A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.

[WraithLord]

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.

[alansmithee]

Originally Posted by WraithLord

For some reason gem/item/income transfer is not treated the same as VP transfer.

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).

[thejeff]

Originally Posted by alansmithee

If I give my last VP(s), I lose. My game is over.

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).

Am I missing something? Giving someone the last VP he needs to win is obviously game ending, but giving away your last VP doesn't change anything for you, does it? Many VP games start with one in each capital, but some don't. In that case the game starts with no one having any VPs.
I'd assumed through out this discussion that talk of giving away your last VP was really just bad phrasing for giving the last VP needed to win. Was it not?

[alansmithee]

Originally Posted by thejeff

Am I missing something? Giving someone the last VP he needs to win is obviously game ending, but giving away your last VP doesn't change anything for you, does it? Many VP games start with one in each capital, but some don't. In that case the game starts with no one having any VPs.
I'd assumed through out this discussion that talk of giving away your last VP was really just bad phrasing for giving the last VP needed to win. Was it not?

Yeah, I worded that badly. To my knowledge, you don't lose w/o victory points.

[zlefin]

It seems to me that a fair portion of these problems stems from a lack of second place. In the game as written, it's winner take all, everyone else loses, period, no second place. This creates the conundrum what to do when you cannot win.

Some people of course place value on how long they lasted; and may value being second, or third, or any increase in their place.
With VPs and other such win conditions, many nations may be alive at the end, making it positions determined by the win condition measured. Without VPs, positions would most likely be determined by order of death (i.e. staying alive the longest) though in case of concession the ordering would be somewhat unclear.


Proposed test: start a game with VP win condition, with the additional specification that all nations alive at the end receive places of value in the pantheon based on the numbers of VPs they have. (and people alive but with no VPs still get a little something). This may cut down on kingmaking since your own position becomes relevant; or maybe it won't, that's what testing is for.

Would playing as if the game were pantheistic, and ranking matter, cut down on the more objectionable kinds of kingmaking?
Zlefin

[WraithLord]

I like your idea. Quite a lot actually

It will also reward ppl for their endurance and avoid situations where it's all or nothing after many hard months of work. In addition it creates a more continuous reward system.

Nice insight.

[chrispedersen]

I think the hugest motivation (expecially for vets) is the hall of fame.

It would be interesting if we could adapt a Nascar like device - total points.

I'd probably give a few points for starting - and then 1rst place would be 1/2 of the point total of all the participants.

2nd would be good for 1/4, third for 1/8.

this would make a victory against micah, dr.P, atul, and wriathlord worth *a lot* more than a victory against anon noob 1,
anon noob 2, anon noob 3.