loss or dominion death) seem to rule against it, but does ascending actually rule out bringing former allies back as servants?
Or if they expect this ruler to fall eventually as well, then perhaps favors or enmities will be remembered when they return from this next imprisonment?

Even without that, once you start basing decisions on how the pretenders feel anything is justifiable. Bringing the hated rival down with me. Some pretenders might even feel concern for their subjects and hope their last act of generosity will lead the eventual ruler to treat them more kindly or ensure a kinder ruler. Come up with your own justification!

Sure, they may all be enemies in the end, but there's still a difference between the theoretical enemy you've been, temporarily, allied with and the hated foe who's been hounding you since your return.

Well, for me, it goes against the whole spirit of the game. See those black candles? Enemy dominion. You can call him your ally if you like, but if his pretender ascends, that's the end of your pretender. Your would-be god is now banished forever to oblivion.

I think this cuts to the heart of matter. Your assertion completely disregards that the other player may not share your sentiment. Perhaps he is a newb and is content to follow a vet. Perhaps he received so much help during all the game from his ally that he is willing to make all sacrifice for him and so on and so forth.
The fact of the matter is that different players have different personalities and get their kick out of the game in different manner.
I personally would always fight to last drop of blood. I would never bow to another player.
I am aware however that we are not all the same. I think we - the die hard, alpha types need to show more respect and understanding of different personalities.
If we want to eliminate kingmaking as a source of unbalance we either prohibit diplo or prohibit all kingmaking acts is what I think.

[Illuminated One]

Crap, now that I think about it, I do a whole bunch of dumb non-optimal stuff for RP reasons! And it's not likely I'm going to stop either, since I play more to escape the drudgery of reality, rather than engaging in some sort of intellectual competition.

He, I'm always annoyed at how I stop doing stupid RP stuff for the sake of min maxing.

[archaeolept]

luckily, my nations seem to be blessed that way, and adhere to the 7th protocol of Endservedness

"and follow thee to the smaller as to the larger, as to the most low and the most high, and adhere to the MinMax, guideline of the faithful"

[Omnirizon]

what a riveting *yawn* dialogue that was. I think we have a potential broadway hit on our hands here.

[Sombre]

Sorry, I'm a little sensitive about the fact that you've been cyberstalking me across multiple threads.


That you think that says more about you than me. Like everyone else I post when I feel like adding something. I'm a fairly prolific poster and you take extreme positions and are very self important, so it doesn't surprise me that I'd have posted in response to you in several threads.

And yeh, if you haven't played with me you don't know what kind of player I am. You are just slandering. The fact that you will never be able to find a player who has a grievence against me for in-game behavior makes you a liar and a bad person.

I haven't said anything about what kind of player you are. I'm shocked to learn that I'm a bad person. Really. I might go lie down.

Apparently, if you strongly defend positions in these forums some people will attempt to get people to not play games with you by telling people you are a dishonorable player. Like the "who's a vet" discussions or attempts to nerf tactics being used in currently running games, this is just one way that weak players try to defeat other players: by fighting them in the forums and not in the game.


Really? What does that have to do with me? I haven't said anything about you as a player. You seem to be implying I'm a 'weak' player without having ever played with me though. That's interesting given the indignation earlier in your post.

[chrispedersen]

Guys,

This is becoming a personal discussion which is both inappropriate to the thread and against the user agreements we all signed.

[K]

Sombre,

Here's a short course on forum etiquette to address your core issues:

1. Its not your job to skewer people you've decided are self-important with jokes at their expense in each and every thread they post in. It's especially inappropriate if that is your sole reason for posting.

2. You can't imply insulting things about people and get away with it just because you never said anything directly. Implying you would never play with someone because you heard they have a bad reputation is the same as saying they are bad players that should be avoided, and doing so in response to a particular posting is the same as slander of that person. Anyone with a basic mastery of the English language can read between the lines, and you are not fooling anyone.

3. Posting constantly and in all threads to up your post count does not make people respect your opinion more. No one notices the little number at the top of the post or give it any weight if they do. Here's some advice: take a page from Micah's book. He's often condescending and rude, but also has valuable insights to share. Because of this, people listen to him and give him some measure of respect (even me, though I would be greatly surprised if he cares).

4. No one wants to read past thread drama to get to the posts on the thread's topic. Baiting people to provoke thread drama lowers you in everyone's eyes.


Now, I'm going to give you the opportunity to have the last word in this exchange. Consider your words carefully.

[Trumanator]

Actually, I like thread drama :D And micah isn't so much rude as intolerant of BS

[Sombre]

Now, I'm going to give you the opportunity to have the last word in this exchange. Consider your words carefully.

Wow I really appreciate the opportunity you're granting me. But why would I need to choose my words carefully? Your posts make it clear where your reputation stems from. I don't feel compelled to respond to being called a liar, a bad person and post spamming weak player troll. I just consider the source and shrug.

Edit: I don't think there's any need for moderation here. I have no issue with K at all, as I said. I clarified what I said but I can't stop people reading insults, attacks and baiting where none were intended.

[Ballbarian]

Hey, I have no problem with drama. Here is a link to the Soap Central boards (http://boards.soapcentral.com/). :)

Now what was the topic?
Oh yeah, "A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards."

[chrispedersen]

Here is a link to the Soap Central boards (http://boards.soapcentral.com/). :)


LOL.. Spend a lot of time there Ball?:)

[Sombre]

He's a moderator there too. He often kingmakes soap stars.

[Strider]

Lay off the personal remarks to each other.
It's not only against forum rules, but it is taking away from those posters who are trying to have a legitimate discussion on a topic.

[WraithLord]

Amen to that Strider!

DonC, you said "What? So by disagreeing with you I proved your point. That makes any further use of my time debating you pointless."

Please don't be rash in your judgment and try and consider my point thoroughly. I have repeated the same point a few times but I think you still have missed it :) Please allow me to try again.

We are trying to come up with a good formula re. king making. First we need to agree to a common terminology. I think we have achieved that. Then we need to agree on semantics, what does king making mean. Most of the items in KM (pardon my fingers for tiring of typing the whole term) are agreed. For some reason gem/item/income transfer is not treated the same as VP transfer. I think they should be treated the same and have elaborated why, you disagree with me and have also elaborated why.
My point was that this disagreement is fundamental and is caused b/c of different opinions. So it can't be resolved but we do want to move forward. This is why I suggest that when prohibiting KM acts in house rules that all be prohibited VPs as well as gems as well as item transfer. This will ensure that the rules are clear and agreed on all and most important no one could feel cheated of victory b/c a KM move has done him.

I'll put together what I consider to be a constructive advice for game admins:
Either accept all KM acts as part of diplomacy games and make it clear in the house rules
or prohibit it altogether (all KM acts so no one complains)
or don't play diplo games.

I welcome any comments on that advise.

[Frozen Lama]

well you could also jsut ban VP giving specifically, if you feel that that is KM and gem giving isn't

[WraithLord]

Wrath - Pardon my phrasing, but I'm having trouble with the idea that an experienced player such as yourself can really and truly believe that a third party can reasonably do anything about a well-executed VP gift.

I'll spell it out for you. First turn the gifting player drops any domes on their VP by suiciding the casters. There is no way to know this without witnessing an attack or launching a spell at the province the same turn. The next turn the attacker teleports in with a good-sized force including a few good anti-SC units and drops a crumble at the VP. The turn after that the attacker storms the fort while the gifting nation casts domes with a few units that remained in the VP province, scripted to retreat.

A third party seeing the teleported attack squad now has to throw his army at a wall of domes with no way of properly scripting his forces to account for the units that will be picked off by them. Additionally, the person being gifted with the VPs has the powerful first-turn advantage as they are defending from the third party. Plus, of course, all of this requires that the third party has forces on-hand to respond to an attack immediately, so they have to be equipped and sitting on a lab, ready to go.

I can't fathom how you could begin to say that this is in any way a preventable tactic, and hence the strong phrasing of my position. If you had simply failed to properly consider your position I apologize for my vehemence.

Yes. I was thinking of VP transfer in a more simplistic manner. You know, nation A sends a scout to empty nation B VP and casts crumble. Next turn it storms the castle. You can replace the scout with an army, or one SC, or army+SC etc. W/O the domes part (which I haven't considered at all) I think it can be countered (I apologize beforehand if I missed yet another angle :) ).
Now are you 100% sure about the domes?- IIRC casting order is random so there's no guarantee that they'd come up *before* nation C's teleporting SCs coming to bust the transfer.
I agree with you though. Its tough to counter and gives an advantage to nation A that is as inherent to the game as the fact the gem transfer is clandestine and un-counter-able, namely the defender's first turn advantage. The difference is that technically it's possible to try and counter and have a chance of success in case nation C is lucky/strong enough to have the right material to send in.


As to the gem issue, clearly the nation sending the gems must be getting them from somewhere, and sending them means not spending them. It's the same as ganging. A good player can overcome a 2:1 war (which is essentially what gifting gems to one player results in) or being set back a few turns of gem income, and in fact where their superior skill really can shine through.

By contrast, VP gifting is the equivalent of informing them that their nation is now dead because they were outnumbered and removing them from the game, since it happens too fast to be countered and there is not interactivity. Gem gifting is, of course, non-interactive, but it must be turned into interactive units and spells to be of value. Obviously, as with ganging, there is a point at which even the best player cannot hope to compete with enough pressure, but that's a situation that shouldn't arise if people are playing to win, as nations will either want to remain sovereign since they are still contenders, or else will have too few gems to have more of an impact on the outcome than player skill.
"but that's a situation that shouldn't arise if people are playing to win"
Yes, but that's the thing, the don't always. I have seen it countless times. Not all ppl play to win. Oh, they sure enough join the game with an abstract notion of winning, but then RP or awe of the vets or losing interest in the game causes them to lose that drive to win. Then these players become unexpected and can and do influence the game. Type A players that are also good diplomats are usually deft at recognizing these situations and making the most of them which brings the game to a new level of meta gaming or in other words makes diplomacy king over tactics. Is that good or bad?- I honestly don't know. Depends on the mood ;)
I mean so long as we identify the root cause we have a hope of addressing it in house rules. Whether or not ppl would be interested in playing diplo no KM games is a different matter altogether :)

BTW, just had an idea, what if instead of prohibiting KM acts players would be expected to announce them in the game thread for all to see. Something like:
"Arco will send 1k S gems to Pyth. this turn"
or
"Ermor plans to give it's VP in xyz to Caelum next turn"
Would that make things better?- If so, better in what sense?

[WraithLord]

well you could also jsut ban VP giving specifically, if you feel that that is KM and gem giving isn't

Agree. Yet I see this as possible source of resentment as well.
Say nation A leads over nation B and is candidate to win. They are duking it our while a bunch of lesser nations are out of the conflict. Yet they keep pumping B with gems/items/income. B ends up winning and A that knows nothing about what happened get his hand on the turn files. I can imagine A player feeling any of :mad:,:(,:shock:,:hurt:,:sick: etc. This can escalate into pure ugliness.
I say, either you go all the way or you don't even try. Leaving loopholes is not good.

[archaeolept]

Giving gems or gold to a nation is an old and generally accepted practice, in most cases. I'm not sure i've ever seen it give a victory to a recipient, though that would certainly be possible. For the most part, gems are given to help fight a common cause, or to a combatant most likely to be able to halt the player deemed most likely to win, or to prop up some failing nation. Even then, it doesn't tend to have such over-weening effects. As such, only in very rare instances would it be king-making, as almost always no king is made. Claiming that giving gems or gold to someone is somehow worse than throwing a winning vp strikes me as pretty close to absurd. I would suggest that players will easily be able to consider their own past games as to this matter.

King-making as it does exist in Dominions is mostly when allies remain loyal to one side, even when that side (ie. the strongest nation on that side, most relevantly) is prevailing. This happens - but at least there is a long war, and the continual possibility that the allied nations might change their side.

When there is an agreement between two parties such that the one in effect grants his vps to the other, there is no realistic way to work against this, within the confines of the rules of the game. Hence, why it has traditionally been known as "throwing" the game.

These various scenarios are not at all equivalent, and have never been taken as being so on these forums, among hundreds of games that have been played. Surely it was not some stroke of genius that recently created the idea of one nation giving winning vps to another. Why has this not (to my knowledge, at least in a real game with experienced players) ever happened before on these boards? Is it really just the case that no one has ever thought of it, or that no one has ever had the amazing diplomatic acumen to have persuaded some other player?

Has any experienced player here ever even tried such a thing? Why not? No game has even felt it necessary to consider whether such actions are legitimate, and so either specifically deny or allow giving away winning vps. The argument seems to be based on the claim that any possible legalistic interpretation of what may be allowed to win has to be specifically denied in a games OP. Has it really come to this?

I would think that the majority of games listed in the HoF thread could just have easily been turned around if only a couple of the losing players had been smart enough to band together in doing so. Perhaps one player could do it for the other in one game, and receive his proper reward in an other - This too would be legal; certainly it has never been banned behaviour in any game's OP. This is clearly not how it is best for games of Dominions to be played.

[Micah]

It's true that the domes are in normal caster order, but it's not too hard to get a few different casters in on the act and use casters at the front and back of the casting order. Since you are ending the game you don't need to worry about saving any gems, so dropping 10 or more domes isn't unreasonable, likewise, the attacker doesn't really need to keep any forces in reserve because the 3rd party will be a turn behind them in any assaults on the attacker's VPs, so they can have their entire army present at the final VP, or half their army split among 2 VPs, etc.

Regardless, the uncertainty of losing units in the attack force makes a proper counterattack virtually impossible, since you don't know if the unit you have set to cast a vital buff will get knocked out of your combat group, or the unit that's casting astral travel with all of your chaff, etc. I would much rather an opponent got a few turns' worth of bonus gems than running into that situation, at least then I have some time to deal with it instead of facing an immediate end to the game unless I make what would normally be a terrible tactical blunder (splintering my army on a bunch of domes) AND pull it off successfully. It is, realistically speaking, not able to be countered.

As to people throwing in the towel early and unbalancing the game...well, that's why I stick to vet games, I have no interest in dealing with that sort of behavior. I don't think it makes for a compelling argument about what the community standards should be, since those sorts of actions are pretty universally frowned upon.

[DonCorazon]

Thats my point llama. No more words needed.

[archaeolept]

As to people throwing in the towel early and unbalancing the game...well, that's why I stick to vet games, I have no interest in dealing with that sort of behavior. I don't think it makes for a compelling argument about what the community standards should be, since those sorts of actions are pretty universally frowned upon. Unhappily, that is surely not sufficient, as was clearly demonstrated :(

[WraithLord]

Micah/DonC/Archae, thank you for presenting your opinions so clearly. Although I still disagree with the distinction you make between different KM acts I can now better relate to your position.
I also agree with Archae, this discussion and the game that sparked it has proved that this distinction is not universal.
Some would see *all* KM acts as a valid manifestation of diplomacy and claim that all is fair in love and war while others would frown upon the KM act of VP giving.
My suggestion to players reading this thread is to make the ground rules clear from the start and when in doubt do your best to respect the feelings of ppl who may frown upon VP giving. Either refrain from doing that or declare your intentions in the game thread and follow according to ensuing discussion. This is just a game after all and I think we should all strive that it be as much fun as possible for all players :)

[alansmithee]

For some reason gem/item/income transfer is not treated the same as VP transfer.

The reason they're not treated the same is because they're entirely different. If I give my last VP(s), I lose. My game is over. If I give all my gems (and all my future gems), it is still possible (but extremely unlikely) that I will win. And likewise, if I give someone the VPs necessary for them to win, the game is over, that person wins. I can't comeback to win (nor can anyone else). Even if I gave someone 100000000 gems, that act wouldn't directly cause the end of the game. I mean, if someone went to cast Nexus the turn that guy spent all those gems it could actually swing the game for someone else.

That is the fundamental difference-giving VP's leads directly to player loss/victory without other actions. And I really can't see how anyone could in good faith argue otherwise. I understand that this thread is in response to things that happened in a game you won, but I don't think coming up with...dubious arguments saying how X is the same as Y really helps prove your case. Your win was legit, there was nothing prohibited in the game about what happened (from what I can tell).

[Sombre]

Legit technically but definitely frowned up. Hence the need for some clarification of unspoken 'rules'. I personally thought that one would be pretty clear, but there are a couple of dissenting voices.

You certainly can't cover /everything/ in game rules. As I've said a few times on IRC if you are forced to make a laundry list of rules every game, you're not playing with the right people.

[thejeff]

If I give my last VP(s), I lose. My game is over.
<snip>
And likewise, if I give someone the VPs necessary for them to win, the game is over, that person wins. I can't comeback to win (nor can anyone else).

Am I missing something? Giving someone the last VP he needs to win is obviously game ending, but giving away your last VP doesn't change anything for you, does it? Many VP games start with one in each capital, but some don't. In that case the game starts with no one having any VPs.
I'd assumed through out this discussion that talk of giving away your last VP was really just bad phrasing for giving the last VP needed to win. Was it not?

[alansmithee]

If I give my last VP(s), I lose. My game is over.
<snip>
And likewise, if I give someone the VPs necessary for them to win, the game is over, that person wins. I can't comeback to win (nor can anyone else).

Am I missing something? Giving someone the last VP he needs to win is obviously game ending, but giving away your last VP doesn't change anything for you, does it? Many VP games start with one in each capital, but some don't. In that case the game starts with no one having any VPs.
I'd assumed through out this discussion that talk of giving away your last VP was really just bad phrasing for giving the last VP needed to win. Was it not?

Yeah, I worded that badly. To my knowledge, you don't lose w/o victory points.

[zlefin]

It seems to me that a fair portion of these problems stems from a lack of second place. In the game as written, it's winner take all, everyone else loses, period, no second place. This creates the conundrum what to do when you cannot win.

Some people of course place value on how long they lasted; and may value being second, or third, or any increase in their place.
With VPs and other such win conditions, many nations may be alive at the end, making it positions determined by the win condition measured. Without VPs, positions would most likely be determined by order of death (i.e. staying alive the longest) though in case of concession the ordering would be somewhat unclear.


Proposed test: start a game with VP win condition, with the additional specification that all nations alive at the end receive places of value in the pantheon based on the numbers of VPs they have. (and people alive but with no VPs still get a little something). This may cut down on kingmaking since your own position becomes relevant; or maybe it won't, that's what testing is for.

Would playing as if the game were pantheistic, and ranking matter, cut down on the more objectionable kinds of kingmaking?
Zlefin :)

[WraithLord]

I like your idea. Quite a lot actually :)

It will also reward ppl for their endurance and avoid situations where it's all or nothing after many hard months of work. In addition it creates a more continuous reward system.

Nice insight.

[chrispedersen]

I think the hugest motivation (expecially for vets) is the hall of fame.

It would be interesting if we could adapt a Nascar like device - total points.

I'd probably give a few points for starting - and then 1rst place would be 1/2 of the point total of all the participants.

2nd would be good for 1/4, third for 1/8.

this would make a victory against micah, dr.P, atul, and wriathlord worth *a lot* more than a victory against anon noob 1,
anon noob 2, anon noob 3.

[Gandalf Parker]

As an RPGer Id also love to see how a pantheon (hierarchy of gods) lays out at the end. Not just 1st, 2nd, 3rd but what god and his titles is the chief god, what god and titles is second, what god and titles is third. It would be interesting to see a god of air, god of water, god of death in 1/2/3 as that would be fairly standard. But the variations would be fun to see also.

[DonCorazon]

I think the hugest motivation (expecially for vets) is the hall of fame.

It would be interesting if we could adapt a Nascar like device - total points.

I'd probably give a few points for starting - and then 1rst place would be 1/2 of the point total of all the participants.

2nd would be good for 1/4, third for 1/8.

this would make a victory against micah, dr.P, atul, and wriathlord worth *a lot* more than a victory against anon noob 1,
anon noob 2, anon noob 3.

Interesting, but it would be like putting a bounty of their head - every game they would be even more likely to get ganged up on. Still not a bad thing since that is probably the strategically correct thing to do anyway.

[Hoplosternum]

I agree - and with one of Gandalf's earlier points - much of the problem stems from the winner takes all condition most mp games organised here have.

By late game there are often perfectly viable powers who have no realistic chance of victory. Nearly everyone wants these people to not only keep playing, but to keep playing in their own interests and not simply King make. Maybe it is time to try and add some incentive / reward for doing so?

You can use the Pantheon system - which I must say I like the sound of :)

Or have more games that allow allied victories. Or vassals.

Or we could all revisit the idea of scoring games/creating a league as was suggested a few months ago? That would reward people who stay in or hold VPs at the end. Obviously depending on the complexity of the scoring method used. If part of the aim of the league was to encourage/reward people to both stay in and fight to the end then the idea might get more support than it gathered last time.

[WraithLord]

AoW had a nice ladder (http://aow.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/forums/display.cgi?action=ct&f=34,736,,60)system. Something similar to their rules (http://aow.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/forums/display.cgi?action=ct&f=34,737,,20)can be applied here.
Boy but would Tyrant have his hands full if that gets adopted ;)

[vfb]

I think the hugest motivation (expecially for vets) is the hall of fame.

It would be interesting if we could adapt a Nascar like device - total points.

I'd probably give a few points for starting - and then 1rst place would be 1/2 of the point total of all the participants.

2nd would be good for 1/4, third for 1/8.

this would make a victory against micah, dr.P, atul, and wriathlord worth *a lot* more than a victory against anon noob 1,
anon noob 2, anon noob 3.

IANAV, but I couldn't give a rat's arse about the HoF.

[chrispedersen]

So join us over in NvV... we need a vet to help show the ropes..

[vfb]

IANAV == I am not a vet.

[WraithLord]

I like GPs idea of a pantheon. It has awesome RP value.
We could form factions according to, say, magic paths. Factions could have inner rankings so there would be a leader god and then lesser ones. Gods that bring victories to the faction gets promoted over time etc.

It's way better than just HoF since its RP fun, adds (good) drama and the reward system is more fair and continuous (as in *not* discrete).

Now who will champion this new cause?

[Sombre]

Not it.