A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.

[Trumanator]

Having a discussion about this with Arch, I left to get some dinner, and came back to find this, which I consider one of the most passionate defenses I've heard. I feel that it would go a long way to explaining motives, so I am posting it below.

18:07 archae_vanjarr> eh, the game was epic... why vets are less likely to be pleased with this than noobs is that we all know the draw of the vast fight
18:07 archae_vanjarr> and how much time and effort we put into these marvelous constructs of empires
18:07 archae_vanjarr> it gets to the heart of why (when, sometimes) dominions is truly great
18:08 archae_vanjarr> i could play any scrub free browser MMO and try and do whatever i can
18:08 archae_vanjarr> but that's ****
18:08 archae_vanjarr> and it's why feelings fly so high with these games
18:09 archae_vanjarr> people create these vast intricate idiosyncratic structures
18:09 archae_vanjarr> and it can be incredibly painful when some *** comes and stomps on you
18:09 archae_vanjarr> but that's what makes it exciting
18:09 archae_vanjarr> *not speaking for all vets, or anything, just my opinion
18:10 archae_vanjarr> so to end a game so cheaply, in the name of a win, as it seems to me to have been done... you see the depth of my response that this is not fitting
18:11 archae_vanjarr> even though it is of course true it is hard to draw any strong line between something like this and normal diplomatic behaviour
18:11 archae_vanjarr> but, still, one can, and does
18:11 archae_vanjarr> which is why I've not seen this in any dominions game I've played
18:12 archae_vanjarr> or heard of, on these forums
18:14 archae_vanjarr> but of course it is my emotions that are wrapped up in this event
18:15 archae_vanjarr> and not all that I have said has likely been the most politic
18:16 archae_vanjarr> but someone more polite and... deferential to things, would likely not have said anything really
18:16 archae_vanjarr> for good or for ill

[chrispedersen]

A few observations.

1). A player does not have to be capable of winning the game to be capable of throwing it.

1.5 > 1.

So even if a player is third, he is more than capable of throwing a game.

2). The reason we play against real players is for the challenge of it. We hope for a contest of tactics, of wills, of strategems, win or lose.

3. I would say that it is beneficial for the dominions community overall, that players do not 'throw' games - as this leads to the most satisfying games. I would define 'throwing a game' as joining a contest for the purpose of making it inequitable.

On the other side of the matter:

4). Suppose one had been trounced - and gradually losing. Same three player argument. I don't really think it is unrealistic to ally, or throw the game 'against' the player that is defeating you.

Mictlan attacks arco.
Pangaia aids arco - as arco gets close to losing - arco throws all available forts etc to pangaia.

While it is unsatisfying, I see nothing wrong in it. Mictlan saying 'lose the way I chose you to lose' seems illogical.

Concluding: I know this thread arose because of a game. I am not taking sides in the game, I don't know the relevent facts.

I think it is incumbent on every player to attempt to win the game. Once winning is not possible how they choose to lose is up to them. Diplomacy is a huge part of the game. If you are courteous to your opponent he is more likely to be courteous in return. If not - he is more likely to gift his forts or items to other players.

Good sportsmanship suggests that they should endeavor not to spoil the enjoyment of the other players in the game.

[vfb]

I thought crumble was broken, and you just need one cast of it to destroy walls, as long as you're doing at least minimal wall damage with sieging forces?

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showt...083#post511083

Did that get patched at some point?

[archaeolept]

I believe it is broken, and while I cast it a few times in this last game, they were weak forts and I was sieging with superior forces, so I am not sure.

I have heard it is from people who's opinion I trust.

[archaeolept]

oh, as a note, after a discussion with our esteemed Balbarian, I was going to create a thread for abstract discussion of the topic(s). This thread has preempted it, however.

it would be best, I think, to stay on the questions in abstract, and keep references to the events of a specific game to a minimum.

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

A few observations.

1). A player does not have to be capable of winning the game to be capable of throwing it.

1.5 > 1.

So even if a player is third, he is more than capable of throwing a game.

There was a reason a definition of 'throwing a game' was given. That you can't throw a game you are not *capable* of winning necessarily follows from that definition.

Also, i think you misinterpret 'capable of winning'. A player in 3rd may well be capable of winning the game, in which case he would also be capable of throwing it. A player in 10th place in the late game is almost certainly not capable of winning the game (bar some bizarre and elaborate set of assumptions that would never be achieved in reality).

You do seem to understand this distinction, since you make an identical point at the end of your post.

2). The reason we play against real players is for the challenge of it. We hope for a contest of tactics, of wills, of strategems, win or lose.

That's the reason *you* play against real players. There are many reasons for playing, and expecting everyone to play for your reason isn't warranted. Someone should not be punished or ostracized for playing for a different reason than someone or ones else.

3. I would say that it is beneficial for the dominions community overall, that players do not 'throw' games - as this leads to the most satisfying games. I would define 'throwing a game' as joining a contest for the purpose of making it inequitable.

I don't think anyone has argued that actually 'throwing the game' is acceptable practice.

[Ballbarian]

Originally Posted by archaeolept

oh, as a note, after a discussion with our esteemed Balbarian, I was going to create a thread for abstract discussion of the topic(s). This thread has preempted it, however.

it would be best, I think, to stay on the questions in abstract, and keep references to the events of a specific game to a minimum.

Thank you archae. This can be an interesting discussion, so every effort should be made to keep it on track and out of the mud.

[Sombre]

I personally think kingmaking is pretty frickin lame. I'd never do it. I also believe trashing your provinces to spite an attacker is a crappy way to play and giving all of your stuff to an enemy of your enemy because you're going to die is even worse. It leads to the situation where you have people using 'diplomacy' along the lines of 'if you attack me with even a single thing, I am going to throw every single thing I have at you and give all my land/resources to your enemy'. When that happens it leads to turtling because attacking /anyone/ will lead you to a worse position unless you are confident you can beat /everyone/.

I am all for people playing the game the way they want, but people do generally know when what they're doing is crappy (seen as crappy by other people) and if they go ahead and do it anyway, they can't complain when people are mad at them or feign innocence.

[Burnsaber]

I'm with Sombre Kingmaking is pretty lame. I used to do it, due to RP justifications. But I've realized that you can't make the game worse and blame it on RP, since it's meant to enchance the gameplay experience. Nowdays I often just spend all the gems I can to burn my attacker and then just die with the ones I can't spend.

In Crusaders game, my poor Agarthan start got steamrolled by T'ien C'hi and he had to endure a long hard siege against my constantly re-appearing CBM pyre Phoenix. The player kept on devising clever methods to bypass the exploding phoenix and the battes were extraordinarily fun. In the end I decided to give my final few gems to him, because he deserved them with his good playing.

So instead of using my last gems for a bitter and whinetastic move, I used them as a method for saying "GG". When I make such contributions, I'll make sure that they're not too small to be neglible but not too huge as to be unbalancing.

[quantum_mechani]

Originally Posted by Sombre

I also believe trashing your provinces to spite an attacker is a crappy way to play and giving all of your stuff to an enemy of your enemy because you're going to die is even worse.

I don't think that's really kingmaking. It seems totally legit to trash provinces in a losing war, just so you can hold out longer.