RBP2 Lurker Discussion Thread - No Players!

[sunrise089]

@Rowain - My only question (and this is if Athlete really does attack slaze with his own gifted army) is whether you read anything into the personal morals, ethics, or values of Ron Artest, or Barry Bonds, or the kid who gets mad at the way the game is going and knocks the monopoly game on the floor?

The tendency to draw a hard line between "game" and "real life" or "online" and "real life" isn't always productive IMHO. Some ladder MP guys donate $5-10 a year to the league site to help pay for hosting fees. If I donated my $10 and then the site shut down the next day, that's a "real-life" scam right, because real dollars got spent? But what if I donate my time by helping direct tournaments, and then an admin maliciously deletes all my stored stats and rankings? To me that causes a lot more than $10 in damage.

We all give hundreds of hours to this game, and it's at least as "real" as a person playing competitive chess or poker or pokeman cards or whatever your nerdy non-sport hobby of choice is. Reputations in those games matter, past actions do IMHO reflect on peoples' character, and bad behavior can cause real harm.

I'm with Morgan - while it isn't my place as a game host to decide who may or may not play in my games (except in terms of being a quitter or cheater out-of-game) based on in-game behavior, it's certainly my prerogative to not choose to play in games with people based on their past behavior. The best argument against that is that "backstabbing is part of the game and you can choose to just not trade with ___." But if you're playing playground basketball and one guy passes to the other team intentionally every time he gets the ball, you don't just not pass to him, you stop playing with him.

[Serdoa]

What takes me wonder is that basically nobody (except the India/Korea-partnership) seems to really try to work together with his allies. First 5 players decide to go against India and 1 of them backs out at the minute the last one comes to aid them. Then Whosit signs a deal with Nakor so that they both will defend each other - and as soon as that situation arises, Nakor is doing nothing to really help him out. Also Athlete working with Whosit on an attack against slaze backs out so that his partner gets the whole attack into his face. And slaze - who did not have to fear another attack by Athlete - is not taking only peace with Athlete but instead gifts him an army so that Athlete can go against... his (edit: slazes are meant) allies.

I'm not getting it why everyones seems so eager to betray his allies only to get a short advantage, if an advantage at all. And what I cannot understand even more is why none of the players seems to hold it against them.

In my opinion everyone is only doing what he thinks will help him in the next few turns but (maybe except for India and Korea) nobody tries even to build long working honest relationsships. Maybe that is due to no techtrading - it seems nobody finds any incentive to help someone else. Though in the long run my guess would be that nations which work together in honesty and come to aid the other will be on the winning side. I guess Korea already refused to betray India because they noticed that everyone else does not give much on their allies.

But maybe I am wrong on that? Still, if I would have to betray an ally at least I think I should get more out of it then 10 turns of peace with my enemy.

Btw: Excuse my English, I am not a native English speaker.

[novice]

Welcome to the forums, Serdoa.

I'm not sure how much of the failed cooperation between allies is intentional. There are many examples of actions in this game that make no short term or tactical sense, that were performed solely to build a longer term alliance.

Examples are Ottomans funding the research of HRE and Rome, Rome sending their praetorians on a world tour, and Rome and Ottomans gifting settlers to a crippled Greece.

[Twinkletoes89]

Sometimes, looking at this game I feel that quite a lot of what has happened in this game is down to inexperience rather than any calculated intent.

I see it in Whosit's thread, constantly questioning his own judgement and play, unsure of what to do next, and then you can also look at Nakor and Athlete, seriously struggle to manage the slippery slope of diplomacy in this game.

I think that their changes are a case of over-caution and a serious fear of India. Athlete is terrified that India has just rolled Greece and now has a nice big army on his borders, and so wants to avoid an attack at all costs. On one hand he is trying to get more units to defend himself, on the other hand he's trying to get a long NAP so he won't need them.

I know from recent experience that when you are inexperienced and facing major decisions, you can be tempted by the best of both worlds and end up promising something to everybody and then realise that you have to screw somebody whether you like it or not. My crime was making promises I didn't realise I couldn't keep.

I believe that, like me, Athlete has not set out to screw slaze with the gifted army and may not yet, but has put himself in the position where he may have to.

I would ask you guys to hold back on the criticism a notch, as I was like you guys before PB1. Now, I understand just how crazy it can be and how easy it is to put yourself in a 'dishonourable' position. We are forgetting that many if not most are playing their first game of PitBoss and I think that is the major factor in this.

Given more games and perhaps more 'equal' opponents I believe that we would not see these problems keep arising. I see no cold, calculating thoughts in Athlete's thread so far and so I am prepared to accept that he has just been very inexperienced and tied his hands stupidly.

[darrelljs]

Given more games and perhaps more 'equal' opponents I believe that we would not see these problems keep arising.

Especially CTON/AW games .

Darrell

[novice]

Well put Twinkle, I mostly agree.

I would like to point out though that Athlete already played the "I stupidly tied my hands" card in PBEM1.

Anyway, let's wait and see what develops, I don't think even Athlete knows what the plan for those gifted units is right now.

[Rowain]

@Rowain - My only question (and this is if Athlete really does attack slaze with his own gifted army) is whether you read anything into the personal morals, ethics, or values of Ron Artest, or Barry Bonds, or the kid who gets mad at the way the game is going and knocks the monopoly game on the floor?

Without knowing Artest or Bonds I will talk about the kid. If the kid can't lose and throws the game on the floor than he behaves unsportmanslike. He acts against the spirit of gaming itself and should be teached a lesson. Threatening to leave the game if a certain deal gets broken is in my view equaly unsportmanslike does change how I view the persons morality.

If a player for example reads spoiler threats to gain advantages or reloads till he get favourable results then yes he is of low morality as this are outside of the game actions violating the rules. But a player who plays by the rules is completly right to do so. In the board game 'Civilization' deals/trades have to be honored in the game 'Diplomacy' it is explicitly stated in the rules that deals/treaties can be broken at leisure. In fact if you want to win you must break the one or other deal and still those actions do not reflect on a persons personal real-life morality.

If we start to use ingame actions to judge Outside-behaviour we can get to extrem sillyness without much effort. Just as an example:
Being the 200 pound Brute who stomps over little kids is for sure a sign of low morale so what do we do with India's actions vs Greece? Was Sulllas/Speaker stomping over poor Jowy not exactly the same? (and I mean strictly the ingame military rompage).

[pocketbeetle]

What was the rule for Great Spies in this game? Sullla has forgotten that FP gives Spy points not Merchant point in BtS...

Spies are disabled, so I believe there is no such thing as GSpy points.

However, I don't know if they become GMerch points or something else. (GArt?)


Edit: And guys, please. Let's not have the philosophy discussions again...

[darrelljs]

Spies are disabled, so I believe there is no such thing as GSpy points.

You sure? I checked the planning thread and couldn't find anything, but memory was they just banned the building of spies, but did not check the "no espionage" box since that cuts culture in half.

Darrell

[Cyneheard]

The "No espionage" mode was NOT checked. So while they aren't allowed to build spies, a GSpy can:
Settle in a city, either for 3 beakers+12EP, or Scotland Yard (SY is useless if you're not running an Espionage Economy. 12EP and the beakers are useful, even if just for research visibility).
Be used in a Golden Age.

A GSpy CANNOT leave one's borders.