Honor and dishonor in multiplayer games (and a Godwin analogy)

[MyopicCat]

Today I watched a multiplayer game that took place about two months ago starring NQ-Furo, Twinsen, Yoruus and a few others. The game was very well played for about 180 turns but then ended disgracefully (in my opinion). The match was recorded by both NQ-Furo and Yoruus. In this particular game I recommend Furo's version, but here are both perspectives:

http://www.twitch.tv/furo_flo/c/3496130 [jump to 25:50 (!) for the start of the game]
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgYopQWwsyjFbPmyQXHxgPE3u8t8T-BOD

For the record, let me say that I greatly admire all three players above. I have learned a *lot* from their gameplay and have been much entertained by the many videos posted by NQ-Furo and Yoruus.

Here's what went down in this game:

Spoiler :

Early in the game, Furo and Twinsen found their capitals just 7 tiles apart. They soon made a non-aggression pact for 130 turns that was later extended to turn 160. By that time, Twinsen had a slight lead, closely followed by NQ-Schumi16 and Furo. At this point I really enjoyed the mutual trust and respect between Furo and Twinsen. This was made quite clear by their early diplomacy as well as Furo's commentary (which is sparse as always, but nevertheless very instructive). Both players honorably proceeded to build peacefully until the pact expired, while wars were fought elsewhere. Right on schedule, Twinsen attacked. Furo defended well but soon lost a city. Both players were stuck in the trenches as Schumi bypassed them and took a clear lead.

Suddenly, on an initiative from Furo, they made peace and agreed to attack Schumi instead. Surprisingly, Furo then gave away most of his army (and some aluminum) to Twinsen, who could then easily make short work of poor Schumi with his double army. Remaining players agree the game is over and Furo claims GERMANY WINS in the chat (both Furo and Twinsen are German). This was perhaps tongue-in-cheek, but his commentary also suggested that he felt that he had part of the win.

Personally I am appalled by this ending. In my opinion, Furo and Twinsen could have dealt with the situation with decency by making the following exchange:

"OK, this is a stalemate. All we're doing is killing each other and giving Schumi the win. How about we make a temporary peace, go after Schumi together, and then start killing each other again once we've crippled him?"

"Fine, let's go!"

Then both players could have proceeded to use their own armies to attack Schumi, before going after each other. This would have been clever diplomacy and excellent MP gameplay. The ending as it actually happened has left me disillusioned and very disappointed in my idols Furo and Twinsen.

MILDER SPOILERS CONTINUE BELOW (and probably throughout the rest of this thread)!

Based on what happened in this game, I'd like to propose the following Civ MP analogy to Godwin's law (automatic loss of a debate if you bring up the Nazis), which I call the Godless Win:

1. Anyone who deliberately rolls over and gives away most of his units and/or cities just to deny someone else the win morally loses the game, as does the player who accepts these gifts.
2. Players who make unbreakable 2 vs 1 pacts for no in-game reason whatsoever (because they happen to come from the same country or because they are friends IRL) morally lose the game.
3. Any joint win is a joint loss. Free-for-all games should follow the Highlander rule: "There can be only one."

Or is it just me? Does everyone else think that 2:1 and joint wins are OK?

 

[Glassmage]

Am I suppose to care? Trash topic. Reported.

Moderator Action: This sort of comment is inappropriate. If you have a problem with a post, just report it -- do not troll the poster.

 

[LoneRebel]

This is General Discussions. How is this supposed to be a trash topic?

 

[MyopicCat]

Am I suppose to care? Trash topic. Reported.

Thank you for making a relative newbie like me feel welcome to Civfanatics by helping me improve my posts to the forum. I hope everyone here is as grateful for your hard work as I am.

 

[Setiwoh]

I agree, but i'd like to amend your first analogy. should read

1. "Anyone who deliberately rolls over and gives away most of his units and/or cities just to deny someone else the win for no in-game reason morally loses the game, as does the player who accepts these gifts."

As for the highlander rule, i disagree. I am totally okay with players teaming up in free-for-all. Just like in the real world, civilizations can get together for a time and break away. even in the end game, the highlander rule isn't universal among players or real world civilizations. Especially with the inclusion unifying elements such as religion and ideology. And even if players "team-up" they are still in competition with each other in many other aspects of the game

 

[reddishrecue]

This could be moved to the multiplayer section then, since it is about multiplayer.

 

[Setiwoh]

....so in a way, joint wins are impossible in ffa even when players form alliances. as long as the player on the receiving end had it coming i for an in-game reason, i am cool with it

 

[Browd]

Moderator Action: Moved to Multiplayer.

 

[tommynt]

edit:

nevermind, great story

 

[MyopicCat]

edit:

nevermind, great story

Oh darn, didn't see your post in time. I was really curious about what your opinion on this kind of play would be.

 

[tommynt]

My opinion?
all you 6 guys wasted 10 hours of your life.

Does it really matter who declared himself the winner? U dont even do statistics.

Play cton (FFA with allways war) and u have a WAY more intense, fun and realistic game with a real winner in the end.

 

[Turjo]

I think what happened was a legitimate play. I don't think it would be fair if they both went into the game with plans to ally up. But the situation seemed to be beneficial for them both to team up against Schumi. Part of playing is making and negotiating deals with other players and Schumi got outmatched by going it alone (I didn't watch the replay, but read the summary in the spoiler). Was there no one that he could have tried to bring in? Maybe he could have tried to negotiate with Furo to attack Twinsen?

I think a shared victory is still a victory. But I like to play for the story, not necessarily the ending.

 

[tommynt]

I think a shared victory is still a victory.

So u might next time just declare every1 as winners in turn 1 - all 6 share the victory.

A game full of winners, so many happy people.
And on top u can after go out and enjoy the sun.

 

[CraigMak]

My opinion?
all you 6 guys wasted 10 hours of your life.

Does it really matter who declared himself the winner? U dont even do statistics.

Play cton (FFA with allways war) and u have a WAY more intense, fun and realistic game with a real winner in the end.

THIS,^^^^^^^^^

All War is the Way to go. Not carebear games where everyone trades rainbows and ponies with each other and then some one arbitrarily becomes the winner because others got bored and quit or they just think they won.

 

[MyopicCat]

All War is the Way to go. Not carebear games where everyone trades rainbows and ponies with each other and then some one arbitrarily becomes the winner because others got bored and quit or they just think they won.

Then I assume you also feel that Domination is the only way to go, and Science/Culture/Diplomacy victories are flower power love fests for wimps?

But if diplomacy is out, and non-Domination victories are out, why bother playing Civilization at all? There are much better pure war games out there you know.

 

[CraigMak]

Then I assume you also feel that Domination is the only way to go, and Science/Culture/Diplomacy victories are flower power love fests for wimps?

But if diplomacy is out, and non-Domination victories are out, why bother playing Civilization at all? There are much better pure war games out there you know.

I suppose science would be doable on those settings. But primarily domination is usually the way to go. Civ is better than other all out war games because it requires you to build infrastructure and is in depth in many other ways. You can't just spam out warriors and expect to win.

It requires a lot of skill, more so in an all out war game than in a carebear trading game IMO.

FYI just because you're at war doesn't mean you are actually attacking each other and building massive armies.

 

[Silverfuturist]

Then I assume you also feel that Domination is the only way to go, and Science/Culture/Diplomacy victories are flower power love fests for wimps?

Science wins on cton are possible. Culture is not simply because BNW is flawed in MP when it comes to trying to win with culture.

 

[layelaye]

i agree with all of you3 3 points,,, sadly ppl think 2 on one from before the game started can be fun for all...