A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.

[thejeff]

Possibly because we're not thinking about it in game theory terms.

Assume nation A has helped me throughout the game, even sometimes when it was not to his immediate benefit. We've traded things back and forth, come to each others aid when attacked, plotted attacks together, etc.
Sure we both know if we survive long enough we'll have to fight each other, but until then ...
Why shouldn't I do one last thing to help him before I die?
Maybe it's RP, though it's not something I'd really think of as role-playing. More just human nature.
We're not calculating odds of winning. We're not aiming to influence a game. We're helping someone who helped us one last time. Or hurting our enemy one more time.

If you want to look at it strictly in terms of winning, the logical thing to do would be to drop the game once your chances got too small and start another game.

[Sombre]

Well the issue of giving stuff to another player is easy enough to avoid with no trading or no diplo games.

I'm more concerned about people launching or threatening spite responses to being conquered, since there's no easy rule to restrict that behaviour. As crappy as I may find it, if it's really common I'll just live with it and not do it myself. I just don't like the fact that it seriously disincentivises conquest. If you know that if you attack someone they'll almost immediately burn all their stuff down and turtle up to sit there and try to cause you as much aggravation as possible, it leads to you not wanting to attack until you can do something along the lines of taking every province in a couple turns. Which leads to some serious stagnation imo.

[thejeff]

Completely agreed that an immediate rollover, followed by burning down their own forts and labs is pretty much unjustifiable.
Though a little pillaging/overtaxing in provinces soon to be taken to get cash to fund more resistance and maybe destroying buildings you're not going to be able to defend while preparing a counterattack is valid tactically.

I really can't see why anyone would go full turtle without even attempting to defend themselves.

[Calchet]

See, the problem here is that there's really no good way I can think of to judge when someone should be allowed to give things away or ruin their lands - you pretty much have to stick to either extreme, either always disallowing it or always allowing it.

Of course, you could attempt to put together a neutral "turn review board" that'd check every turn file for unacceptable plays before allowing anything to be submit to the game server, or less extremely, a neutral "game review board" that decides when any nation no longer has a reasonable chance of winning and bans them from doing certain things, or just forces them to go AI...

[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.

[chrispedersen]

I've been thinking of this thread a bit - I think there are things on the winning side that are also gray area.

For example, I've been involved in several games where someone found an amazing site. Call it a 50% construction bonus. Two people - or three people - share the site.

To me, this just sucks. 50% construction bonus sites are really too powerful to be in the game. The introduction of the site into the game - especially when hidden, and therefor not known by all players essentially means that the all the players in the game except maybe 2-3 are wasting their time. They often have *no* chance of winning.

I think I will make it as part of the balance mod that there are no sites with more than a 20% construction bonus. I think I would like to make it a house rule that all bonus sites, when found, must be announced. I think I would like to make it a rule of honor that they cannot be shared.

[Zeldor]

Mod like that already exists. And it's supposed to be a part of next CBM, afaik.

[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".

[Baalz]

I just wanted to clarify what I meant since its apparently a bit ambiguous. A bogus RP justification is "I'm playing Lanka, what did you expect when you attacked demons?". That's some BS. I do agree with Micah that diplomacy can certainly justify vengeful acts. If you violate a NAP, or bring a 5-1 dogpile then you can't really expect the recipient to give you a "gg".

[DonCorazon]

Pretty simple to me: play to win, and when it looks like you cannot win, play to last as long as you can, maybe things will change and your prospects will turn around. Remember one game where a player was immediately sieged and almost domkilled, but incredibly managed to slay the offending carrion dragon with a handful of units and despite the horrific start went on to become one of the leading contenders. Ironically, the aggressor in that game quit as soon as his pretender was killed.

I think if you follow those guidelines, you will pretty much be following everything Micah said e.g. you wouldn't give up your last VP since that would be suicide.