You are not logged in.
LOL, the effort to subotage the real winners getting credit is desperate!
Most people in church alliance went away from gaming for a while to give more time elsewhere, we thought our alliance's victory is clear and we will be eventually proclaimed victorious. I don't think anyone expected this "losing nations claims victory" will get any traction.... but alas! more people lost and remained alive than won victory inLT31....
So it is no wonder that the subotage effort got more supporters
When we got email and noticed that already some people who don't belong in the winner list have claimed victory, and the fact that if more than 7 claims victory then the game will be "tie", we refrained from claiming victory so that 2 of our alliance members don't lose the credit which they rightfully deserves.....
I beleive the 7 winners will be decided *Fairly*, rather than letting some messy winner list given legitimacy.
PS: I now have more respect for mmm2 not claiming victory evethough he was alive till the end.
Offline
Were you, Tuhin, knew poll about winning conditions before a game? Did you joined to a game with this information or not?
Did anyplayer of LT31 didnt knew rules included in poll http://longturn.org/poll/43/
Did this information was fogged to anyone?
I was asked many times show different and precision from Marduks definition of alliance. It wasnt show.
From another side:
Most people in church alliance went away from gaming for a while to give more time elsewhere
Some people (like me) get sick to use some sort of alliance out of a game, or jumping from game to another game even it is not geograficaly supposed to. If you create "The Church", why are you so frustrating that war with "The Church" was moved to the place where it lives - forum. Once "The Church" was created some players will be in offensive on it. We dont like this type of alliances because it is not fair to peple treat games splited, they dont have a chance to be in hudgest alliance ingame because it is not many players left to get in after game started. Everytime when hudge alliance won, there was flame war about it.
Offline
^ basically what edrim said. You guys are all acting like being in this massive alliance (which was against the clearly defined and democratically approved rules) did not provide you with an advantage. This is incorrect and you're only fooling yourself if you think otherwise. It provides a massive advantage, because while people are off fighting your alliance members who "don't want to win" (who are supported by 'other alliance members'), your "players who want to win" just slip in the back door. Congratulations, you can kill people when their main army is half way around the world (because there's simply no way to cover all fronts against an alliance twice your size).
We could all live by the mantra "if you can't beat them, join them", but then there's nobody to fight and we might as well be playing SimCity or playing vs AI. If you want to put a "win" next to your name in the rankings, do it within the rules. Don't just ignore them and then try pretend that you've done nothing wrong.
Offline
Edrim is right about the list. Lord_P has to claim victory himself. I was thinking whether to count Grendel or not but his just posted here saying he is still undecided.
We currently have 7 valid claims but there is still time. Since I didn't mention hours, claims will be accepted until June 5 officially ends everywhere on Earth. Normally I'd gladly accept a few days late claims (as I think this game should really have no winners) but I know many others would object and accuse me of bending the rules so deadline is fixed.
There were 31 alive players. I had previously sent two reminder emails to all survivors. Maybe some of them have seen neither this post nor my email but I still can't believe that only 7 players claimed victory so far. In fact, I was so sure that the game would have no winners that I actually stopped wasting hours and playing seriously in the last month or so.
Current situation:
CLAIM VICTORY:
kryon
akfaew
dimitril
edrim
joris
kull
mrsynical
ACCEPT DEFEAT:
cgalik
kyrilus
illvilja
sokrat
mmm2
o01leg
xercise
jumangee
malibujack
soon
viznut
wieder
NO RESPONSE:
pipo
meton
johnhx
elpollodiablo
bamskamp
vendicar
trodan
tuhin
captainawesome
trashkiller
Last edited by Kryon (2013-06-05 15:06:08)
Offline
I 'withhold' a claim of either defeat or victory... and now I have a better understanding of what this ranking is worth.
There are more games being played here than freeciv, in this silly experiment...
Offline
The time is up!
So, the official winners of LT31 are:
kryon
akfaew
dimitril
edrim
joris
kull
mrsynical
I'll run my ranking code on MATLAB and send akfaew the updated rankings.
I should mention that although I am in the list, I am not very happy about the result because 10 of the alive players have not responded which means some of them probably haven't seen this post nor my email. Even if one of them objected in the last 10 days we would have no winners.
I tried to discourage large alliances in this game and make sure game had no winners if a large alliance defeats others but my attempts failed.
For the next alliance game, we should come up with a better way of limit alliance/winner size instead of having time and winner-size limits.
Offline
Yes, time limit actualy have the opposite effect of what you wanted.
Offline
Thanks Kryon! I think this result is something nobody could have predicted, and even though no ranking system is perfect, it's better we have one than none.
It should be a lot clearer in LT32. Cheers!
Offline
I should mention that although I am in the list, I am not very happy about the result because 10 of the alive players have not responded which means some of them probably haven't seen this post nor my email.
Or they couldn't be bothered or thought this process was all fairly pointless.
I would like to point out that this is the reason (I thought) we had the rule that we everybody must either be "killed" OR "formally surrender" BEFORE the end of the game. Otherwise, the game is essentially a stalemate.
The default of not-replying therefore you are declared "defeated" seems a bit hollow. There was no particular reason it should not have been "not-replying means you declare victory"?
Offline
I think this result is something nobody could have predicted
\
Actually, as soon as I heard there was a 15 man alliance (around one month in to the game?) I could have told you they would be the winners. It has happened before. You are not original in creating these ridiculously large alliances - which is why we have had to make rules with an alliance size limit (that you just decided to ignore).
Offline
...now, after those four pages of wrestling in mud I am coming to conclusion that vassal states are not so dumb idea. Though nobody wanted to talk offtopic. : P Those players, who play for fun and pleasure would be natural vassals, and those who play for victory, would be natural sovereigns. All the game would be about picking out vassals from other sovereign. And because only alive vassal is valuable vassal, all players would survive till the last turn. And just imagine the out-of-game diplomacy.
Of course this idea has one major disadvantage: somebody would have to code all of this into the server AND probably the client.
...or maybe not. All we need to know is whether an alliance is the agreement of equal sides, or the sovereign-vassal agreement. And this could be done just with official written declaration made on forum. Nothing to code. Hm?
Last edited by Archont (2013-06-07 03:11:41)
..(`) In my spirit lies my faith
.( ) Stronger than love and with me it will be
/(* *) For always
./(_)() Orchestra!
Offline
...now, after those four pages of wrestling in mud I am coming to conclusion that vassal states are not so dumb idea. Though nobody wanted to talk offtopic. : P Those players, who play for fun and pleasure would be natural vassals, and those who play for victory, would be natural sovereigns. All the game would be about picking out vassals from other sovereign. And because only alive vassal is valuable vassal, all players would survive till the last turn. And just imagine the out-of-game diplomacy.
Of course this idea has one major disadvantage: somebody would have to code all of this into the server AND probably the client.
...or maybe not. All we need to know is whether an alliance is the agreement of equal sides, or the sovereign-vassal agreement. And this could be done just with official written declaration made on forum. Nothing to code. Hm?
I can live with this if your number of vassal and sovereign states is still less than the maximum alliance size . You people seriously need to wrap your head around the idea that more players gives you an unfair advantage .
<edit>Relating to the above statement - if we allow such a rule, there is nothing from stopping a person creating 5 'different players' (all you need is some e-mail aliases and a couple of VPNs to stop people catching you from logging in at the same IP) and then just turning 4 of those 'players' into vassal states. Then they will have 5X the starting number of cities/settlers compared to other players.</edit>
Last edited by det0r (2013-06-07 04:57:03)
Offline
To me agreeing to be a vassal is like surrendering. You are like a governor and your cities belong to the Master Nation. Of course, in my view, a vassal state can only get back in the game and aim for victory by revolting. Declaring war on the Master Nation. And such stab in the back is not deshonoring at all since it is like breaking free of enslavement.
Offline
Congratulations to the winners! You were clearly better players in this game. I'm happy to survive LT31.
About a 15 member alliance winning the game. That didn't happen. I think there were just 2 players from that alliance among the winners. In fact you formed a new alliance so you could win.
Another thing about that 15 member alliance. At the time when Vikings collapsed, I was not a part of any such alliance. At that time I was allied to France and possibly already a member of the RAAR alliance. RAAR alliance had 6 members, maybe 7 in the end.
One reason we (RAAR) joined The Church was the assumption or fear that Kryon's alliance and Edrim's alliance had merged. That was not the case, probably. On the other hand Kryon's and Edrim's alliances never were in an active war so they could have been allied. I can't be sure about that.
There was also talk about alliance sizes and the number of the winners on the Forum. It was stated that the number of the winners was limited to 7 but the alliance size wasn't limited and it was perfectly fine to create just as large alliance as you wanted. I don't remember too many people complaining in that thread.
Offline
I made my last post mostly because I was bored - and I am already regretting it. However - let us play.
I can live with this if your number of vassal and sovereign states is still less than the maximum alliance size.
You cannot limit it other way than by encoding into server the notion of alliance not as an agreement between a pair of players, but between a group of players, with top number of participants limited. Or to run a game with a judge who would have full insight into all players' current state and could concede penalties for "being passive", just like in judo.
You people seriously need to wrap your head around the idea that more players gives you an unfair advantage.
And every time it happens God kills a kitten? But let's say you got point. So what? Preaching like this will not change players' attitude, and you know this well.
There is nothing from stopping a person creating 5 'different players' (all you need is some e-mail aliases and a couple of VPNs to stop people catching you from logging in at the same IP) and then just turning 4 of those 'players' into vassal states.
Now thank you, in the name of the community, for giving everybody an idea how to make another incarnation of The Church even stronger. Because you are well aware that this exploit could be used under any victory conditions, not only the ones I've just proposed - don't you?
To me agreeing to be a vassal is like surrendering.
So it is better for you to be eliminated in T50 or so and to have to wait couple of months for another LT game?
You are like a governor and your cities belong to the Master Nation.
You forgot Pol^W that a vassal may change his sovereign at will, thus delivering him stronger blow than just revolting against him or even going idle. In other words, sovereigns could be risen to power and abolished by their vassals, who could play them like puppets, if only playing together. And THIS would be real FUN.
Declaring war on the Master Nation. And such stab in the back is not dishonoring at all since it is like breaking free of enslavement.
You overreact now. You might say as well that in LT32 we are all enslaved by team leaders. Or that we all are enslaved by the government in RL.
..(`) In my spirit lies my faith
.( ) Stronger than love and with me it will be
/(* *) For always
./(_)() Orchestra!
Offline
The LT31 was just a vassals-sovereigns game because of The Church.
Oh. But there is one difference, I think. Under current rules any "vassal" scheming against his "sovereigns" and caught red handed would be eliminated preventive and nobody would give a fsck about that. In other words, the risk of conducting independent policy does not pay off now. But under proposed rules only living vassal is valuable vassal and so there would be many rivals of The Church only waiting (and not waiting passively) for an occasion to grant protection for any dissatisfied vassals of It. And so to speak, the game would have not be settled in T50 already.
The key point of my idea is to embed in LT some kind of noob protection, so that noobs would not be just supernumeraries, but active actors on political scene, capable of changing the final score of the game.
EDIT: the above post was removed; dunno why.
Last edited by Archont (2013-06-08 01:31:11)
..(`) In my spirit lies my faith
.( ) Stronger than love and with me it will be
/(* *) For always
./(_)() Orchestra!
Offline
Well, I do not say it is a perfect idea or even a good idea; of course you got point with stalemate. So I stay opened for any constructive critics of it, or even for a proof that this dumb babbling has no right to work.
At worst we could arrange games lasting for a number of turns determined before the game and just count vassals of each sovereign in the last turn. We could even draw a random number of turns from some interval to make game ending surprise for everyone and so to make nervous moves near the end of game impossible.
Of course you can add more nouns, ie Vassal. But what is difference if you just have peace deal? Maybe I missed your point. But if your only request is to add "Vassal" to the list, that would seem easy to add to ruleset and a clever idea, so why not? I would vote yes for it, if poll was made.
Well I think it could be done without writing a line of code if we only agree to disclose vassal-sovereign agreements on forum. But if we decide they should stay secret, of course we will not miss the pleasure of coding.
What is the difference? That only vassal-sovereign agreements would be counted to the score of sovereign and consequently to his ranking points. A vassal would have his score equal to zero and could not earn any ranking points. This rule would made number of sovereigns higher, I think. But I am not so sure would it not undermine the whole business with zero-vassals sovereigns popping everywhere...
if you are weak player or noob, your best bet is to ally with as many players as possible!!!
Sure, but I thought forming such an alliance is a major crime here...
OK, I close this post for edition. It is perfect enough. : )
Last edited by Archont (2013-06-08 02:28:17)
..(`) In my spirit lies my faith
.( ) Stronger than love and with me it will be
/(* *) For always
./(_)() Orchestra!
Offline
If it was to be coded, I think it should go like this:
It would be a treaty asking someone or offering to be a vassal.
The Sovereign gain every score point of the vassal who have 0 score and the vassal state in score is displayed as ''Vassal''.
The diplomatie toward every state he have contact with is the same as the Sovereign. He can have what ever diplomatie stance he want with a nation who never came in contact with the Sovereign. But will have to line up eventually if they come in contact and the Sovereing take another diplomatic stance. This may brake alliance by forcing war on former allies.
The vassal share vision one direction with the Sovereign as part of the vassal status. But need to ask the Sovereign for is vision if he want it.
They are concidered like ally.
Sovereign cannot cancel treaty or declare war on the Vassal at all, unless the treaty is being cancelled by the Vassal. Vassal can cancel the treaty, this will make him at war with the Sovereign after 2 turns. If he do it right before TC, that mean the Sovereign got a full turn to prepare or repress the insurection with a first strike (This is to prevent a surprise attack from the inside from a cunning Vassal). Both can agree to cease fire, peace, or alliance to end the Vassalage.
Of cource him not going to code it, so this is just a random idea.
Offline
I think there should be a different topic about new ideas.
Back ontopic; I think those who didn't response , they might not have responsed because:
1. They didn't agree with the winner list, but don't want their friends get "Tie"
or, 2. They thinks the winner selection method wasn't fair.
or, 3. For some it might have been : Better be a losser with honor than get honorless winner trophy.
Or maybe people didn't respond for all three above reasons and more.
Last edited by Tuhin (2013-06-08 19:03:19)
Offline
1. They didn't agree with the winner list, but don't want their friends get "Tie"
or, 2. They thinks the winner selection method wasn't fair.
or, 3. For some it might have been : Better be a losser with honor than get honorless winner trophy.
or, 4. maybe they are so shame because of honorless playing that they dont want to show themselfs on forum.
or, 5. they dont care about game at all (playing only 5 minutes a day and they are not even register on forum) and they didnt even took look at polls before game
anyone has more points to complete a list?
Offline
I think there should be a different topic about new ideas.
Oh, I'm just prone for teasing people... and besides, I do not know, what subforum this idea fits in.
Point 1. seems legit to me.
Point 2. seems strange to me. If they were thinking the method is defective, why they did not say their doubts aloud, until it could be changed?
Point 3. seems... let us say: a major crime against political thinking (and in Civ we are all politicians to much or less degree).
I generally think much people visit forum but stay completely silent. I can not understand, why. After all, who is not not present, is voteless.
Last edited by Archont (2013-06-08 19:04:21)
..(`) In my spirit lies my faith
.( ) Stronger than love and with me it will be
/(* *) For always
./(_)() Orchestra!
Offline
I generally think much people visit forum but stay completely silent. I can not understand, why. After all, who is not not present, is voteless.
Some people are just not good at speaking English, so they do not like to post anything. Others are worried about people getting overly offended at their comments.
Tuhin wrote:1. They didn't agree with the winner list, but don't want their friends get "Tie"
or, 2. They thinks the winner selection method wasn't fair.
or, 3. For some it might have been : Better be a losser with honor than get honorless winner trophy.or, 4. maybe they are so shame because of honorless playing that they dont want to show themselfs on forum.
or, 5. they dont care about game at all (playing only 5 minutes a day and they are not even register on forum) and they didnt even took look at polls before gameanyone has more points to complete a list?
or, 6. They have their own metric on how well they played and they do not care about the official metric to argue.
or, 7. They feel that playing is more fun than winning (I have some friends like that).
Offline
Some people are just not good at speaking English, so they do not like to post anything.
Конечно. Хорошо. Ты скажы меня, важно ли это когда естъ Дядя Гугел. : P
Others are worried about people getting overly offended at their comments.
Gelobt sein was hart gemacht. : P
6. They have their own metric on how well they played and they do not care about the official metric to argue.
Then do we play the same game? If this is the case, they should at least publish their own ranking.
7. They feel that playing is more fun than winning (I have some friends like that).
This seems legit.
..(`) In my spirit lies my faith
.( ) Stronger than love and with me it will be
/(* *) For always
./(_)() Orchestra!
Offline
The LT31 was just a vassals-sovereigns game because of The Church.
Oh. But there is one difference, I think. Under current rules any "vassal" scheming against his "sovereigns" and caught red handed would be eliminated preventive and nobody would give a fsck about that. In other words, the risk of conducting independent policy does not pay off now. But under proposed rules only living vassal is valuable vassal and so there would be many rivals of The Church only waiting (and not waiting passively) for an occasion to grant protection for any dissatisfied vassals of It. And so to speak, the game would have not be settled in T50 already.
The key point of my idea is to embed in LT some kind of noob protection, so that noobs would not be just supernumeraries, but active actors on political scene, capable of changing the final score of the game.
EDIT: the above post was removed; dunno why.
I've got news for you. After LT30 the rules were made so restrictive that no one player COULD POSSIBLY be a major actor on the scene because Jhh started to do this. By simply donating tech, gold and in the we even donated troops by converting other nations excess reserves into a smaller nations troops. There simply is no motivation for such scullduggery since the whole point of playing cloak and dagger has been eliminated...
all because you people can't grok what a truly magnificent EVE-like experience such a game can be, I know LT30 stings in the old vets blood still. But c'mon, think of the games freeciv.fi 2013/I will have if they get the 2.4 out in time... possibly over 150 active players, and none of this artificially-tie-everybody-down-in-their-island-and-prevent-co-operation so if you press the wrong button on T0 and disband, instead of add to population a settler you're 30 turns behind in tech development and nobody is even going to be able give you any help.
That pretty much killed my game, right then and there.
There was some initial tension between me and RAAR, I was planning on backstabbing back properly but then they also joined the Church. But there simply was no gain, no lulz, no power, nobody to sell information to, or anything to barter to build a trust with. So I stuck with the only group that had the right idea for such a restricted sandbox, the church.
The shit you can pull through counter intel, rogue players and clandestine siderolls in freeciv.fi is mind boggling, what enables this is the relatively normal ruleset. It's the lack of a restrictive ruleset that makes the players build the game for themselves, not the other way around.
Do you wan't to play longturnciv or freeciv? I guess is the question.
Offline