A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron

[Taera]

I still think that the religious tech tree is an awesome economical tech tree on its own, even without the talisman in it. Wouldnt it be better off with replacing the talisman with something less combat-related?

[Fyron]

Obviously my comments were directed towards a game in which only one person is the ultimate winner.

That is not how the vast majority of PBW games are, so you are specifically narrowing down the realm of possibility. Any non-team game can end if only the members of a particular alliance are left, and they agree to end it. They are all the winners in that event.

You said it's about using dimplomacy to get them on your side. That is in effect controlling them. You are getting them to do what you want are you not?

That is the goal of diplomacy, yes. It does not require any direct controlling of them though.

If you can somehow manipulate a player to do something that is counter to his interests in the game he has made a critical error. You cannot force him to make such an error.

Forming alliances is not an error.

Basically, you need to stop limiting the game to the specific free for all format where there is no possibility for allied victory, as that is the only context in which most of your arguments on the diplomacy issue make any sense at all. In the more general sense, forming alliances is a standard part of the game. Noone has to stand alone unless they want to or get really really unlucky. I have formed tons of alliances in all sorts of games, and there has never been anything forced about them. I never had to control them into allying with me. It was simply "want to ally?" and "Sure!" (usually more verbose than that, but that is the basic idea).

It is the difference between a flat, unequvocal statment and one with conditions and qualifications. My objection is to the unequvocal nature of your post, and so on that basis the two statments are worlds apart.

My initial statement was not a flat, unequivocable statement. It very clearly has a conditional qualifier on it, "used correctly". Those two words make all the difference. It may not be the qualifier you want to hear, but it is indeed there.

[geoschmo]

I am not narrowing the realm, your initial comment contained no such qualification. It made no comment to the fact of allies or not. Therefore the allies must be irrelevant for your statement to be correct.

My initial statement was not a flat, unequivocable statement. It very clearly has a conditional qualifier on it, "used correctly". Those two words make all the difference. It may not be the qualifier you want to hear, but it is indeed there.

Please, really. You need to get a grip on your own arguments Fyron. Are you really expecting us to believe that by "used correctly" you meant to include a choice to only use it in games in which team victory is an option? What you meant was clear and well understood by everyone that read it. "used correctly" infers skill, and preformance in the game itself. It says nothing to anyone about a selective decision in game settings prior to the game start.

And by what basis do you claim the vast majority of games are not Last man standing? Have you been in the vast majority of PBW games? I think I might have somehting of an educated opinion on this subject, seeing as how the PBW server just happens to be sitting in my garage at the moment. I have been in scads of games and the large majority of them have had one of two endings. Either one person prevailed alone, or the game pretty much petered out and everybody lost interest in it. Of course their have been a lot that have had "team victories", wether offically or unofficially. I will grant that my personal experience may be slightly affected by my own personal predillection away form team games. But I am involved in many more games as owner and as PBW admin then I actually play in, so I think I can claim to know what I am talking about here. The claim that the vast majority of games are not Last man standing is a particularly ignorant one to make.

Geoschmo

[Soulfisher]

But diplomacy (for the purpose of creating allies for you, the religious-tech player) will only work if you can find another player who is willing to ally with you -and- win the game with you as their ally (in other words, they are willing to share the victory with you). If all the players in the game want to be the sole victor, they may gang up on you to destroy you, then fight each other. Or they may ally with you against others, but then prove themselves backstabbers and attack you once your allied victory is assured.

[Fyron]

In that case you might be screwed. But, I never said that you are guaranteed to be able to make allies.

Just so you know, Geo and I took the discussion to MSN a while ago (and he had to leave before we could finish it)...

[Taera]

so the only real way of effectively exterminating the talisman player is ganging up on him? doesnt sound too good to me.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Just so you know, Geo and I took the discussion to MSN a while ago (and he had to leave before we could finish it)...

But basically he had come to the realisation his original statement was an exageration, he is just too proud to admit it publicly.

Originally posted by Taera:
so the only real way of effectively exterminating the talisman player is ganging up on him? doesnt sound too good to me.

No, it's not the only way, but it is the most effective. The Talisman is powerful, probably too much so. A single player can beat him but it takes healthy helpings of skill and aggressivness, and a little luck too. There is no simple counter for it like there is for so many other things in the game. It takes a complete all around effort.

Geoschmo