MP Game - Artifact Game - running 48hr qh - Page 53

Ironhawk · #**521** March 8th, 2006, 04:38 PM

This is the situation of the game: Whoever QM sides with will win the game and whoever he fights will lose. But I do not understand why there is so much angst about it? QM is simply the King Maker. He is a powerful nation which cannot win on its own but can still effect the game enough to influence which other nation will win. It is a very common MP phenomenon that we should all be familiar with by now.

How can anyone gainsay his decisions about what to do with his empire? It's his to run as he sees fit. Any claims of collusion were clearly refuted when he laid his cards on the table. So he's just making the choice based on chance, preference, and diplomatic standing. All of which are completely legitimate.

Ironhawk · #**522** March 9th, 2006, 05:28 AM

Ok, since the debate seems to have calmed down somewhat I would like to discuss how to move forward with this game. First and foremost, do people want to continue? Once we decide whether or not to continue then we can vote on how to call the game.

My vote is not to continue. I say that with a great deal of sadness cause I worked really hard in this game, did well, and was having a lot of fun. And while, technically speaking, we could get a replacement for Ulm... IMO, arch and the Ulmish wars were too central to the history of the game to just swap someone else in. Just doesnt seem right, you know?

Rathar · #**523** March 9th, 2006, 06:47 AM

Well, speaking from left field and as someone who wasn't involved in the 'controversy"..

I attacked Ulm because they were clearly winning and with Mork cutting off all possibilities of growth I had no choice unless it was to involuntarily cede my provinces to them.

From my non irc (Don't trust it, never will, seems irrational yes but there ya go) vision it truly seems like what happens when one player gets huge, all the others jump on em. This tends to make the one feel picked on, and well, tis the case!! But necessary imho. My actions would have remained the same. (cept I would've figured out how to keep my army alive and then I'D be the evil empire mwah hah hah cough..) In any game of any type.

There is collusion and there are deals which smell of collusion but thats why we have descriptors in english that mean the same in the end but imply different things.

That said, I have no comment or clue about any collusion but I will say that in most any game with a balance of power situation being possible it frequently falls to one player who will NOT win to decide who does. My gaming group calls this the grovel phase..

After much blathering my point is: Work it out if workoutable, if not, end it, declare everyone winners and make another game with the things you learned.

How many of these things actually get to the end with one controlling all anyways? It usually becomes very obvious or pointless in my limited experience.

One last bit and this points no fingers, really. No really, damn it. Taking your ball and going home is lame. Cards you are dealt with suck? Play em and lose, think outside the box, offer bribes, take compromising photos and blackmail em, get in the next hand and take them to the cleaners.

Too much wisdom this late at night on insomnia drugs that don't seem to work..!

Rathar

P.S. Still looking forward to the next game!

P.s.s Stupid marble warriored, swords of sharpnessed orgevinemen!! Especially since same was within my capabilities and I overlooked it... Next time!

/rubs hands greedily and pets his cat

Rathar Kalinger

Oh, one last point. The use of the IRC channel was pretty heavily promoted in this thread so one should not be surprised that it was used. I already mentioned my feelings about IRC but in a RP sort of way I try hard to use only the ingame message system, 2 turn delay and all, no way to make certain that is the only way to go but tis the only way one should expect me to use. Seems more "natural" in these artificial envoronments. Think English east indies co. fighting the Frence rival company for nearly a year after peace had been declared due to the length of time it took for the news to percolate!

archaeolept · #**524** March 9th, 2006, 12:06 PM

ehh, i haven't w/drawn. my plan is to hide my forces in my castles, let QM take all of my lands, and wait for each castle to be eventually beseiged. Possibly everyone gets so bored they stop playing, in which case I emerge and conquer the world.

Morkilus · #**525** March 9th, 2006, 02:59 PM

I'm done with it as far as having fun is concerned. If anyone wants me to continue playing, I will though, out of principle. I'm not trying to blame anyone, but it looks like the game is ruined anyway.

Quote:

archaeolept said:
ehh, i haven't w/drawn. my plan is to hide my forces in my castles, let QM take all of my lands, and wait for each castle to be eventually beseiged. Possibly everyone gets so bored they stop playing, in which case I emerge and conquer the world.

I feel no need to play when somebody uses meta-strategies like this. I'd rather play against the AI, at least then I can take a turn more than once every two days, and quit playing without feeling like a heel.

archaeolept · #**526** March 9th, 2006, 04:55 PM

lol - how is what QM and IH done not a "meta-strategy"? Mine is purely in response to theirs - Quantum has been pretty clear for a while, heck, even before the real war started, that IH would be almost impossible to stop - Quant, by making himself subservient to a player he freely acknowledged was close to unstoppable, and IH for encouraging and welcoming this "strategy", were responsible for the death of this game. Clearly, such actions are bull****. I'm perfectly capable of fighting against a larger coalition, as I've been doing, but when there is a secret compact that, whatever the "intentions" basically throws the game to the acknowledged (by the other major power and experienced player) leader, then I've got to ask what the point is in playing such a futile exercise?

My strategy is the only one that seems to me valid for the current circumstances. I did not ask for the game to be halted - IH did that on his own initiative w/out any discussion w/ his fellow players. I'm happy to continue playing, but my strategy is my own. why I should play in such a rigged game, and then also be forced not to follow my own strategy in the matter; well, that's absurd.

clearly the only way to upset a game throwing is to try and make the one throwing the game reconsider his options -in this case, by allowing him to grab enough of my territory that he would then be capable of defeating IH straight out.

Quote:

I worked really hard in this game

did nothing, grew, and waited until there was an absurd preponderance of force. that's hard work? ha.

Ironhawk · #**527** March 9th, 2006, 06:21 PM

Quote:

archaeolept said:
lol - how is what QM and IH done not a "meta-strategy"?

No, its not. What IH has done is to work diplomatically for the win from turn 1. And now you see your chance for victory disappearing because all my diplomatic work has paid off. Well, I am sorry that all your hard work has been in vain, arch. But the truth is that the game developed into a King Maker situation and I beat you to it. Fair and square. You lose. If you cannot see that through your own self-righteousness then that is your problem.

But - you are in luck! I have grown tired of pandering to your ridiculous collusion arguments and decided to bow out of this game. Enjoy your victory!!! Big time congrats on the win!!!!

archaeolept · #**528** March 10th, 2006, 12:20 AM

lol pandering. I've had to endure your sputtering B.S., self-serving distortions, and outright lies all game - fine, if you can't deal w/ looking for a fair ie. interesting fight. But no way in hell does my strategy have to follow how you would want it to be. Clearly, w/ quantum acting as if he were sworn to subservience, the best way to break your "unholy alliance" is to offer quantum enough to tempt him into going solely for the win - ie. by leaving my territories undefended. Then the possibility remains that, following a great armageddon war, i might be able to squeak up the middle, however unlikely that may be.

That's why you want to bow out - the threat of actually having to fight for something after all. I haven't withdrawn - feel free to win if you can.

Ironhawk · #**529** March 10th, 2006, 02:30 AM

I can't believe you are so sore because I stole the win from you via diplomacy. Why can't you see how poor of a sport you're being?

archaeolept · #**530** March 10th, 2006, 02:35 AM

what the [censored] - i'm pissed at the [censored] you've spewed all game towards me. I already offered to decline any win earlier in discussion w/ quant, if he were willing to not throw the game to you. I don't give a [censored] about winning; i do give a [censored] about playing well, and playing fair, and not having to listen to your crap.