MP: Asia Twist - Wraithlord Wins!

[namad]

Personally, if two players wanted to team up to finish the game via victory points, I wouldn't mind at all. I see from the thread that some players did go AI... My gaming experience is ruined when players go AI. I wish there wasn't even a button for going AI. The worst thing you can do when playing a game would be to refuse to play after agreeing to play. As long as I have someone to play with I would not mind if people weren't taking the game seriously.


Maybe if no one ever went AI ever, then maybe I'd be willing to get upset about much less heinous acts. I guess that's just me. I guess no one agrees with me.

[PashaDawg]

If anybody wants any turn files, please let me know. I have backups of all turns and a master password.

[rdonj]

I'd still like to see meglobob's.

[WraithLord]

Originally Posted by PashaDawg

If anybody wants any turn files, please let me know. I have backups of all turns and a master password.

Yes please

[WraithLord]

Turns 26-30:
26. Jump-starting blood eco. with B. Vaetti hags. Did I mention already how I love these little buggers?
Site search radar sweeps for D/S/N sites.
NAP with Bandar.
Uneasy NAP with Caelum.

27. Take first VP - Ctis capital. Gain lots of diseased giants
Bandar asks for my help against Van. I can't do that since I have Arco on my hit list

28. Hit const. 4.

29. Prioritize research, site searching and B hunting.
Eriu takes Ulm's VP

30. Trade for E. boots with TC. Mobilizing armies & sneaking SCs (Skratti werewolves again) towards Arco.
Find & recruit witches for access to E.

[WraithLord]

More pics

[archaeolept]

Originally Posted by rdonj

.

However, on the subject of whether it is acceptable to "throw" a game, I would like to comment. Personally, I have done this, in my second game. It was a noob game and early on, I allied myself with one of my neighbors. I decided I didn't care about winning, so long as the person who guaranteed my not winning was unable to claim victory. So, later in the game, when that player went AI and it was just me, my ally and another player standing, we called the game in favor of my ally, and I had no problem with giving him the win. [...]

If there is a nation which I really don't want to see winning the game, vs a nation who I'm allied with, and I have no chance to win the game myself... I will probably choose to back the one I dislike the least. Even if I'm not the one who wins, it gives me the satisfaction of my "side" winning. This sort of thing happens all the time. Giving someone your VPs to let them win is not really much different in my opinion.

That's an interesting account rdonj, but it does not seem to me to be quite the same. It is one thing to concede, or to have enough players speak out in favour of a certain outcome in order to determine the win; but it is something else entirely to actively throw your vp's to someone in a contested race. At the very least, it would seem to be bad sportsmanship.

In every game, players end up backing some other players - they send them gems, they co-operate in wars, they give advice and information. But I've never seen someone actively work to throw his winning VP's to his ally.

I've asked many times for another example of what happened here having happened in another serious game of dominions, hopefully on these forums, and I have yet to receive any response on the matter.

[archaeolept]

Originally Posted by DonCorazon

Congrats Wraithlord, however you may have won. "All is fair in love and war". If someone did just hand you a VP, well, I personally would never do that since I think both from an RPG and a good sportsman perspective it makes no sense, but suppose there is nothing explicitly against it in the rules

This does, I think, get to part of the heart of the issue. Certainly colluding to have the game thrown was not explicitly against the rules, but has it really come to this? Do all possible bad behaviours need to be explicitly forbidden in a game's OP? Rather, I would say there is a whole host of behaviours that are implicitly rejected; hacking, looking at someone's unpassworded turn, not entering a game with the intention of trying to win or at least play well. Certainly Wraithlord won; it is the manner of winning that is under dispute.

As a sort of Kantian, I might look at these implicit rules and conventions as to good play as those things which are the conditions for the possibility of good games of Dominions. I would argue that what happened here is destructive of the possibility of good games. Diplomacy is a fact of life, and the results are rarely fair, but I would maintain there is a significant difference between actively supporting an ally, and eventually helping him to victory, and doing an end-run against the actual fighting, you know, the actual playing of the game, in order to guarantee a "cheap" and easy victory.

[DonCorazon]

I have given aid in the form of gems and items to underdogs. I even gave gems to an enemy that I tried to conquer. In that case, we slugged it out honorably and when the neighboring vultures of war sensed my weakness and lay siege to my walls and my fall was imminent, I sent my gems to my original enemy to help make up for the losses he incurred as a result of the attack I had originally instigated. I have never given aid to a player I thought was in the lead. I guess I like to see balance.

I think now a key factor in games I join or create in the future, are that all players commit to do their best to keep their nations alive. This stops short of saying you do everything you can to win, since it can quickly become clear you have no chance to win and to spend tons of time micromanaging a nation on its way down the toilet may be too much to ask for a recreational game.

But I think from an RPG perspective, if you imagine yourself the leader of a nation, you would do all you could to at least survive if the alternative was oblivion. That doesn't take much time - at the least, don't stale, recruit troops, and man your walls. As I implied above, I gave up trying to win in this game - stopped forging clams/stones when it became apparent I had no chance. But I fully intended to keep my VPs secure at all costs, even if it meant calling off a war to pull back my troops for defense. I monitored research, summoned troops, etc. I did not want Van or Jot to take a VP from me and neither of them even tried.

Maybe it is tough to interpret, but if players abided by the credo to Fight to Survive, it should eliminate those players abandoning games (another big flaw in Dom MP) or these unusual types of contested situations that leave a bitter taste in an otherwise great game.

In the end its just a game, but we all invest a lot of time in making our moves, so I can empathize with both parties. You guys are both key figures in the community - it would be nice to smooth this out and move on.

[Aristander]

Yes Don and as you remember I was the original enemy of which you speak.