A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.

[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.

[vfb]

Okay, I admit, RP can interfere with my philosophy of acting in the best interest of either achieving victory for my pretender, or maximizing my nation's long-term survival. I'm sure I'm guilty of this! But if my nation is going to exact revenge on another nation, for me that revenge has got to be delivered personally. It makes a nicer story if I blow my nation up while destroying my tormentor. I wouldn't get any satisfaction from going AI and giving all my gems to the game leader, even though the result is the same in the end.

And if I hypothetically survive to the end-game as a weak little nation of Man, with no hope for victory, I could see myself actively supporting a Marignon in his war against Ermor, if Ermor had at one point cast BoT and made a bunch of my guys old and dead. I guess that would make me Marignon's vassal. :shudder: I still wouldn't try to end the game by giving Marignon one of my VPs though.

Crap, now that I think about it, I do a whole bunch of dumb non-optimal stuff for RP reasons! And it's not likely I'm going to stop either, since I play more to escape the drudgery of reality, rather than engaging in some sort of intellectual competition.

Originally Posted by thejeff

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.

Originally Posted by WraithLord

I think this cuts to the heart of matter. Your assertion completely disregards that the other player may not share your sentiment. Perhaps he is a newb and is content to follow a vet. Perhaps he received so much help during all the game from his ally that he is willing to make all sacrifice for him and so on and so forth.
The fact of the matter is that different players have different personalities and get their kick out of the game in different manner.
I personally would always fight to last drop of blood. I would never bow to another player.
I am aware however that we are not all the same. I think we - the die hard, alpha types need to show more respect and understanding of different personalities.
If we want to eliminate kingmaking as a source of unbalance we either prohibit diplo or prohibit all kingmaking acts is what I think.

[Illuminated One]

Originally Posted by vfb

Crap, now that I think about it, I do a whole bunch of dumb non-optimal stuff for RP reasons! And it's not likely I'm going to stop either, since I play more to escape the drudgery of reality, rather than engaging in some sort of intellectual competition.

He, I'm always annoyed at how I stop doing stupid RP stuff for the sake of min maxing.

[Executor]

Ahh, my eyes hurt from all this reading. If only I spent all this time reading the thread in studding...

Scorched earth:
Do not like either, but there are certain situation when I feel it should be done. For examle a gangbang, I refuse to give my lands to the nations that who took then so undeservingly. Armageddon goes in this category.

Gem/item gifting:
Can't say really, I usually use up all my gems defending. I support the idea of the nation you conquered giving you gems and items in the name of RP, looting.
And I also sometimes send my gems/items to my allies if they proven themselves a good ally.
But I do not support gifting on a friend bases, or another game return favor.

Alliances:
I support alliance until there are 8,4 or whatever nations left, although I prefer until we're the only once left.
I see nothing wrong with this. But the above described isn't really even an alliance, it's a pre-set longterm NAP.
An alliance defines supporting your ally nation, a mutual defense treaty and such. You attack my ally I'll attack you etc.

I don't approve of pre set alliance before the game ever starts.

Gankfests:
I hate those. And I dislike the people who play like this, and defend themselves in the name of "good strategy". No, good strategy is when you outsmart you opponent not outnumber him to impossible odds.
To me there is no honor in ganging up on a equal-strength nation.
And I dislike ganging in any form, although clearly sometimes it must be done if there is a evident leader.


Vassals/Forge B*tches:
I don't support this, but that's mostly because I'm to proud to be someone vessal. However if he's my ally, I will help him out.

NAPs:
So far I never broke a single NAP since I find NAPs honor bounding, but in no way an obligation and that they HAVE to be enforced.
Acceptable> Disregarding a NAP if there is a victory threat, certain spells cast, BOT, AC, AN, UD.

Not acceptable> Complaining about breaking a NAP when you never in fact answered the NAP proposal
Not acceptable> Refusing to admit that there was a NAP when there are clear evidence that there in fact WAS one, just admit you're a backstabber.

Metagaming:
I agree with VFB completely.


And here are some things I'd add.

-Attacking a player not a nation
-Enforcing vendettas for some other games
-Reviling information about another nation

-And this is possibly the thing I hate the most,
Attacking a staleing nation! Not an AI nation, this is of course a very logical thing to do, but to attack someone the moment you see they are gonna stale. This is just low tactics.
-And also, winning a game due to stales!? That's not a win. Letting someone stale out the game while you win is just, wrong, and I for one will never recognize such a victory.

Well, off to get some eye drops now...

[WraithLord]

Dear friends. The subject of discussion was presented in a clear manner for open and constructive discussion. However it does reveal a very sensitive "nerve" (if you like). Possibly lots of past hard feelings or feeling of being cheated of victory or lost/won unfairly can surface and throw this constructive, welcome discussion into the mud.
I thus implore you to keep it civil and to the point, lets keep those skeletons in the closet and concentrate on improving the future.

Now as to the specifics of a given recent game I saw a lot of inaccuracies here, but since this one is over and done with and following my own above advice I'll do my share to keep this closed. Anyone that is truly interested in hearing the details, seeing turn files plus my explanation on what happened is welcome to contact me and then make up his own opinion. Enough of that, let's tackle the subject at hand in an abstract manner as we should.

I'll present my opinion in the form of what I believe to be mere facts. This is not dogma but a basis for further discussion.

1. In diplomacy games players characters matter. Some players will fight to end and scorch earth and pass all the gem income to attacker's enemy just to take revenge. Other players will always try to avoid a fair fight. Others like to follow a charismatic leader and are very happy to give all they have just to see that leader win.
None of this is wrong. It is all part of diplomacy games and must be accepted. Any artificial prohibitions will lesser the game experience for some class of player characters.

2. Kingmaking is king-making is King making. The act defines itself. It's context or pretexts doesn't alter the act.
I heard a lot of statements like "Yes, I gave these 1k gems to make nation A king but that was ok because of..."
or "That play for making B king is foul b/c ..."
lot's of variation on the theme and in the end the same as a back-stab is just that no matter what the reasons so are King making acts. Your reasons and rational makes sense to you and your friends but you must realize and respect that there maybe and indeed is a different faction that disagrees with you.
So leave the subjective stuff out. Accept that king making is what it is and then you can start to tackle it if you find it disturbing.

3. For the purpose of kingmaking attaching moral score to different acts and making distinctions between them is artificial and self centered. Some players find some king making acts acceptable while others find the very same acts unacceptable. To make a constructive progress one must bundle together all king making acts and either allow or prohibit *all*.

Saying that giving VPs is bad but giving gems is ok leads to a dead-end in dealing with this issue. First, since the statement is subjective and not in consensus. Second, because in some situations gems can contr. more to victory than VPs can. Third, b/c in some respects giving gems/items/gold is *worse* then giving VPs. This is b/c of the game engine. It makes giving gems/items/gold a secret act while giving VPs can be discovered (intel). Also, giving gems/items/gold can't be countered in any means while giving VPs can.

My suggestion is to agree on the term kingmaking, bundle all acts that qualify as such into it and then state clearly at start of game whether or not kingmaking is allowed.

My personal opinion is that prohibiting kingmaking in diplo. games will make the game much less fun b/c it will not allow players to bring their character and preference into the game - what will make the game experience shallower.
I think that diplo and kingmaking prohibition are mutually exclusive.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?