[LURKERS] Sweet 16: Civ Party Fun Time and Philosophical Debate

[mackoti]

Alright, I've tried to very gracious and accommodating at the endgame here but a bunch of you can seriously go and fuck yourselves.

I'm really sorry that the lurkers desperately wanted to see if Sullla's 178th replay of his PB2 masterpiece could have toppled Seven's empire but 1. It couldn't have and 2. As a player, my job is to do the best thing for my empire. You guys have this misguided notion that somehow unless you're winning you're not allowed to go to war. Well, here's the deal - both of my neighbors - FIN/ORG and PHI/FIN, I might add - had seriously outteched us. And lookie here, games over and I lost a grand total of zero cities to them. Meanwhile, I razed or captured 5 of theirs. Those razes/captures allowed us to improve our border situation on both counts, adding to our long-term survival. Look, this isn't SP - tech does not uber alles in war. Numbers uber alles.

Gavagai played us to a draw which was largely beneficial to him as ahead - he played a better game than us, though I would argue flawed.

Mike/Sulla? A huge part of his lead was an insane farmer's gambit. If I can call him on that and don't - well, I don't think I'm doing my job as a player.

But mackoti, scooter, Catwalk, Serdoa - the four of you all basically accused me of being a poor sport and a game thrower at least once. All four of you would have lost this game as well, one. And all four of you can go and fuck yourselves.

Were i done that?If i do it i apolgiase i didnt meant that.Actulay i remeber defending your play several time.....Is true i wanted to see Mike playing against seven but i never said you shouldnt do what you done.I knew you will atack Mike for sure i knew cause i know your play very good , but i didnt wanted nevaer to say is wrong , migh be expresed wrong somewere but didnt wanted ... so f i done it sorry again.

[Bigger]

minority, even. whatever

[Catwalk]

I'm sorry if I called you a poor sport Gaspar, that is not what I meant. If I did indeed word it anywhere close to that, I'm sorry. I didn't think your play in this game was notably different from that of many other players in similar situations in other games, so none of it was aimed at you as a player. What I found interesting was the situation, and how people have different expectations on "how-to-play". For example, one (completely unrelated) standard that all agree on is that you never gift stuff away to another player when you're losing. As far as how to play when you're too far behind to win but still a force to be reckoned with, there are *many* different opinions on that matter. I found it to be an interesting discussion, and with as high profile a game as this was I wanted to jump into it.

As far as throwing the game, I'm guessing you're referring to pursuing revenge at a cost to yourself. I don't think you did that, but I still do not understand your repeated insistence on going after Gavagai. Maybe that's just my bias because I was reading Gavagai's thread as well and had his motives clear in my head, so I could see how it "could" have played out. Obviously you didn't have that knowledge, or could reasonably be expected to guess it. To me, the worker steal is a one-off event that says little about your risk of being attacked again later. Do I read you wrong when I took your reaction to mean that you interpreted that particular move as proof of further aggressive intentions towards you? Or were you solely referring to the risk of being out-teched in the long run and invaded later? I recall there being a bit of both.

I shall go fuck myself now, feel free to go criticize my play in PB17 if you feel so inclined

[NobleHelium]

Really now? You kill our chances of winning and expect no retaliation? Getting attacked is no indication of the likelihood of getting attacked again! Oh I also tried to take your city, but by no means should you interpret that as indication that I'm interested in conquering you! Next time your city gets attacked, make sure to build a bunch of settlers in response. Surely your neighbor is not going to bother you ever again.

That post is so ridiculous, no wonder Gaspar blamed several other people who probably just happened to post before and after you.

[Catwalk]

I think you're putting a few words in my mouth there Noble

In this case, that was exactly what happened. Gavagai had a chance to snipe two workers and he did. He was then able to pressure a front city, but wasn't able to take it. He then backed off and his mind was on building up his economy while remaining vigilant of you and controlling the area between you. And again, I concede you had no way of knowing that as you weren't reading his thread and that I might be biased.

[Gavagai]

Getting attacked is no indication of the likelihood of getting attacked again!

This is actually completely correct.

[SevenSpirits]

Getting attacked is no indication of the likelihood of getting attacked again!

This is actually completely correct.

No it isn't. Most people are at least somewhat predictable. If you make your decisions completely at random, you're in the minority.

[Catwalk]

Saying it is no indication would be quite a stretch. What I said is that it isn't proof, and I think you were too certain that Gavagai was coming after you. The opposite of predictable play isn't random decisions though, IMO. For example, a player might be inclined towards revenge at any given opportunity. That makes him extremely predictable, in terms of predicting his response to an attack. He might also ignore revenge completely and analyze each situation separately, not caring about reputation for future games. That makes him a lot less predictable, and the non-predictable part is based on his game analysis rather than whim.

I feel this applies even more to the case of whether aggression will be followed up by future aggression. You generally want to make a surprise attack, giving advance warning often dooms your plans. Gavagai saw a small opening and took it, but he didn't commit to going all in after realizing he couldn't advance on Plame Affair. They were alert and unlikely to give him anymore openings. Another thing to note is that Gaspar and NobleHelium saw it mostly as a duel, whereas Gavagai seems to have mostly thought of it as a regular game. I think Gaspar stated somewhere that their only chance of victory (given Seven's lead) was overrunning Gavagai, although I might recall wrong on that. Conversely, Gavagai was focused on building up his economy while maintaining a strong military presence on the border of a strong neighbour.

In conclusion, Gavagai first choosing to snipe workers and push on Plame Affair was not indicative of future aggression, and I don't think that was in any way a random decision.

[Gavagai]

Getting attacked is no indication of the likelihood of getting attacked again!

This is actually completely correct.

No it isn't. Most people are at least somewhat predictable. If you make your decisions completely at random, you're in the minority.

How is it relevant? Of course my decision are not random but if I attack someone in one specific situation it doesn't mean that I would attack once again in a different situation. My decisions are dictated by in game events not by my previous actions. I think this logic applies to most other players.

[Catwalk]

I'm not saying that Gavagai's view of the game was correct or that Gaspar's view of the game was wrong, btw. Merely that his intention to not follow up the first skirmish with more aggression wasn't in any way random but based on his game analysis. I guess that makes him predictable in a sense, but on a far more complex level as you'd have to guess what his game analysis is. I think Gaspar assumed that Gavagai shared his game analysis (= duel victory only way to win the game, given Seven's rush). That very well could have been the case.

Incidentally, the same goes the other way. Gavagai kept expressing frustration that Gaspar wouldn't ease up on him, not realizing that Gaspar's game analysis was quite different from his own.