How do you Defeat a Rampaging Multiplayer Opponent? Cheese it!

[LeHam]

I played my first multiplayer game in a while yesterday, and it was probably the best ever.

One player, i-am-celt, quickly quecha-rushed his nearest two opponents on his continent before they could even settle a second city, and expanded like mad. Meanwhile, I was in the East of a continent with rybondin (forget the exact name) of the Vikings, yarp (Dutch), and aodbr7 (Maya) to the west. Another two players, Johndeanwells and pyro123 were on another continent (John conquered pyro). Unbeknownst to me until later, Shaka was on another continent all alone.

While I was still in the Medieval Ages, trying to wipe out the Vikings (the player quit when it turned out I was winning), i-am-celt in the Industrial Age invaded aodbr7 and took two of his cities at once. Yarp sent him a total of 3000 gold to help aodbr7 of the Maya.

My territory, after capturing Birka and razing two other cities, the player left, yet I had more trouble with Ragnar than I did with a human! :

Spoiler :

Eventually i-am-celt was going to kill us all, but we had a plan. Vote for Yarp for Diplomatic Victory using an AP Cheese Win! It was Perfect! . . . until Shaka voted for himself so we didn't have enough votes! That jerk! Next time, though, we all voted for SHAKA, and HE WON!

Spoiler :

Of course, i-am-celt wasn't too happy . . .

Spoiler :

While none of us players won, at least we didn't get ground in dust by i-am-celt! What I find funny is that he picked Incans so he could Quecha rush his opponents early on, and yet he called us noobs!

Here's i-am-celts' entire territory. He grew humongous!

Spoiler :

And my allies, yarp and aodbr7. aodbr7 whipped his cities (or drafted? Not sure) into oblivion to gain back the territory he lost. Yarp is okay, he gave aodbr7 a lot of money so he could also use Universal Suffrage to buy a crapload of units.

Spoiler :

Then JohnDean's. He gave all his cities to me when Shaka won (he had also voted for Shaka). Also here's Shaka's territory.

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

This was undoubtedly the most fun game I've ever played online. I know AP is usually considered a Cheese win, but this time we had no choice, and personally I think it was quite a clever way to save ourselves! I only wish all multiplayer games were this interesting, instead of mostly being Civ: Total War free-for-alls. If only tech trading had been on, we might not have been so far behind i-am-celt.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Wut...

Did you guys collude to make an AI win? And you were willing to do this just to make someone else win? And why do people have diplo victory on in multiplayer?

And you certainly didn't defeat them. Shaka did. All you did was sabotage the game.

 

[ChanceDanger]

Why have one AI on Settler? I can't look at Shaka's cities without vomiting in my mouth

Edit: Those aren't Shaka's cities... I may not play MP, but it looks like Inca was the only one who was actually playing well. No tech trading /= No city building

 

[karadoc]

Wut...

Did you guys collude to make an AI win? And you were willing to do this just to make someone else win? And why do people have diplo victory on in multiplayer?

And you certainly didn't defeat them. Shaka did. All you did was sabotage the game.

I think it was a legitimate strategy. The majority of the voting players decided that Inca shouldn't win, so they voted for Shaka.

Obviously this is not a win for anyone involved, but I certainly don't think they sabotaged the game! If you want to play a game where this kind of thing isn't possible, then you should disable the diplomatic victory condition. It wasn't disabled in this game, and so the strategy is legit.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If someone is willing to play junk settings going into the game, I guess they can't complain when said junk settings bite them.

Congrats on punishing someone for outplaying you .

 

[Archon_Wing]

I think it was a legitimate strategy. The majority of the voting players decided that Inca shouldn't win, so they voted for Shaka.

Obviously this is not a win for anyone involved, but I certainly don't think they sabotaged the game! If you want to play a game where this kind of thing isn't possible, then you should disable the diplomatic victory condition. It wasn't disabled in this game, and so the strategy is legit.

What strategy? A strategy is used for winning or advancing one's own position. This is just throwing the game. This is no different from gifting another player all your units and cities... except it's even worse, because you flat out decided the one you wanted to help should win. I don't see what's so special about this. Signing an informal alliance, ganging up, and gifting each other cities would seem more legit to me. Weaker players ganging up on a stronger player is perfectly sound in a free for all.

Which is why I think Diplo seems absurd to have in multiplayer. It works for single player, because diplomacy is supposed to work for AIs? But humans-- in a game with one winner, voting for a player to win other than yourself is throwing the game, plain and simple.

All I see here is being unable to accept someone's superior position in a game and seeing how they can't win themselves go "F you, if I can't win, nobody can, and the game ends here" I've been guilty of such behavior before in other multiplayer games, but at least I'm honest about it.

So yes, I think the Inca obviously f'd themselves over by allowing such a victory. But still... just for forgetting said checkbox?

Maybe I am annoyed that the AP cheese wasn't even done right-- this was just luck; they didn't even seem to know that candidates always vote for themselves. At least win with it.

 

[karadoc]

The way I see it, when diplomatic victory is enabled, then the game is more than just what's happening on the screen.

By the sounds of things, Inca basically declared themselves to be enemy of the world. Everyone knew that, sooner or later, their civ would be next on Inca hit-list; and they'd just be wiped out without a hope. Inca shows no mercy. So what choice to do the other players have but to gang up? If Inca had been more friendly to some of the other civs, then perhaps this wouldn't have happened to them.

Look, if the only thing that matters is whether you win or lose, then for everyone except Inca the game was over. They may as well just quit. But the thing is, for most players, winning is not the only reason for playing the game. The way the game plays out tells a kind of story. Maybe it's nice if you are the victor at the end of the story, but that's not necessarily the only goal. In fact, for these players, that particular goal had already slipped out of reach...


... ok... maybe I haven't yet expressed my point clearly, but I feel like I'm just typing very vague ramblings. If my point isn't already clear, then I probably don't have the communication skills to convey it properly.

 

[LeHam]

I've seen AI vote for other people than themselves before. Seriously, though, without Shaka or Ragnar's support we were only a few dozen votes away from winning. I'm not sure about this, but does the AP factor in how many of your cities have the AP religion for voting?

 

[LeHam]

The way I see it, when diplomatic victory is enabled, then the game is more than just what's happening on the screen.

By the sounds of things, Inca basically declared themselves to be enemy of the world. Everyone knew that, sooner or later, their civ would be next on Inca hit-list; and they'd just be wiped out without a hope. Inca shows no mercy. So what choice to do the other players have but to gang up? If Inca had been more friendly to some of the other civs, then perhaps this wouldn't have happened to them.

Look, if the only thing that matters is whether you win or lose, then for everyone except Inca the game was over. They may as well just quit. But the thing is, for most players, winning is not the only reason for playing the game. The way the game plays out tells a kind of story. Maybe it's nice if you are the victor at the end of the story, but that's not necessarily the only goal. In fact, for these players, that particular goal had already slipped out of reach...


... ok... maybe I haven't yet expressed my point clearly, but I feel like I'm just typing very vague ramblings. If my point isn't already clear, then I probably don't have the communication skills to convey it properly.

Exactly. The game was already decided, and who wants to play a game where you already know how it ends? We were going to vote for yarp of the Dutch, but we didn't have enough votes, and with Inca likely sending more units over to us, we knew we didn't have much time. So we chose the next-best option.

As for "out-playing" us, I wouldn't say Quecha-rushing really counts, a tactic so cheap I think it's even been banned in some tournaments (if I recall correctly). Besides, yarp said he's friends with i-am-celt (Incan player), and there was really no hard feelings about it.

The point is, Civ IV is a GAME, it's about having fun. Yes, we didn't technically "win" ourselves, and even then the Diplomatic Victory only allows one "winner," but together we managed to out-smart a larger civ using an alternate, clever tactic since we couldn't beat them by warring with them.

Personally, I LIKE multiplayer being about more than endless war (yarp and I were trading resources constantly). I LIKE it when the ultimate goal is not simply to clear every other player off the map, turning it into a big free-for-all. To me, it's boring! I LIKE having other Victory Conditions available. I LIKE having games run into the Industrial Age, and still having plenty of players, instead of almost everyone being conquered by the Medieval Era. I LIKE Tech trading being on (with tech Brokering OFF), so the game progresses faster, and weaker civs can more easily help each other to defend themselves against stronger "bullies," like the Inca were here.

If that makes TMIT's head explode, so be it. Judging from these responses, I guess I'm just an oddity. Oh, well.

 

[Archon_Wing]

The way I see it, when diplomatic victory is enabled, then the game is more than just what's happening on the screen.

By the sounds of things, Inca basically declared themselves to be enemy of the world. Everyone knew that, sooner or later, their civ would be next on Inca hit-list; and they'd just be wiped out without a hope. Inca shows no mercy. So what choice to do the other players have but to gang up? If Inca had been more friendly to some of the other civs, then perhaps this wouldn't have happened to them.

Look, if the only thing that matters is whether you win or lose, then for everyone except Inca the game was over. They may as well just quit. But the thing is, for most players, winning is not the only reason for playing the game. The way the game plays out tells a kind of story. Maybe it's nice if you are the victor at the end of the story, but that's not necessarily the only goal. In fact, for these players, that particular goal had already slipped out of reach...


... ok... maybe I haven't yet expressed my point clearly, but I feel like I'm just typing very vague ramblings. If my point isn't already clear, then I probably don't have the communication skills to convey it properly.

You haven't addressed my point though, especially when I described these actions as not being a strategy. You're also allowed to donate cities and units to people arbitrarily. That's technically legal, but wouldn't you call foul if someone was doing it at their own expense?

No game setting can stop me from from going AFK at the start. Is it okay to give my capital to somewhere nearby like that? It's technically allowed, but they'd cry foul.

And the game being a forgone conclusion is simply false. Just because he is big doesn't mean he automatically wins if everyone else will align each other. They can still fight it out, or conquer Shaka to actually win Diplo.

Storytelling only works in single player or with friends you have agreed to do this with. You can't just involve other strangers without agreeing to it first.

It's not like I'm against trolling. But unless Inca was talking trash or just generally being an ass, this is uncalled for.

And yes! Leaving is an option. If you don't feel like playing anymore. Start a new game, and let the remaining people duke it out. "Might as well quit?" But they sorta did.

Oh, and remember, I see nothing wrong about ganging up against someone who is winning.

I've seen AI vote for other people than themselves before. Seriously, though, without Shaka or Ragnar's support we were only a few dozen votes away from winning. I'm not sure about this, but does the AP factor in how many of your cities have the AP religion for voting?

Nope, AI votes for themselves if possible. If they aren't a candidate, then they may choose you. Cities don't matter-- 1 pop= 1 vote, unless you run the ap religion, then you get 2. You are always eligible if you own the AP. Thus if you had captured Shaka's cities, you could have easily taken the win for yourselves.

The point is, Civ IV is a GAME, it's about having fun. Yes, we didn't technically "win" ourselves, and even then the Diplomatic Victory only allows one "winner," but together we managed to out-smart a larger civ using an alternate, clever tactic since we couldn't beat them by warring with them.

Personally, I LIKE multiplayer being about more than endless war. I LIKE it when the ultimate goal is not simply to clear every other player off the map, turning it into a big free-for-all. To me, it's boring! I LIKE having other Victory Conditions available. I LIKE having games run into the Industrial Age, and still having plenty of players, instead of almost everyone being conquered by the Medieval Era. I LIKE Tech trading being on (with tech Brokering OFF), so the game progresses faster, and weaker civs can more easily help each other to defend themselves against stronger "bullies," like the Inca were here.

I'd agree, but there's one fact you ignored. This is multiplayer. There's other people involved and it's not just about what you like exclusively.

If you all agreed to screw around beforehand, then that would actually be ok.

 

[LeHam]

You haven't addressed my point though, especially when I described these actions as not being a strategy. You're also allowed to donate cities and units to people arbitrarily. That's technically legal, but wouldn't you call foul if someone was doing it at their own expense?

No game setting can stop me from from going AFK at the start. Is it okay to give my capital to somewhere nearby like that? It's technically allowed, but they'd cry foul.

And the game being a forgone conclusion is simply false. Just because he is big doesn't mean he automatically wins if everyone else will align each other. They can still fight it out, or conquer Shaka to actually win Diplo.

The game was a foregone conclusion. Maya had been decimated, I didn't even have Astronomy yet, the Dutch might have had enough of an army to take some of Shaka's cities, but probably in that time the boats either would have been sunk OR Inca would have destroyed the Maya.

Also, about 'crying foul.' The game lobby shows you what the rules are before you start. Everyone knew (or should have known) the rules. In fact, no one even complained about other victories being on, as far as I can remember. It isn't about being unfair, what we did was a perfectly legitimate strategy.

And while I will give you that we didn't technically win, in a sense it felt like we did because we didn't just end up getting crushed. We could either A) resign ourselves to the inevitable, which isn't fun for us, or B) quit the game entirely, which isn't fun for anyone. SO any option we choose we're basically screwed: if we use AP, we get called cheap, if we play it out, we get slowly destroyed, and if we quit, we're known as rage-quitters, and we ruin the game for everyone.

Storytelling only works in single player or with friends you have agreed to do this with. You can't just involve other strangers without agreeing to it first.

This is multiplayer. There's other people involved and it's not just about what you like exclusively.

If you all agreed to screw around beforehand, then that would actually be ok.

Like I said above, everyone knew the rules and agreed to play by them. And all players but the Inca agreed to vote for the same person for the AP. So yes, we did agree to "screw around" as you call it.

And yes! Leaving is an option. If you don't feel like playing anymore. Start a new game, and let the remaining people duke it out. "Might as well quit?" But they sorta did.

If someone didn't like having Diplomacy Victory enabled, why didn't THEY just quit in the beginning so they didn't have to deal with it?

It's not like I'm against trolling. But unless Inca was talking trash or just generally being an ass, this is uncalled for.

"Uncalled for"? You make it sound like I just yelled a racial slur at someone. Did what we did offend your sensibilities somehow?

Oh, and remember, I see nothing wrong about ganging up against someone who is winning.

Apparently, you do. Ganging up for an AP Victory so someone more powerful doesn't win is no different than ganging up militarily on someone more powerful so they don't win.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Like I said above, everyone knew the rules and agreed to play by them. And all players but the Inca agreed to vote for the same person for the AP. So yes, we did agree to "screw around" as you call it.

Lol, I see they killed themselves, which I didn't see. I guess that's funny.

If someone didn't like having Diplomacy Victory enabled, why didn't THEY just quit in the beginning so they didn't have to deal with it?

Which has nothing to do with anything. I already said they f'd themselves over and deserve part of the problem. That still has nothing to do with what I disagreed with. I'm not disagreeing with the fact someone won a diplomatic victory.

"Uncalled for"? You make it sound like I just yelled a racial slur at someone. Did what we did offend your sensibilities somehow?

Lol, don't imagine things. I said it seems like inappropriate behavior towards strangers in an online game. Inappropriate = uncalled for. It's exactly as severe as it sounds, aka not that much. Don't equate it to racism.

Apparently, you do. Ganging up for an AP Victory so someone more powerful doesn't win is no different than ganging up militarily on someone more powerful so they don't win.

I already had my opinion about this above:

What strategy? A strategy is used for winning or advancing one's own position. This is just throwing the game. This is no different from gifting another player all your units and cities... except it's even worse, because you flat out decided the one you wanted to help should win. I don't see what's so special about this. Signing an informal alliance, ganging up, and gifting each other cities would seem more legit to me. Weaker players ganging up on a stronger player is perfectly sound in a free for all.

It's fair game to gang up against someone to win.

 

[yarp72]

I would like to say it's not all about winning. That was quite ending to an interesting game. It was nice to see a multi-player game that wasn't one giant free for all war

 

[LeHam]

Lol, I see they killed themselves, which I didn't see. I guess that's funny.

Which has nothing to do with anything. I already said they f'd themselves over and deserve part of the problem. That still has nothing to do with what I disagreed with. I'm not disagreeing with the fact someone won a diplomatic victory.

It's fair game to gang up against someone to win.

What do you mean someone killed themselves? I didn't see anyone do that.

Like I said before, I don't see what happened as us not winning. I consider it enough of a victory just to not let ourselves be destroyed and survive a whole game. I don't see 'victory' as just winning for yourself, like a lot of players seem to. The fact that we banded together and survived, even though an AI technically won, is enough for me to consider it a victory. So somebody didn't get to win a conquest victory. It was a fun and interesting game to play, and ultimately that's what matters.

 

[aod]

Was a very cool game, I cant remember when I voted for an AI diplo victory, it seldom works even for humans! Its all yarp cool strategy, he spread his religion too all civs (necessary condition), you also need to spread as few as possible to enemy civs (like inca). He spread only to one inca city, and I remember inca saying "hey thanks" ))
btw, I recovered my land drafting and slaving like mad, in the end my capital was size 1

very memorable game

 

[LeHam]

Yeah it was cool but when I posted on here I didn't expect to start a debate over the whole thing.

 

[LeHam]

Btw Aod did you see I sent you a buddy request, I don't know if it went through, though.

 

[Armor (Veteran)]

While I think the AP diplomatic victory needs some tweaking, I couldn't help but laugh out loud at this quote:
"He spread only to one inca city, and I remember inca saying "hey thanks"

Most of the time diplomatic cheese victories via the AP can be prevented pretty easily, but this guy was clearly caught off-guard and greeted the burglar as he walked into his house. Starting on his own continent and wiping out two neighbors early, I'm surprised he wasn't in Theocracy with a non-AP religion.

 

[Archon_Wing]

What do you mean someone killed themselves? I didn't see anyone do that.

Err... I mean "defeated". I'm sorry, I guess I like to not use worlds literally.

Like I said before, I don't see what happened as us not winning. I consider it enough of a victory just to not let ourselves be destroyed and survive a whole game. I don't see 'victory' as just winning for yourself, like a lot of players seem to. The fact that we banded together and survived, even though an AI technically won, is enough for me to consider it a victory. So somebody didn't get to win a conquest victory. It was a fun and interesting game to play, and ultimately that's what matters.

Hmm, alright, let's clear some stuff up. Posted in a rush, and maybe I sounded too blunt

-- I don't consider that a strategy according to my alleged definition of strategy. I consider it throwing the game.
-- The checking of diplo victory is different from "Accept that players will gang up against you to make you lose, even if they can't win." Thus the example of going afk, and gifting people your cities. And such effects have less effect than knowingly pressing the "I lose button"
-- Personally, I disapprove of people throwing games in a multiplayer game against randoms
-- If I was the affected party and didn't know you guys, I'd be a bit discouraged from playing with you people. Then again, I wouldn't have diplo on and/or accept my loss.
-- What's fun for you, isn't necessarily fun for the other people in the game. If done in a vaccum, I'd consider that borderline griefing.
-- My point is not to pass moral judgement, or to somehow equate these things with some kind of atrocities [Insert Godwins law here]. I even noted earlier, I might have done the same thing! But I just don't accept this as a strategy or it as clever and that was what's up to debate. Of course, it's not anyone's job to convince me of anything, nor do you have to accept some pointless debate about this from me. As long as you all are having fun, I have nothing else to say.

-- Though honestly, perhaps I shouldn't hate the player, but the game, since it's really the designer's fault for creating such obvious exploits. Can one really be blamed when a single button can create so much havoc is shoved in their faces? Not everyone has extensive knowledge of the game to know it's abuse, and they shouldn't need to have it.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If that makes TMIT's head explode, so be it. Judging from these responses, I guess I'm just an oddity. Oh, well.

Like I said, Inca's greatest mistake was willfully entering into a non-competitive game where people use trash settings for the lulz. If a player is going to bother playing a game like that they'd better be prepared to put up with nonsense.