A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.

[thejeff]

At some point, pretty much anything you do, unless you're really in contention for winning yourself, is kingmaking.

If I help take down the leader, that's likely to throw the game to the next most powerful. If I don't, that leaves the leader winning.
Obviously this only really applies when the end is near. Taking an early leader down still leaves the field wide open.

If you're just talking about last gems and items when you're beaten, that seems a small part of kingmaking. I'd be more likely to give stuff to a surviving ally than to just a random enemy of my enemy.

[Sombre]

Edit: This reply is to qm.

Well there are two statements there. I believe one of them, while not kingmaking, is effectively the same. You aren't trying to win by doing it, just trying and make your opponent lose for daring to attack you, via proxy. I think you're mainly talking about scorched earth, so I'll address that:

I don't think burning down your stuff because you are about to get conquered is kingmaking but I do think it's a crappy way to play.

I don't really see how burning down all of your territory and hiding in your (also burned down) home province is worthwhile. I mean you've already lost, you're just taking turns for the sake of it and burning down all those provinces isn't really helping you, it's just spiting your attacker. You're also ignoring the possibility of recovering that territory in order to weaken a foe that you aren't going to beat. You're weakening them for someone else - why? Unless it's an allied game, you shouldn't have any interest in your enemy's enemy prevailing.

I'd say this is rather different from fighting to the bitter end, which involves defending those resources you can and inflicting maximum casualties. There you are honing your skills, giving the opponent a good fight and, to an extent, still trying to win (who knows, maybe they'll be savaged by a bunch of other nations and you'll claw your way back). Razing everything you own just to deny it to the attacker could possibly help you live a few more turns (since they'll have less income to use in cracking your home fort), but for what? The extra turns will be spent hiding in a fort doing nothing.

[Sombre]

Originally Posted by thejeff

If you're just talking about last gems and items when you're beaten, that seems a small part of kingmaking. I'd be more likely to give stuff to a surviving ally than to just a random enemy of my enemy.

Unless you're talking about a team game or one that allows allied victory, they are only your ally as long as you have that temporary agreement to work together for mutual benefit, or at least not attack eachother. Once you're dead, they aren't your ally, so I don't see why you'd give them anything. Giving away stuff to make people come to your aid, that makes sense. Giving it to someone other than your attacker, or even giving it to your attacker himself (which happens generally to spite people who DIDN'T come to your aid) doesn't make sense to me other than as an attempt to influence the game post death, which ideally people wouldn't care about.

[thejeff]

While in the end there can only be one, so all allies are temporary, all I was saying is that I'd rather give gems to someone who has been helping me out, rather than to someone who hasn't but is likely to fight my enemy soon.

And if you want to parse words, while they might not be my ally once I'm dead, I also can't give them anything once I'm dead. Any giving of resources must be done while I'm still alive, so they are still my ally when the gift is sent.

[Calchet]

I'd say a lot of this begins in a sensible strategy of looking less juicy - you'd reasonably expect your opponents to weigh the pros and cons of attempting to take you out, and you can work against this in two ways - either to minimise the pros, using a scorched earth-type maneuver to make their conquests less useful, or to maximise the cons, by fielding a powerful defense that will cause losses, and by strengthening the enemies of your attacker.

This, of course, only applies while you still have a theoretical chance to survive to win the game - and, as far as I can see, some people ask that players, once they reach the (quite subjective) point of no return, immediately stop any such actions and let themselves be gracefully conquered by whoever is rampaging through their armies - I find this to be a bit much to ask.

Allow them instead to die as they've lived - to spit in the face of their executioner, as it were. Sure, it's not fun to have someone spit in your face, especially if it blinds you enough to give another enemy a chance to strike, but that is something a would-be executioner should be prepared for.

[Gandalf Parker]

Its early for me and I lack caffeine but some rambling notes:

(A) Throw in Data Tactic (as in the example of the character Data playing a game against an expert on Star Trek). Knowing that he cannot win, he plays to not lose. He passes up obvious ways to take chances for a big win in order to take safer moves even if they only result in a draw. Eventually his win appears based on the frustration of the expert player who quits rather than continue the long drawn out game. For some people a win is a win, but others would consider that to be crappy tactics.

(B) The conversation about the noob making a "bad decision" to lose the game quickly when faced with a game full of veterans. In such a situation the goal might have been to quickly leave the game and move on to another. His reputation would not be damaged nearly as much by a quick loss (noob losing to vets) as it would by other options such as just leaving the game or going AI. Some veterans prefer the only-one scenario and such a noob would be appreciated more than the more RP honorable fight-to-the-end version which is revered by some other vets.

(C) In the chat that was posted I seem to see a strong interest in gold, gems, provinces which would seem to denote a specific type of Dom3 game, settings, map sizes, etc. As just one example it doesnt seem to recognize that a nation might be willing to use all of those to purchase a neighbors aid in holding off an aggressor if their strategy is one of "I can really kick tail if I can just achieve xxxxx" (research level, spell, ability to create certain items or units). Of course there are varying opinions on whether or not such a strategy can win but I feel the game parameters tend to define that.

(D) I dislike HoF as a rating of players, and strongly dislike the idea of recording players to avoid. However I do appreciate it as a source of "nations that win" info. To those comments in the chat I would have mentioned that "win" defined as kill all other nations by force presets a variable which I do not feel the game was built around altho I know that some feel it is. IMHO there is a basis for some nations being built around the ability to hold out or turtle so to me an acceptable win would include being able to play until the other players gave up.

(E) As far as getting noobs to continue a game to the end as a full combatant even when its obvious they cannot win I feel thats a losing premise. It would be better to make it community acceptable to offer allegiance. In that case I feel its the vets who are at fault when they talk about a NAP being always temporary and susceptable to sudden surprising endings. The option for an alliance as an option for reaching end-game is removed thereby denoting the game as a "I want a single winner" game. In general I would consider that to be perfectly acceptable in blitzes but an unreasonable expectation in an epic game. Im not getting into whether or not thats general opinion. I only wanted to point out the cause and affect as far as noob impressions of their options. To change one you might have to change the other.

(F) Which brings up that options for noobs to fully play games with vets can be accomplished simply by the creation of other game scenarios than the simple take-all-the-map there-can-only-be-one games. There are many such games being played. I feel that the smoothness and happy end-game for many of the games here are achieved by avoiding "I took it for granted" and plainly laying out games parameters.

(G) By the end of the chat material I was beginning to get the feel that the community you feel you were representing was not as large a community as you seem to feel. As in many such discussions I began to get an impression of the size and characteristics of the games you were referring to which is only a portion of what Dom3 supports.

(H) Minor question. Some seem to be arguing alliances. Would not Pantheon making be different than King Making? One would denote an alliance win while the other would denote selecting a take-all winner. Just my own impression but it appears that there is far more ill feelings toward pantheon making than king making so the overlapping examples seems to lead the conversation toward preset goals.

Now my own soapbox:
The concept of "community standards" might be best redefined as "game standards". It has been recommended in the past that someone such as Llama server might post some of the more extensive rule sets that have been developed in order to make it easier to create games. A game thread initial post could include a line such as "Rules: set A on Llamaserver with the following changes".

In a way, CBM and some other mods have become a version of that by closing out some game options or opening up others. Some of the Rules Sets could include acceptable and unacceptable end-game scenarios so that the initial creator of that game could easily select one forestalling the later conversations along the line of "I took that for a standard". I often see rants here which seem based on "This is how I play. And I feel the game is meant to be played that way. And everyone agrees." which I feel is very unmatching to the games parameters.

A number of such sets have come into use but are being referenced as "just like the previous game xxxxx". If such sets were posted and one began to get common use, THEN it might be accepted as a general community standard but based on the conversations along this line in the past I would be willing to bet against that happening. But I do feel we can save many hassles if we could create some game definitions in a central place which can be referenced in the initial game post. It would also provide some recognition for some of the many many different game options available.


Gandalf Parker
--
For some people, unlimited options appears the same as no options at all.
Without a menu of selections, they are lost.

[quantum_mechani]

Originally Posted by Sombre

Edit: This reply is to qm.

Well there are two statements there. I believe one of them, while not kingmaking, is effectively the same. You aren't trying to win by doing it, just trying and make your opponent lose for daring to attack you, via proxy. I think you're mainly talking about scorched earth, so I'll address that:

I don't think burning down your stuff because you are about to get conquered is kingmaking but I do think it's a crappy way to play.

I don't really see how burning down all of your territory and hiding in your (also burned down) home province is worthwhile. I mean you've already lost, you're just taking turns for the sake of it and burning down all those provinces isn't really helping you, it's just spiting your attacker. You're also ignoring the possibility of recovering that territory in order to weaken a foe that you aren't going to beat. You're weakening them for someone else - why? Unless it's an allied game, you shouldn't have any interest in your enemy's enemy prevailing.

I'd say this is rather different from fighting to the bitter end, which involves defending those resources you can and inflicting maximum casualties. There you are honing your skills, giving the opponent a good fight and, to an extent, still trying to win (who knows, maybe they'll be savaged by a bunch of other nations and you'll claw your way back). Razing everything you own just to deny it to the attacker could possibly help you live a few more turns (since they'll have less income to use in cracking your home fort), but for what? The extra turns will be spent hiding in a fort doing nothing.

As thejeff says, at some point anything you do as a player is just screwing over one of the leading players, not winning the game. The real question when doing scorched earth is 'how far in the future could I ever expect to recapture this for any length of time?'. In a lot of cases the answer is 10 or 20 turns, if ever. At that point it is perfectly reasonable to try and deny your opponent the resources at the risk of some long term detriment far down the road.

As you say, your best hope to ever escape a losing situation is a pile on by other people, and the longer you can hold out, the more likely such a rescue becomes.

[Sombre]

Well your enemy isn't your enemy once you're dead. I guess I just don't get why you'd care that the resources you give when you are 'alive' (yet to be finished off is more appropriate perhaps) will be used after your death by someone who is no longer your ally against someone who is no longer your enemy.

I understand the concept of revenge of course, and there's a place for it in dom3, I just think you shouldn't aim to influence the game in a way that has nothing to do with the success or even story of your nation.

[quantum_mechani]

Originally Posted by Sombre

Well your enemy isn't your enemy once you're dead. I guess I just don't get why you'd care that the resources you give when you are 'alive' (yet to be finished off is more appropriate perhaps) will be used after your death by someone who is no longer your ally against someone who is no longer your enemy.

I understand the concept of revenge of course, and there's a place for it in dom3, I just think you shouldn't aim to influence the game in a way that has nothing to do with the success or even story of your nation.

I suppose because I do believe in bounce backs to some degree. Maybe not to the point of winning, but I think you can go from stuck in your sieged capital to a viable power. I also think it's extremely difficult to kill off someone who mounts a competent, conservative defense. So given that, I have a hard time not pulling out all the stops for survival both from a RP and strategy perspective.

That said, I do recognize I tend to get caught up more with winning a war than winning a game, so I can understand other people have different perspectives.

[Sombre]

Originally Posted by Calchet

Allow them instead to die as they've lived - to spit in the face of their executioner, as it were. Sure, it's not fun to have someone spit in your face, especially if it blinds you enough to give another enemy a chance to strike, but that is something a would-be executioner should be prepared for.

Except everyone is a would-be executioner and if everyone responds to a war they don't seem to be able to win by burning all their lands down or threatening to do so and give all their stuff to another player, it seriously reduces the incentive to attack. Creating turtling. Creating lategame mm.