[SPOILERS] PBEM17 Lurker thread

[Lewwyn]

I don't know if I would have considered this game still 'real' after the first NAP breaking dogpile, but this whole save replaying and resending AFTER they had seen the save is just cheating outright. It's beyond breaking NAPs. If I were Dave I'd be throwing a shit fit. He has better control than I do. One of the things that bothers me the most though is that with all this replaying, Dave doesn't get to see his victory. It feels so tainted. It really saddens me that Nospace and Darrell could think it was alright to do it. I feel bad for Dave. And the whole thing makes my stomach turn. Is not RB about playing the hand your dealt, working for the win in impossible situations? People seem to making amends now and ending the game, but its still very upsetting.

And TT I think the lack of outcry was based on what actually happened not being clear until now.

Congratulations to Dave.

[Twinkletoes89]

Indeed congratulations to Dave. It must be the first time a non-score leader has won an RB game since PB 1?

Btw NoSpace's 'justifications' for their actions really aren't showing them in a good light.

[Lewwyn]

Btw NoSpace's 'justifications' for their actions really aren't showing them in a good light.

You're being kind with your description of how they are presenting themselves...

[Lord Parkin]

I think the likely reason about the lack of outcry over gifting is that they did at least pay a large sum of gold for it, it wasn't just given away.

The problem is that when two people are locked in an alliance, exchanging gold pieces between their civs to justify changing the outcome of the game is a fairly meaningless gesture. The value of the gold is inifinitely less than the value of the intended outcome (preventing the loss of the game for both of them). You can't get away from the fact that two players are conspiring against the game mechanics to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome; the gold exchange is just a sideshow distraction.

Is it okay to share the MoM city amongst your allies if you accept a token amount of gold from them? Of course not - you're colluding together to abuse the game mechanics, and all of you gain a sizeable advantage through it. It's the same thing if you're accepting "payment" to take control of an ally's city which was about to fall - you're conspiring against the game mechanics, and trying to hide it with a thinly veiled gold exchange doesn't cut it. And it's no different when you and your ally swap a city for the sole purpose of avoiding losing the game. Trying to hide the blatantly obvious intention by moving a token amount of gold pieces between you shouldn't fool anyone.

Basically, I think playing "hot potato" with a city solely to avoid losing the game shouldn't be allowed under any circumstances. Nor doing the same solely to win the game. No one should be under any illusion that gold exchanges or any other petty "payments" mean anything at all when the victory or loss of the entire game hinges on the action.

Just to clarify, I hold no ill feelings towards anyone here, including the players. I'm just reacting with bemusement to the seemingly misdirected attention towards the reload rather than city exchange itself.

[Twinkletoes89]

Is it okay to share the MoM city amongst your allies if you accept a token amount of gold from them? Of course not - you're colluding together to abuse the game mechanics, and all of you gain a sizeable advantage through it. It's the same thing if you're accepting "payment" to take control of an ally's city which was about to fall - you're conspiring against the game mechanics, and trying to hide it with a thinly veiled gold exchange doesn't cut it. And it's no different when you and your ally swap a city for the sole purpose of avoiding losing the game. Trying to hide the blatantly obvious intention by moving a token amount of gold pieces between you shouldn't fool anyone.

Basically, I think playing "hot potato" with a city solely to avoid losing the game shouldn't be allowed under any circumstances. Nor doing the same solely to win the game. No one should be under any illusion that gold exchanges or any other petty "payments" mean anything at all when the victory or loss of the entire game hinges on the action.

Just to clarify, I hold no ill feelings towards anyone here, including the players. I'm just reacting with bemusement to the seemingly misdirected attention towards the reload rather than city exchange itself.

I think it depends on how we define the city gift. If its a permanent swap where they have bought the city and paid for it, its not completely outrageous though I definitely agree that selling a city to exploit a mechanic is a grey area. However, at any other time selling a city for a considerable portion of gold would likely not be considered unacceptable as long as the gifting is permanent, thus just because it is at a critical, game deciding time makes calling it wrong/cheating a little iffy.

Your examples here seem to be based on the assumption that the gift of Russia is only temporary. If that was the case, and that once the vote was done, Darrell would get it back then it is definitely wrong in every sense.

[darrelljs]

I've just ducked back into lurking this game. Has NoSpace & Darrell agreed to reload the save to stop Dave winning because they forgot to do something when they played it first time?

That was not my motiviation, although its apparent that's what people were thinking. I mean seriously:

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.

The most insulting thing is that people assumed we were trying to cheat but too stupid to get away with it .

He didn't forget. It didn't occur to him at all.

This. I thought Dave was joking. If it had been regoarrarr I would have gifted the city in the first place, because he had a history of trying this. Ironically he was one of the few lurkers it seemed who thought diplo wins had no part in this or any MP game . I am not sure what I would have done if I had recognized up front he was serious, because I was damn ready for the game to end.

Darrell

[darrelljs]

I am not sure what I would have done if I had recognized up front he was serious, because I was damn ready for the game to end.

It has been pointed out to me that I was enjoying beating the crap out of Dave (well other than him razing my cities) and would have gifted the city if I recognized what was happening. I am projecting my current emotions onto that blissfully ignorant Darrell.

Darrell

[Lord Parkin]

Your examples here seem to be based on the assumption that the gift of Russia is only temporary. If that was the case, and that once the vote was done, Darrell would get it back then it is definitely wrong in every sense.

Not really... it wouldn't have mattered whether the city was transferred back or not, the initial action was still abusive. Besides, it's late in the game and it's only one city out of many. It should make little difference whether one ally owns it or the other.

I'm trying to see this from the perspective of planning for future games. If the rule was simply "city gifting is okay as long as it's semi-permanent", then a situation like this could still happen again. That's because it's always worth taking the hit of handing a small chunk (5%? if that?) of your empire to your ally if it stops you losing the game. Any player faced with the choice of (a) allowing their ally to keep the controversially gifted city or (b) losing the game, will always choose (a).

Is the AP victory a silly mechanic? I wouldn't disagree. But it's a known mechanic. It's fine to make a ruling at the beginning of a game, "AP victory is banned". But if there isn't such a ruling, and the potential for the AP victory comes up, you shouldn't be allowed to play hot potato with cities in order to abusively avoid a loss. That much seems obvious to me.

[darrelljs]

Is the AP victory a silly mechanic? I wouldn't disagree. But it's a known mechanic. It's fine to make a ruling at the beginning of a game, "AP victory is banned". But if there isn't such a ruling, and the potential for the AP victory comes up, you shouldn't be allowed to play hot potato with your cities in order to abusively avoid a loss. That much seems obvious to me.

City gifiting is a known mechanic for avoiding AP victory. Although to be honest I don't recall if it was banned or not this game.

In any case banning city gifing and diplo victory is a complete solution for future games. So is AW .

Darrell

[spacemanmf]

For the record, I don't condone cheesy city gifting or reloads, but this was an exceptional situation.

I wasn't having sour grapes about losing. I simply don't regard the AP victory as something that means anything in a multi-player game (it's only relevant for single player games in my opinion) and therefore it's an unspoken rule that it shouldn't be used (evidently not all feel the same way).

(From what I understand) Shoot just wanted the game to end and voted for Dave to that end. That's not really a justification of the diplomatic game mechanic.

I would not have done the city gifting or reload if it was any of the genuine victory conditions. I would have patted Dave on the back and said well done. I'm happy to be outplayed (well, not happy, but you know what I mean). I am very far from the best player on here, I'm pretty sanguine about such things.

And I'm no cheat. I wasn't planning to keep this secret. I posted the chat with Darrell.