Poll on 3 v 1 and 4 v 1

[bluefile2]

I could use some milk & cookies. My 119 DE's are getting prison raped by 4 kingdoms. Not that I'm complaining.

[Ry Vor]

Well, this seems to have been somewhat cathartic.

I believe the main point is that if we all enjoy Alamaze, and we wish it to grow and so more development occurs, new games form faster, more variants emerge, new players stay in Alamaze and enjoy their experiences, that it may be necessary for experienced players to be chivalrous, especially with newer players, but even with those Knights of Alamaze, who deserve respect.

The lingering concern is a hint of disregard/irrelevance for how newer players may react to swift alliances against them, due to a perceived lack of diplomacy on their part, or lack of compliance with aggressive diplomacy, or any other manufactured casus belli. There are only so many people out there that can grasp a game like Alamaze, that also find us and try the game, so to get them on board and lose them in this way is in no one's long-term interest.

For those who wish to form aggressive alliances in the early turns comprised of three or more kingdoms we recommend The Second Cycle of Magic (3 player teams). Then all in the contest are on equal footing. Playing as a team in an individual game is against the spirit of the contest. Enforcement? Your honor. Those who feel differently can disregard that admonishment, but then should also have their just desserts, in one fashion or another.

[paway]

Then all in the contest are on equal footing. Playing as a team in an individual game is against the spirit of the contest. Enforcement? Your honor. Those who feel differently can disregard that admonishment, but then should also have their just desserts, in one fashion or another.

I applaud the attempt, but the people who you are addressing have no desire to have a contest on equal footing.

[DuPont]

My problem with the 3 player team games is the lack of being able to replace a teammate who drops. That's why I won't play those. But honestly, I prefer to keep things casual rather than have tight alliances. That will lead to me sometimes being gang-raped as I am facing in 124, but that's just what happens. I just don't enjoy being part of big alliances most of the time, though I have wound up in a few.

[Wynand]

My problem with the 3 player team games is the lack of being able to replace a teammate who drops. That's why I won't play those. But honestly, I prefer to keep things casual rather than have tight alliances. That will lead to me sometimes being gang-raped as I am facing in 124, but that's just what happens. I just don't enjoy being part of big alliances most of the time, though I have wound up in a few.

If a team mate drops why can't one of the current team members pick up the position? Why does it have to be a new player?

I'm sure they all share turns, and use group strategy, so why can't the position just get picked up by the other two?

I think that's an excellent point. I know a late drop in 107 really impacted the result in that particular contest.

[Jumpingfist]

My problem with the 3 player team games is the lack of being able to replace a teammate who drops. That's why I won't play those. But honestly, I prefer to keep things casual rather than have tight alliances. That will lead to me sometimes being gang-raped as I am facing in 124, but that's just what happens. I just don't enjoy being part of big alliances most of the time, though I have wound up in a few.

If a team mate drops why can't one of the current team members pick up the position? Why does it have to be a new player?

I'm sure they all share turns, and use group strategy, so why can't the position just get picked up by the other two?

I think that's an excellent point. I know a late drop in 107 really impacted the result in that particular contest.

An anonymous team game could be fun knowing only your two allies. Also knowing if one quits it is back filled by the team helps get the game started.

[Wynand]

I'll weigh in here and say that I have yet to see a single clear cut example of a vindictive gang-banging that wasn't provoked, or an attack on one member of a larger alliance.

Having said that, I agree bending over new players is stupid and doesn't serve one of the primary goals that we all share; the prosperity of Alamaze.

Self-policing on a topic that is clearly layered and gray is going to be difficult, because there are always multiple perspectives, assymetry of information, perceived intents vs. actual intents, etc.

To address this effectively, you require one of the following:

a) a rules change (i.e. preventing more than 3 kingdoms from being politically or militarily active in a region at a time - this would really detract from the game in my opinion)
b) different game variants (New vs. Experienced, Master & Apprentice - Rick and Cipher have already done a great job here, introducing new formats that limit the exposure of new players)

Reputational deterrents, public floggings, etc. won't work here because of the discourse is much too convoluted.

We all need to accept that there is a learning curve to this game, and that there are diplomatic elements that are fundamental to victory in the non-anonymous format. Putting players that are inexperienced into a contest with more experienced folks is usually going to end badly; as it should - that's the value of experience.

My recommendation would be to continue offering non gang-banging formats like anonymous and/or master & apprentice, in order to allow the new players an opportunity to learn and acclimatize.

Finally, peace to anyone who feels they have been gang-banged by me at any point. It was not my intent to deter you from playing a game that a clearly love and would evangelize to anyone who might care to listen.

[HeadHoncho]

I believe the main point is that if we all enjoy Alamaze, and we wish it to grow and so more development occurs, new games form faster, more variants emerge, new players stay in Alamaze and enjoy their experiences, that it may be necessary for experienced players to be chivalrous, especially with newer players, but even with those Knights of Alamaze, who deserve respect.

I don't think anyone here disagrees with the point about new players, but I have no idea what you're even trying to get at with the Knights of Alamaze thing. I try to treat all players with respect, but chivalry? Let's say Dusi wins the Titan Tournament and becomes a Knight of Alamaze, and I'm fighting him in a subsequent game, so all of a sudden I'm supposed to be "chivalrous" toward one of the very best players in the game? What does that even mean? Treat him with kid gloves? Let him out of the box if I (unlikely, I know) manage to achieve an advantage over him?

I'm sorry, but unless I come to a negotiated peace with a Knight of Alamaze, there is no way I'm going to let up against an expert player just because he's achieved some kind of meta-achievement. And there's no way I'd want anyone to take it easy on me if I ever obtained that meta-achievement. The very concept feels kind of offensive, in all honesty. Like Brogan said, this IS a wargame, isn't it? Or are we now trying to move toward some kind of social network engineering concept?

The lingering concern is a hint of disregard/irrelevance for how newer players may react to swift alliances against them, due to a perceived lack of diplomacy on their part, or lack of compliance with aggressive diplomacy, or any other manufactured casus belli.

Utter silence isn't a "perceived" lack of diplomacy... it IS a lack of diplomacy, by definition. And if anyone, newbie or no, decides not to participate in negotiations at all in a non-anonymous game, then they are almost invariably going to do poorly.

In my opinion, you'll do a lot better achieving the result you want by encouraging everyone in non-anonymous games to engage in diplomacy and negotiations, rather than trying to dumb everyone else down or give people a free pass for running silent.

I suppose at the end of the day, it goes back to the age-old question of whether we want to ensure equality of opportunity, or equality of result. My increasing perception is that certain people here want the latter, when in actuality the best that anyone will ever do in a game that requires skill is the former, which I have always wholeheartedly and completely supported... 170/171 formulas, anyone?

[Daredevil]

I'll weigh in here and say that I have yet to see a single clear cut example of a vindictive gang-banging that wasn't provoked, or an attack on one member of a larger alliance.

Having said that, I agree bending over new players is stupid and doesn't serve one of the primary goals that we all share; the prosperity of Alamaze.

Self-policing on a topic that is clearly layered and gray is going to be difficult, because there are always multiple perspectives, assymetry of information, perceived intents vs. actual intents, etc.

To address this effectively, you require one of the following:

a) a rules change (i.e. preventing more than 3 kingdoms from being politically or militarily active in a region at a time - this would really detract from the game in my opinion)
b) different game variants (New vs. Experienced, Master & Apprentice - Rick and Cipher have already done a great job here, introducing new formats that limit the exposure of new players)

Reputational deterrents, public floggings, etc. won't work here because of the discourse is much too convoluted.

We all need to accept that there is a learning curve to this game, and that there are diplomatic elements that are fundamental to victory in the non-anonymous format. Putting players that are inexperienced into a contest with more experienced folks is usually going to end badly; as it should - that's the value of experience.

My recommendation would be to continue offering non gang-banging formats like anonymous and/or master & apprentice, in order to allow the new players an opportunity to learn and acclimatize.

Finally, peace to anyone who feels they have been gang-banged by me at any point. It was not my intent to deter you from playing a game that a clearly love and would evangelize to anyone who might care to listen.

Game 121 is not a clear example? Dwarf in his second game ever fights RD solo, then receives a coordinated attack by 3 experienced players starting on turn 4. which part of that is not clear?

[Ry Vor]

I believe the main point is that if we all enjoy Alamaze, and we wish it to grow and so more development occurs, new games form faster, more variants emerge, new players stay in Alamaze and enjoy their experiences, that it may be necessary for experienced players to be chivalrous, especially with newer players, but even with those Knights of Alamaze, who deserve respect.

I don't think anyone here disagrees with the point about new players, but I have no idea what you're even trying to get at with the Knights of Alamaze thing. I try to treat all players with respect, but chivalry? Let's say Dusi wins the Titan Tournament and becomes a Knight of Alamaze, and I'm fighting him in a subsequent game, so all of a sudden I'm supposed to be "chivalrous" toward one of the very best players in the game? What does that even mean? Treat him with kid gloves? Let him out of the box if I (unlikely, I know) manage to achieve an advantage over him?

I'm sorry, but unless I come to a negotiated peace with a Knight of Alamaze, there is no way I'm going to let up against an expert player just because he's achieved some kind of meta-achievement. And there's no way I'd want anyone to take it easy on me if I ever obtained that meta-achievement. The very concept feels kind of offensive, in all honesty. Like Brogan said, this IS a wargame, isn't it? Or are we now trying to move toward some kind of social network engineering concept?

The lingering concern is a hint of disregard/irrelevance for how newer players may react to swift alliances against them, due to a perceived lack of diplomacy on their part, or lack of compliance with aggressive diplomacy, or any other manufactured casus belli.

Utter silence isn't a "perceived" lack of diplomacy... it IS a lack of diplomacy, by definition. And if anyone, newbie or no, decides not to participate in negotiations at all in a non-anonymous game, then they are almost invariably going to do poorly.

In my opinion, you'll do a lot better achieving the result you want by encouraging everyone in non-anonymous games to engage in diplomacy and negotiations, rather than trying to dumb everyone else down or give people a free pass for running silent.

I suppose at the end of the day, it goes back to the age-old question of whether we want to ensure equality of opportunity, or equality of result. My increasing perception is that certain people here want the latter, when in actuality the best that anyone will ever do in a game that requires skill is the former, which I have always wholeheartedly and completely supported... 170/171 formulas, anyone?

Chivalry, honor, respect and courtesy are all related concepts. That was the code around knighthood. A knight would fight fairly, and protect the weak, even if it resulted in his own injury or death. Does that help with the understanding?

Its disappointing you don't seem to share in the idea that new players need to be nurtured. This "eat your young" philosophy isn't helpful for fostering a future for Alamaze.