LT8: Game over?
Mon, 07/30/2007 - 16:07 — Marduk
It seems that LT8 is over. But everything happened very quickly and there seems to be disagreement about the end of the game. Some players, including myself, were not online when it happened and don't understand the situation.
So to those involved, especially Lantti and Pablo: please explain whether LT8 is over or not, whether the Lantti-AJ-Xapple-Triv-Pipo-Marduk alliance won or not, and how everything happened.
It hurts so much when your
It hurts so much when your ally makes such a bad betrayal ... I know ... I could tell you about it ... but ... wait ... you know it well ... only ... till now only from the other side :-)))
I remember LT7 ... I was not on-line ... and it all happend so quickly too ... I also didnt understand ... remember this, and you will know.
Yes there must be a lot of
Yes there must be a lot of questions, and so few (good) answers. First an apology to those who did not expect the game to end this soon (or this way). For them I must say that the faint signs for a quick end have been visible for almost a week now, known only by a very few people involved in the strategic in-game discussions. The exact nature of these discussions might remain a secret, and thus some of the players may feel they don't understand how this kind of a thing has happened.
I personally take the responsibility for not being able to keep the game going any longer, leading to the dramatic events earlier today. As for the winning ally, I doubt anyone seriously questions who won the game - if 4/5 of the top players ally against the remaining one, there really isn't anymore a question about the winner, rather to simply settle how long it takes to kill of the enemy. I found this situation very unfair and tried to help Pablo but I also did not want to betray the alliance I had earlier decided to join. Of course this kind of an equation really doesn't work, so eventually I had to tip the game to some direction.
So what is the situation inside the game currently? Well its simply the state of the game had I first decided to tip the balance other way around. Its not pretty, some may think, but it could be the reality also. The concept of alliance is too easily betrayable in this game, as many of you might have found out the harsh way. I hope we find a way to make true alliances for future games, so that every player can have a chance for victory :)
I have decided not to accept any victory from this LT, and also not to accept any survivor points.
Firstly: no single player
Firstly: no single player has the right to end a longturn game by himself. This is done after consultation with every remaining player, and I'm quite angry that this didnt happen this time.
Lantti, from earlier discussions I understand that Pablo told you "I give up", and that after taking his word on it you decided (singlehandedly) that the game was over and that you could give your cities away for Pablo to have some after-game fun. Can you confirm this?
If this is true then Pablo has lied to everyone by saying that he did not surrender, and he betrayed Lantti by breaking his word.
Pablo, will you accept that you are not the winner of this game, and that Xapple, AJ, Triv, Pipo and Marduk are the winners? (I don't understand why lantti doesnt want to be included in the winners list, but that's his choice). Are you willing to admit your lie, or do you want to persist with it?
- My name is Marduk, king of kings! Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!
Yes I can confirm that this
Yes I can confirm that this is what was said. As a honorable player, I assume Pablo will not try to deny what he has said.
> Pablo, will you accept
> Pablo, will you accept that you are not the winner of this game, and that Xapple, AJ, Triv,
> Pipo and Marduk are the winners? (I don't understand why lantti doesnt want to be included
> in the winners list, but that's his choice). Are you willing to admit your lie, or do you want to
> persist with it?
Marduk, tell me please, why Pablo should abandon his winner rights (if he will kill you/killed you (I'm not up to date)), even if he fooled Lantti (if he did it).
It seems, that in your matrix you can lie the others, and it can lead you to the victory. But if Pablo lies, it should lead to victory ... you again ? Very interesting.....
Maho that's completely
Maho that's completely inappropriate! If someone says he gives up and considers the game over then he can't turn back on that. Pablo denied it when I asked him about it, which makes him a liar. And if he uses that to get his hands on the cities of a naïve player then that's a dirty cheat!
Yes I sometimes use lies in my diplomacy, as is common in games. But I never trespass the line between normal gaming behaviour and dirty cheating.
When you say you give up and surrender then you're out of the game, and you shouldnt do anything that influences the game. So if you then, after surrendering, keep on playing and even use tricks to conquer the world, then that's simple downright cheating. The moment Pablo said he gave up he lost the game, and there's no turning back on that.
If a soldier surrenders and then picks up a knife and stabs the enemy in the back he's executed, and rightly so.
- My name is Marduk, king of kings! Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!
Marduk, I think that you're
Marduk, I think that you're trying to make us believe that you're living in different matrix than we :).
Maybe it's a bit bigger lie than usual, but I don't see any line crossed.
> If a soldier surrenders and then picks up a knife and stabs the enemy in the back
> he's executed, and rightly so.
If soldiers surrends and then picks up a knife, he is executed or not, depending on victor will.
If soldier surrends, and victor won't check if soldier has knife, he is a bit reckless.
If soldiers surrends and doesn't pick up a knife, and victor accepts that surrended is fully armed after surrender, it's stupid.
If soldier surrends and victor give him his knife, and soldier use the chance and kills victor and his family, so the victor is enormously stupid, soldier has luck, and victor's family has bad luck that is tied with someone like that :)
Marduk, accept the fact, that one of your allies made very stupid things. That's all. If I were Pablo and I knew that surrending will give me Lantti's cities, I would surrender even before :)
I have to agree with maho.
I have to agree with maho. Pablo was a canny diplomat in this and lantti was fooled by him. Of course, as the poll I recently added says, I think the alliance to win was a cheap way to avoid hard decisions about what the do when the opposing alliance was defeated. This isn't even much different from the real world when one thinks about the end of WWII and the dividing of territory and ensuing Cold War.
-- And that's my crabbing done for the day. Got it out of the way early, now I have the rest of the afternoon to sniff fragrant tea-roses or strangle cute bunnies or something. [attrib:Michael Devore]
As this is my second LT game
As this is my second LT game and the first I really had involvement in I think this is a disappointing end. This is certainly not what I envisaged to be a LT game.
As for dirty cheating, I doubt many can claim to have not cheated in any LT game. In LT7, conquering cities in order to transfer technologies. Waiting for timeout in order to attack someone twice. These are all underhand tactics that do not happen in the real world which LT is trying to portray.
I do wonder what a game would be like if you had teams, as Maho had suggested sometime back.
I also wonder what would happen if you limit the size of alliances. How? by limiting the share of the points at the end of the game to 2 or 3 people. This will lead to arguments on who gets the points and hence more fighting.
It also seems LT has a high turnover of player. The newbies are dominated by the seasoned players leading to bad experiences by the newbies who decide not to play another LT game. I wonder if there is a way to make LT more even for new and seasoned players. Again, teams may solve this, grouping seasoned players with new player. Then they automatically get an alliance.
Sorry for the rant. Disappointed.
Offtopic: Limit number of
Offtopic:
Limit number of allies .... yes, I definitively must implement something like that.
It's the next thing after neverending patch (which seems to work quite stable), will be tested in LTeX, and next (if accepted by majority) included into normal LT game.
We have to remove giving
We have to remove giving cities as well then, or limiting it. Alliance is usefull for giving passage for people and you can do that by giving away cities..
Well one can agree to just
Well one can agree to just not kill a diplomat/spy bridge either too. (That is, using a diplomat or spy to go through a region that is in another players ZOC). The problem isn't temporary alliances anyway, it is the fact that the allies didn't acknowledge that the alliance was temporary and copped out of dealing with that fact.
-- And that's my crabbing done for the day. Got it out of the way early, now I have the rest of the afternoon to sniff fragrant tea-roses or strangle cute bunnies or something. [attrib:Michael Devore]
I will first have a drink
I will first have a drink and then I will answer you.
Now I had and here it is.
I will try to write this without using the f..k word too much. :-)
I like to play freeciv and specially longturn.
When I feel the game is boring, I get the fuck out, I do not try
to fuck other people's game.
I think this is an adult behavior, and I take other people's
time and involvement in the game very seriously, even if the game
itself should not be taken seriously, after all it is only a game.
But what's in a game. For me, it is something to do, and something
that I can learn from and have fun at the same time.
I do not play for points, for me, scoring systems only kill the
very game they are trying to help. The scoring system certainly
killed regular freeciv, as people, at the end, were inventing more
and more dirty tricks to get higher in the score instead of playing a
game that can be fun.
But I play to have fun, and I resent anyone who is depriving me
of that fun. I think it is a childish behavior to play the Puppet Master
and trying to control other people's game. I wish there should be
some sort of test to guarantee a certain level of maturity here.
In the adult entertainment business, most of the sites are asking
for a credit card to ensure that their users are 'somehow' adult.
Maybe we should do the same here.
Most of all, I wish that people that sign up for a game, REALLY want to play
a game of freeciv and nothing else. It really shows some lack of
mental hygiene or emotionnal disturbance when someone is only playing
to fuck up other people's game. Like spying for another alliance for
example or betraying an bigger alliance only because you have nothing
else to do. Also, why sign up for a game and only play 'in your corner'.
That is another behavior that calls for examination. People, if you
really want to play alone, I can teach you to setup your own games against
one ai and I guarantee that you will have a lot of fun also. That way,
you will not be taking a slot from a 'real' player. As a matter of fact,
I think, that anybody, that signs up for a game here, and did not try at least
a dozen of games against the ai at home, is disrespecting the time and
good will of other players.
And that is the main point for me here. It is the disrespect and abuse
of other player's time and good intentions. Abusing of another person's
time is a crime, a real crime. Because time is the only thing that
really belongs to somebody. I chose to play longturn and invest my time
in it, because I gain something from it, some sort of satisfaction on
different level, being curiosity, improvement of different skills or
even pure pleasure. If I had chose to work instead, I could have
probably bought a small house with all the hours I have put in freeciv.
And I could have certainly bought a 3 year old Toyota Camry with only the
time I have put in LT8.
Now, imagine, if somebody stole your car, what you would want to do to him.
Of course, when someone signs up for a longturn game he is exposing himself
to the all sorts of outcomes and abuses but within the parameters of the
game. If I am unlucky enough to land near an early attacker and he does
not want to let go of me, I have already lost. Within the game, I am
able to recognize that, and I may choose to quit or continue to learn
more. I would also understand a good betrayal, here and there, because
that is how I learn about other players real 'Reputation'.
What I resent is people who thinks they will control a game (and other
people's time) by abusing a player's trust (not a nation's trust here)
in making him think that he is playing, when in fact he is not, because
everything has been decided in advance and in secrecy. I am not talking
about secret plot against a player here but secret plot in the manner
of this fucking suposadly 'what if' refered by another player higher
in this thread.
Controlling a game (cheating) is easy, I could, for example, sign up
with different user names and have half of the board to myself.
(That maybe a little bit more hard to do in regular Freeciv than in LT).
Nobody would know, but that would be a real crime and really would not
prove anything except my own need for psychological help.
Maho, your are right, this is just a little bit more, but where do we draw
the line?
Pablo, you did what you thought you had to, to win. This was just a little
bit too much but you would still have my respect aside from the fact that
your main goal was to get Marduk and not win (that is robbing me of
a clean game and my time as an honest player).
Triv, it was very nice to be your ally and you have earned my respect again.
Marduk, hey, it is a victory if only in the fact that we did not stab
each other in the back this time :-), congratulation, for a great game and
great behavior, you have my respect.
Hupe, sorry, but your style of playing does not go along with mine. I think
you should play alone for a while and come back when you are tired of
being alone and ready to mingle a little bit more. You have my respect as
an honest player but, at the moment, I will prefer you as an honest enemy than
a dead weight ally.
Liorithiel, next time you lose interest in the game, I will expect you
to get deleted or give your cities to another player as soon as you
get bored. You gave your cities to Pablo at a crucial moment where I
could not prevent invasion. If you were 'interested' in the game it would
have been half bad, but knowing that you were not interested and that
you have done this deliberatly to hurt me, will not gain you my support
in any future.
Mursu and Alexi, your behaviors were honorific even when Mursu betrayed
Marduk, your common goal was always clear, and your will to win was
never questioned. I hope you have learned a lot. I will enjoy playing
with you in the future.
Smurff, you had the bad luck of being Marduk's neighbor and the closest
for 'initial attack' with wandering horseman. There was nothing much
you could have done, but I admire your tenacity and your honest
behavior in this matter. If nothing else, you have won my respect.
Haken, you know I like you, for me, you have grown to be a true player.
I will enjoy playing with you in the future with all my respect.
Aj, I am not sure about you yet. Your betrayal of Maho's alliance
was not that bad and could be considered a 'true' betrayal.
(ie: A betrayal that has winning as a goal vs a betrayal that is just
to fuck up other players position). Your behavior, in the second half
of the game was a little bit disconcerting given that you were at
peace with Pablo and 'allied' with us. I will give you benefit of the
doubt and wish you well in future games.
Bluemoth and Localhorst, your behavior was exemplary. From what I
saw, you were true to the game and probably learned a lot
from Pablo in city development. You have my respect.
Emj, I can't stress enough, that for me, it is a breach of contract
between player, when one player takes it on its own, to try to influence
the outcome of the game with no personnal gain or hope of winning.
You still have to earn my respect in that matter.
Kde, I do not know what happened between you and Pablo for you to
quit so abruptly, but you have my utmost respect for doing so by
quitting the game altogether and not trying dirty tricks.
MrSynical, you were a victim of bad position and bad timing, but I
respect the game you have played and the manner you have played it.
Poppin-level, you and Hupe should try to ally in the next game. :-)
I hope you would learn to blend a little more. I will enjoy playing
with you when you do.
Xapple, I enjoyed playing with you and I find that you are a true player.
Your selection of allies is in need of improvement a little bit. :-)
I am looking forward for future games with you, in mutual respect.
Krugers, Jajcus, Maho, I would not turn my back on you, :-), but I respect the
way you play because, again, it is true to the game.
Krwawy, I have enjoyed being you partner in previous games and I am sure
I will in future games as well. Needless to say I respect you.
Lantti, if you have read everything else before this, you already know
what I think of you. I sincerely hope, for you, that you are under 18,
because then, you will have a chance to learn and maybe, not do the
same mistakes again. If not, I am sincerely sorry for you.
Maybe, reading Machiavelli a little bit, would help you clear your
mind about what sort of behavior you should have, when you are
cough in the middle of 2 opponents.
To put it mildly, you still have to earn a shred of respect from me.
All the others of LT8, I did not interact with you enough to comment.
The way I see it, is this: when we sign up for a Longturn game we sign
a contract to play a game of freeciv, nothing more, nothing less.
When our behavior goes over the limit of this contract, by playing with
other player's mind or not playing to win (including sabotage of our
own position and spying with no hope of winning), well, it is a breach
of contract and should call for real retribution.
Maybe we should have another kind of scoreboard, a little bit like
e-bay reputation system where every player can vote on everybody else's
reputation. And say, maybe, deny login to player under a certain level,
or just leave it as an informative scoreboard so you know who your
neighbors are, early in the game.
I also think that we have won, Pablo concede to Lantti who was,
at that second, officially allied with me, marduk, xapple, aj, and triv.
That is what makes it a victory for us. All this, happened in a fraction
of a minute, but it is still theoretically sound.
Of course, this is just my two cents after I had time to sleep
it over.
>
Huh, what a big number of
Huh, what a big number of letters :D
I must comment some of them.
You blame Pablo, I understand that, but I can't agree. I see no difference between AJ's cheating of us, and Pablo's cheating of Lantti. Of course I'm pissed off because of that (AJ's spying) as you're pissed off because of Pablo, but both events was almost the same. Simply someone trusted to one who shouldn't be trusted. That's all.
But I completely can't understand why you blame Liorithiel .... He did something which happend many times in world history. It's equivalent of abdication, or personal union of two kingdoms.
Also I see logical incosistency. First you're saying that
> Liorithiel, next time you lose interest in the game, I will expect you
> [....] give your cities to another player as soon as you
> get bored.
... and next you're blaming him that ...
> You gave your cities to Pablo at a crucial moment where I
> could not prevent invasion.
Tell me, why Liorithiel should carry on fact if you're ready to invasion or not? You was member of alliance, which was a bit unfriendly to us.
I gave my cities to Pablo
I gave my cities to Pablo for few reasons. Firstly, I didn't want to have my cities conquered by Lantti. When I realized that all my allies were conquered by him, it was just my desire to avoid make Lantti even stronger, even if I was such a weak player and my cities were small and without strong economy.
Secondly, I realized that I will not defend by myself and I won't have much time to ask for help. The only way to avoid being conquered and the only way to stop Lantti being the strongest player (remember that he was my enemy) was to give my cities to someone, who weren't a Lantti friend.
So I decided to give my cities (treat it as an act of vassalage, that is I asked for support and protection in exchange for services and goods, like territory). I had yet to decide whom to give my cities. I considered Pablo and you, Pipo. The only problem with you was that you were allied with Marduk, and we (as an alliance) felt that Marduk was cooperating with Lantti. Also Pablo was then the strongest player (considering the score), so he had more chances to fight with Mexicans. Yet another cause was that Pablo's alliance was considered by our alliance as more friendly to us than Marduk.
Maybe I'm naive, but that was what I thought then. Well, now I am happy to see that Lantti did not win this game, even if this is because of a diplomatic trick of Pablo and even if I have no cities now.
That's my point of view. I don't care how you will interpret it, as I am no more in this game.
Haha! , I guessed that at
Haha! , I guessed that at that time you did not know that it was Pablo,in part, that helped Lantti conquer you allies.
But this is exactly what I am talking about, you were not playing to win but to get in the way of
another player at the sacrifice of your own nations. That is OUTSIDE of the main contract
of players and is a behavior that leads to fucked up games.
And that is specially reinforced by the fact that the game had no value to you earlier.
This is where I am blaming you (just a little bit, mind you), and for nothing else.
That nation was given to you by Maho, but Maho would not have that power if us, the players
would not be 'sitting down' to play.
It is the consensus of players that gave you that nation and it is in front of the consensus
of players that you are responsible to use it as it was intended to be used. (ie: play to win).
As for Lantti, I am sorry to tell you that he is the only sure winner of LT8 because he is
part of both alliances. Whoever wins he wins with them.
>
Pablo's Goal = Not winning
Pablo's Goal = Not winning the game but kill Marduk
Aj's Goal = Winning the game
That is the difference and it is a big one. I am not pissed off because Pablo betrayed me, he did
not. He was my enemy and he acted like an enemy. The trust here is on 2 different level.
One is within the game and is perfectly understandable. (AJ)
The other trust goes OUTSIDE of the game and is not acceptable. That trust is the trust that
you sit down to play a game with intent to win (so you can expect somebody to behave a
certain way). In other words, would you sit on a plane knowing that the pilot has suicidal intents?
No, you trust that he wants to arrive at destination as much as you do and it is an implicit
contract between you and him. So is the sit down at a game of freeciv, I trust that people
are playing to win, to to get other people down.
About Liorithiel, there is no inconsistencies when you look at the timing of the donation.
I am not contesting the donation, I am contesting the timing. Liorithiel told me at the beginning
of July that he had lost interest in LT8, why did he waited a month to give his cities?
Again, he may give his cities or anything else that he wants and that is correct.
The only thing I find not correct is to play (use up a nation, and get into other player's way)
when in fact you do not wish to play.
Do you see 2 two levels ( game vs contract about game) I am talking about?
PS: If Liorithiel was lying about not being interested in the game anymore then everything
is OK. Hard to understand, isn't it? Because if he was lying, then his interest was true
and he was only trying to foul me within the game and all is ok. But if he was not lying,
then his interest was zero and he broke the contract outside of the game.
Only him knows the truth about that.
>
yup, winning was number 2
yup, winning was number 2 for me in this game (and I am happy that the goal 1 was done). But I hope you can appreciate the fight we had ... I think it were good and nice actions.
and I also understand you about giving out cities to someone ... I felt realy upset when KDE gave out cities (and all techs we had more then 10) to xapple and lantti.
Actually aside from Lantti's
Actually aside from Lantti's fuckup, this was the most interesting game ever.
But I can see that you have missed my point. :-(
Maybe somebody else will explain it better than me, if not,
maybe I can demonstrate in the next game how a player with absolutely no intentions
of winning can fuckup a game for good.
>
cmmn, you are not going to
cmmn, you are not going to fuck up any future game ... or those long letters here were only bullshit?
No, of course, I will not
No, of course, I will not fuckup any game. But you, now, begin to understand my point.
>
I don't know what you have
I don't know what you have you smoked, but I want the same :)
Actually, I do not smoke
Actually, I do not smoke anything anymore but a few years back, you could have
picked your choice between many, many things... :-)
Maybe this other example will help.
You are a bunch of investors. You all sit down and create a company.
You are all shareholders now. But wait, a few of the shareholders do not
really want to make money, they are only there for other reasons and
some of them to actually lose money. Are you in a good position now?
Do you think the company will make money?
Were you not assuming that all shareholders wanted to make money
and that there was an implicit contract about that?
>
Man ... don't expect that
Man ... don't expect that someone want to win the game, when he is in hopeless position.
AFAIR he wanted to give cities to me, but I disappeared suddenly :). So he gave cities to Pablo. It was his cities, and he has right to do it.
He didn't fuck the game. You made mistake being unprepared against invasion from border (like me, like Krwawy, like Yottael, and generally like most of players in LT8).
Maybe Pablo was plotting with Lantti, but the only alternative was your alliance, which was plotting with Lantti too (and we knew that).
Anyway, LT games are more and more diplomatic. Which is good. As in real world, peace and alliance is only another way of making war :).
"Man ... don't expect that
"Man ... don't expect that someone want to win the game, when he is in hopeless position."
Well, if you are a man ( a matured human male ), you will forfeit the game when you are in
a 'hopeless' situation.
Yes, I made mistake about being unprepared against invasion from "Pablo".
I was prepared against an invasion from Liorithiel.
I was even prepared against an invasion from Marduk (ask him!).
You missed the point completely.
First:
- on the level of the game; ( <==== Do you understand what I mean by this?)
I was prepared against an invasion from Liorithiel.
I was even prepared against an invasion from Marduk (ask him!).
What I was not prepared from was an invasion from Pablo coming from
Liorithiel's land (AND THAT IS MY MISTAKE!, and I can live with it, don't worry).
Second:
- on the level of the game contract; ( <==== please tell me you understand this, and stop bugging
me about mere freeciv strategies considerations! )
I was not prepared for a lack of WILL on the part of some players, and I am beginning to
see that it was still my mistake. I will not make it again, because I will make sure,
by this very argumentation, that everybody is entering the game with the same assumptions
that I have about the 'contract'.
Maho, you are trying to convince me of something I already bought and accepted.
Believe me, I know, and accept that somebody can betray in Longturn.
I also know that everything is permitted ON THE LEVEL OF THE GAME!.
What I am debating here, is that ON THE LEVEL OF HUMAN CONTRACT, I was
expecting a few things, and I did not find them, and I was actually deceived on that
level. Now, the next arguments from you, should at least talk about these LEVELS or
you do not understand at all, what I am talking about.
>
> Well, if you are a man ( a
> Well, if you are a man ( a matured human male ), you will forfeit the game when you are in
> a 'hopeless' situation.
So he forfeited in favour of Pablo. He behave like a man, and he made best use of his cities he could. He sacrificed his participation in game, to let someone use his cities more efficient, against aliance who invaded his alliance.
About the levels, I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. I feel that you want to tell me that it's unethical to do what Liorithiel did. If it's what you was trying to tell, I can only tell that IMHO you're wrong. If something else, explain me if you want :)
I can see you do not
I can see you do not understand.
There is absolutely no problem whit him giving his cities to anybody.
There is a problem with him not wanting to play since July, 4th and continue just to
influence the game.
Let me give you an example that is on the same level as 'not wanting to play' but
is extremely higher in devastation and motivation.
Ex:
I hire 5 or 6 of my hacker friends. (They don't need much money! :-))
I ask them to register here and sign up for games one after another.
I ask them to change name and identity after each game.
I ask them to team up and sabotage the game in any way they see fit.
(like suicide themselves and giving all their cities to one of them, or
to another outside of their ring, or simply behave like clowns on the map.)
They do this, game after game, and after a while, nobody wants to play Longturn.
Do you think that would be acceptable?, Ethical?
This is a motivation OUTSIDE of the game, and thus on a different level.
It is also a breach of trust that has nothing to do with freeciv and its rules or Longturn and its rules.
It is important, Maho, that you understand this, because of your unique position
as host of Longturn.
>
Ok. Now I understand what
Ok. Now I understand what you mean about levels etc..... (I think).
Your example let me think a bit.
I think that your (as hacker's orderer) and those hacker's behaviour isn't ethical (but I'm not sure that is unacceptable). But key thing is motivation. You're motivated to destroy the game, Liorithiel wasn't.
I think that it's isn't good if your criteria to assigning levels is where is motivation came from.
Imagine such situation: at the beginning of the game, the first thing what I do is find Haken and destroy before he grow :).
And let's discuss two subsituations:
a) it's because I know him from previous games, and I know that he is dangerous and unpredictable when he grow.
b) it's because he is my neighbour (it's only hipotetical, I don't know him) and I hate him because he used to listen music very loud, and I can't sleep.
(a) belongs to level acceptable for you, (b) belongs to level which isn't acceptable for you, because motivation came from outside the game.
But I see no much difference between those 2 points.
So, at the end of too long discussion: I understand now why you blame Liorithiel, but I strongly disagree that he did something wrong.
Yes, I see that you do
Yes, I see that you do understand now.
The main point for me is that on the game level trust may be broken and reparation is due
inside the game (or not depending). On the 'real' level, if trust is broken then reparation has to be
done on the 'real' level.
In situation a) above, you have all rights to attack, because, inside the game, that is a subgoal of
yours in order to secure the main goal of winning (or surviving).
In situation b) you not only break the trust of your neighbor, but you break the 'real' trust with every
other players who are expecting you to play to win and no to avenge some personal and 'real'
vendetta.
But you are right that I came too strong on Liorithiel and I already apologized for that.
>
LOL ... you can never be
LOL ... you can never be prepared against invasion of an ally when you have railrod with him
Yes you can, but I am happy
Yes you can, but I am happy that you can't! :-)
>
I agree with Pipo. The only
I agree with Pipo. The only thing we should all be concerned with is having a good game. If a player signs up while he has no intention to commit himself to the game, then he's betraying our trust and we should get rid of that player and never let him play again. And if people loose interest in the game and start sabotaging it, while other people are still having fun, then they are simply little children. I can forgive Liorithiel, it was his first game and he was in a difficult position (hard to create a plan to win the game if your alliance has just been defeated). But Pablo and Lantti should have known better.
And Maho, you're a cheap coward. You're accusing me of cheating, which is entirely false (you and me have together betrayed Pablo in LT7, we did that in order to win the game and we didnt break any rules with it). And now you're applauding the player who has ruined a good game for many players. Some of the most committed players are losing their interest in Longturn, and you're laughing at us. Bravo, be very proud of yourself!
These games are not like cheap plastic toys you can throw away when you get bored. Some people invest a lot of time and energy in it (and a good LT game is worth that), and nobody has the right to waste our time.
Play for victory or don't play. Try to defeat the winner, don't try to sabotage him out of childish envy.
- My name is Marduk, king of kings! Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!
I could not have said it
I could not have said it better. Thank You!
I hope that players will understand what we mean here.
It is important for the surviving of Freeciv!
>
> And Maho, you're a cheap
> And Maho, you're a cheap coward.
Thank you for so nice words ....
> You're accusing me of cheating, which is entirely false
I didn't mean cheating as "taking advantage using illegal methods", but cheating somebody - lie him, betray him, let him think that you're his friend, when you're not. Generally, diplomacy is one big cheating, isn't it?.
And obviously you haven't cheated in first meaning, but was in second (as I we did together you in previous game against pablo)
[...]
> And now you're applauding the player who has ruined a good game for many players.
> Some of the most committed players are losing their interest in Longturn, and you're
> laughing at us. Bravo, be very proud of yourself!
I appreciate your commitment, but sorry, I don't see that game was ruined. I don't like fact that Pablo won the war, not me. But I must respect the fact that he won the war (or at least is going to win, game isn't finished and everything can happen).
According to my knowledge (entirely taken from this forum topic), he has "stolen" cities from Lantti using his diplomatic methods.
I want to be honest, and I
I want to be honest, and I want to justify myself. I wasn't lying that much then. I still played because I was just curious what will happen... this game was pretty new for me. And because my allies were giving me techs, it was like sometimes logging in and upgrading few defending units. Pablo can confirm that, he knows what did I have in cities ^_^. After the first interaction with Lantti (just at the beginning of game, taking two cities with two warriors ^_^) I wasn't very active, actually never attacked anybody later... even if I tried to convince maho to finish with Lantti early. No, he was busy preparing to fight with haken... Well, that probably means I wasn't interested in victory. Sorry. I wanted to give my cities to maho earlier, he still managed to convince me to keep playing... then there were no maho. This was my first try in LT, and also one of the first games in freeciv at all, and I probably didn't treat the game as seriously as you... Well, now I know the rules. The game is fun, although I did realize that too late. I am going to try once again and now play for real.
BTW, I attended the game theory course at my uni and first thing I was taught was that a player who wants to win is the most predictable one. Don't take the players so seriously, especially the newbies... I really tried to be predictable at the beginning, please believe me ^_^
Liorithiel, I believe you,
Liorithiel, I believe you, moreover, I am very happy that you understand my point of view,
You are right, of course, in that "a player who wants to win is the most predictable one".
Please, do not justify yourself more.
I am sorry, that I made such statements about you.
You are just new to the game, and I agree that this game can be very often misleading
in terms of emotions and responses to different situations.
I retract what I said about you, I made a mistake in assuming that every newbys would
understand the underlying 'contract', and I will, in the future, allow some slacks in my
interpretation of that assumptions.
Please accept my apologies, and I look forward to play with you in the future.
>
> Emj, I can't stress
> Emj, I can't stress enough, that for me, it is a breach of contract
> between player, when one player takes it on its own, to try to influence
> the outcome of the game with no personnal gain
If you say I do wrong by not playing to get the victory by myself, then we just have different opinions about this game.
The only things I think went wrong in this game is:
1. xApples attack on mrsynical
2. Lanttis attack on half the world
after those two things happend I don't really see pablos attack as something strange. These mass overtakes of cities are unnatural and just plain wrong. I can accept one maybe two cities being overtaken in a turn, but 50?
We do have different
We do have different opinions about this game and moreover we have different opinions
about life. You think, you can steal my time. I think you can't.
If you haven't notice, I am not talking about the game anymore.
For me, your two points above, about XApples and Lanttis are OK.
If Lantti had betrayed me, that would have been ok also, but that is not what
he did, he accepted on my name and on the name of our alliance the surrender
of Pablo's alliance.
If you play me like a foul inside the game, I have no problem with that.
If you play me like a foul for real, I start to have real reactions.
Anything that can happen in a game is justified and I do not dispute that.
When you forfeit, you are outside the game, and thus subject to real laws and regulations and ethics.
When you play only to decide who is going to win, you are outside of the game and also
subject to real laws and regulations and ethics.
Same thing, if you play to make somebody lose.
Same thing if you do not wish to play but you play to influence the game.
In my country we have a sport called Hockey. In all the circles of Hockey including
professionals, there is an implicit rule (contract) that goes like this.
"Whatever happens on the ice, stays on the ice."
That rule is understand by everybody and sometimes, I convene, that it is
transgressed, but it is there, and, in reality, if it did not exist, the game would
not be possible. When it do gets transgressed, it also makes News.
This is only to show that separation of game and reality is important and
must be understood by all players, so that one will know when his actions/motivations
are inside the game or outside.
"The map is not the territory" -- Alfred Korzybski
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
>
Pablo, you're my hero. I am
Pablo, you're my hero. I am totally amused with your diplomacy skills.
As I understand it, Pablo
As I understand it, Pablo first gave all his cities to lantti who saw that the meaningfull part of the game was over and gave Pablo a sandbox to play in.
So Marduk won again and will finally be number one on Marduk's Longturn Ranking List.
Or it might have been the greatest bluff the world of LT8 has ever seen and lantti was stupid enough to buy it.
So Pablo had his revenge and is on his way to certain victory.
Or maybe lantti wanted to take my place as the number one traitor in LT8.
So Pablo and lantti form the winning alliance. (unless they betray each other :)
Marduk: Don't take this game so seriously.
lantti: Take this game more seriously.
Nice long discusion ... I
Nice long discusion ... I found inside these things:
- marduk realy realy wants to win :-) .... man, be honest, you are the weakest player in your aliance, how could you win it? (btw, I dont accept your victory)
- you also mantioned that one player cannot decide end of this game ... how you can use argumentation that "pablo gave up so it is over"?
- lantti told was very interesting part in this game and as he told, there were know things for a week or more about the possiblitity of the quick end ... and for whole this time, I was asking him to help me. and I also knew knew that if there will be 2/3 or 3/4 against me alone (with minor support of my allies), it will be probably case of time only ... what I found later wasnt necessarily true
- so dificult to say what of options of aj is right :-)
- lantti also told me long long time ago that he will not accept any victory points (in spite of his position which gave him a chance to win this game alone)
- I agree with lantti about giving no victory points nor survivors points to anyone, I have no need to get 20 or what points for myself only, in spite of I could now :-) ... we can "vote" about it ... and if I understood well, till the time all agree the game carries on (if I m not right, tell me)
- I thought about an option to ask lantti to be true neutral so we could carry on the game ... but then it is also just case of time :-)
- about the abusing things in this game ... look at warservers, there were implemented many many things which helps to make game more fair, becouse these things like too big aliances, disadvantages by startposs etc were there too. Only couse there are many games every day ppl there made bigger progress in changes ... there is now possible to preset teams including teams placement close together, same islands, so every player in the game gets exactly the same island (only E-W, N-S orientation is diferent) with the same startposs, there is possible to disable techtrading, goldtrading and citytrading (i m not sure, but may be this is possible in original version too) ... also changed trade rules, to make ppl not dependent on others in this, etc ... ... at least with preset teams, and may be disabeling city trades I agree ... but ... we are humans ... it is in our nature to find a way how to abuse this too
- the option how to disable (or make more dificult) so easily betrayal of allies is to make it impossible to change diplomatic statement with a player more then once per turn ... so if you are allied, then you have to change first turn to peace, other to neutral and trhird to war (and becouse I am AI analfabeth, I have no clue if it is possible to implement into a game :-) )
btw, you know how easy is to
btw, you know how easy is to change the mind and behaviour in LT game, so dont forget I still can change my decisions, same as you can do ... may be I could accept marduk as a only winner with all the victory points for him ... hmm ... let me think a while about it :-)
Also I would like to say
Also I would like to say thanx to my allies - bluemoth, localhorst and haken (may be lantti? :-) ) ... I know they dont play as perfectly as for example marduk does, but I hope they learned something (I did too). I am sure that they will be much much stronger in next LT games (for bluemoth and localhorst it was second LT game but I think for both it was first one playing "full value" game here). Also have to thanx for secure borders for almost all the time. Seems to me that there is nothing more valuable then loyality in this game ... hmm ... may be robotics :-)
So again, thanx guys, it was honour for me to be your ally.
This is how I see it,
This is how I see it, basically though luck Lantti.
Surrender: You can only surrender if you give a way all your cities and kill your units. I.e. you are dead.
Semi-Surrender: you can surrender to some one as a deal, they will let you play even tough they could have killed you. This makes it possible to backstab.
I am very disappointed that
I am very disappointed that this game has so little value for so many of you. Yes I take this game seriously, otherwise it's no fun. If you like football then you're disappointed if a player picks up the ball and throws it in the goal, and even more disappointed if the audience applauds him for it. And while a football match takes 90 minutes, a longturn match takes 2 months or more. I don't want to waste so much time to see it all end like this.
If Pablo had been able to convince Lantti to betray me then he had won the match in a legal way, and I would have accepted it. But he has not been able to do this, and instead used a cheat. I will never accept a cheater as winner. When you say "I surrender, the game is over for me" then you're out, you've become a spectator. Lantti's stupidity doesnt change this fact.
The only thing we can all agree on is that Lantti has been enormously stupid. And he's been enormously egoistic by taking the game into his own hands like that, deciding at his will when it should end.
LT8 used to be a great game, but it's destroyed now and I don't give a shit about who won it. We have defeated Pablo diplomatically and militarily (just before the cheat we broke through Bluemoth's frontline, next turn howitsers had flooded into their lands), and I congratulate my loyal allies Pipo, Triv, Xapple and AJ with that.
- My name is Marduk, king of kings! Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!
Marduk, I thought that you
Marduk, I thought that you know how to loose ....
Marduk cheat someone and win- good
Someone cheat Marduk - oh, dirty trick, game is over, Marduk won.
So, let's add point to http://www.longturn.org/rules-... : "Marduk's alliance wins, regardless the situation". It will be at least clear :)
I will start from the end: -
I will start from the end:
- you broke bluemoths frontline with about 15 units ... lovely ... he had enough to push you back alone, plus my 40 howiez as a reserve
- lantti obviously doesnt take this game as serously as you, and he is also not as "stupid and not as "egoistic" as you are, thats why he did what he did and thats why he said "*lantti* i vote for tie and no winner :)" ... it is becouse he knew how "accidantely" he got his cities above the last one he had. You should learn at him a bit
- I told lantti many times that I give up and he always made something to keep me in the game ... something very sweet :-) ... so if you want to take it like you would like to take it, then you won LT8 about 10 times :-) ... you dont have to accept me as a winner, you can consider second one as a winner if you want, I realy dont care :-) ... (btw, couse the game wrote me "Hobbits are no more", I think it will not be you anyway) ... or you can consider it as a draw ... again, I dont care :-)
- the end at this games is usualy very fast and may be strange ... and ... it is not a goal what makes man sattisfied, but the way to get it, at least for me
I guess I can conclude that,
I guess I can conclude that, had we kept Pablos cities he gave to me, conquered Bluemoth's, Haken's, and Localhorst's mainland cities within 2-3 turns with the 150+ units, eliminated Krugers, MrSynical, Smurff, Liorithiel and Poppin-level on the next turn and then asked who thinks the game should be over, everyone would be happy :)
So lets pretend it happened and get over it, OK? ;)
hehe, yes, you could do what
hehe, yes, you could do what I did. it ended as it ended ... nobody can controll noones mind, so everyone can consider its own winner :-)
so ... how about play some more games? :-)
and how about to start LT10 sign up now?
> and how about to start
> and how about to start LT10 sign up now?
Hold your horses. LT9 haven't started yet, and you want to start LT10?
I think that LT10 will start near Oct, maybe Sept .....
If you had 40 howies as a
If you had 40 howies as a reserve, why did you take 2 turns to annihilate us?
I did not even offered resistance and it took you 2 turns to get me.
You did not even took 10% of Marduk's cities within your first strike.
(See, Maho, this is on the LEVEL of the game and any lie is OK, here).
>
they were ready in
they were ready in transports to marduk lands ... I dont have railroad as you had, so it is not possible to atack imidiately (but also to be atacked like maho was). thats all
Dear Marduk, dear Pipo. I
Dear Marduk, dear Pipo.
I think that you was too sure about your victory. I think that your full ceremonial orders was almost finished by tailors, invitations to triumph parade was sent, stonemasons have almost finished triumphal arch, and puff ... there is no victory.
I understand your disappointment, but please take deep breath, make few steps backwards, look again at the situation, and maybe you will see, that things don't look so bad as you see them.
With these phrases, you
With these phrases, you still don't understand.
Either I win or I lose, I am still not satisfied with the termination of this game and
with the behavior of some players. LT8 is fucked up and there is nothing we can
do. But it is a shame because it was a beautiful game.
I have taken deep breaths, and you accused me of smoking... :-)
I have made a few steps backwards, and I have discovered misunderstanding.
I have looked again at the situation, and I have seen more confusion.
Things are in effect not looking bad, it's only me, who look bad in your eyes.
>
Trust me that you don't look
Trust me that you don't look bad in my eyes. IMHO you're just too surprized, and you're getting situation wrong.
Hmmm.... I admit I'm not
Hmmm....
I admit I'm not sure what I think of this whole situation now. It certainly has stirred up emotion. I disagree that a player shouldn't be able to give and aid another player in quitting. That situation is just like the way some political leadership races work here in Ontario, Canada; If a candidate does too poorly in a round of voting they will often cross the floor to help another candidate of their choice, and, for some parties, that means the delegates that would have voted for them now vote for the candidate who will go on to the next round.
In rl, helping those who you are closer to when you feel you yourself have no chance is normal, so I don't see why LT should be different.
On the other hand, outright lying and cheating isn't something I think should be promoted. Playing AI's you don't have that side of things because you know that whatever peace or alliance you have will eventually be broken, so you stay prepared for attack even from allies. Human interaction on the other hand doesn't like dishonesty and back stabbing, and feelings can be hurt, which makes a game less fun.
So I'll wait and see, and I'll see what you guys think of the poll I'm working on (basically either limiting the number of players who can win, or ensuring that there is enough warning and agreement about the early ending of the game).
-- And that's my crabbing done for the day. Got it out of the way early, now I have the rest of the afternoon to sniff fragrant tea-roses or strangle cute bunnies or something. [attrib:Michael Devore]
Hi, cshore, I am happy to
Hi, cshore, I am happy to learn that we share the same country.
I am from Montréal.
Ok, to make things more clear for you, and maybe others, I will use your own
analogy.
You are right about the candidate being able to switch camp or to 'allocate' their
delegates to a new candidate. There is absolutely no problem with that.
What if a candidate spread smell bombs on the floor, or poison the coffee machines,
or cut off the lights, just to prove that he is in control of the whole situation.
Would that be 'playing to win', or is it a completely different game that he would
be playing. He might be, for example, from another party, or from another country,
and that would be an abuse of trust, outside the parameters of this very electon,
that he was permitted to be candidate in this party.
If I wanted to do a real war, I would go to Afghanistan or Iraq.
If I play freeciv, it is because I want to play freeciv and not do real war.
>
Pipo you make good points.
Pipo you make good points. Part of the reason I do not know yet if I will like playing humans is that there is more room for dirty cheats; I tend to be an honest guy and want to be accorded the same honesty. Some say it's okay as long as it's on a game level, but I'd really rather straight dealings across the board. Since I know that's not how the games work, I'll just have to see how things unfold.
-- And that's my crabbing done for the day. Got it out of the way early, now I have the rest of the afternoon to sniff fragrant tea-roses or strangle cute bunnies or something. [attrib:Michael Devore]
Longturn is special, in this
Longturn is special, in this way, that a player has the time to think about what he his doing.
That time allows him to develop relations with other players who have, at least, the same interests
in playing freeciv.
What happened to Lantti, I can only speculate, but here is my version.
Lantti could not decide what way to turn because emotionally, he had ties with both sides.
He finally took some actions that sets him free of guilt but at the expenses of other
players. That dilemma happened to all Longturn beginners but most of them solve it
by choosing a side and no harm is done to the community, except one or a few players
feel frustrated by the choice of the beginner and all if forgot (or almost) in a new game.
In this case, Lantti's solution was to have everybody wins and everybody loose at
the same time. Unfortunately, that only lead to a big confusion and to the catastrophy
you have just witnessed.
I hope, you will be able to solve that dilemma in a better way when it will hit you.
>
Offtopic: Pipo, could you
Offtopic: Pipo, could you not break lines manually? I mean write whole paragraph in one big line, without \n at 70th character?
It isn't usenet, and your post looks strange when it's nested few times.
Sorry, old habits are hard
Sorry, old habits are hard to die, :-) I will try!
>