[Gandalf Parker]

Its early for me and I lack caffeine but some rambling notes:

(A) Throw in Data Tactic (as in the example of the character Data playing a game against an expert on Star Trek). Knowing that he cannot win, he plays to not lose. He passes up obvious ways to take chances for a big win in order to take safer moves even if they only result in a draw. Eventually his win appears based on the frustration of the expert player who quits rather than continue the long drawn out game. For some people a win is a win, but others would consider that to be crappy tactics.

(B) The conversation about the noob making a "bad decision" to lose the game quickly when faced with a game full of veterans. In such a situation the goal might have been to quickly leave the game and move on to another. His reputation would not be damaged nearly as much by a quick loss (noob losing to vets) as it would by other options such as just leaving the game or going AI. Some veterans prefer the only-one scenario and such a noob would be appreciated more than the more RP honorable fight-to-the-end version which is revered by some other vets.

(C) In the chat that was posted I seem to see a strong interest in gold, gems, provinces which would seem to denote a specific type of Dom3 game, settings, map sizes, etc. As just one example it doesnt seem to recognize that a nation might be willing to use all of those to purchase a neighbors aid in holding off an aggressor if their strategy is one of "I can really kick tail if I can just achieve xxxxx" (research level, spell, ability to create certain items or units). Of course there are varying opinions on whether or not such a strategy can win but I feel the game parameters tend to define that.

(D) I dislike HoF as a rating of players, and strongly dislike the idea of recording players to avoid. However I do appreciate it as a source of "nations that win" info. To those comments in the chat I would have mentioned that "win" defined as kill all other nations by force presets a variable which I do not feel the game was built around altho I know that some feel it is. IMHO there is a basis for some nations being built around the ability to hold out or turtle so to me an acceptable win would include being able to play until the other players gave up.

(E) As far as getting noobs to continue a game to the end as a full combatant even when its obvious they cannot win I feel thats a losing premise. It would be better to make it community acceptable to offer allegiance. In that case I feel its the vets who are at fault when they talk about a NAP being always temporary and susceptable to sudden surprising endings. The option for an alliance as an option for reaching end-game is removed thereby denoting the game as a "I want a single winner" game. In general I would consider that to be perfectly acceptable in blitzes but an unreasonable expectation in an epic game. Im not getting into whether or not thats general opinion. I only wanted to point out the cause and affect as far as noob impressions of their options. To change one you might have to change the other.

(F) Which brings up that options for noobs to fully play games with vets can be accomplished simply by the creation of other game scenarios than the simple take-all-the-map there-can-only-be-one games. There are many such games being played. I feel that the smoothness and happy end-game for many of the games here are achieved by avoiding "I took it for granted" and plainly laying out games parameters.

(G) By the end of the chat material I was beginning to get the feel that the community you feel you were representing was not as large a community as you seem to feel. As in many such discussions I began to get an impression of the size and characteristics of the games you were referring to which is only a portion of what Dom3 supports.

(H) Minor question. Some seem to be arguing alliances. Would not Pantheon making be different than King Making? One would denote an alliance win while the other would denote selecting a take-all winner. Just my own impression but it appears that there is far more ill feelings toward pantheon making than king making so the overlapping examples seems to lead the conversation toward preset goals.

Now my own soapbox:
The concept of "community standards" might be best redefined as "game standards". It has been recommended in the past that someone such as Llama server might post some of the more extensive rule sets that have been developed in order to make it easier to create games. A game thread initial post could include a line such as "Rules: set A on Llamaserver with the following changes".

In a way, CBM and some other mods have become a version of that by closing out some game options or opening up others. Some of the Rules Sets could include acceptable and unacceptable end-game scenarios so that the initial creator of that game could easily select one forestalling the later conversations along the line of "I took that for a standard". I often see rants here which seem based on "This is how I play. And I feel the game is meant to be played that way. And everyone agrees." which I feel is very unmatching to the games parameters.

A number of such sets have come into use but are being referenced as "just like the previous game xxxxx". If such sets were posted and one began to get common use, THEN it might be accepted as a general community standard but based on the conversations along this line in the past I would be willing to bet against that happening. But I do feel we can save many hassles if we could create some game definitions in a central place which can be referenced in the initial game post. It would also provide some recognition for some of the many many different game options available.


Gandalf Parker
--
For some people, unlimited options appears the same as no options at all.
Without a menu of selections, they are lost.