Spite and Malice.... - Page 3

Velociryx · August 25, 2003, 09:46

Nope....I'm definitely not making excuses or covering bases in the event of a defeat, by the way.

I'm just expressing concern for what is, and has become a very real problem in this game.

And it IS a problem when people feel the only alternative they have is to simply leave the game to try and get away from it.

This seems to be the place where we differ. I see that as a real problem, for this game, for the people who felt they had to leave, and for the gaming community in general.

To answer your question, by the way, no. No such pre-game analysis was done by me, and I am unaware of ANY such effort anywhere on our team. I have done that ONCE, in a 3-way magic: the gathering game, picking on the guy I *knew* was the better player and had the better card stock, and you know what happened? That was, quite frankly, the least fun game I have ever played. It was a grudge match, and we both knew it. We all knew it, and it left us incapable of just sitting down for a casual game for months after.

So...that was my singular flirtation with bringing external factors into the equation.

I have been an avid gamer since age 8. Have designed a total of six games, and am working on a seventh. The experience has taught me a fair bit about game theory in general, and in the case of these demo games, that experience has prompted me to the following conclusions:

* Civ3 is actually relatively poorly designed for this purpose (the purpose for which we are using it), specificially because of the time required to complete a game.

* Given that, the overwhelming reason why people still seek to play these types of games must lie with something else....and for most (myself included), I would imagine that the answer lies in the opportunities for social interaction with fellow civ3 affecinados.

* ENJOYABLE social interaction is impossible when some players enter the game in "headhunter mode" - the two simply cannot co-exist, because of the inherent hostility the former brings to the environment.

* Given the above, headhunting, while a viable "strategy" is destructive to the social environment that IS the game, and thus, destructive to the game itself.

* Headhunting is ultimately unnecessary, because the same goals can be achieved based solely on in-game interactions, on the thinking that the stronger players will rise to positions of in-game threat, at which time they will be dealt with to the best of each player's abilities to do so.

* Because headhunting is ultimately unnecessary, it is also unnecessarily destructive to the gaming environment.

And that is the basis of the thinking that prompted the initial post, because I WANT to enjoy this game. I want an environment that's not so filled with personal animosity that it prompts people to simply leave it in disgust.

And I do not think I am alone.

-=Vel=-

Velociryx · August 25, 2003, 09:50

And Togas....you ROCK!

-=Vel=-

GhengisFarb™ · August 25, 2003, 10:11

The only team I know of that did any headhunting was GS, when they went headhunting in the strat forum for the brightest and smartest people they could find. The rest of the teams pretty much formed on themes and people interested in playing those themes. None of them went headhunting for specific player types.

Roleplay - Roleplaying
Glory of War - Warmonger/Mercenary Code Strategy
Lux Invicta - the worship of Trip
Neu Demogyptica - members of the German Webring Forum
Legoland - Builder strategy
Vox Controli - Not sure, kinda got a late start

Shiber · August 25, 2003, 10:16

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Actually, I'm now in charge of the Military.

I thought aggie was in charge.

Perhaps you just think that you are in charge of the military. You know, the person in the battlefield yelling "CHAAAARGE!!" is not necessarily the general. In fact, most generals have lackeys to do these kind of jobs.

UnOrthOdOx · August 25, 2003, 10:22

Nope, Aggie is now Emperor.

Ghengis is the MAD CoW

GhengisFarb™ · August 25, 2003, 10:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Shiber
have lackeys to do these kind of jobs.

What kind of lackey does that make you?

Velociryx · August 25, 2003, 10:28

GS was formed around a theme, just like the others you mentioned. Nothing more, nothing less.

The difference is that no one on the GS team entered this game with the mindset of "let's get GoW" or "let's get Vox"

But we felt it almost from the game's inception. The proof lies in the fact that we've lost members, who left expressing these same sentiments.

Now, you could argue that they were all just suffering under the same delusion, but I don't buy it, especially not with strong evidence to the contrary.

And I thought it was something that needed to be brought up.

-=Vel=-

bongo · August 25, 2003, 10:36

What surprises me is the amount of feelings people put into this.

It's a game and we all want to win. All teams will do whatever they think is appropriate to achieve that goal. That includes backstabbing, unprovoced wars, dogpiling, shifting alliances, interfering with other teams plans and so on.

At some point GoW and ND decided that RP was ripe for picking. It's not unheard of that two nations ally against a third to improve their own change of winning. None should be surprised that RP didn't like the prospect of extinction and seeked help where they could find it, even if the price was high. GS' inteference on Borconia was no surprise either. Being the strongest civ they clearly didn't want competition from a GoW-ND alliance.

All this have made people upset but it's also what makes this game so much more interesting than a pure SP-game vs multiple predictable AI's. I'm not saying that you should ignore insults coming in this forum, just remember that they are part of PTWDG1 and only that.

Hot_Enamel · August 25, 2003, 10:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
GS was formed around a theme, just like the others you mentioned. Nothing more, nothing less.

The difference is that no one on the GS team entered this game with the mindset of "let's get GoW" or "let's get Vox"

But we felt it almost from the game's inception. The proof lies in the fact that we've lost members, who left expressing these same sentiments.

Now, you could argue that they were all just suffering under the same delusion, but I don't buy it, especially not with strong evidence to the contrary.

And I thought it was something that needed to be brought up.

-=Vel=-

And the fact your competitors are all saying that they DID NOT go after GS means nothing.
We have all joined this grand conspiracy to keep the truth from GS ?

I can acknowledge GS have a strong team
I can acknowledge that team analysis is done.
I can acknowledge that headhunting (right or wrong) occurs in some games.

But there has been no-one posting on this forum or any other forum, that they went into this game to specifically target GS. In fact everyone is saying the exact opposite.

The only people who are saying it occured are from GS.
This is not proof of it's existence.

GoW have based all game decisions made on in-game factors.

RP was the Bobian bully. ND & GoW formed an alliance and have taken action.
GS have invaded Bob, Gow & ND are taking action.

GoW has certainly not gone out of their way to target GS for destruction. GS are doing it quite well by themselves by making poor decisions.

GhengisFarb™ · August 25, 2003, 10:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
GS was formed around a theme, just like the others you mentioned. Nothing more, nothing less.
-=Vel=-

What theme? You still don't have a theme?

Regardless, you went on and on about headhunting and to my knowledge GS was the only team to practice it.

Velociryx · August 25, 2003, 10:59

There is no conspiracy, H_E, and that you keep going back to this phantom point tells me that you miss the point completely.

There ARE people leaving this game to get away from the personal animosity.

You can pretend otherwise if you choose to, but that's a fact.

They have given their reasons for leaving.

They're not alone in their feelings, but some of us have decided to stick it out regardless, so....happy hunting....

-=Vel=-

Velociryx · August 25, 2003, 11:01

GF....if you don't know what our theme is....I can't tell you....

-=Vel=-

GhengisFarb™ · August 25, 2003, 11:04

I know what your theme is, "Let's ignore everyone till they get annoyed and wipe us out of the game."

Headhunting's been over for quite awhile, the game started long ago.

UnOrthOdOx · August 25, 2003, 11:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
GS was formed around a theme, just like the others you mentioned. Nothing more, nothing less.

The difference is that no one on the GS team entered this game with the mindset of "let's get GoW" or "let's get Vox"

But we felt it almost from the game's inception. The proof lies in the fact that we've lost members, who left expressing these same sentiments.

Now, you could argue that they were all just suffering under the same delusion, but I don't buy it, especially not with strong evidence to the contrary.

And I thought it was something that needed to be brought up.

-=Vel=-

Yep, Trash Trip's Ass was formed as a theme

I really don't think anyone ENTERED the game as 'let's get GS'.

I will say for GoW we have evolved into that, or more of a 'let's kick GS of Bob'.

Did we look at the teams before the start? Yes, we tried to predict play styles. Did we target teams for destruction before the game started? No.

Lux caught our sights because they were dead anyway, and cleared room for our growth.

Roleplay, mostly due to the personality conflicts between GF and Togas, and the ultimatums(sp) that Togas handed us at that time. This is, perhaps a bit silly to some, but does it matter?

When Vox attacked GS, we were hired to assist. This was a job to us, nothing more. Sure, we would have preferred to have Vox win that confrontation for the simple fact that they hired us, and we felt GS would potentially hold a grudge against us at accepting a job that was against GS's best interest.

GS was never a target until the city gifting. Even now, if they were to leave, I believe that many on the team would agree to resume normal relations despite some hard feelings, of which there are some now.

As far as myself, yes I have hard feelings towards GS now. No, I don't think they betrayed us. I think they insulted us in the way they chose to assist RP and in some reasons given in private for doing so. I feel they in essence told us "We don't want to expand ND, and we don't trust you to play Civ well enough to act as a balance for ND, therefore we will stop it."

Again personal opinion, and perhaps I am wrong, but I feel that GS has looked down thier nose and decided GoW doesn't play well enough, that ND is the only real nation on Bob, and that GS wants to prevent ND becomming powerfull with us as a Vassal. I am a bit insulted by this, and could very well be wrong, but have been told, or had implied, such from more than one source many times. So yes, GS is now a target of mine.

Velociryx · August 25, 2003, 16:39

/me shakes head sadly.

Okay....okay....I surrender.

You guys are correct. 100% correct. There is no spirit of animosity in this game, and even though people have SAID, point blank that they engaged in headhunting, it is utterly irrelevant.

No one has left the game because it sucked all the life and fun out of it.

The social interaction OF the game has not suffered AT ALL because of it.

The ones who claim to have were all suffering from a poor, misguided delusion.

In short, there's no problem, which means there's nothing to discuss.

Is that better?

Is that more in keeping with what you would prefer to hear?

-=Vel=-

PS: And GF - no, GS's theme is not "ignore everyone" - although given the all-too-detectable undercurrent of hostility in the forums, I can easily see why they'd not actively participate.

I knew when I posted it that the reaction would float somewhere between nonchalance and outright denial, but as an increasing number of people begin vanishing both from the public fora and the game as a whole, perhaps....just perhaps, there will be an acknowledgement that there is maybe a problem here.

Till then, I don't suppose I have any more to say, except "happy hunting."

-V.

UnOrthOdOx · August 25, 2003, 16:49

Vel,

Please, can you step outside for a moment? Attempt to stop seeing from GS perspective for a minute.

GS mopped the floor with a worthy opponent. (that was not exactly a small number of Immortals there) GS quickly then rose to become the leader in the game. GS has the largest military.

Is it not possible that these actions have had an effect of making some 'target' you? Is it not possible these actions have made you a threat IN GAME?

If you would, what, BEFORE the Voxodus, besides the ranting of a few individuals, makes GS feel everyone targeted them from the beginning?

The Trash Talking does at times become heated and personal, I freely admit that. I have felt it myself. But it is, in the end, trash talking. And that, IMO is a part of competition.

I can also see how GS could come to this conclusion from THEIR perspective, though. I suggest they all step back for a minute and look at the game from outside.

Velociryx · August 25, 2003, 16:57

A healthy chunk of the evidence is right here in the history of these public threads.

A fair bit have been things told to me in confidence, yes, by individuals.

Individuals who have weight and shape policy for their teams.

Individuals who have said, early on (since before our war with Vox) that it doesn't matter WHO wins, so long as GS doesn't.

But, hey....there's no problem. No hostility.

It was all a delusion.

No. There was no specific team of people who came together with the specific goal before the game even began, to "beat GS." That's not what I said, and has never even been an implication.

But individuals DRIVE and make up and constitute the teams, and there are a fair number of individuals for whom that has been a long standing desire.

I know....I've talked to a few of them.

And I've seen ample evidence of that here in this public forum.

But...perhaps I am just suffering from that same delusion that drove the others away....'cept I'm not going anywhere....

-=Vel=-

Arrian · August 25, 2003, 16:57

UnO,

We didn't choose our course of action because we though GoW isn't good enough to counterbalance ND (though the geography certainly gives ND an advantage w/regard to using captured Spanish land, unless GoW manages to get a leader for a FP rush down south, and even then it would be tough to defend). No, even if GoW & ND balanced out well, a 2-civ Bob means 2 civs larger & more powerful than GS. Add in Lego, which is also much larger than us, and we've got serious problems. Our decision was based on that - not on any imagined incompetance on GoW's part.

As for this thread... whatever. Bring it. The only personal grudge which saddens me is yours, UnO. But there doesn't appear to be much I can do about it.

Damnit, I had managed to avoid this forum for most of the day... only succumbing in the late afternoon. So close to staying out of it...

-Arrian

Velociryx · August 25, 2003, 17:26

I have just had....an epiphany.

The solution is simple, you see.

The solution is to fight fire with fire.

You want us dead? You're willing to fight to the last man to see it happen? You're willing to become someone else's pawn so long as it means our downfall.

So be it.

And we will return that favor, fighting you with everything that we have, and everything that we are.

If you wish to make this a fight with no quarter....we can accomodate you.

None asked.

None given.

Let's do this thing....just make sure that's exactly what you want first.

-=Vel=-

GhengisFarb™ · August 25, 2003, 17:35

I never said I wanted GS wiped out of the game (except as propaganda and ranting). You acused all the other teams of Headhunting when your team is the only one to do it.

I was just pointing out the hypocrosy of your statement as I thought it amusing. If you can't handle others exposing your propoganda as falsehood then don't make false statements.

Personally, I have nothing against the members of GS, as a Warmonger member of GoW however I want you all punished and pillaged for your dishonorable backstabbing of my nation and its allies. The fact that you would ally with the smelly Spamiards and their slimy nobility is just a verification of your pathetic lack of standards.

vondrack · August 25, 2003, 17:37

Arrian, thumbs up for your post.

It is refreshing to see that someone (from GS, that is) says plainly: we want to win the game - and a two-civ Bob was a threat we could not have ignored. So we did the inevitable thing - and sided with the RPers. We did whatever was necessary to ensure we would not lose the chance to win this game. NAP or no NAP with GoW, hostile actions, no hostile actions - didn't matter. We actually had very little choice (and here is where I'd agree that GoW/ND miscalculated about the possible GS involvement in the war...) and we did the only thing that could have kept us in the race.

I have always understood your (GS) decision to get involved in the war this way and never had a problem with that. All the stuff about helping the overwhelmed Spaniards, granting them the freedom to live and... blah blah blah - I have always perceived that as a harmless roleplaying crap that has nothing to do with the actual, obvious-to-everybody-sane reasons.

I am happy to see I was not wrong. Since this is exactly what I would expect from a team of elite civvers (I am serious about the "elite" part, no offense meant). And, to be honest - that is EXACTLY WHAT I WOULD DO IF BEING YOURSELF.

And I think if GS saved themselves all the fuss about breaching the NAP with GoW or not, about who's right and who's wrong here, and said plainly what you said in your last post, NOBODY would have a problem with that.

Or am I wrong? UnO? GF? H_E? Panzer? donegeal? Darekill? Fellow Legos? Do you think you would have a problem with that reasoning?

Velociryx · August 25, 2003, 17:38

Our team has not engaged in headhunting of any sort....not the definition of the word I was using (that being, "marking another team for destruction on the basis of external game mechanics as opposed to in-game events") nor yours (that being the more corporatized definition of the word).

Our "theme" if you want to call it that, is efficiency. Pure and simple. We shopped around for the folks who could best help with that, just as you shopped around for folks who could relate to your "mercenary creed" and sorta overlooked the Paladins.

No hypocracy at all.

And better tell your team mates that this isn't a fight to the death....before they make it one....

-=Vel=-

Panzer32 · August 25, 2003, 17:38

Please people... lets just get something straight that I think we may have been misunderstanding all along.

Everyone who used/accused someone of "headhunting" please define your version of it.

Panzer32 · August 25, 2003, 17:44

Quote:

Originally posted by vondrack
*snip*

And I think if GS saved themselves all the fuss about breaching the NAP with GoW or not, about who's right and who's wrong here, and said plainly what you said in your last post, NOBODY would have a problem with that.

Or am I wrong? UnO? GF? H_E? Panzer? donegeal? Darekill? Fellow Legos? Do you think you would have a problem with that reasoning?

Sorry, not quite understanding the jist of the question... I'll try to respond.

Yes, GoW has been really bugged about GS trying to pass this off as an attempt to help Roleplay and basically nothing more. They may be trying to help RP simply to make sure Bob is not a 2 civ continent, but they are more likely just to not care if RP goes or not (esp since they are down to 2 cities) and just want to keep part of Southern Bob (the place they wanted when we contacted them earlier). Anyways this created a conflict with GoW/ND and it has sprung out from there.

This is how I see it.

GhengisFarb™ · August 25, 2003, 17:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Panzer32
Please people... lets just get something straight that I think we may have been misunderstanding all along.

Everyone who used/accused someone of "headhunting" please define your version of it.

Headhunting refers to the recruitment and acquistion of individuals with superior skills, often enticing them from the company or organization they are with with a higher reward, and integrating into your own organization.

Basically, Headhunters go after leaders and managers that are leaving a company or try to snag ones that are being overlooked by the organization they are in. Sometimes, it is done to undermine the organization they are with, sometimes it is done to prevent other organizations from getting them (Microsoft comes to mind here - they are noted for sucking up the best talent to keep their competitors from gaining them), sometimes its done because you don't have anyone with talent and need some to survive.

The only other definition of headhunting is the pracitice of cutting off defeated enemies heads and displaying them as trophies. Nobody's done that to my knowledge in this game.

Velociryx · August 25, 2003, 17:59

The problem, GF, is that it's not an attempt to pass anything off. I tuned into this situation a bit late (after the city exchange had already occurred)....having recieved a briefing on the matter, and taking the pulse of my teammates, I began doing what I do...advising, from the vantage point I have described in my two letters.

Exactly that.

So it's not propaganda, and the whole world will see that when it begins to come true!

-=Vel=-

GhengisFarb™ · August 25, 2003, 18:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
So it's not propaganda, and the whole world will see that when it begins to come true!

-=Vel=-

What? You're gonna cut off people's heads and display them on a stick?

That's just gross, and in most nations illegal.

Unless your from Texas. It might be legal there.......

Velociryx · August 25, 2003, 18:06

-=Vel=-

ZargonX · August 25, 2003, 18:12

Quote:

And I think if GS saved themselves all the fuss about breaching the NAP with GoW or not, about who's right and who's wrong here, and said plainly what you said in your last post, NOBODY would have a problem with that.

Or am I wrong? UnO? GF? H_E? Panzer? donegeal? Darekill? Fellow Legos? Do you think you would have a problem with that reasoning?

I think what Vondrack is trying to say is that if GS had just said "we're doing what we're doing because we want to win" instead of veiling it with NAP talks and honor and whatnot, then we probably wouldn't be having most of these discussions right now.

GhengisFarb™ · August 25, 2003, 18:14

Quote:

Originally posted by ZargonX
I think what Vondrack is trying to say is that if GS had just said "we're doing what we're doing because we want to win" instead of veiling it with NAP talks and honor and whatnot, then we probably wouldn't be having most of these discussions right now.

I know I certainly wouldn't have had near as much fuel to make smartass comments..................