December 28th, 2011, 19:30
Posts: 17,441
Threads: 78
Joined: Nov 2005
Yeah, i gotta say this is one of those moments where there was no ill intent, but the dominoes put forward by the game just happened to fall in a bad way for you. I'd wager that they fell in a worse manner for us.
If it makes you feel better, once we accepted mackoti's offer for peace, the next offer that came up is a straight up peace deal for you. That was then followed by your second offer of all our gold and our world map for peace. If your opponent is going to give you a choice between free peace and pay for peace, which one do you honestly expect us to take?
Well, I'll take that back. Maybe there's a little ill intent. I mean, you guys did just dogpile us. Hard to say we're your or mackoti's biggest fans right now.
Suffer Game Sicko
Dodo Tier Player
December 28th, 2011, 19:46
Posts: 7,766
Threads: 94
Joined: Oct 2009
luddite Wrote:I don't see how it's a bug at all though? Just one of those quirks of playing one of those turn-based games. We agreed to give you the city but... "oops" it goes to mackoti instead. It would be the same as if we agreed to gift it to you while knowing that he was about to capture it the next turn, or agreed to gift you a resource that we knew was about to get pillaged.
Of course it's a bug. You really thought it was supposed to work like that??
Deals are not supposed to take effect if any of the items aren't actually owned by the player offering them at the time of acceptance. You can try this out yourself with resources and gold quite easily. Gold per turn is a weird case (just because your current GPT isn't enough doesn't mean you can't afford it, so it's a bit murkier whether being able to accept such deals is fair; the results are terrible and I even posted about them in the exploits thread when I figured this out). But cities are bugged - the logic is just written mistakenly and it doesn't notice if the city doesn't exist anymore even though it tries to.
Anyway the more important question is do you really want to play a game where that's considered fair play? It's not so important in this instance but it could really easily just ruin a game. I can't force the players of this game to agree with me, and if people think it's perfectly fine then that's that. On the other hand I'm not interested in playing with someone whose reaction to seeing something like this is "Haha we can exploit this to screw someone" instead of "Wow that's bad, I'd better bring it up in the tech thread" or "Well obviously that would be cheating so I won't do that". (Not speaking for Novice there.)
December 28th, 2011, 19:50
Posts: 17,441
Threads: 78
Joined: Nov 2005
Re: Calling this a bug or a feature.
I'm having a hard time seeing this as a bug. I mean, wouldn't it make more sense to call it a bug if you had gotten the city instead of mackoti? That the original deal (what city did you want again?) would give all the cities to mackoti, and then your peace deal would then give the city to you? I guess with bugs it's hard to say, since a bug is by definition an unintended effect. But since mackoti's peace offering was sent first, it could only be taken first. Unlike you he did not feel kind enough to give us options of different routes towards peace; it was an all or nothing proposition from him.
I dont' see how we could have played it differently. Unless you want us to just give up on the game. But then we're playing disingenuously towards every participant.
Suffer Game Sicko
Dodo Tier Player
December 28th, 2011, 20:06
Posts: 7,766
Threads: 94
Joined: Oct 2009
pindicator Wrote:I dont' see how we could have played it differently. Unless you want us to just give up on the game. But then we're playing disingenuously towards every participant.
Obviously there are lots of options. You could make peace with only one of mackoti and us. You could accept our other peace offer instead and lose a pittance of gold. You could accept peace with neither of us. You could combine any of these non-peaceful paths with counteroffers. None of these are giving up, unlike... dangit, I'll shut up. I'm still pretty mad at how Luddite is treating this.
December 28th, 2011, 20:21
Posts: 17,441
Threads: 78
Joined: Nov 2005
SevenSpirits Wrote:Obviously there are lots of options. You could make peace with only one of mackoti and us. You could accept our other peace offer instead and lose a pittance of gold. You could accept peace with neither of us. You could combine any of these non-peaceful paths with counteroffers. None of these are giving up, unlike... dangit, I'll shut up. I'm still pretty mad at how Luddite is treating this.
I'm sorry this has gotten under your skin, but you can't really expect us to give the team that just stabbed us something for free in a competitive game when there is a different option on the table... can you? I mean, we have to try to play our civ to the best of our ability, not just for our benefit but for the benefit of all the teams. I guess this is a downside of a no diplo game: there was no way to tell you and mackoti of the conflict. We could only weigh our options and go with what we felt was best.
If it helps I won't say any more on the subject either. I hope the rest of game is fun, as that's the primary reason we're all here, and Luddite and I are going to do our best to make it a fun experience even if we now have no realistic chances at winning.
Suffer Game Sicko
Dodo Tier Player
December 28th, 2011, 20:21
Posts: 2,868
Threads: 15
Joined: Sep 2010
Honestly neither of us ever even considered that youdthink this was a bug or an exploit. It worked exactly like how we thought it would, and we thought it was a great deal for us.
December 28th, 2011, 20:30
Posts: 7,766
Threads: 94
Joined: Oct 2009
pindicator Wrote:I'm sorry this has gotten under your skin, but you can't really expect us to give the team that just stabbed us something for free in a competitive game when there is a different option on the table... can you? You can't really expect me to not read your thread, right? It's a competitive game.
That doesn't make any sense at all.
December 28th, 2011, 20:33
Posts: 7,766
Threads: 94
Joined: Oct 2009
You should try to get that civic switch bug going too. That would be an even greater deal. I'm done here.
December 28th, 2011, 20:40
Posts: 2,868
Threads: 15
Joined: Sep 2010
Please bear in mind that we just lost 5 cities in one turn, and basically threw away any chance we might have if winning. That really, really hurt. And you're coming here saying like "no that's not enough! You need to lose EVEN MORE!"
I'd be quite happy to concede the game at this point. But I guess we're expected to keep fighting it out until the bitter end, however long that takes.
December 28th, 2011, 20:40
Posts: 17,441
Threads: 78
Joined: Nov 2005
SevenSpirits Wrote:You can't really expect me to not read your thread, right? It's a competitive game.
That doesn't make any sense at all.
 I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you mean by this. I don't think you're actually reading our thread so... I simply meant that everybody is playing to win. Or in the absence of being able to win, to have fun and keep the spirit of the game alive. We are trying to do that: since winning is obviously not an option, we are doing our best to maintain the competitive spirit of the game.
Luddite said it true that we didn't envision this kind of response. We just thought we got a little bit of luck on an otherwise very bad turn.
Suffer Game Sicko
Dodo Tier Player
|
