A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.

[K]

Originally Posted by Baalz

Well, it's pretty silly to say there are rules of conduct, or even house rules that can be codified. As Micah says the game is so open ended each situation is unique. I will say, ethically and from a sportsmanship point of view it's pretty crappy to do things for the explicit purpose of screwing up your opponent *after your defeat*. That's obviously a very ambiguous way to put things, but you know what I'm talking about. I doubt anybody would say any action was not justifiable if you did it to increase your own chances but there is certainly some behavior which is well over that line. If a nation attacks you and you decide you're (essentially) defeated it's nothing but sour grapes to try and make sure he doesn't win the game by razing your capital, sending gems to an uninvolved 3rd party, etc. You can try to justify it with RP, but it's just poor sportsmanship and detracts from the fun of the game. RP or not you can't lose sight of the fact that we are indeed playing a game, and when you get outplayed (or unlucky) the appropriate response is "gg", not "F-You".

But sometimes "F-you" is the only response you are going to get.

Let's take a game I was in: I'm a small empire in the early game because my local indies were super heavy. Sensing weakness, three players launch attacks on my empire at the same time.

So what do I do? Three players going into their first war vs one player means either they win, or I fight them off and I don't win.

I can tell you what I did. I ground up their armies, I blood hunted my capital, I send research mages to the front, I pillaged my own empire, and when I was done all three were out of the game and so was I. When a fourth player who had turtled the whole time came in, he took the smoking remains of my empire and the other three empires. While it lasted, it was a lot of fun.

Is that "bad sportsmanship"? I knew on turn 12 that I was not going to win the game, but I fought it out to turn 30 and made sure those guys didn't win either.

The thing is, every time someone starts talking about "fair play" and "good sportsmanship" they are basically saying "play in a way that is good for me and my play style, and bad for my enemies." Its the same discussion you hear about Attack Commander orders or Battlefield enchantment spells or gem gen items and a host of other things.

At the end of the day, it is a pointless discussion. I play computer games instead of tabletop games because I don't want to talk about rules that I should follow out of some sense of fair play and other people can break without getting caught. I mean, this is a game where you can totally set up a fake nation under an assumed name and double-team people and send yourself gems, items, and even mages; why even assume fair play is possible?

[Alpine Joe]

There is also the important consideration that a reputation for being a player who is going to do everything possible to make a victory against him a pyrrhic one will make it less likely you are attacked in future games. People who roll over and go AI at the first sign of defeat make tempting targets. If you are a small nation but have the reputation of being hard to swallow, an aggressor might look elsewhere for targets. This community is small enough that you can to some extent learn other players' styles.

[Sombre]

Originally Posted by K

I mean, this is a game where you can totally set up a fake nation under an assumed name and double-team people and send yourself gems, items, and even mages; why even assume fair play is possible?

Because the people we play with aren't douchebags?

[K]

Originally Posted by Sombre

Because the people we play with aren't douchebags?

LOL. I know that's not true. :P

[Sombre]

I should probably just put 'I' there, not 'we'. I don't play with people who act that way. If they did I'd cease playing with them. In order to have a better idea of who I might like to play with, I don't find these discussions pointless at all. Micah for example - I disagree with him on some points, but I can see his rationale and would play with him, accepting that we have differences of opinion.

Evidently there are douchebags out there. Evidently.

[atul]

Originally Posted by Alpine Joe

There is also the important consideration that a reputation for being a player who is going to do everything possible to make a victory against him a pyrrhic one will make it less likely you are attacked in future games. People who roll over and go AI at the first sign of defeat make tempting targets. If you are a small nation but have the reputation of being hard to swallow, an aggressor might look elsewhere for targets. This community is small enough that you can to some extent learn other players' styles.

Strange sentiment. One of the most disappointing games I played went so that each of the opponents I fought either went AI after the first setback or were really green. Nothing would've been more boring, the fun part of the game all spent killing AIs.

On the other hand, I know some people who like to hole up, burn the ground and whine for all the other nations to fight their fights for them. My current reaction is to weed those out before they can become strong enough to be actually able to hold out for long. After all, you need some heavy castling and magic for that strategy to work well.

But, to each their own.

[K]

Originally Posted by Sombre

I should probably just put 'I' there, not 'we'. I don't play with people who act that way. If they did I'd cease playing with them. In order to have a better idea of who I might like to play with, I don't find these discussions pointless at all. Micah for example - I disagree with him on some points, but I can see his rationale and would play with him, accepting that we have differences of opinion.

Evidently there are douchebags out there. Evidently.

But you'll never know if you are playing with those players because they will never admit that they do those things.

I mean, some people think I have a bad reputation even though I have never broken a pact or a rule set by the game I was playing in. My opposition to the removal of various parts of the game most often comes when someone is campaigning against some legal tactic I am currently using and that person is currently attacking my nation in a game.

Seriously. This discussion is pointless. Trying to add unenforceable rules to the game just cripples the honest players like me.

[Sombre]

You do have a bad reputation. At least in the circles I travel in. And your reputation /is/ what people think of you. If people 'think' you have a bad reputation then you do. But this is getting off topic. Fortunately since the discussion is pointless you won't be posting again and there won't be any risk of me going blind or having a nervous breakdown.

[vfb]

Originally Posted by Micah

I think all of this reductionism is a bit much. Dominions is a very open-ended game, and there is a lot of gray area, especially when you throw diplomacy into the mix. I feel that most actions really need to be considered IN CONTEXT, as opposed to in absolute terms.

Several examples follow, I'd like to hear how my personal feelings on what is and is not appropriate match up with the opinions of other people, feel free to comment/object to them.

Scorched earth: Always alright to try and swing the current conflict/survive. Alright as a response to broken diplomatic agreements (NAP violations and the like) just to get revenge on the attacker. Alright in a grossly unfair conflict (e.g. 5 on 1 ganging). Not alright in other circumstances.

Gem/item gifting: Generally alright in any circumstance if not prohibited by house rules. This makes sense because any gems that are given away can't be used to defeat the attacker, meaning that their war is made easier, even if it makes a later war more difficult.

Allowing another player to take territory you control: Always alright if it represents a strategic advantage for the player, such as getting something in trade or opening up a route for an allied attack. Alright in small quantities when the defense of the territory needs to be abandoned to defend elsewhere and its capture is imminent. Not alright to just hand an ally your provinces because you're tired of playing.

Handing over VPs: Very rarely acceptable, though a few situations exist. A trade involving a VP that did not end the game would be acceptable. Prioritizing the defense of one VP over another if multiple VPs are being attacked is obviously alright. Abandoning a VP in the face of overwhelming odds is also legitimate when it does not end the game to do so. Simply giving away a VP to an ally is unacceptable. Obviously some judgment calls are required here, and 1 gold for a VP is not an acceptable "trade." I hope that players can be reasonable on the matter though.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

My (current) philosophy:

Every nation has a responsibility to try to win. When victory is not possible, every nation has a responsibility to hold out as long as possible against invaders. Each nation should defend itself as best it can.


Scorched earth:

Do not like: pillaging your provinces down to pop 0 and destroying your capitol etc, because of some disagreement over a NAP/agreement. It's spiteful, not fun, and the disagreement quite possibly may have arisen out of some misunderstanding of the NAP/agreement. And more importantly, it hurts the long-term survival of your nation.

Acceptable: Taxing provinces you think you will lose, at 200%. You need the money! Razing a lab or fort if it will be captured by your opponent and used against you, and you are unlikely to be able to recapture it soon.

Do not like: Razing the lab in your capitol (or last fort, if your last fort is not your capitol). Once you are dead, there is nothing left to defend.


Gem/item gifting:

Do not like: quitting the game because you are bored or your girlfriend is nagging you about playing too much dominions, and sending your gems to some nation you happened to have a NAP with. I've sent gems back in this case.

Do not like: not using your gems in defense of your nation, and then giving them away to a friend.

Acceptable: sending a crapload of gems to someone to dispel or overwrite a global of someone you are at war with.

Acceptable: giving loot to your conqueror, assuming that you don't screw up and think you are dead before actually are, or fail to see some way you could have used those gems to survive longer.

Acceptable: giving loot to an ally in thanks for their support (but if they are such a good ally, why are you dead? ) I think I prefer the above option, but I will not return gems sent to me for this reason.


Allowing another player to take territory you control:
Handing over VPs:

What Micah said.


Posting info about the game revealing sites or your opponent's strengths or weaknesses, after you are dead:

Do not like. You are dead! How is your nation communicating this information? Okay, I suppose there are refugees or stragglers or something. But it seems like it could be done just out of spite in some cases.


Alliances:

Do not like: Alliances with terms like "allied until there are only 6 or 4 or 2 nations remaining." Alliances like this need to be treated like a single nations with all the resources of the alliance. And probably ganked.


Gankfests:

Do not like: Ganging up > 2 to 1 on an equal-strength nation. This is just my personal preference though, I don't really expect others to play like this.

Acceptable: Complete ganging up of all nations against someone who is running away with the game or in a position to win. I will whine and moan about it if that's me though.


My thoughts on RP:

This doesn't mean you should do stupid stuff. Or that, for example, MA Marignon should necessarily avoid summoning tartarians or something like that. But put yourself in the skin of your nation. Do you want to be wiped out? No! So defend yourself.


Vassals/Forge B*tches:

Acceptable: If you are doing it temporarily while you research up some awesome tech that you really need in order to overthrow your evil oppressor. Preferably in some intended-to-be-devastating sneak attack.

Do not like: Using this as a permanent survival strategy. This does not qualify as "holding out against invaders". This qualifies as selling your soul.


NAPs:

Acceptable: Attacking before the term on your NAP is up, casting damaging rituals while the NAP is up, is acceptable if it is necessary for the survival of your nation (or ultimate victory, if that's in the cards).

Acceptable: Complaining about getting attacked when a NAP was in force. I prefer this is done in the context of the game: nations, not players.

Not acceptable: Complaining about getting attacked when a NAP was in force, when actually there was no NAP ever discussed, even if it's in character. Even I have limits to my treacherous behaviour. If this is explicitly allowed in the game OP rules, then it is acceptable.


Metagaming:

Really really do not like: Gem/item gifts or alliances because another player is a friend IRL or on the forums. Attacking a nation because of a personal issue with the player of that nation.


Exploits:

Do not like: filling up the lab.


I realize that not everyone feels the same way I do about these issues. It's probably a good idea to define what's acceptable in each game OP.

[K]

Originally Posted by Sombre

You do have a bad reputation. At least in the circles I travel in. And your reputation /is/ what people think of you. If people 'think' you have a bad reputation then you do. But this is getting off topic. Fortunately since the discussion is pointless you won't be posting again and there won't be any risk of me going blind or having a nervous breakdown.

Wow. Thanks for the personal attack. Good thing you've never played with me and have no idea what you are talking about.

Nice you know that people are still willing to go out of their way to demean people.