|
As a French person I feel like it's my duty to explain strikes to you. - AdrienIer |
|
[SPOILERS] PBEM17 Lurker thread
|
|
Yeah, the shenanigans this turn have finally clinched this game as an unlurkable farce for me. Amazing that it took this long, really. The game from start to finish has been a horrible advertisement for RB.
I've got some dirt on my shoulder, can you brush it off for me?
Yeah this game doesn't exactly show many of the players in a good light at all.
I really think this is incredibly low though, deliberately holding on to the save and contriving to replay the turn so that they don't lose when its their own fault that they would have is dreadful sportsmanship.
"You want to take my city of Troll%ng? Go ahead and try."
Twinkletoes89 Wrote:contriving to replay the turn Ummm, pretty sure they were joking about that... it's not the kind of thing you announce in your lurker thread if you're going to do it.  Edit: Just checked their thread and apparently it wasn't a joke. So yeah... that's a strange move.
If you know what I mean.
zakalwe Wrote:Ummm, pretty sure they were joking about that... it's not the kind of thing you announce in your lurker thread if you're going to do it. Spaceman's report clearly shows they played Darrell's replayed save where they "bought" Russia from him.
I've got some dirt on my shoulder, can you brush it off for me?
The end of this game has been feeling quite artificial, even before the latest incidents. When #1 and #2 allied for the rest of the game it basically meant 0 chances to anyone else. They could have announced their deal and turn Dave and StM to AI and play out their space race. However Dave has really made the game worthwhile to lurk despite of the deal and big Kudos to him for that. We haven't seen many late game wars in these No tech trading games.
plako Wrote:The end of this game has been feeling quite artificial, even before the latest incidents. When #1 and #2 allied for the rest of the game it basically meant 0 chances to anyone else. They could have announced their deal and turn Dave and StM to AI and play out their space race. However Dave has really made the game worthwhile to lurk despite of the deal and big Kudos to him for that. We haven't seen many late game wars in these No tech trading games. This There's something very artificial about having the two massive powers decide that the game is their sandbox and rid the others of any chance of victory. Now the thing is, Dave seemed darned surprised that the AP vote cropped up, so it was a one-turn opportunistic afterthought...yeah, I can see that being unsatisfying (although really, c'mon ya bullies, maybe loosing to a massive unstoppable dogpile is kind of unfun to Dave and then StM, yah think?) What, though, if it was Dave's plan? What if he'd worked to lose his AP-religion city specifically on the right turn to Darrell to make the victory possible, and he'd been quietly securing Shoot's support for the election? That would be a completely valid (and clever, underdog!) win, right? So is this only invalid because it was unplanned on Dave's part?
If only you and me and dead people know hex, then only deaf people know hex.
I write RPG adventures, and blog about it, check it out.
Even if it was unplanned it doesn't make it any less valid. Dave saw an opportunity and took it, which he is well within his rights to do seen as Darrell & NoSpace had long since effectively made his chances of winning any other way completely zero.
For anyone else to claim victory after this would be cheap.
"You want to take my city of Troll%ng? Go ahead and try."
Stop contributing to the bananas, Ilios.
Civilization IV: 21 (Bismarck of Mali), 29 (Mao Zedong of Babylon), 38 (Isabella of China), 45 (Victoria of Sumeria), PB12 (Darius of Sumeria), 56 (Hammurabi of Sumeria), PB16 (Bismarck of Mali), 78 (Augustus of Byzantium), PB56 (Willem of China)
Hearthstone: ArenaDrafts Profile No longer playing Hearthstone. 
What I'm most perplexed about is why many folks (or at least the ones that have posted) seem to feel that the problem is largely about the reloading. From my perspective, gifting a city for the sole purpose of preventing an opponent's victory is unambiguously cheating. The reloading is just a small dollop of foul icing on top. It doesn't matter whether there was a reload or not, gifting that city was cheating either way IMHO.
It seems bizarre that there are so many rules and expectations about not gifting cities for reasons of collusion, e.g. to prevent an enemy from taking a city that they were about to capture/raze, or to allow an ally to gain use of the MoM for a Golden Age. And yet when it comes to gifting a city to directly determine the outcome of the game, no one seems particularly up in arms? Very strange. 
|
