First off, if you have this much enthusiasm for commenting and debating, I encourage you to refugee to one of the still active teams. I know Q for example could use someone that likes to talk almost as much as me on their team
I think Most of what you said in that first paragraph can be chalked up to the fact that you've never been a turnplayer, which is why you are so mistaken about how things work. And I can't convince you otherwise
, so we can just disagree on whether enforcing a no-majority-alliances rule (whatever that means) is possible.
But this one statement I don't understand, so maybe you can explain:
I think it's a pity if one of the current game's team leaders hasn't noticed these are "multi-team demogames"...
Also, putting aside the issue of enforcement, can you please explain how the no-majority alliance rule would work in game terms? I get that in your no-alliance regime, it would have been illegal to form a 4 on 2 team alliance that excluded your team (Merlot) and the one other team. I get that part
.
But what about after that? For example, when Sirius, the team in 1st place, attacked Q, the team in last place, AMAZON joined Q against Sirius and CDZ stopped trading with Sirius, but did not DoW or attack them. Would that also be illegal in your regime?
What about now? AMAZON is in first place. Would it be illegal for CDZ, Sirius and Q to ally against AMAZON? What about just CDZ and Q against AMAZON and Sirius stays neutral? Is that illegal because its a mismatch? In other words, what kind of alliances would be acceptable to you? Are all mismatches illegal?
Another way to look at it... Do points or relative strengths of the teams come into play? If they do, who will decide when a mismatch is balanced or not? What if you disagree with the decision? Is there any recourse?
If points dont matter, just the number of teams, then it is illegal for a bunch of small teams to band together to bring down a big one, right? So do they have all to just sit back and let the agonizingly slow process of the big one killing them off one by one play out? Or do they have to sit back and watch the big one win a space race because mismatches are illegal?
It seems to me, and feel free to correct me
that what you want, is a game where the teams MUST divide into EVEN alliances, in terms of number of civs per alliance. So if there are four teams it MUST be 2 on 2. If that is correct, then to me a forced 2 on 2 is almost the same as just playing with 2 teams, but inferior because now you need turnplayers, and twice as many active posters, commenters etc.
Under that rule, using an odd number of teams is impossible, and using more than 4 raises the following problem:-- If we are playing with 6 teams we can do 3 on 3 or 2 on 2 on 2 under your regime right? Three scenarios I have a question about:
-- 1st scenario (2 on 2 on 2) - So if Alliance A attacks alliance B. Then alliance C, seeing that alliance B is distracted fighting A decides to take advantage and attack B as well, would this be an illegal majority alliance?
-- 2nd scenario (3 on 3) - Team 1 on alliance A feels unappreciated by the alliance and in the middle of a war, backstabs Team 2 and 3 by joining alliance B. So now it is Team 1, 4, 5 and 6 versus Team 2 and 3. would this be illegal in your regime?
-- 3rd scenario (3 on 3) - Team 2 and 3 on alliance A feel that Team 1 is not pulling their weight. They also know that team 4 wants to defect. So they dump team 1 and for a new Alliance A of Teams 2,3 and 4. Meanwhile Teams 5 and 6 hate Team 1, feeling they are untrustworty, and dead weight, and refuse to let them join alliance B. Is this sitiuation illegal in your regime? How would you resolve it?
Here is why I am asking this and why I keep going back to the "sour-grapes" thing. I think, (and I suspect that King Indiansmoke would agree with me on this) that the problem is not the alliances. The problem is that the map was designed in such a way that if you did not do one particular thing, right at the beginning, then you were doomed, and there was no way to recover. So the problem then was not with the rules of the game allowing alliances, it was just Merlot (and Mavs) made a very minor error in play early in the game that had drastic irreversible consequences.
To me the solution is a different map design, not outlawing alliances, oulawing alliances seems to be sour grapes (ie, blaming the rules for a bad result that was caused by bad play judgment not bad rules). Also, the way the map was designed encouraged a 4 on 2 alliance for so many reasons... but that is a whole other discussion.
No, if someone was really looking to cheat in an MTDG (which thankfully most of us are not) there are far simpler ways that cannot be enforced - such as a duplicate accounts joining other teams and engaging in real-world espionage. Thankfully, most members of this forum are more community-spirited than that and do not simply join a game in order to break it. MTDGs rely, as they always have to, on the social-mindedness of the participants.
Sure of course, but it only takes one rule infraction to collapse the game. This has benn proven time and time again. So yes while I agree that MOST members of the forum are perfect angels
, that's irrelevant, because it only take one to ruin the game for everyone else. What I am looking for is a set up that minimizes the opportunity for wrongdoing, and more importantly the
suspicion of wrongdoing, which is really what ends up causing hard-feelings and quitting. You keep on making the point about how honorable and good and trustworthy almost everyone is... OK, I get that, but remember it only takes one.
How sad it would be if you really did only have the imagination to countenance a single method of playing a game. That's not really the case is it? You don't really believe the tiny-minded view you're stating here, do you?
I must be tiny minded
, because I have no idea what this statement means
Indeed the quickest way to win your two-team game, with no human-imposed rules, would be to get one of your team into the other team with a duplicate account so they can get the team password, log in to the game, and delete their settlers. Wouldn't make much of a game though.
I don't get the relevance of this
What point are you trying to make?
Because it's boring. In a two player game there would genuinely be no diplomacy.
OK but really, what "Diplomacy" is there in a game where you and I are on 2 different teams, but we are in a forced permanent alliance, in forced permanent war against the other alliance, and tech trading is disabled? To me that is the same as us just being on the same team. The "diplomacy" in that situation is all within the team, so it is not really diplomacy, it is just in-team chat, so you might as well be on the same team.
Here's the thing. You can have a MM and tactics contest or you can have a Diplo contest, but you cant really have both. In a game where diplo is the focus, you will suffer dearly if you get outmanuvered in diplo. In a game with little or no diplo, you will succeed through superior micromanagement and battle tactics. This game is a diplo contest, Merlot got outmanuvered in diplo, that's really all there is to it. All the rule changes in the world are not going to change that in a diplo-focused game, you have to prioritize diplo over everything else.
having an agreed rule against double moves policed the issue just fine.
Wrong, because the turnplayer who was "policed" quit and almost ended the game because of it. That is not "working" that is disfunctional. Sequential turns would remove the policing aspect and thus the hard feelings of being "policed"
Yes indeed, I do
, quite often, and loud, and long 'winded-ly'
And (just in case you genuinely hadn't noticed) it is your assertion that others were doing that that is somewhat antisocial.
TBH (in case YOU hadn't noticed) I am intentionally being a little more provocative in my tone towards you, because I just get the sense that you enjoy it
Ah, great to hear that you wholeheartedly agree we shouldn't make unnecessary changes, such as limiting it to two teams only and sequential turns, It's great to hear you support this kind of debugging of the problems with the game... rather than childishly decrying any view other than your own about what didn't work this game as "sour grapes and ulcers".
Again, an ulcer, is a reference the stress people feel as a result of game related disagreements. I am not describing peoples views as ulcers. However I am describing some people's views (yours in particular) as sour grapes, so at least you got one right
And obviously you are mis-reading me (or maybe that's just more sarcasm?;P) because I want sequential turns and 2 teams, so I wouldn't wholeheartedly agree not to have those things
An example of unecessary changes would be limiting alliances.