MP: Setsumi - Come for the game, stay for the drama!

[Micah]

Well said Calahan. Sadly, it seems to me at this point that Quitti and Zeldor (Edit: and SciencePro, didn't realize he had subbed in, he's not listed in the OP) are the only players here that are capable of acting in a fashion that supports fair play instead of their own base self-interest, so it's a waste of breath to continue.

I personally liked your suggestion, but Anthropos seems opposed to it, and Kuritza continues to spout meaningless noise to cover for the fact that he's not actually willing to give up his undeserved spot as game-leader by agreeing to a compromise. I see that he has time to post about how awesome his battle-group is, but not to address your question about providing an equitable rollback compromise. I find it deeply ironic that he uses the word "childish." Ossa's stated position is no better, though he's not as vocal.

The section under the C heading is especially spot on, and yet Kuritza continues to try to cling to other games ("this game be THAT unique") and other situations (Jomon's staling) as a smoke screen. For the record, I DON'T think this game should be "unique" in allowing rollbacks or some other solution given the situation, but I'd point out the exceptionally poor behavior by a majority of players in the game as to why it would be if it were to actually happen. Evidently compromising isn't in peoples' skill set around here.

And I agree with your fault-assessment, but I was trying to be diplomatic. In terms of resolving the situation it doesn't really matter whose fault it is as long as it's not Zeldor's, which it is not, so I was trying to avoid pointing fingers.

[lch]

I haven't read Calahan's post, it was too long. In fact I haven't read most posts here. Can somebody sum up Calahan's post to me? Was it a reformulation of Sheap's rules for Multiplayer etiquette or what people call the "metagame"?

[Calahan]

Originally Posted by Kuritza

I have won it as clean as possible. Seriously.

Ok then, maybe it is possible to offer something extra besides the chance to win a clean war (as you have already done that). I do not know the game, so not sure if a few provinces or gems would be possible.

Originally Posted by Kuritza

Also, I managed to get some unique summons and forge an artefact.

This is not an issue, as with the cooperation of all the players, you would again be able to get the same unique summon(s) and artefact(s) you have now.

Maybe some extra unique summon(s) or artefact(s) could form part of any compensation if you missed out on them (and hence wasted the resources on, so could therefore save/use those resources)

Originally Posted by Anthropos

while i really don't care that much
this following is a silly solution

=====
So maybe I can offer another possible solution....

"The game is rolled back the three turns to before Ermor started staling, and conditions imposed so that the war Kuritza won is winnable again, but without any of the risks that were attached to it first time around."

If that means the nation Kuritza defeated has to stale or submit suicidal orders, then so be it. That particular war has already been fought and an outcome achieved in Kuritza's favour, so it would be unfair and unreasonable to give the defeated nation another crack at surviving it. I am not sure if there are any other major wars/battles elsewhere that would need the same provisions made, but Kuritza's successful war victory seems to be the one most mentioned in the discussion, and unless I am mistaken, his main objection to the rollback (as it would be unfair on him to ask him to win a war a second time if he took risks to win it the first time).
====

the war was against me
it was the first few turns i ever faced a war against an experienced player in MP

one of the three turns I staled (can't rem why now)
the other i did sleep deprived on a train and forgot to load my casters up with gems
also, as most of the good advice on how to play came from zeldor
his absence as a person during this time was key feature in my downfall
he had huge numbers of troops adjacent to some of the battlegrounds

if we rollback, things will be different

a) i know a lot more
b) my main ally will be around
c) i saw how things might progress on that terrain
d) unlikley things happened, like my god dying with a single bad MR save
e) zeldor might take action

i expect to still die
but to cause more serious losses

bye for now
anthropos

I am sorry, but you had your chance to defend against Kuritza, and you lost your war. There may be many reasons why you lost, which you have explained. But all of them have no bearing on the issue at hand. It is always tough as a new player to defend against an experienced player for the first time. I know, I have been there. But if you attempted to use any knowledge you gained to change the course of your war with Kuritza during the rollback, or gain assistance from another player (such as Zeldor) then you would directly benefit from the rollback, and Kuritza would directly suffer. That then actually goes against what my idea is trying to achieve.

The key to my solution is to try and make every non-Ermor related incident happen just as it did. So that way the game can return to this turn after a rollback, with Kuritza being in the same position as he is now (or better due to some form of compensation). You having a chance to defend yourself better is NOT part of the solution, and would only cause more problems if it happened.

So while you say "if we rollback, things will be different", the entire point is that things should not be any different at all in your war if the game is rolled back.

Originally Posted by lch

I haven't read Calahan's post, it was too long.

Yeah I don't blame you, I'm an awesome rambler when I get going

Originally Posted by lch

Can somebody sum up Calahan's post to me? Was it a reformulation of Sheap's rules for Multiplayer etiquette or what people call the "metagame"?

Something like that. Although I tried to keep the points relevant to this game only rather than games in general. Plus I tried to point out that those who are to blame for this mess are not the ones being punished. And that a single player shouldn't be asked/forced to take the entire hit of a big problem that was caused almost entirely by a huge administrative cock-up. This problem affects the very game itself, and therefore every player. So logically, everybody should have to make some sort of compromise in order to correct it. It is the shape and form of that compromise that the current crop of messages are trying to work out.


And of course Sheap explained all the MP etiquette rules far better than I ever could.

Here's the link to Sheap's fantastic "Multi-player 101 Guide" on how to play and act during MP games for those who have not read it (you should!). Think I must have read this at least a dozen times before playing my first MP game.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com//showthread.php?t=32050

[Kuritza]

Micah, YOU had to sub Zeldor, and YOU failed to check if the game has ended or not.

I was the one who actually asked to pause this game when I noticed that Ermor stales.

And thank you for referring to personal insults, yes.
Underserved spot? As a game leader? Say again, I cheated somehow or what? I didnt work to get what I have in this game?
Or maybe I didnt suggest that Marignon and Utgard must give Zeldor some land back, and I refused to give Zeldor a NAP?
And, while we are at it, ROLLBACK IS NOT A COMPROMISE!!! Its Zeldors demand. Or does 'compromise' mean 'shutting the hell up and agreeing to Zeldors demands' now?
But yeah, I'm the one who spouts meaningless nonsense.

Hell yeah, I HAD! to agree to a rollback, nullifying my progress. Or I had to stale, killing my fetish-holders. Right, 'compromise' is making a player who just played his own part suffer for another players fault!
And what I offered was a 'nonsense' because it didnt provide a 100% compensation! GREAT!

You 'dont think this game should be unique' by providing 3-turns rollbacks etc, yet you keep coming here and blaming me for not agreeing to this nonsense.
Poor behaviour, my ***. I asked to stop this game to stop Zeldor's slaughter, I supported a diplomatic solution, and its NOT my fault that according to Zeldor, diplomatic solution means 'not attacking him until Marignon is dead' and anything less is 'nonsense'. All I wanted is to continue this goddamn game, because I had a good position which I deserved.

To hell with you both. Close this farce of a game, losers cant be winners.

[Kuritza]

Oh, and Calahan.

Thanks for coming. You were the only one who made sense here, I appreciate it. I dont agree to rollbacks, because I just dont want to do the same tedious routine again where I managed everything so perfectly once, but at least you tried to make it sound appealing and count my interests in too.

I just dont want to continue this game anymore. I dont play with these who cant take it like a man after a mistake. I dont play with these who openly say they wont let others to finish this game if they arent allowed to have it their way. And I wont play here after I was told that I 'spout meaningless noise to cover for the fact that he's not actually willing to give up his undeserved spot as game-leader by agreeing to a compromise'.

And these guys dare to say something against WL?

[Juffos]

Wow. Dominions is serious business. I lost the game due to five stales in the earlymid game and an opportunistic Ermor in the close neighbourhood. Had fun defending against the impossible odds


Oh wow look, suddenly, two rollbacks, how is this possible? I guess some divine fate wants the drama to end and the game to continue. The Emperor's hand guide us all.

[Kuritza]

Close This Goddamn Game!

[Squirrelloid]

Kuritza, from the sounds of things, the war you won was against Zeldor's *ally*. Claiming you didn't benefit from Zeldor's staling in such a situation is beyond the point of credibility. In fact, from Anthropos description, there were Ermorian armies *right there* on the border who could have intervened if Ermor had not been staling.

Surely, you knew Anthropos was Zeldor's ally. Misrepresenting the extent Ermor was effected or could have effected your war is as good as lying to try to retain an unfair advantage. So I agree with Calahan's long post with the following exception: you should have to refight the war because Ermor may well defend its ally.

[Juffos]

Keep on arguing and I will declare AI Jomon the winner.

>:|


if the capital still holds, of course.

You both are quite stubborn and I like bananas.

[Zeldor]

As we are here, I could clarify some things:

- I would have probably attacked Man by now, if not the stales, as his conquer of Caelum was a direct threat to me
- before stales I had another border with Man, through Marignon lands I conquered
- there were many offers I sent to Kuritza, he just chose to keep on mentioning one of them, the one he found unacceptable
- his offers were way more profitable for him than for me, 3-5 turns of peace gives him only time to prepare, while denying my chance to strike at him like I planned
- I don't expect 100% compensation as it's simply impossible, but I still think that doing 3 rollbacks would be more fair than force stales [with focus on 'more']
- I agree that it should be more a talk between Ossa and me, but he is not very vocal and his answer was really straight, without room for negotiations
- yes, there were stalers in that game [a bit too many] and all was reported to Juffos - and he switched that players to AI, trying to get some subs earlier; those were not leading nations though and everyone had a same chance to eat a peace of them [every neighbour that is]
- bananas are good