Lurker Discussion Thread (NO PLAYERS)

[Brian Shanahan]

Neither would I, but I think I'll keep schtum about it as it would be by way of encouraging a major change on Mackoti, and possibly the game. Mechanics is one thing (though he figured the AP situation out himself) but interpretation is another.

[novice]

Talk about dark horse... Check out the demographics of Serdoa, who's currently waging a successful war against Tatan:



Didn't see that coming.

[Krill]

If Serdoa and Tatan are scum if they break an FFA like Serdoa wants to.

[Bobchillingworth]

Yeah, it's pretty lame when a player totally gives up on playing for themselves and throws all their efforts behind securing victory for someone else :neenernee

[Krill]

Yup. Even worse when that player demands a game long NAP and threatens to 4v1 you if you don't agree.

Technically, that's a strawman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_...of_context

It doesn't take into account the previous diplomacy (like, gifting copper so he didn't lose his GLH capital city).

And I've already said that that game should only be judged on the first 100 turns, the rest is just for entertainment of lurkers. This game doesn't even have a single player eliminated yet

[Rowain]

As this game has diplo allowed I see nothing wrong with it.
And those 2 clearly didn't decide to work together from the beginning .

Now Serdoa is winning the war and once CH joins in Tatan is dead.
Had CH signed the NAP with Tatan the later would try everything to make Serdoa pay. IMO if Sedoa & Tatan start to work together it is CH's fault for his Diplomacy/greediness.

[Krill]

If you allow shared victory like this then there is no reason to ever not agree to share victory from the turn you meet someone. And then with the next player, and then the next until all 6 players agree to share victory together. Why, 1/6th of a victory is better than none, right?

It's BS. The games are there to be played and won, and played well. If 2 players came into a game at the start and agreed to work together, in an FFA, then any victory, and show of skill, is tainted by that, and it's teh same if 2 people agree to share a victory. This isn't the first time someone has tried it, either.

[v8mark]

Yeah, the problem is almost the same problem as with mass tech trading. If you allow 2 people to essentially share a victory, the other people in the game have to react by banding together themselves, because there's no way you can beat 2 civs with 1.

The logical conclusion of this is that you have a 3v3 team game. I remember in some SMAC PBEMs, where co-op victory was allowed, this used to happen -- as Krill said, often on first contact, people would sign pacts until the end of the game, and take the co-op victory.

A true FFA system is much more fun, I think...

[Bobchillingworth]

I agree that Civ games can really only have one winner (unless permanent alliances are enabled, which Serdoa seems to have assumed is the case here). And I also agree that helping another player on to victory as if you were a team member can make a mockery of the game.


But there has been a long tradition of doing exactly that in these games. Off the top of my head, similar situations have occurred in:


Pitboss 1

Pitboss 2

Pitboss 3

PBEM 1

PBEM 2

PBEM 3

PBEM 7

FFH PBEM I (Although in my defense, this game has vassals enabled :P )


So it's not as though Serdoa's proposal comes entirely without precedent.

[Krill]

I agree that Civ games can really only have one winner (unless permanent alliances are enabled, which Serdoa seems to have assumed is the case here). And I also agree that helping another player on to victory as if you were a team member can make a mockery of the game.


But there has been a long tradition of doing exactly that in these games. Off the top of my head, similar situations have occurred in:


Pitboss 1

Pitboss 2

Pitboss 3

PBEM 1

PBEM 2

PBEM 3

PBEM 7

FFH PBEM I (Although in my defense, this game has vassals enabled :P )


So it's not as though Serdoa's proposal comes entirely without precedent.

Explain what happened in each of those examples, because IIRC in PBEM 1, and 2, it wasn't "do this or die" it was "oh shit we're getting ganged upon" (and PBEM2 isn't shared victory in any sense) and I've already said in the past that sunrise and TT were effectively tools for how they played out PB1, and PBEMs 3 and 7. I actually can't remember anything happening in PB2 or 3 other than poison pills to screw over an attacking team which is obviously not the same thing as shared victory. Actually, I can't remember anything like this in PB3.

Also, I won't comment on FFHPBEM1 other than to say if Cull agreed to be your vassal and do everything you say there he is also a tool and any victory you get is tainted because you needed help. If you want to discuss either that game or PBEM2 then we can take it to the respective player threads.