Lurker Discussion Thread (NO PLAYERS)

[Bobchillingworth]

Alright. You seem to be taking this personally, but I didn't intend the list as a personal affront. Anyway, in the context of players working together against the "spirit" of a FFA:


In Pitboss 1, Sunrise gave up all chance of willing to help fund allies. Munro and Broker had a game-long alliance; while it may not have been "official", clearly more could have been done to prevent Rome from winning. There was also a lot of gimmicky stuff going on using vassals at various points in the game.

In Pitboss 2, on many occasions certain players purposely gifted money / units / cities / etc. to other players who they were supposedly playing against, merely to spite their enemies and reward their friends.

In Pitboss 3, multiple teams outright declared that they had no chance and/or intention of winning, and devoted their empires to helping favored civs through mass gold and unit gifting. The Maya were major beneficiaries of this behavior, to a lesser extent India as well. Overall similar to the Sunrise situation from Pitboss 1, but on a larger scale. The game itself resembled a team vs. team game more than a FFA.


In PBEM 1, Dreylin and Ruff teamed up until almost the end of the game and closely collaborated; in response, Soooo, MH, and (sometimes) athlete worked together, effectively turning a supposed FFA into a teamer game. Later, Dreylin was able to win a diplomatic victory due to MH (his long-time enemy) voting for him, something that should have never happened in a truly competitive game.

In PBEM 2, Darrell has been aiding you with resources, techs, non-aggression, units, and who knows what else for many turns. You have actually gone as far as to read each other's threads. There are probably other examples, but I'll defer mentioning more since the game is still ongoing.

For PBEM 3, TT gifted all of his empire but one city to Sandover, and acted as his unofficial vassal until he was finally eliminated. Under my leadership, Rome for several turns was dedicated to doing everything it could to thwarting Egypt and helping its allies win. To various extents other players have followed similar behavior in that game.

Regarding PBEM 7, See TT in PBEM 3, but on a lesser scale.


In the FFH PBEM, I have one official vassal state and another de facto vassal. Obviously this game is still running, so that's all I'll say regarding it.



These examples might not have explicitly included the language of a "shared victory" (although I think that specific rhetoric has appeared before), but the fundamental actions of players helping some else to victory beyond the level of normal trading behavior are the same.

[Krill]

- Everlasting NAP till the end of the game
- Everlasting MDP till the end of the game
- You will spread the faith of Buddishm in all your cities
- Borders will be kept open forever
- Resources will be traded free of charge and the other one is always the preferred trade partner if he does not have this resource by his own
- Resources can't be requested if the other has only one of it, except for strategic resources
- Military assistance for campaigns against Cyneheard and others (that can mean either via using your troops or gifting them - if this makes the campaign easier manageable - as well as building those troops)
- All cities we conquer will be put under Russian control

This isn't a problem.

Though I said I offer you to win with me and I mean it. If you wish I will happily agree ingame to a permanent alliance (as soon as available) and truly win together with you.

This is.

This is where the whole idea, philospohy, of victory having no meaning becomes more relevent. How can a victory have meaning? Meeting an arbitrary set of values in a game you play for fun firstshows your skill, right? But the players start from different positions due to game balance, get lucky at combat, diplomacy, barbs etc cloud the issue. When you have a second player give you their resources to help you, you suddenly lessen then skill needed to reach the arbitrary values, but on top of that it is difficult, impossible even to fully grasp the entirety of a players...ability, thoughts, strategic, tactical, diplomatic nous from simply winning. It's how they played the game, split down into periods of the game (how the REXed, choosing wonders, individual chats, understanding what other players need and want to do in their situations, manipulatingt te game), that illustrate their ability and that is what, at the end of a game, every individual is left with.

The idea of shared victory is that one players victory is anothers, without any of the skill or ability that went into it. That doesn't fit.

It's easier to consider a victory condition as the finish post of the game, and over the race each player is trying to score political points.

Now, gifting tech, gold, units, are not shared victory. They are items bartered in self interest. Cities are always given as a last resort, as a poison pill which is explained in a link to a T-hawk post below.

But lets get down to business, this might be a long post.

In Pitboss 1, Sunrise gave up all chance of willing to help fund allies. Munro and Broker had a game-long alliance; while it may not have been "official", clearly more could have been done to prevent Rome from winning. There was also a lot of gimmicky stuff going on using vassals at various points in the game.

sunrise did this because he got crippled by a third party. He did rely on others to prtect hm after this, so gifting away gold for tech and making himself useful in game is smart strategy. He would not have won if regoarrarr had won. He never agreed to an everlasting NAP/MDP IIRC. Regoarrarrs' victory would have been pretty crap and undeserved considering he got the best land and strategic map positioning as he also, as you said, had someone helping him. Could sunrise have won? I think he could have won a Culture victory, and it would have been a good victory.

In Pitboss 2, on many occasions certain players purposely gifted money / units / cities / etc. to other players who they were supposedly playing against, merely to spite their enemies and reward their friends.

That is not shared victory, and is answered by T-hawk here: http://realmsbeyond.net/forums/showthread.php?p=77827

In Pitboss 3, multiple teams outright declared that they had no chance and/or intention of winning, and devoted their empires to helping favored civs through mass gold and unit gifting. The Maya were major beneficiaries of this behavior, to a lesser extent India as well. Overall similar to the Sunrise situation from Pitboss 1, but on a larger scale. The game itself resembled a team vs. team game more than a FFA.

I'm thinking you mean Rome, Inca, and...that's it? Because the rest kept on playing to win from what I can tell. Inca werestill trying to stay relevent to the game, asking for troops to protect them from mali and to tie down PAT troops, but Rome I can;t remember updating their thread much. So, can;t really take that claim seriously.

In PBEM 1, Dreylin and Ruff teamed up until almost the end of the game and closely collaborated; in response, Soooo, MH, and (sometimes) athlete worked together, effectively turning a supposed FFA into a teamer game. Later, Dreylin was able to win a diplomatic victory due to MH (his long-time enemy) voting for him, something that should have never happened in a truly competitive game./quote]

You have this the wrong way around. Dreylin and Ruff worked out a few tch trades together. soooo, m-h and Athlete got scared and formed an alliance to stop Ruff and Dreylin, which forced them together. That is not shared victory, especially when Ruff and Dreylin agreed to duke it out in the end. So that claim doesn;t hold.


[quote]For PBEM 3, TT gifted all of his empire but one city to Sandover, and acted as his unofficial vassal until he was finally eliminated. Under my leadership, Rome for several turns was dedicated to doing everything it could to thwarting Egypt and helping its allies win. To various extents other players have followed similar behavior in that game.

Regarding PBEM 7, See TT in PBEM 3, but on a lesser scale.

Just wait until you read the lurker thread. But, what you have to remember is that you put Sandover into a 5v1 situation and he fought on and kept on and on and on, not dying, not falling behind. And it wasn't Sandover that said "TT, gimme your cities and we'll win the game together", it was "TT, gimme your cities or you die". Again, that sure isn't shared victory.

In PBEM 2, Darrell has been aiding you with resources, techs, non-aggression, units, and who knows what else for many turns. You have actually gone as far as to read each other's threads. There are probably other examples, but I'll defer mentioning more since the game is still ongoing.

This is the most interesting case I think you can find on this forum, at least. let's look at it in detail.

This was a game with full diplomacy allowed from t0. Me and Darrell worked together in the early game, him giving me a free run at henge and Collosus, in exchange for him getting a free run at the GLH. Then we are on the same island, we agreed to an NAP. So far, so normal, right? I then proceed to grab Henge, Oracle MC (agreeing to give MC to Darrell so he doesn't steal it from me), the GL, Pyramids and Collosus. Darrell proceeds to get invaded by Yaz, and asks me for a gift of copper to save his GLH capital. I um and arr for a few turns, then give him the copper, a gift I only agree to (as should anyone) because it gets diplomatic karma. Darrell beats back the attack and takes out yaz with Ruffs help.

By this point I'm about to make a run at Lib and Darrell agrees to go with it provided he gets a game long NAP. Now, I said at the time I wasn't happy with this but I agreed but only if the others were told this once Lib was in, and if we each chased VC (no vassals or anything) and competed, Darrell agreed, then tells me if I said no he would 4v1 me because I was too strong. We get Lib/Steel then Darrell proceeds to back stab me twice, giving Dreylin the techs up to steel and taking an island he agreed to give me, and because of that he almost got attacked by me even after he gave me the island. I almost attacked him after he gave me some units (which he had agreed to build to attack Dreylin with, he only gifted to me due to time constraints). I owed Darrell one island, the island that I took on turn one of the war. I've actually offered it to Darrell in the past now that I have it. I discussed attacking Darrell with Dreylin and SL, only to have them position troops to invade me once I attacked Darrell.

Perhaps the most accurate claim is that Darrell is helping me with techs, because in that game I've effectively stopped teching, but that is because I placed myself in a 3v1 that should have been much different (like, Dreylin dead by now) except Darrell gifted Steel away. You could consider the tech as a repayment for that copper gift earlier in the game, or for Steel, or for the gold that I send every turn (as the others do).

So, let's see, where is the shared victory in there? If I win, will it be because of Darrell. Partly, yeah. Does Darrell win as well? No. In fact he's already publicly claimed the first loser spot. has Darrell read my thread? Yeah, because I let him. PBEM2 is a rather weird game in that it broke down because of Darrells diplomacy, agreeing to two game long NAPs, but if you want to discuss that I suggest we stop hijacking this forum.


What do all of these games have in common? Everyone worked together out of mutual need, due to others forcing them excepting TT who got bullied. What is the difference between those previous games and PBEM 10 Serdoa? Serdoa talks about shared victory, without understanding what he himself means, and none of the other games talked about Shared Victory. Search the forums if you want to check.

That is a huge difference, and that is why Serdoa and Tatan would be scum.

[Selrahc]

I think there are certain games where shared victory is perfectly in keeping with the spirit of the game, despite it starting as FFA. Diplomacy strikes me as the most apt example. Munchkin might be another. Both those games are incredibly cutthroat free for all games, but shared victory is possible, as are mutually beneficial groupings throughout the game.

With mutual cooperation, the system in the endgame becomes something of a prisoners dilemma. Do you decide to double cross your partner in the end game to gain more prestige by winning alone, or conclude your partnership more amiably with a drawn victory between you?

The thing is though... without even the possibility of a double cross, and going back on the "Shared victory" thing, the entire concept loses its intrigue. And Civ IV diplomacy is a lot more trusted than that in Munchkin or Diplomacy, so a last minute double cross would be a lot nastier and harder to justify.

Thing is though this is all metagame. The in game action of the players would remain the same. They will attempt to conquer all other players, then win by some peaceful method as they are barred by the treaty from attacking each other. If its a shared victory, they will work together to do that as quickly as possible(or probably just end the game, and call it a shared victory). If it is a competition between first and second, they will both attempt their own victory in a race to see who can finish first.

This is almost entirely philosophical or game theory then. So lets not stress over it too much.

[Gaspar]

Sort of appears that they chose a middle ground. The "shared victory" comment that Krill took exception to (rightfully so, IMO, though I don't know that I'm quite as passionate about it as he) didn't land in the official treaty. I do want to say though, this happens in so many of these games. I don't mind so much, I understand the human desire to maintain relevancy in a game you've invested so much time in, but I really do wish people would just fight it out more often. We seem to run into 3 types of wars in these games:

1. Minor skirmish, a lightly defended city gets razed, or even more rarely, taken.
2. Stalemate, where nobody really gains any advantage and peace is reasonably quickly restored.
3. Complete and utter capitulation - One Civ sees the writing on the wall and bails, agreeing to a severely imbalanced peace and throwing the FFA nature of the game out the window.

This is a relatively mild case of #3, as Tatan still gets to tech for himself, doesn't have to funnel gold, and only has to give up one of his cities. Still, we went from a game where Meat/Mack and Cyneheard played the best opens and were shaping up to be the global hegemons to a weird team-ish game. Assuming Mackoti and Serdoa continue to be friends, this decision will drive Ad Hoc and TT further into the arms of CH.

Well, should be interesting, but I do have to say, it DOES happen a lot here and I don't particularly like it. Not saying I wouldn't necessarily take such a deal if I'm the dominant party, but I can say I don't really see a situation where I'd do it if I was the weaker party, I'd rather go down swinging.

[Rowain]

What do all of these games have in common? Everyone worked together out of mutual need, due to others forcing them excepting TT who got bullied. What is the difference between those previous games and PBEM 10 Serdoa? Serdoa talks about shared victory, without understanding what he himself means, and none of the other games talked about Shared Victory. Search the forums if you want to check.

That is a huge difference, and that is why Serdoa and Tatan would be scum.

Oh my what a big difference between ' I do anything you want to help you win' and 'I do everything you want to help you win and we call it shared victory'

[fluffyflyingpig]

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

Bob took the words out of my mouth. :neenernee



Watching actual people play makes the Civ 5 AI look a lot more realistic and rational by comparison!

[Bobchillingworth]

Speaking of unethical actions...


Should Serdoa have read Cyne's confidential email? I am of the opinion that he most certainly should not, since it concerns information about where and when he's going to attack Serdoa's new secret ally. It should have been obvious to Serdoa what the contents of the email would entail given the context in which he received it. If there was ever a reason to *not* continue reading after glancing at the "please do not read further if confidentiality will be an issue" disclaimer, this situation would be it.


I know that he commented that he's not going to share the email's contents with Tatan, but come on, really? He's not going to tell Tatan about any places where he should be defending and won't coordinate any troops movements until formal hostilities have commenced? Even if he actually manages to do that, reading the email was still a bad idea since he has now hampered his ability to effectively coordinate unit movements.

[fluffyflyingpig]

OTOH, the email only tells Serdoa what he and Tatan already should know. Attack is coming on the turn the NAP ends, attack targets are the three island cities. What a shock.

[Gaspar]

Serdoa's play of late has been extremely dirty. Oddly enough I find the slight deceit with Mackoti most distasteful, as he would probably be far in last place without Meatbalz assistance.

Have to say this though, this map has certainly led to one of the more entertaining to lurk games. Not sure how I'd feel about it if I were playing, however.

[Brian Shanahan]

So Tatan has taken Serdoa's offer. Considering all the discussion gone on here and in other games, for me that puts him automatically, when the dust settles at the end, in last place; as he was the first to capitulate and give up.

My reasoning is simple; entering a PA which is essentially an unbreakable slave-master relationship is the same as killing off ally your units and letting the quickest take your cities.