No Diplo EA Game - No Wankers Allowed - Game Over, Baalz/Abysia Wins

[Calahan]

@ All

For those who don't know yet, the llamaserver is having a bad time, and in the past few hours has hosted a load of games with errors, and then removed them from the server.

As such llamabeast has switched off his server until he has time to fix it (which he said will be tomorrow). So this game won't be hosting at the expected deadline. I will let you all know what's happening once I know myself.

[Calahan]

@ All

Just quickly popping in to let you all know that the llamaserver appears to be working again, so it's business as usual for this game.

[Executor]

ALL,
Please ignore the email sent by admin, it was a mistake on my part.

Also, The game is delayed by 24h.

[Baalz]

Originally Posted by Executor

Vic. conditions: Till the death

So, it's just occurred to me that with the strict anonymity of this game and everyones commitment to play till the death this is going to lead to a very long and miserable end game once the winner is obvious and no concession is possible. The mirco involved in controlling a 200+ province empire when all remaining players are in guerrilla/raiding/"bunker in castle" mode sounds like punishment for bad acts in a past life, while the non-winning players are presumably having a fairly limited amount of fun. I wonder if maybe we could, assuming unanimous consent, alter the victory conditions to be something achievable while the game is still somewhat fun? Perhaps something like when one nation is in control of all capitals?

[Calahan]

Originally Posted by Baalz

So, it's just occurred to me that with the strict anonymity of this game and everyones commitment to play till the death this is going to lead to a very long and miserable end game once the winner is obvious and no concession is possible. The mirco involved in controlling a 200+ province empire when all remaining players are in guerrilla/raiding/"bunker in castle" mode sounds like punishment for bad acts in a past life, while the non-winning players are presumably having a fairly limited amount of fun. I wonder if maybe we could, assuming unanimous consent, alter the victory conditions to be something achievable while the game is still somewhat fun? Perhaps something like when one nation is in control of all capitals?

Yes, the victory conditions for this game might not be the best given the size of the map, and anonymous aspect of the players.

I'm pushed for time today, but tomorrow I will privately contact each player (as thread posts/discussion might give away clues to player ID's) to gather their opinion, and will likely offer everyone a few options with regards what to do about the victory conditions. Not exactly sure what those options will be yet, but probably a choice between keeping the original victory conditions, switching to requiring all capitals (as suggested above) or a percentage/fixed number of capitals. (the latter will likely need another sub-vote for what percentage/fixed number is required). Or perhaps a majority concession rather than a total one, such as 2/3 or 3/4 etc.

I doubt a victory condition that isn't based on capitals or concession in some way is feasible given how far into the game we've gone. But like I said I'll aim to come up with something over the next 24 hours or so, and circulate it via PM to obtain feedback and votes.


(if anyone wants to give feedback on this before I contact them, then please do so to me via PM. Or if you want to post on the thread in order to convey your message to all players, then maybe again please PM the message to me and I'll post it for you anonymously. As posting on this matter might for example inadvertently give clues to your ID, since an innocent post saying "I don't mind what the victory conditions are" could indicate you have no chance of winning, and therefore give some clue as to your ID. Which I'd like to avoid for obvious reasons)

[Marmaduke]

I was Atlantis and just lost my last candle. Since I was about to lose my last fortress, it was really a race to the loss for me. I am surprised I managed to survive so long without my capital city - circumstances and a lack of real opposition when I fled to the ground I guess.
I won't say too much but I guess it should be ok to say that R'lyeh the other sea-based nation was my main issue; I had a strategy but did not implement it very well and was unlucky to see him get a Kelp right next to Atlantis. I think I managed to give him one bad surprise at some point (hint: Astral magic) but when I tried to do it again I stupidly risked my Master Lich outside of my dominion. The loss of my pretender was a crushing blow to my civ.
All in all a fun day, salutations to everybody especially R'lyeh.

[Calahan]

@ All - Sorry for not yet contacting you all about changing the victory conditions like I said I would. Real life work has been all consuming this week, but I should have enough time today to start the ball rolling on this, so all remaining players can expect a PM from me on this matter within the next hour or two.

----------

@ Marmaduke

Thanks for playing. Sounds like you had a tough campaign, but I hope you enjoyed it all the same, and of course learnt a thing or two for next time And like all those before you, a big thank you for playing until the very end. It is most appreciated by all the players and admins, as all players doing so leads to far better game all round

[Calahan]

@ All

Below the chequered line is a message I would like to send you all privately, but due to the 5,000 character limit on PM's, it would take me half the day to send out the 2-3 PM's each that it would need to send it to each of you (it's bordering 10k+ characters.) I made one quick attempt to cut it to 5k, but that ended up as a mess. As such I will instead just PM you all a link to this post, and a short PM highlighting the voting options of this message.

Now importantly, can I ask you all NOT TO POST any sort of reply or vote in the thread, as that might give away some clues to your nation identity, and to instead, PLEASE MAKE ALL REPLIES AND VOTES BY PM, as that will make sure no clues are given away regarding those precious secret identities. If you do feel the uncontrollable urge to post feedback in the thread, then can I please ask you to take extra care to ensure that it is just a general post, and nothing related specifically to the current game state.

-----------------------

NWA Players

I'm contacting you all regarding the victory conditions in the No Wankers Allowed game. The game was advertised with the victory conditions being (from the OP) "Till the death", which means the same as 'unanimous concession' (ie. concession by everyone), and it is these victory conditions that are still in effect now.

But given that the game...

a) Has anonymous players
b) Has no score graphs
b) Is being played on a large map

...it is easy to imagine a scenario where the game has a clear leader / winner, but who is not declared a unanimous winner due to the other players simply not knowing how dominant a position that player holds. So as a result of the current victory conditions, the game could very easily go on for many more turns, and many more weeks than is necessary before the overwhelming leader is declared the winner. Which is a scenario that would bring with it a lot of obviously unwanted results and side-effects, all of which I would like to avoid happening in this game if at all possible.

So due to the potential problems of this 'unanimous concession' condition, by both player request and my own misgivings, I aim to gather opinion and feedback with regards changing the victory conditions to one that is more suited for size of the game, and the settings it is being played under. So can I please ask you to vote and/or provide any feedback you wish on the following suggestions for a new set of victory conditions. I won't make a decision strictly by the votes, but a very good reason would be needed for me not to go with the wishes of the majority of the players.


Voting Options

As I see it, there are two options for victory conditions.

1 - Victory by acquiring capitals (and holding them if necessary)
2 - Victory by majority concession (note this is not a unanimous concession)


Option 1 - Victory by acquiring capitals

Changing to Option 1 will be by far the simplest all round, as all that will be required is to agree upon the required number of capitals a player needs to obtain, and whether or not they need to hold these capitals for a set number of turns. There are 18 capitals in the game, so some logical options regarding the number required are.

Sub-Section 1.1

1a - 9 capitals, or 50%
1b - 10 capitals, or >50%
1c - 12 capitals, or 66%
1d - 15 capitals, or 83%
1e - 18 capitals, or 100%

I personally think option 1c would be a good choice considering the size of the game and the stage it has reached. But that is just my opinion, and everyone is free to vote for any option they wish to. (Remember, please vote by PM only)

When it comes to the added requirement of needing to hold the capitals for a set number of turns, there are probably only two sensible options.

Sub-section 1.2

1y - 1 turn, so to win a player only needs to own the required number of capitals on one single turn to claim victory (note, this would simulate the victory condition seen in games that have VP marked capitals)
1z - 3 turns, so to win a player needs to own and hold the required number of capitals for 3 consecutive turns. eg. The required number of capitals would need to be owned at the start of turn 100, 101, and 102 to claim victory. (I have suggested 3 turns, as this is by far the most often used duration for games which use the "capture and hold" victory condition)

All victory claims that involve capturing capitals will obviously need to be checked by myself or Executor before a win is confirmed.


Option 2 - Victory by (majority) concession

Changing the victory conditions to Option 2 would be more in-line with the original victory conditions, but would also bring with it a lot of potential problems. As unless there is unanimous concession, any individual may feel they have the right to veto any calls another player has on victory, and this is irrespective of whether or not the grounds for the veto turn out to be valid given the luxury of hindsight and analysis.

As for example, one immediate problem I can visualise is that of a clear leader asking for a concession, and there being one other player (lets call him "the contender") of reasonable strength, but well behind the.leader in power. Along with any number of other players (lets call them "the others") further behind again. So the leader asks for a concession, and all of "the others" agree to this concession, but the "contender" doesn't for whatever reason. Now under any majority rules, the concession of all but one of the players will probably meet the required percentage of players accepting concession in order to claim victory. But of course this could leave "the contender" feeling particularly hard done by, as he/she might well have thought they had genuine winning chances (and like I said, irrespective of whether they turn out to be genuine given hindsight and analysis).

One solution is to give "the contender" veto rights, but then this leads to the problem of where to draw the line. As if there are two contenders, do they both get veto rights? And what if there are three or four contenders, do they all get the same rights? And what exactly qualifies someone as a "contender". Who or what decides this? There are so many aspects to Dominions that simply judging on provinces, gem income etc will often be an inadequate way of judging a player's relative power level. And having to meet too many conditions to gain veto rights, ie. to become a "contender", will likely lead to an administrative nightmare. While having too few conditions could lead to a huge number of players having veto rights, and with it the obvious consequence of a never ending game due to each concession vote being vetoed.

So as I see it, changing the victory conditions to one of majority concession could potentially lead to a lot more problems than it solves. Unanimous concession is easy to adjudicate, as either everyone agrees to concede, or the game continues. But any other form of concession victory leads to a whole host of potential problems and judgements calls. All of which I'd like to avoid if possible (again for all the obvious reasons).

As such, I highly recommend that the victory conditions are changed to some form of Option 1. But if the majority of the remaining players do wish to have a concession victory of some kind, and vote for Option 2, then I will come up with some criteria and conditions for a majority concession victory, and contact everyone again regarding them. Which brings me on to the voting...


To vote, simply pick Option 1 or Option 2, and PM me your vote (or reply to the PM I will be sending you shortly)

If you vote for Option 1, then can I also please ask you to make a subsequent vote in sub-sections 1.1 and 1.2, regarding the precise nature of the victory conditions of requiring capitals. If you wish to vote for Option 1, but have no voting preference in the sub-sections, then your vote for Option 1 will still count. If you have a preference or idea for a winning condition related to capitals that is not listed in the sub-sections (such as holding capitals for a duration of turns that is not one or three) then please do provide your own feedback on the matter, as I will take everything into consideration before making a final decision.

If you vote for Option 2, then I would please still ask you to vote in the sub-sections of Option 1 (although of course your vote will still be for Option 2). As if Option 1 gets the majority of support, I would still like to get maximum feedback from all the players on the sub-sections of Option 1 so that I can hopefully make a decision that reflects the wishes of the majority of the players should Option 1 get the majority of support. If Option 2 gets the majority of votes, then I will contact all the players again with a set of possible conditions for a concession victory.

If you do not wish to vote for either Option 1 or 2 then that is fine. You can also provide your own feedback on an alternative Option as well if you wish. As like I said, I will try to take everything into consideration before making a final decision.


And once again, a final reminder to VOTE BY PM TO ME ONLY.

"Thank You" for you time in reading this.

[Calahan]

@ All

Quick update on the voting. I've had around ~50% of replies so far, and the voting seems to be going heavily towards Option 1. I'll give it another day or two to see if anyone else wants to vote before I start finalising what the new victory conditions will be.

[Calahan]

@ All

Most of the votes have now come in, or at least enough for me not to wait anymore. The majority of players voted for Option 1. (7 voted for Option 1. 3 Abstains. 1 for Option 2).

In the sub-sections....

For the number of capitals required, 1c came out ahead of 1b by 4 votes to 2 (there were a lot of abstains)

For the "holding the capitals" sub-section, 1z came out ahead of 1y by 3 votes to 1 (again, a lot of abstains or gave no preference)


So from turn 59 onwards the victory conditions for this game will be

Capture 12 capitals and hold them for three consecutive turns.

(ie. If you own 12 capitals on the start of turn 100, you must own them at the start of turn 101 and 102 as well to claim the win.)

Important note here is that you must provide the turn files for each turn you held the capitals for to claim the win (so turn 100, 101 and 102 in the above example). As otherwise I can not 100% validate that you held the capitals for the required number of turns and consecutive duration (although it'll probably be easy to tell if you lost one on the middle turn)

(I'll track Executor down shortly and get him to update the OP with the new victory conditions)