A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.

[thejeff]

But as Squirrelloid said before, there will always be kingmaking in anything but a two person duel. It can't be prohibited, unless you restrict the definition to just refer to a handful of specific acts you dislike.

[chrispedersen]

Bleh.

Liddell Hart, (who after Sun Tzu wrote probably the second best book on military tactics) paraphrased said "never fight an even fight".

Fight fights you are going to win.

Most of the vets here, do this, one way or another. Baalz and executor are *famous* for the 2 turn blitzes.

'Even' fights by definition maximize the casualties for both sides.

Asymmetrical fights occur in many ways - military advantage, mage advantage - or even diplomatic advantage.

More or less I find that the term kingmaking roughly equates to diplomacy: Y/N.

It would, perhaps, be good when choosing a game on llamaserver to be able to have a drop box, or post a statement about what was expected in the game.

Sure, I'll support adding
GoodPlayerPledge: Y/N
Kingmaking: Y/N
to any game.

But not allowing kingmaking directly decreases the fun in the game for some people. Suppose I'm comfortably in third place - saying I am not allowed to work for an ally removes a *lot* of the incentive to play the game.

You may find it fun to be required start a fight against an enemy against which you will lose - I am way too proud to want to be forced to take a bad choice. I'd rather stale than do it, to be honest. So in the games where you remove kingmaking - you remove a lot of the reason people stay in the game in secondary positions.

We play games to have fun.
We play players, generally, because the challenge is sharper, and the game more enjoyable.
Generally, the conduct we expect from our players we all learned in kindergarten - or the foreign equivalent thereof. Play nice. Try to win. Don't cheat. If it doesn't violate one of these, I figure its ok.

Its a *game* - ok you didn't expect your opponent to talk a player into surrendering. Congratulate him and move on - maybe you can learn something to elevate your own game.

[DonCorazon]

I respectfully disagree - gems are like bullets. Whether fired from my gun to kill Player #1, or fired from Player #2s gun to kill Player #1, I am indifferent, and may in fact prefer Player #2 to do the shooting, especially if he has a bigger gun in the form of paths / levels I do not have.

Turning over one's final VP is suicide. Its not the same at all.

I realize there are gray areas and its easier just to say, everything is permitted so we can avoid having to think it through. If that really is the consensus then I will probably avoid open games and try to find like-minded players that understand that suicide is not acceptable.

[thejeff]

Originally Posted by vfb

Well, for me, it goes against the whole spirit of the game. See those black candles? Enemy dominion. You can call him your ally if you like, but if his pretender ascends, that's the end of your pretender. Your would-be god is now banished forever to oblivion.

Spirit of the game can be interpreted many ways. Many of the pretenders served or were banished or imprisoned by the previous Pantokrator, why should they not except the new one to fall and to have another chance in time?
The mechanics of actually being defeated (province loss or dominion death) seem to rule against it, but does ascending actually rule out bringing former allies back as servants?
Or if they expect this ruler to fall eventually as well, then perhaps favors or enmities will be remembered when they return from this next imprisonment?

Even without that, once you start basing decisions on how the pretenders feel anything is justifiable. Bringing the hated rival down with me. Some pretenders might even feel concern for their subjects and hope their last act of generosity will lead the eventual ruler to treat them more kindly or ensure a kinder ruler. Come up with your own justification!

Sure, they may all be enemies in the end, but there's still a difference between the theoretical enemy you've been, temporarily, allied with and the hated foe who's been hounding you since your return.

[WraithLord]

Originally Posted by DonCorazon

I respectfully disagree - gems are like bullets. Whether fired from my gun to kill Player #1, or fired from Player #2s gun to kill Player #1, I am indifferent, and may in fact prefer Player #2 to do the shooting, especially if he has a bigger gun in the form of paths / levels I do not have.

Turning over one's final VP is suicide. Its not the same at all.

I realize there are gray areas and its easier just to say, everything is permitted so we can avoid having to think it through. If that really is the consensus then I will probably avoid open games and try to find like-minded players that understand that suicide is not acceptable.

So long as you respectfully disagree and acknowledge that your opinion is not universal that's cool with me

"Turning over one's final VP is suicide. Its not the same at all."
That's not an opinion. You are stating as a fact that it's not the same, however in some situations it is exactly the same. Say, you have 1500 gems stockpiled and you give it all to a given nation in a game context that ensures that this will give him the victory. In that case this is exactly the same. It is a fact, not on opinion.

There is however a difference. Giving gems is, in a way, more sinister since it's both inherently hidden and can not be countered in any means whatsoever. From fairness perspective (which in itself is flawed since fairness and good strategics counter each other) giving gems is that much worse since the "losing" party doesn't even know he has just been heimlich-ed and even if he suspects he can't counter that.

[DonCorazon]

Hopefully it is not necessary to precede every statement with a legal disclaimer that I am not representing the universe.

Giving up your last VP is suicide, there is no grey area. It is the end of the game for you. Giving up gems does not end anyone's game. It might end someone's game in a turn, but even then it requires time for the enemy to receive and make use of them. At any rate, trying to analogize the two requires you taking a very extreme case of gem gifting to even come close to the suicidal impact of giving up the last VP.

Taking that extreme case aside, giving gems has much more nuanced and strategic purposes then killing yourself. It seems pretty close to fact. I went to law school and am comfortable with terms like "reasonable efforts" or "prudent standards", in other words - using your judgment.

I would not waste 3-4 hours to play a board game where one player was just going to quit, by granting his points to another as the game neared its conclusion. Why should I waste 12 months and 100s of hours to do so in Dominions?

[K]

Originally Posted by Sombre

What personal attack? I'm agreeing with what you said. You do have a bad reputation amongst some people. Why would I need to have played with you to have heard about it? You seem confused about what 'reputation' means.

Ballbarian: I don't see why you'd feel the need to say that. Do you think I'm on the verge of slandering K or something? He mentioned his bad reputation and I'm backing him up on that. I admit to making a joke about his professed ability to cause nervous breakdowns in arguments, but I don't see why that's off limits.

Sorry, I'm a little sensitive about the fact that you've been cyberstalking me across multiple threads.

And yeh, if you haven't played with me you don't know what kind of player I am. You are just slandering. The fact that you will never be able to find a player who has a grievence against me for in-game behavior makes you a liar and a bad person.

Apparently, if you strongly defend positions in these forums some people will attempt to get people to not play games with you by telling people you are a dishonorable player. Like the "who's a vet" discussions or attempts to nerf tactics being used in currently running games, this is just one way that weak players try to defeat other players: by fighting them in the forums and not in the game.

--------------

That being said, kingmaking happens when the game has already gone on for 20 turns longer than it has to and no one is having fun. Better to have an ally win than spend another month of RL time micromanaging an empire that will never win.

[Micah]

I think a large part of the distaste over VP gifting is because they're a somewhat artificial measure. In theory they are supposed to roughly correspond with control of territory and the overall position of the player that controls them. Because of this it is very uncommon to see a game with non-cap VPs, because players have found that a single turn teleport win is detrimental to the enjoyment of the game. Similarly, a VP gifting scenario causes the game to end abruptly, with no recourse for the losing player. Stating that late-game VP gifting is able to be countered is, frankly, a load of crap, especially if the colluding players plan things properly.

1500 gems sure sounds like a lot, but is only about 3 turns worth of income in the example scenario or any large late game.

[Micah]

K- I don't see where Sombre said your bad reputation had anything to do with in-game behavior, could you please point out where that was stated?

[WraithLord]

I said "Saying that giving VPs is bad but giving gems is ok leads to a dead-end in dealing with this issue."

Then DonC & Micah just went right ahead and proved my point. I disagree with you and certainly am not the only one, I think I even saw similar opinions in this thread (although I admit to not having read it all). So you disagree with me and I/ppl that think the same disagree back

You'd say that gem giving is ok and VP giving is not. I'd say they are ultimately very similar - actually equivalent in the abstract manner of how many steps it gets one closer to winning. Then you'd go back and say they they are not the same since VPs are suicide while gems are not. I beg your pardon but that's not true. 1500 gems are a big deal. Use 1k for AN and you practically ensure winning. Imagine nation A is 10% stronger than B in end game. Nation A is en route to winning when B gets 2k gems. Now B can cast a bunch of globals or do whatever it wants and grab the victory. Those 2k gems would translate if you like to VPs.

Micah, you said "Stating that late-game VP gifting is able to be countered is, frankly, a load of crap, especially if the colluding players plan things properly."
First of that's somewhat rude phrasing you chose. You are blatantly disregarding and demeaning an opinion different than your own. Second, that's absolutely true. The exchange of VPs in end game is very likely to be monitored so nation B can intervene directly and prevent that from happening. When 2k gems are given to nation B nation A can do nothing about it, knows nothing about it and will surely lose due to this. The same will happen to nation C that gave the 2k gems - so it's suicidal for C as well.
Edit: you also said "1500 gems sure sounds like a lot, but is only about 3 turns worth of income in the example scenario or any large late game."
Micah, that is not the point, the point is the principal that X amount of gems, or Y amount of items or Z amount of VPs are all "mathematically" equal in the "winning factor" they represent. What is the exact ratio is of course elusive, depends on context and many other circumstantial factors. 1.5K gems can certainly be worth a victory in certain circumstance, if not 1.5K then 2K or 2.5K etc. Enough gems wins games and that's a fact, the only difference with VPs is that there's no accumulate gems victory condition so the player actually has to translate gems to victory conditions.

We can go and on forever. There will never be an agreement b/c this is a matter of opinions and we don't all think the same. That's why I suggested that in order to make progress with the matter at hand ( if that's indeed what this thread is about and just a sparring arena ) we need to put all king making acts in the same basket and treat them the same. Otherwise dissension may always result and this discussion will just go off track to what is actually a side issue.