MP: Asia Twist - Wraithlord Wins!

[WraithLord]

Your claims are untrue, they are subject to your perspective but I'm oh so tired of this. You just go on and on and on. I admit defeat in the posting arena. I can't compete with your pace. I won the game fair against all that you and your allies could throw at me. Yes, it's really a fair competition when you're getting 1.5K gems of help and what not.

Now, this is not the first time I extend my hand to you in good will and ask you the accept your loss like a man and get over it. I'm not alone in this as quite a number of players have expressed similar sentiments upon witnessing all the fuss you are making.
This is however the last time you reject my invitation to get over it. I'm done talking to you. I don't want to play with you anymore. ever. I don't want to ever talk to you as well. Have a nice life and please keep out of mine.
I also ask you one last time to stop throwing slander at me wherever you can. This is not befitting of civil conduct and certainly not an accepted practice on these friendly forums.

[archaeolept]

Slander is a very serious accusation; it depends upon the facts being asserted being untrue, and on the accuser knowing them to be untrue. Could you specifically state what statements by me you consider slander? As, I cannot recall making any untrue assertions. This is the second time you have accused me of slander, also without any specifics. Which claims of mine specifically are you asserting to be slanderous?

In fact, asserting slander when you are aware that the accusations are basically correct is itself slander.

As to the opinions of a few forum denizens who have little knowledge of the situation, I don't see how that's especially relevant.

And as to the gems, I remain somewhat perplexed - on the one hand, you assert that you had such military preponderance that the outcome was moot anyways; on the other, you assert that my having received gems to support my fight against you was ... what? the game being thrown? Sending gems and items is pretty common practice, and certainly not one you refused either.

I said I was willing to try for a rematch in that new game of yours. It was you that rejected the offer.

like a man

Lol

___________________________
If Pangaia had vacated his two vps, and cast crumble on his own castles while I teleported in w/ a couple units in a concerted action, then you could say that he was trying to throw the game

[Squirrelloid]

You know, i'd refrained from commenting on the forums because I wasn't involved in the game, but based on discussion on IRC...

1500 gems? Seriously? Certain examples about Kingmaking in Settlers of Catan (which were derided as unfair) pale in comparison to the size of the Kingmaking attempt that represents. Trading 100 wheat for 1 sheep seems *reasonable* in that context.

It is not a difference of kind to pass VPs than it is to pass resources without fair compensation. Archae, your allies were trying to give you the game just as much as WL's were trying to give him the game. To pretend otherwise is a farce, and makes laughable your entire claim. If you needed 1500 gems in aid to just come even (or some reasonable fascimile thereof) then on your own merits the game was already lost.

Any attempt to prevent one person from winning the game is necessarily an attempt to cause another person to win the game, because ultimately *only one person can win*. If your allies had been successful in their attempt to play kingmaker and caused you to win, they would have 'thrown' the game just as much as Aristander did. I use 'thrown' instead of thrown because you can only throw a game you can win. Clearly the other nations had already determined who the two powers that had any hope of winning were, and made a choice of which nation they favored for victor.

That Aristander's aid to WL was a better kingmaking play strikes me as superior strategy because it was more direct. Whereas your allies sent you material that would hopefully turn into VP, Aristander handed VP over directly. In both cases its an attempt to give one player more VP, one of them is just far more effective.

Either giving away anything in the game is unfair, or anything can be given freely. Since trading is allowed, and its hard to know what a fair market price for any particular good is, the boundary between 'giving' and 'trading' is rather nebulous. At which point, the only rational stance is that giving things away is fair game. So i won't fault your allies for giving you 1.5k gems, but i won't fault Aristander for giving away VP either.

[DonCorazon]

@Cal: Butters just wasn't intimidating enough...

@anyone talking about gem gifts: Personally, I rarely gift anyone anything in a game. But when I do, it has never been to the player I thought would win the game. As I said above, any donations I make are to, in the words of Led Zeppelin, "bring the balance back"

These gifts are not designed to ensure one player's victory - just the opposite. Strategically the goal is to make sure the #1 and #2 players wipe themselves out, leaving #3 the sole contender. Here, admittedly there was little chance for a revival of Pan to its former greatness, but nevertheless, I made it clear who I thought would win this game on these boards (Jot), and made a couple donations to Van try to even the scales, hoping to see an epic clash between two great players on even footing.

Please do not compare gifting, which can serve a strategic purpose, with surrendering VPs, which accomplishes nothing but a nation's oblivion and I would argue is below staling in terms of the impact it has on messing up a game. At least staling keeps the troops in the fort.

Again, while not impacted by the actions in this game, I only want to play with people who will Fight to Survive. Perhaps its necessary to make that explicit, or if you feel otherwise, let people know up front that it is acceptable to essentially win what amounts to an allied victory.

Anyway, its too bad things ended this way.

[Calahan]

Originally Posted by DonCorazon

@Cal: Butters just wasn't intimidating enough...

He scared the hell out of me!

Are you telling me someone walking around screaming, with a shuriken lodged in their head, and blood shooting out everywhere, isn't intimidating?!?

They must make them uber brave in your neck of the woods then DC

[Squirrelloid]

@Don re:gem gifts

The problem is that either (1) you are not the #3 nation (certainly not all of those gifting gems to Archae could be), or (2) you are hurting your chances of winning by gifting to the 2nd player (because that's material you're going to need if they 'wipe themselves out'). One might also wonder if two leading nations that late in the game are even capable of wiping one another out such that a nation can come from behind and win - playing for a totally unreasonable expectation isn't very rational. The game is really stacked against come-from-behind wins during late game, because the effect of superior income (in gold and gems) is cumulative, often over a large number of turns. I'm not going to say they don't happen, but I'd be surprised.

(Obviously there are probably games in which there were 3 or 4 competing nations even late in the game, but they certainly aren't going to be gifting to their rivals because they'll take themselves out of competition).

[DonCorazon]

Squirrelloid- the only major gift I gave Archae came after Wraith essentially declared himself the winner here, after he misinterpreted one of Archae's posts. I don't feel like looking through the threads, but a few pages back Wraith, in my mind, essentially put his cards on the table.

As I said, my gift was to create balance. I like both Wraith and Archae and didn't care who won. I thought Wraith had more resources and wanted to create an even fight. And in general gifting gems can be strategic. And I have RL reasons as to why I had to limit my push for victory in this game but gifting gems to help ensure a prolonged painful mutually destructive war is a good use of them. If the #2 player can put them to work and damage the #1 player better than I can, and it frees up my own mages to do research and forge, why is that not strategically superior to hording my gems, while the #1 player cleans up the game?

[DonCorazon]

PS I don't want to add fuel to the fire. I'd be very sad to see Wraith vanish from these boards.

[Executor]

I think you both need to calm down. I've been following your posts and frankly I'm getting tired of it myself.

Bottom line, as much I dislike the way in which WL won myself, and think of it as unworthy of a HoFer, there is unfortunately nothing that prevents someone from winning a game in such a way.
Maybe WL would have won in the long run anyway, maybe he wouldn't have, but the victory conditions have been achieved and that is that, the end.

Arch, you feel you've been cheated from a win, what can I way, it happens, it happened to others, it happened to me too, and more than once but you move on.

I see no point in you two arguing any more, nothing good can come of it, and nothing good can come from people fueling it up either.

[Squirrelloid]

@Don:
Look, ultimately Archae's claim stems from the fact that he feels the win was 'unfair'. However, isn't it also 'unfair' that he received massive aid from other powers which WL was not privy to? If games are supposed to be 'fair' (that is, your chance of winning is determined solely by your actions during the game), then no collusion between players should be allowed at all. What did Archae do to *earn* those 1500 gems? Nothing.

Clearly a diplomatic game is all about managing unfairness, not about the game being fair. Diplomacy itself is inherently unfair. Fighting 2 on 1 is unfair. Its also strategically good sense. Strategy is all about never fighting fair.

I'm not arguing you shouldn't be able to dispose of your gems as you like, I'm arguing that a standard which prevents disposal of your VP in a manner you decide also prohibits disposal of any resources in ways that don't involve you benefiting directly thereby (eg, only permits trade or direct expenditure).

Edit: Anyway, this is my last post on the topic. You're not going to sway me that passing free gems is any different in kind than passing VPs. I'm not saying those are unacceptable, I'm saying that they ultimately have the same ends. (You could pass a VP to make the game more even too - say so the two leaders were tied for VP). I think any agreement between two players that's allowed by the game engine is permissible, and that WL's win is a win by diplomacy and a superior strategy.