Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

:wave: Proceed with caution. :poke:

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

What personal attack? I'm agreeing with what you said. You do have a bad reputation amongst some people. Why would I need to have played with you to have heard about it? You seem confused about what 'reputation' means.

Ballbarian: I don't see why you'd feel the need to say that. Do you think I'm on the verge of slandering K or something? He mentioned his bad reputation and I'm backing him up on that. I admit to making a joke about his professed ability to cause nervous breakdowns in arguments, but I don't see why that's off limits.

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

Perhaps because forum topics should be to discuss ideas, not people.

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

What I don't get is why you would include revenge as acceptable reason.
The only thing that you are going to get in that game is some emotional gratification, but then why not just be plain and say if it makes you happy ...?
Otherwise I can agree.

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

*sings "If it makes you happyyyy, it can't be that baa-aa-aa-aad."*

*Gets booed offstage*

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

Crossposting this from the HoF thread, as its the clearest statement to date from WL on what happened in the game which sparked this discussion:

Aristander's actions go back to the initial discussion on beneficial, who the agent is for which an action needs to be considered beneficial, and what appropriate play goals are when you determine victory is not within your grasp. Ie, WLs defense of Aristander's actions mirrors my comments regarding the player ought do things beneficial for himself as a player, and thus personal preference in game outcome is a very relevant factor.

This is most important because it means the initial discussion is exactly on target as to why that game ended that way, and provides suitable justification for why such actions can be warranted.

I'm actually dismayed that many people posting here believe that a player's opinion on which nation they feel should win the game is not a valid motivation to act upon. (Obviously such an opinion should be based on the play of a particular game, but in the situation where you're at war with one contender and allied with the other, that's a clear case for an in-game motivation to prefer one winner over another).

I'm also dismayed that people are against the idea of Kingmaking, since its unavoidable in a diplomatic game. Something as simple as agreeing to ally with one nation against another at the right time can be kingmaking.

(Consider a game with nations A,B,C, A>B>C, but B+C>A. C is in a kingmaking position because they could side with either A or B and determine the victor of that conflict and thus that game. According to the logic of many posters here, siding with A against B would be 'unacceptable' since it only makes A's win more certain. But if we add some more depth to the example, and find that A was a staunch ally of C all game while B was an enemy, it seems unreasonable to decide that C is compelled to ally with B to prolong its own not-lost-yet status. And if B+C>A -> B wins, and A+C>B -> A wins, and A>B -> A wins, then C has no choice which is not a kingmaking play, and so is neither permitted to ally nor fail to ally according to the logic which says kingmaking is bad play).

Basically, Kingmaking is an essential element in the play of games where diplomacy *of any degree* is permitted. It occurs in games that only involve trade. It occurs whenever a third party can be persuaded to make one of two choices, and at least one choice materially effects the outcome of the game. The game doesn't even need to allow communication - the history of a player's actions in the game send a message to his opponents and based on those actions another player might favor or disfavor that player for victory, and might take actions which further that occurrence.

The take-home lesson here is making strong allies early in a game leads to a much improved chance of winning the game because you can expect those allies to make kingmaking plays in your favor should you look to be capable of winning and they do not. I fail to see why playing the diplomatic game well is not equally as valid as fighting out a mega war.

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

Well, for me, it goes against the whole spirit of the game. See those black candles? Enemy dominion. You can call him your ally if you like, but if his pretender ascends, that's the end of your pretender. Your would-be god is now banished forever to oblivion.

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

Ahh, my eyes hurt from all this reading. If only I spent all this time reading the thread in studding...

Scorched earth:
Do not like either, but there are certain situation when I feel it should be done. For examle a gangbang, I refuse to give my lands to the nations that who took then so undeservingly. Armageddon goes in this category.

Gem/item gifting:
Can't say really, I usually use up all my gems defending. I support the idea of the nation you conquered giving you gems and items in the name of RP, looting.
And I also sometimes send my gems/items to my allies if they proven themselves a good ally.
But I do not support gifting on a friend bases, or another game return favor.

Alliances:
I support alliance until there are 8,4 or whatever nations left, although I prefer until we're the only once left.
I see nothing wrong with this. But the above described isn't really even an alliance, it's a pre-set longterm NAP.
An alliance defines supporting your ally nation, a mutual defense treaty and such. You attack my ally I'll attack you etc.

I don't approve of pre set alliance before the game ever starts.

Gankfests:
I hate those. And I dislike the people who play like this, and defend themselves in the name of "good strategy". No, good strategy is when you outsmart you opponent not outnumber him to impossible odds.
To me there is no honor in ganging up on a equal-strength nation.
And I dislike ganging in any form, although clearly sometimes it must be done if there is a evident leader.


Vassals/Forge B*tches:
I don't support this, but that's mostly because I'm to proud to be someone vessal. However if he's my ally, I will help him out.

NAPs:
So far I never broke a single NAP since I find NAPs honor bounding, but in no way an obligation and that they HAVE to be enforced.
Acceptable> Disregarding a NAP if there is a victory threat, certain spells cast, BOT, AC, AN, UD.

Not acceptable> Complaining about breaking a NAP when you never in fact answered the NAP proposal
Not acceptable> Refusing to admit that there was a NAP when there are clear evidence that there in fact WAS one, just admit you're a backstabber.

Metagaming:
I agree with VFB completely.


And here are some things I'd add.

-Attacking a player not a nation
-Enforcing vendettas for some other games
-Reviling information about another nation

-And this is possibly the thing I hate the most,
Attacking a staleing nation! Not an AI nation, this is of course a very logical thing to do, but to attack someone the moment you see they are gonna stale. This is just low tactics.
-And also, winning a game due to stales!? That's not a win. Letting someone stale out the game while you win is just, wrong, and I for one will never recognize such a victory.

Well, off to get some eye drops now...

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

Dear friends. The subject of discussion was presented in a clear manner for open and constructive discussion. However it does reveal a very sensitive "nerve" (if you like). Possibly lots of past hard feelings or feeling of being cheated of victory or lost/won unfairly can surface and throw this constructive, welcome discussion into the mud.
I thus implore you to keep it civil and to the point, lets keep those skeletons in the closet and concentrate on improving the future.

Now as to the specifics of a given recent game I saw a lot of inaccuracies here, but since this one is over and done with and following my own above advice I'll do my share to keep this closed. Anyone that is truly interested in hearing the details, seeing turn files plus my explanation on what happened is welcome to contact me and then make up his own opinion. Enough of that, let's tackle the subject at hand in an abstract manner as we should.

I'll present my opinion in the form of what I believe to be mere facts. This is not dogma but a basis for further discussion.

1. In diplomacy games players characters matter. Some players will fight to end and scorch earth and pass all the gem income to attacker's enemy just to take revenge. Other players will always try to avoid a fair fight. Others like to follow a charismatic leader and are very happy to give all they have just to see that leader win.
None of this is wrong. It is all part of diplomacy games and must be accepted. Any artificial prohibitions will lesser the game experience for some class of player characters.

2. Kingmaking is king-making is King making. The act defines itself. It's context or pretexts doesn't alter the act.
I heard a lot of statements like "Yes, I gave these 1k gems to make nation A king but that was ok because of..."
or "That play for making B king is foul b/c ..."
lot's of variation on the theme and in the end the same as a back-stab is just that no matter what the reasons so are King making acts. Your reasons and rational makes sense to you and your friends but you must realize and respect that there maybe and indeed is a different faction that disagrees with you.
So leave the subjective stuff out. Accept that king making is what it is and then you can start to tackle it if you find it disturbing.

3. For the purpose of kingmaking attaching moral score to different acts and making distinctions between them is artificial and self centered. Some players find some king making acts acceptable while others find the very same acts unacceptable. To make a constructive progress one must bundle together all king making acts and either allow or prohibit *all*.

Saying that giving VPs is bad but giving gems is ok leads to a dead-end in dealing with this issue. First, since the statement is subjective and not in consensus. Second, because in some situations gems can contr. more to victory than VPs can. Third, b/c in some respects giving gems/items/gold is *worse* then giving VPs. This is b/c of the game engine. It makes giving gems/items/gold a secret act while giving VPs can be discovered (intel). Also, giving gems/items/gold can't be countered in any means while giving VPs can.

My suggestion is to agree on the term kingmaking, bundle all acts that qualify as such into it and then state clearly at start of game whether or not kingmaking is allowed.

My personal opinion is that prohibiting kingmaking in diplo. games will make the game much less fun b/c it will not allow players to bring their character and preference into the game - what will make the game experience shallower.
I think that diplo and kingmaking prohibition are mutually exclusive.

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

I think this cuts to the heart of matter. Your assertion completely disregards that the other player may not share your sentiment. Perhaps he is a newb and is content to follow a vet. Perhaps he received so much help during all the game from his ally that he is willing to make all sacrifice for him and so on and so forth.
The fact of the matter is that different players have different personalities and get their kick out of the game in different manner.
I personally would always fight to last drop of blood. I would never bow to another player.
I am aware however that we are not all the same. I think we - the die hard, alpha types need to show more respect and understanding of different personalities.
If we want to eliminate kingmaking as a source of unbalance we either prohibit diplo or prohibit all kingmaking acts is what I think.

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

But as Squirrelloid said before, there will always be kingmaking in anything but a two person duel. It can't be prohibited, unless you restrict the definition to just refer to a handful of specific acts you dislike.

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

Bleh.

Liddell Hart, (who after Sun Tzu wrote probably the second best book on military tactics) paraphrased said "never fight an even fight".

Fight fights you are going to win.

Most of the vets here, do this, one way or another. Baalz and executor are *famous* for the 2 turn blitzes.

'Even' fights by definition maximize the casualties for both sides.

Asymmetrical fights occur in many ways - military advantage, mage advantage - or even diplomatic advantage.

More or less I find that the term kingmaking roughly equates to diplomacy: Y/N.

It would, perhaps, be good when choosing a game on llamaserver to be able to have a drop box, or post a statement about what was expected in the game.

Sure, I'll support adding
GoodPlayerPledge: Y/N
Kingmaking: Y/N
to any game.

But not allowing kingmaking directly decreases the fun in the game for some people. Suppose I'm comfortably in third place - saying I am not allowed to work for an ally removes a *lot* of the incentive to play the game.

You may find it fun to be required start a fight against an enemy against which you will lose - I am way too proud to want to be forced to take a bad choice. I'd rather stale than do it, to be honest. So in the games where you remove kingmaking - you remove a lot of the reason people stay in the game in secondary positions.

We play games to have fun.
We play players, generally, because the challenge is sharper, and the game more enjoyable.
Generally, the conduct we expect from our players we all learned in kindergarten - or the foreign equivalent thereof. Play nice. Try to win. Don't cheat. If it doesn't violate one of these, I figure its ok.

Its a *game* - ok you didn't expect your opponent to talk a player into surrendering. Congratulate him and move on - maybe you can learn something to elevate your own game.

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

I respectfully disagree - gems are like bullets. Whether fired from my gun to kill Player #1, or fired from Player #2s gun to kill Player #1, I am indifferent, and may in fact prefer Player #2 to do the shooting, especially if he has a bigger gun in the form of paths / levels I do not have.

Turning over one's final VP is suicide. Its not the same at all.

I realize there are gray areas and its easier just to say, everything is permitted so we can avoid having to think it through. If that really is the consensus then I will probably avoid open games and try to find like-minded players that understand that suicide is not acceptable.

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

Spirit of the game can be interpreted many ways. Many of the pretenders served or were banished or imprisoned by the previous Pantokrator, why should they not except the new one to fall and to have another chance in time?
The mechanics of actually being defeated (province loss or dominion death) seem to rule against it, but does ascending actually rule out bringing former allies back as servants?
Or if they expect this ruler to fall eventually as well, then perhaps favors or enmities will be remembered when they return from this next imprisonment?

Even without that, once you start basing decisions on how the pretenders feel anything is justifiable. Bringing the hated rival down with me. Some pretenders might even feel concern for their subjects and hope their last act of generosity will lead the eventual ruler to treat them more kindly or ensure a kinder ruler. Come up with your own justification!

Sure, they may all be enemies in the end, but there's still a difference between the theoretical enemy you've been, temporarily, allied with and the hated foe who's been hounding you since your return.

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

So long as you respectfully disagree and acknowledge that your opinion is not universal that's cool with me :)

"Turning over one's final VP is suicide. Its not the same at all."
That's not an opinion. You are stating as a fact that it's not the same, however in some situations it is exactly the same. Say, you have 1500 gems stockpiled and you give it all to a given nation in a game context that ensures that this will give him the victory. In that case this is exactly the same. It is a fact, not on opinion.

There is however a difference. Giving gems is, in a way, more sinister since it's both inherently hidden and can not be countered in any means whatsoever. From fairness perspective (which in itself is flawed since fairness and good strategics counter each other) giving gems is that much worse since the "losing" party doesn't even know he has just been heimlich-ed and even if he suspects he can't counter that.

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

Hopefully it is not necessary to precede every statement with a legal disclaimer that I am not representing the universe. :)

Giving up your last VP is suicide, there is no grey area. It is the end of the game for you. Giving up gems does not end anyone's game. It might end someone's game in a turn, but even then it requires time for the enemy to receive and make use of them. At any rate, trying to analogize the two requires you taking a very extreme case of gem gifting to even come close to the suicidal impact of giving up the last VP.

Taking that extreme case aside, giving gems has much more nuanced and strategic purposes then killing yourself. It seems pretty close to fact. I went to law school and am comfortable with terms like "reasonable efforts" or "prudent standards", in other words - using your judgment.

I would not waste 3-4 hours to play a board game where one player was just going to quit, by granting his points to another as the game neared its conclusion. Why should I waste 12 months and 100s of hours to do so in Dominions?

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

Sorry, I'm a little sensitive about the fact that you've been cyberstalking me across multiple threads.

And yeh, if you haven't played with me you don't know what kind of player I am. You are just slandering. The fact that you will never be able to find a player who has a grievence against me for in-game behavior makes you a liar and a bad person.

Apparently, if you strongly defend positions in these forums some people will attempt to get people to not play games with you by telling people you are a dishonorable player. Like the "who's a vet" discussions or attempts to nerf tactics being used in currently running games, this is just one way that weak players try to defeat other players: by fighting them in the forums and not in the game.

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

That being said, kingmaking happens when the game has already gone on for 20 turns longer than it has to and no one is having fun. Better to have an ally win than spend another month of RL time micromanaging an empire that will never win.

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

I think a large part of the distaste over VP gifting is because they're a somewhat artificial measure. In theory they are supposed to roughly correspond with control of territory and the overall position of the player that controls them. Because of this it is very uncommon to see a game with non-cap VPs, because players have found that a single turn teleport win is detrimental to the enjoyment of the game. Similarly, a VP gifting scenario causes the game to end abruptly, with no recourse for the losing player. Stating that late-game VP gifting is able to be countered is, frankly, a load of crap, especially if the colluding players plan things properly.

1500 gems sure sounds like a lot, but is only about 3 turns worth of income in the example scenario or any large late game.

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

K- I don't see where Sombre said your bad reputation had anything to do with in-game behavior, could you please point out where that was stated?

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

I said "Saying that giving VPs is bad but giving gems is ok leads to a dead-end in dealing with this issue."

Then DonC & Micah just went right ahead and proved my point. I disagree with you and certainly am not the only one, I think I even saw similar opinions in this thread (although I admit to not having read it all). So you disagree with me and I/ppl that think the same disagree back :)

You'd say that gem giving is ok and VP giving is not. I'd say they are ultimately very similar - actually equivalent in the abstract manner of how many steps it gets one closer to winning. Then you'd go back and say they they are not the same since VPs are suicide while gems are not. I beg your pardon but that's not true. 1500 gems are a big deal. Use 1k for AN and you practically ensure winning. Imagine nation A is 10% stronger than B in end game. Nation A is en route to winning when B gets 2k gems. Now B can cast a bunch of globals or do whatever it wants and grab the victory. Those 2k gems would translate if you like to VPs.

Micah, you said "Stating that late-game VP gifting is able to be countered is, frankly, a load of crap, especially if the colluding players plan things properly."
First of that's somewhat rude phrasing you chose. You are blatantly disregarding and demeaning an opinion different than your own. Second, that's absolutely true. The exchange of VPs in end game is very likely to be monitored so nation B can intervene directly and prevent that from happening. When 2k gems are given to nation B nation A can do nothing about it, knows nothing about it and will surely lose due to this. The same will happen to nation C that gave the 2k gems - so it's suicidal for C as well.
Edit: you also said "1500 gems sure sounds like a lot, but is only about 3 turns worth of income in the example scenario or any large late game."
Micah, that is not the point, the point is the principal that X amount of gems, or Y amount of items or Z amount of VPs are all "mathematically" equal in the "winning factor" they represent. What is the exact ratio is of course elusive, depends on context and many other circumstantial factors. 1.5K gems can certainly be worth a victory in certain circumstance, if not 1.5K then 2K or 2.5K etc. Enough gems wins games and that's a fact, the only difference with VPs is that there's no accumulate gems victory condition so the player actually has to translate gems to victory conditions.

We can go and on forever. There will never be an agreement b/c this is a matter of opinions and we don't all think the same. That's why I suggested that in order to make progress with the matter at hand ( if that's indeed what this thread is about and just a sparring arena ;) ) we need to put all king making acts in the same basket and treat them the same. Otherwise dissension may always result and this discussion will just go off track to what is actually a side issue.

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

I didn't prove your point at all Wraith. I said only that when you take gem giving to ad absurdem levels, does it even come close and even then it still falls completely short of a game ending suicide move as we just saw. Recent real world example: Did my gem giving end the game? No. Did another players surrendering of VPs? Absolutely. Could I have given my VPs to another player and ended it? Yes. Does that totally defy my sense of honor? Absolutely.

Ultimately, I'd like to rely on players sense of judgment, in the same way the legal system has abstract standards such as reasonable care that are used to determine if someone was negligent. Your arguments are destroying my worldview, however, that I can rely on such standards since you are an expert player and we clearly do not see eye to eye on what I once thought was fundamental.

What I thought was common sense, clearly is not. Ultimately it leads me to the conclusion that I need to make sure I am playing with players who share my own standards of good sportsmanship and honor, which don't include suicidal moves that hand another player a victory, among other things.

So I will drop out of this debate and heed the lessons that this discussion has taught me.

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

Hey, b/c this is a war game. War is not fair and diplomacy plays a crucial part in wars. If said scenario happened to you then it represents a failure on your part on the diplomatic front and this can lead to you losing a war, in dominions same as in RL.

I can also say the same see if you find the difference ;) "I would not waste 3-4 hours to play a board game where one player was just going to quit, by granting his 3k gems to another as the game neared its conclusion. Why should I waste 12 months and 100s of hours to do so in Dominions?"

Bottom line, if you want more "fairness" then either remove diplo or prohibit king making acts altogether. I personally like the former while thinking the latter would end up being boring.

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

DonC, you proved my point by your very adamant disagreement with me as that was my point exactly :)

Why are you always going back to that same example? I'm trying to bring a broad perspective to the discussion and limiting to one example does, well, limit the discussion.

you said: "What I thought was common sense, clearly is not."
and I couldn't agree more. My personal experience leaves a very bad taste of gem/items transfer as I lost games directly to these king making acts. So I personally very much dislike that part although I am forced to "play the game" in diplo game since everybody does.

Then:
" Ultimately it leads me to the conclusion that I need to make sure I am playing with players who share my own standards of good sportsmanship and honor, which don't include suicidal moves that hand another player a victory, among other things.
"
I think this will work. However this will not help all the good players who are not "on par" with these said standards or not included in this select hypothetical group you refer to.

I have the same advice for that larger audience. Either accept king making is part of diplomacy games or prohibit it altogether or don't play diplo games. I think this is a constructive advice. If you disagree with that as well I'd be interested in hearing why.

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

What? So by disagreeing with you I proved your point. That makes any further use of my time debating you pointless.

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

Wrath - Pardon my phrasing, but I'm having trouble with the idea that an experienced player such as yourself can really and truly believe that a third party can reasonably do anything about a well-executed VP gift.

I'll spell it out for you. First turn the gifting player drops any domes on their VP by suiciding the casters. There is no way to know this without witnessing an attack or launching a spell at the province the same turn. The next turn the attacker teleports in with a good-sized force including a few good anti-SC units and drops a crumble at the VP. The turn after that the attacker storms the fort while the gifting nation casts domes with a few units that remained in the VP province, scripted to retreat.

A third party seeing the teleported attack squad now has to throw his army at a wall of domes with no way of properly scripting his forces to account for the units that will be picked off by them. Additionally, the person being gifted with the VPs has the powerful first-turn advantage as they are defending from the third party. Plus, of course, all of this requires that the third party has forces on-hand to respond to an attack immediately, so they have to be equipped and sitting on a lab, ready to go.

I can't fathom how you could begin to say that this is in any way a preventable tactic, and hence the strong phrasing of my position. If you had simply failed to properly consider your position I apologize for my vehemence.

As to the gem issue, clearly the nation sending the gems must be getting them from somewhere, and sending them means not spending them. It's the same as ganging. A good player can overcome a 2:1 war (which is essentially what gifting gems to one player results in) or being set back a few turns of gem income, and in fact where their superior skill really can shine through.

By contrast, VP gifting is the equivalent of informing them that their nation is now dead because they were outnumbered and removing them from the game, since it happens too fast to be countered and there is not interactivity. Gem gifting is, of course, non-interactive, but it must be turned into interactive units and spells to be of value. Obviously, as with ganging, there is a point at which even the best player cannot hope to compete with enough pressure, but that's a situation that shouldn't arise if people are playing to win, as nations will either want to remain sovereign since they are still contenders, or else will have too few gems to have more of an impact on the outcome than player skill.

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

Giving up your last VP is pretty stupid IMO. I do find other forms of scorched earth fair game because IMO as long as you have your capital standing, (sometimes even less) you have a shot at winning the game. it may be slim but 0.00001 > 0. Pooling gems to someone to support their win is kind of weak but honestly, I think pooling gems to global dispel is weak so meh. (mostly cause I like to gem whore and cast huge globals ...)

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

Okay, I admit, RP can interfere with my philosophy of acting in the best interest of either achieving victory for my pretender, or maximizing my nation's long-term survival. I'm sure I'm guilty of this! But if my nation is going to exact revenge on another nation, for me that revenge has got to be delivered personally. It makes a nicer story if I blow my nation up while destroying my tormentor. I wouldn't get any satisfaction from going AI and giving all my gems to the game leader, even though the result is the same in the end.

And if I hypothetically survive to the end-game as a weak little nation of Man, with no hope for victory, I could see myself actively supporting a Marignon in his war against Ermor, if Ermor had at one point cast BoT and made a bunch of my guys old and dead. I guess that would make me Marignon's vassal. :shudder: I still wouldn't try to end the game by giving Marignon one of my VPs though.

Crap, now that I think about it, I do a whole bunch of dumb non-optimal stuff for RP reasons! And it's not likely I'm going to stop either, since I play more to escape the drudgery of reality, rather than engaging in some sort of intellectual competition.

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

He, I'm always annoyed at how I stop doing stupid RP stuff for the sake of min maxing.

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

luckily, my nations seem to be blessed that way, and adhere to the 7th protocol of Endservedness

"and follow thee to the smaller as to the larger, as to the most low and the most high, and adhere to the MinMax, guideline of the faithful"

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

what a riveting *yawn* dialogue that was. I think we have a potential broadway hit on our hands here.

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

That you think that says more about you than me. Like everyone else I post when I feel like adding something. I'm a fairly prolific poster and you take extreme positions and are very self important, so it doesn't surprise me that I'd have posted in response to you in several threads.

I haven't said anything about what kind of player you are. I'm shocked to learn that I'm a bad person. Really. I might go lie down.

Really? What does that have to do with me? I haven't said anything about you as a player. You seem to be implying I'm a 'weak' player without having ever played with me though. That's interesting given the indignation earlier in your post.

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

Guys,

This is becoming a personal discussion which is both inappropriate to the thread and against the user agreements we all signed.

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

Sombre,

Here's a short course on forum etiquette to address your core issues:

1. Its not your job to skewer people you've decided are self-important with jokes at their expense in each and every thread they post in. It's especially inappropriate if that is your sole reason for posting.

2. You can't imply insulting things about people and get away with it just because you never said anything directly. Implying you would never play with someone because you heard they have a bad reputation is the same as saying they are bad players that should be avoided, and doing so in response to a particular posting is the same as slander of that person. Anyone with a basic mastery of the English language can read between the lines, and you are not fooling anyone.

3. Posting constantly and in all threads to up your post count does not make people respect your opinion more. No one notices the little number at the top of the post or give it any weight if they do. Here's some advice: take a page from Micah's book. He's often condescending and rude, but also has valuable insights to share. Because of this, people listen to him and give him some measure of respect (even me, though I would be greatly surprised if he cares).

4. No one wants to read past thread drama to get to the posts on the thread's topic. Baiting people to provoke thread drama lowers you in everyone's eyes.


Now, I'm going to give you the opportunity to have the last word in this exchange. Consider your words carefully.

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

Actually, I like thread drama :D And micah isn't so much rude as intolerant of BS

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

Wow I really appreciate the opportunity you're granting me. But why would I need to choose my words carefully? Your posts make it clear where your reputation stems from. I don't feel compelled to respond to being called a liar, a bad person and post spamming weak player troll. I just consider the source and shrug.

Edit: I don't think there's any need for moderation here. I have no issue with K at all, as I said. I clarified what I said but I can't stop people reading insults, attacks and baiting where none were intended.

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

Hey, I have no problem with drama. Here is a link to the Soap Central boards. :)

Now what was the topic?
Oh yeah, "A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards."

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

LOL.. Spend a lot of time there Ball?:)

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

He's a moderator there too. He often kingmakes soap stars.

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

Lay off the personal remarks to each other.
It's not only against forum rules, but it is taking away from those posters who are trying to have a legitimate discussion on a topic.

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

Amen to that Strider!

DonC, you said "What? So by disagreeing with you I proved your point. That makes any further use of my time debating you pointless."

Please don't be rash in your judgment and try and consider my point thoroughly. I have repeated the same point a few times but I think you still have missed it :) Please allow me to try again.

We are trying to come up with a good formula re. king making. First we need to agree to a common terminology. I think we have achieved that. Then we need to agree on semantics, what does king making mean. Most of the items in KM (pardon my fingers for tiring of typing the whole term) are agreed. For some reason gem/item/income transfer is not treated the same as VP transfer. I think they should be treated the same and have elaborated why, you disagree with me and have also elaborated why.
My point was that this disagreement is fundamental and is caused b/c of different opinions. So it can't be resolved but we do want to move forward. This is why I suggest that when prohibiting KM acts in house rules that all be prohibited VPs as well as gems as well as item transfer. This will ensure that the rules are clear and agreed on all and most important no one could feel cheated of victory b/c a KM move has done him.

I'll put together what I consider to be a constructive advice for game admins:
Either accept all KM acts as part of diplomacy games and make it clear in the house rules
or prohibit it altogether (all KM acts so no one complains)
or don't play diplo games.

I welcome any comments on that advise.

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

well you could also jsut ban VP giving specifically, if you feel that that is KM and gem giving isn't

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

Yes. I was thinking of VP transfer in a more simplistic manner. You know, nation A sends a scout to empty nation B VP and casts crumble. Next turn it storms the castle. You can replace the scout with an army, or one SC, or army+SC etc. W/O the domes part (which I haven't considered at all) I think it can be countered (I apologize beforehand if I missed yet another angle :) ).
Now are you 100% sure about the domes?- IIRC casting order is random so there's no guarantee that they'd come up *before* nation C's teleporting SCs coming to bust the transfer.
I agree with you though. Its tough to counter and gives an advantage to nation A that is as inherent to the game as the fact the gem transfer is clandestine and un-counter-able, namely the defender's first turn advantage. The difference is that technically it's possible to try and counter and have a chance of success in case nation C is lucky/strong enough to have the right material to send in.

"but that's a situation that shouldn't arise if people are playing to win"
Yes, but that's the thing, the don't always. I have seen it countless times. Not all ppl play to win. Oh, they sure enough join the game with an abstract notion of winning, but then RP or awe of the vets or losing interest in the game causes them to lose that drive to win. Then these players become unexpected and can and do influence the game. Type A players that are also good diplomats are usually deft at recognizing these situations and making the most of them which brings the game to a new level of meta gaming or in other words makes diplomacy king over tactics. Is that good or bad?- I honestly don't know. Depends on the mood ;)
I mean so long as we identify the root cause we have a hope of addressing it in house rules. Whether or not ppl would be interested in playing diplo no KM games is a different matter altogether :)

BTW, just had an idea, what if instead of prohibiting KM acts players would be expected to announce them in the game thread for all to see. Something like:
"Arco will send 1k S gems to Pyth. this turn"
or
"Ermor plans to give it's VP in xyz to Caelum next turn"
Would that make things better?- If so, better in what sense?

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

Agree. Yet I see this as possible source of resentment as well.
Say nation A leads over nation B and is candidate to win. They are duking it our while a bunch of lesser nations are out of the conflict. Yet they keep pumping B with gems/items/income. B ends up winning and A that knows nothing about what happened get his hand on the turn files. I can imagine A player feeling any of :mad:,:(,:shock:,:hurt:,:sick: etc. This can escalate into pure ugliness.
I say, either you go all the way or you don't even try. Leaving loopholes is not good.

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

Giving gems or gold to a nation is an old and generally accepted practice, in most cases. I'm not sure i've ever seen it give a victory to a recipient, though that would certainly be possible. For the most part, gems are given to help fight a common cause, or to a combatant most likely to be able to halt the player deemed most likely to win, or to prop up some failing nation. Even then, it doesn't tend to have such over-weening effects. As such, only in very rare instances would it be king-making, as almost always no king is made. Claiming that giving gems or gold to someone is somehow worse than throwing a winning vp strikes me as pretty close to absurd. I would suggest that players will easily be able to consider their own past games as to this matter.

King-making as it does exist in Dominions is mostly when allies remain loyal to one side, even when that side (ie. the strongest nation on that side, most relevantly) is prevailing. This happens - but at least there is a long war, and the continual possibility that the allied nations might change their side.

When there is an agreement between two parties such that the one in effect grants his vps to the other, there is no realistic way to work against this, within the confines of the rules of the game. Hence, why it has traditionally been known as "throwing" the game.

These various scenarios are not at all equivalent, and have never been taken as being so on these forums, among hundreds of games that have been played. Surely it was not some stroke of genius that recently created the idea of one nation giving winning vps to another. Why has this not (to my knowledge, at least in a real game with experienced players) ever happened before on these boards? Is it really just the case that no one has ever thought of it, or that no one has ever had the amazing diplomatic acumen to have persuaded some other player?

Has any experienced player here ever even tried such a thing? Why not? No game has even felt it necessary to consider whether such actions are legitimate, and so either specifically deny or allow giving away winning vps. The argument seems to be based on the claim that any possible legalistic interpretation of what may be allowed to win has to be specifically denied in a games OP. Has it really come to this?

I would think that the majority of games listed in the HoF thread could just have easily been turned around if only a couple of the losing players had been smart enough to band together in doing so. Perhaps one player could do it for the other in one game, and receive his proper reward in an other - This too would be legal; certainly it has never been banned behaviour in any game's OP. This is clearly not how it is best for games of Dominions to be played.

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

It's true that the domes are in normal caster order, but it's not too hard to get a few different casters in on the act and use casters at the front and back of the casting order. Since you are ending the game you don't need to worry about saving any gems, so dropping 10 or more domes isn't unreasonable, likewise, the attacker doesn't really need to keep any forces in reserve because the 3rd party will be a turn behind them in any assaults on the attacker's VPs, so they can have their entire army present at the final VP, or half their army split among 2 VPs, etc.

Regardless, the uncertainty of losing units in the attack force makes a proper counterattack virtually impossible, since you don't know if the unit you have set to cast a vital buff will get knocked out of your combat group, or the unit that's casting astral travel with all of your chaff, etc. I would much rather an opponent got a few turns' worth of bonus gems than running into that situation, at least then I have some time to deal with it instead of facing an immediate end to the game unless I make what would normally be a terrible tactical blunder (splintering my army on a bunch of domes) AND pull it off successfully. It is, realistically speaking, not able to be countered.

As to people throwing in the towel early and unbalancing the game...well, that's why I stick to vet games, I have no interest in dealing with that sort of behavior. I don't think it makes for a compelling argument about what the community standards should be, since those sorts of actions are pretty universally frowned upon.

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

Thats my point llama. No more words needed.

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

Unhappily, that is surely not sufficient, as was clearly demonstrated :(

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

Micah/DonC/Archae, thank you for presenting your opinions so clearly. Although I still disagree with the distinction you make between different KM acts I can now better relate to your position.
I also agree with Archae, this discussion and the game that sparked it has proved that this distinction is not universal.
Some would see *all* KM acts as a valid manifestation of diplomacy and claim that all is fair in love and war while others would frown upon the KM act of VP giving.
My suggestion to players reading this thread is to make the ground rules clear from the start and when in doubt do your best to respect the feelings of ppl who may frown upon VP giving. Either refrain from doing that or declare your intentions in the game thread and follow according to ensuing discussion. This is just a game after all and I think we should all strive that it be as much fun as possible for all players :)

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

The reason they're not treated the same is because they're entirely different. If I give my last VP(s), I lose. My game is over. If I give all my gems (and all my future gems), it is still possible (but extremely unlikely) that I will win. And likewise, if I give someone the VPs necessary for them to win, the game is over, that person wins. I can't comeback to win (nor can anyone else). Even if I gave someone 100000000 gems, that act wouldn't directly cause the end of the game. I mean, if someone went to cast Nexus the turn that guy spent all those gems it could actually swing the game for someone else.

That is the fundamental difference-giving VP's leads directly to player loss/victory without other actions. And I really can't see how anyone could in good faith argue otherwise. I understand that this thread is in response to things that happened in a game you won, but I don't think coming up with...dubious arguments saying how X is the same as Y really helps prove your case. Your win was legit, there was nothing prohibited in the game about what happened (from what I can tell).

Re: A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.
 

Legit technically but definitely frowned up. Hence the need for some clarification of unspoken 'rules'. I personally thought that one would be pretty clear, but there are a couple of dissenting voices.

You certainly can't cover /everything/ in game rules. As I've said a few times on IRC if you are forced to make a laundry list of rules every game, you're not playing with the right people.