[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Again, diplomacy is a very big part of the game. Have you ever heard of the team victory? The talisman player does not have to destroy everyone. His allies can very well win too. Your statements about the players all wanting to defeat the talisman so they do not lose is incorrect because if they ally with the talisman player, they will be quite capable of winning the game (assuming their alliance emerges victorious). They do not have to fight their allies later on.

Obviously my comments were directed towards a game in which only one person is the ultimate winner. I said as much when I said that allying with a tailsman player is a good way to guarantee second place at best. In a game with a team victory it would not be nearly as difficult for the tailsman player to find allies, and in fact he may find that he has his choice of who to ally with as everyone will want to have him on their team.

But your initial statment that I am objecting to made no such qualification. You did not say "Used correctly, the Talisman is an impossible trait to defeat in a team game." To add that qualification now after the fact changes the whole dynamic of the discussion.

Fyron, I am not arguing that Tailsman isn't powerful, or even in need of balancing. I am simply trying to get you to admit your oringinal comment was a gross overstatment.

It has nothing to do with controlling the other players, it has to do with using diplomacy to get some of them on your side. Failing on the diplomatic front means you are not playing well, as diplomacy is a big part of playing the game.

But diplomacy is just as important in a Last man standing game and in such a game you will find it tough going finding allies among experienced players, no matter how well you play that part of the game. You said it's about using dimplomacy to get them on your side. That is in effect controlling them. You are getting them to do what you want are you not? If you can somehow manipulate a player to do something that is counter to his interests in the game he has made a critical error. You cannot force him to make such an error. Not being able to do so is by no means an indication of poor play or a failure on your part. You can try and manipulate him to do so, but in the end it depends on how well how plays his game. And please do not respond to this by saying in a team game it's not against his interests to ally with the tailsman player. We have already covered that point and I think we agree on it.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
But, playing well (with fast expansion and such) combined with the Talisman does guarantee victory in most game situations (except when you get the other players to ally against you,

Well now, this is a few orders of magnitude less of an absulute statement then "Used correctly, the Talisman is an impossible trait to defeat."

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
No, that is exactly the same as what I said before because it is illustrating correct usage.

No it is not. Not to any reasonable logical thinking person. It is the difference between a flat, unequvocal statment and one with conditions and qualifications. My objection is to the unequvocal nature of your post, and so on that basis the two statments are worlds apart. If you hadn't way over stated your case originally and weren't too proud to admit it now you would would say you agree with me. If you don't you are not making an honest statement, because I know you are to smart to think that.

You are still going to have to explain to me how you can control the speed your opponent expands

No I am not, as I never said nor implied that you could.

Of course you didn't. But by saying you can beat the opponent by playing well without making any reference to your opponents level of play makes an assumption that you are playing better then your opponent. Since you cannot control how well your opponent plays how can you be sure you are going to play better then them?

You can play the best game you have ever played in your life, in fact you can play the second best game in the history of SE4 and still be behind you opponnent. And this somehow you define as not playing well? that makes no sense at all.

That is not what I said at all. I never said nor implied that you can not lose if you are playing well. Since you are missing my point and instead focusing on the term "playing well" instead of the actual content of the argument, let us replace it with "playing better" in this instance.

Are you actually going to sit here now and say what you really meant was that if you play better than the other guys and have the Tailsman you will win? Fyron, if you play better then your opponent you will win without the tailsman. What exactly is the point of that stetment? Another post-comment qualification to misdirect attention away from your obviously exagerated intital statement.

If the best game of your life leaves you far behind the competition, you need more practice.

You don't have to be far behind the competition. You can simply be facing several opponents allied against you all of which individually are no better then you. That is exactly my point.

Again correct, and again no one made this claim. But getting into fights against a tailsman player where all else is equal is suicide. The same could be said of anything in the game.
All else being equal, the player with dreadnaughts will defeat the player with frigates every time.

That is a rather contrived example, as the difference in magnitude is far greater than that between talisman vs. non-talisman.

Is it now? By what basis do you make this statment? I think you need to recheck your facts. The Tailsman costs 825,000 research points. The Dreadnaught costs 1,015,000 research points. Not a contrived example at all, and not even that much difference. But if you wish, make it escorts vs battleships. Battleships cost less in research (695,000) then tailsman and will have similer levels of success against escorts as tailsman vs non-tailsman, all else being equal. So my example was only slightly exagerated and is quite a bit more accurate then your original comment.

As Gravey said, you can try. But you can't guarantee this. It depends on the experience of your opponents. If they are aware of the effectivness of the Tailsman you will have an alliance of one, and that ain't gonna get you too far.

Only if you fail to convince anyone to ally with you. Awareness of the effectiveness of the Talisman will also allow them to be able to see that the talisman player would be a strong ally, as long as you tell them this. And, I never said you could guarantee getting allies.

No, you did not. What you said was, "Used correctly, the Talisman is an impossible trait to defeat." a statment which fails to even mention allies which means according to your statement allies are irrelevant.

Again you are talking about things totally out of your control and saying that you aren't playing well. That makes no sense.

No, what you say to other players is entirely within your control. It is entirely possible to gather allies in any game, if you are persuasive enough and if they have not already agreed to band together before you start trying to convince some of them to ally with you. If that happens, then either you have not met them yet and there is no chance of convincing them after they have already formed an alliance, or you are not doing very well with diplomacy, which relates back to not playing the game very well.

Once again Fyron, you can sweet talk them all you want, but if they want to win they won't ally with you. Not unless you limited your comment to allied victory games, but you made no such qualification until after the fact. Their chances will be much better by eliminating you first and then fighting it out with the non-tailsman players in a Last man standing game.

And what's irrational about ganging up on the Tailsman player? If you intend to even try to win it's irrational not to gang up on them and get them out early because as you said yourself allowing them to Last till the point of no return is a pretty sure way to guarantee you will lose.

The other rational possibility is to ally with the talisman player. You will only lose if you are their enemy. Being their ally will allow you to win (assuming the alliance wins). SE4 is not a one on one slugfest, you know (unless a game is specifically set up that way, which is well beyond the scope of this discussion).

It is not out of the scope of this discussion at all to talk about a Last man standing game. You know that. In fact your comment isn't even correct for a team game, because you still may be unable to get them to ally with you for whatever reason. That's my point. You can't make the other players do anything. Even in a team game where it may make perfect sense for them to ally with the tailsman player they may not want to for some reason.

Allying with the tailsman player is a sure way to guarantee second place at best. And who want's to be second?

Those that do not have such a huge ego that they only consider being in 1st place as worth their time for winning.

In a Last man standing game it's not an ego thing to want to be the Last man standing. It's the name of the game. Why play if you don't want to win? And if you aren't trying to win, why take the tailsman?

[ July 15, 2003, 02:40: Message edited by: geoschmo ]