NON-COORDINATION: the true meaning of anonymous

[Lord Thanatos]

After reading the posts coming from a Magic contest that processed today [without a set of orders from an upset player] and knowing all the discussion/negotiation that went into a Magic contest I am in as I write this post, it has become clear that "anonymous" is not a proper descriptor.

Background:
The main reason players enjoy Anonymous contests is because Full-Diplomacy leads almost inevitably to 3v1 and 4v1 encounters.  This is almost inevitable because diplomacy creates an incentive to join together for "safety in numbers" [i.e. like wolves or hyenas, depending upon how charitable I wish to be in describing the phenomenon].  And once this "group think" is combined with the time-tested tactic of applying overwhelming force to the enemies' weakest point [see The Art of War by Sun Tzu] having all the allied players simultaneously attack a single opponent is the inevitable outcome.  This is why I stopped playing Fall of Rome.  It has previously been a huge problem in Alamaze.

Anonymous as a response:
Rather than having players abandon Alamaze altogether in the face of 3v1 and 4v1 some of the players determined that if diplomacy was eliminated the natural tendency to have games devolve into 3v1 and 4v1 could be mitigated.  While Anonymous contests have been quite successful it has not been a complete panacea.  Even though Anonymous was developed as an idea to avoid the 3v1 and 4v1, the definition of the word "anonymous" has led many players to focus upon the lack of inter-player diplomacy as the goal instead of eliminating coordination among players as the goal.  Thus, this Forum has hosted many discussions as to what is allowed and what is not allowed in the Anonymous format.  The players who first posited the idea of eliminating communication outside of the game have been nearly universal in their response that every conceivable form of coordination [HC issues (raising and voting), ally declarations, resource trading, avoiding starting pcs, naming characters (i.e. ELPEACE?), ransom of prisoners, beneficial spells, etc...] was intended to be eliminated. It seems a pretty simple concept to understand to me; apparently I am the only simple minded player.  Or, could it possibly be, the very same mindset that sees nothing wrong with 3v1 and 4v1 gang bangs is unceasingly looking for loopholes to exploit in the definition of "anonymous?"

How to avoid the winnowing of the player base?:
Can those who like Full-Diplomacy possibly stomach the ocassional no-coordination-whatsoever-format we presently label Anonymous?  If Full-Diplomacy advocates wish to have players to play Alamaze against they should stop looking to undermine the compromise reached in Anonymous contests.  Otherwise I suspect that Airborne Ranger will not be the last player to "rage quit."  As an advocate of the Anonymous format I still join Full-Diplomacy games for both variety and to assist in enabling the creation of new games.  Many times I am one of the last players to join a Full-Diplomacy game because I am willing to pay for two games in order to be able to play the Anonymous game.  But if the Anonymous games are going to continue to be exercises in exploiting definitional loopholes [which, I admit, I do for a living] why would I pay for either format?  I play Alamaze as entertainment, I do not want my games to feel like my work.  So I guess I am saying we need to change the name of Anonymous to "No-Coordination" or "Lone Wolf" or "No Hyenas Allowed" or something which accurately conveys the initial premise: do not under any conceivable circumstance coordinate with any other player [other than your two teammates in a Magic game] in any conceivable fashion and if there is any question in your mind as to whether your intended action approaches the definition of coordination err on the side of integrity and do not do it.  What should we call such a format?  "Integrity" sounds better than "Anonymous"; I am open to suggestions.  Remember, once the player base shrinks to 11 players or less we are down to only Warlords, Titan, and Primeval formats!

[Jumpingfist]

I do not think what your proposing is the standard or even should be. I do agree the hidden alliances can get carried away especially when teams are already trying to form up on T1. But for magic games the other thing likely to happen in a full anon type set up is as soon as your team is beat they quit because there is no way to get help. No we are back to everyone quiting game and leaving big openings to exploit. There is no perfect solution but going any extreme is almost always bad.
G175 had all the complaining because one team would not stop fighting another team. Another team joined in and was fighting them as well and the first team instantly felt they were getting gang banged when it is totally not the case. Team 2 would and still does attack team 3 any time they are in the same square or at the same PC. Only team one could not see this and assumed there is some kind of big conspiracy. 168 similar only this one the other teams really did work against one team. I do not think it would have mattered if they could not declare ally because all the teams saw a clear favorite and when others stopped attacking to go after the favorite the others did the same no hidden special message it was the only way any team other than the leaders would or could win.

Perhaps remove enemy ally all together from your games so no body can see what is happening in other parts of the game other than regional controls.

[Lord Thanatos]

I do not think what your proposing is the standard or even should be.   I do agree the hidden alliances can get carried away especially when teams are already trying to form up on T1.  But for magic games the other thing likely to happen in a full anon type set up is as soon as your team is beat they quit because there is no way to get help.  No we are back to everyone quiting game and leaving big openings to exploit.   There is no perfect solution but going any extreme is almost always bad.
G175 had all the complaining because one team would not stop fighting another team.  Another team joined in and was fighting them as well and the first team instantly felt they were getting gang banged when it is totally not the case.  Team 2 would and still does attack team 3 any time they are in the same square or at the same PC.  Only team one could not see this and assumed there is some kind of big conspiracy.  168 similar only this one the other teams really did work against one team.  I do not think it would have mattered if they could not declare ally because all the teams saw a clear favorite and when others stopped attacking to go after the favorite the others did the same no hidden special message it was the only way any team other than the leaders would or could win.

Perhaps remove enemy ally all together from your games so no body can see what is happening in other parts of the game other than regional controls.

I respect you Jumpingfist, but your response avoids my premise, or is a rationalization.  You and HeadHoncho talked me off the ledge when I was ready to walk away from Alamaze.  I do still very much appreciate our discussions on the matter. Still . . .

The only question to ask is whether any of the following occured: [HC issues (raising and voting), ally declarations, resource trading, avoiding starting pcs, naming characters (i.e. ELPEACE?), ransom of prisoners, beneficial spells, etc...] or some other coordination.

I am certain it did in the first Magic game you described and almost certain in the second.  Ally declarations? [Sigh!!!]  Why remove ally/enemy declarations?  Simply don't issue the order!  While you say, "I do not think it would have mattered if they could not declare ally because . . ." The alliance declarations obviously had some benefit or the team issuing the declaration would not have wasted the orders.  While I may be simple minded, I am not a fool.  And just as obviously, we are now down another player from our community.  Anyone know how close we are to only having 11 players?

[Jumpingfist]

I can not talk on 175 much but actually most those answers are no or one sided.

In 168 I attacked and declared ally the same turn. It actually made no difference if he recipicated we were already committed to attacking the front runner. Was nice that he did though and others joined in. In that game I did avoid killing another teams units because he had show me mercy earlier. We were at the very bottom wher most player would drop I was down to two PCs villages. To me it worked out how it should I effectively asked for mercy but no condition or known outcome. Just a guesture the other party agreed. Why should we be forced to fight each other to the bitter end we both could see another team was running away with the victory.
To me anonymous came about to avoid teaming up and make the game more fun for everyone. But it is not more fun if I have no way out of a forced fight. This example I was UN he was GN. With no communication what so ever we share a region we must fight or is not take a PC allowed or moving an Emmy in then out allow? To many variables If you both start in a region and can do absolutely nothing then you must fight. Starting the fight T1 normally only ends to both kingdoms being weaker in the long run thus less fun because I want to win.

[Hawk_]

After reading the posts coming from a Magic contest that processed today [without a set of orders from an upset player] and knowing all the discussion/negotiation that went into a Magic contest I am in as I write this post, it has become clear that "anonymous" is not a proper descriptor.

Background:
The main reason players enjoy Anonymous contests is because Full-Diplomacy leads almost inevitably to 3v1 and 4v1 encounters.  This is almost inevitable because diplomacy creates an incentive to join together for "safety in numbers" [i.e. like wolves or hyenas, depending upon how charitable I wish to be in describing the phenomenon].  And once this "group think" is combined with the time-tested tactic of applying overwhelming force to the enemies' weakest point [see The Art of War by Sun Tzu] having all the allied players simultaneously attack a single opponent is the inevitable outcome.  This is why I stopped playing Fall of Rome.  It has previously been a huge problem in Alamaze.

Anonymous as a response:
Rather than having players abandon Alamaze altogether in the face of 3v1 and 4v1 some of the players determined that if diplomacy was eliminated the natural tendency to have games devolve into 3v1 and 4v1 could be mitigated.  While Anonymous contests have been quite successful it has not been a complete panacea.  Even though Anonymous was developed as an idea to avoid the 3v1 and 4v1, the definition of the word "anonymous" has led many players to focus upon the lack of inter-player diplomacy as the goal instead of eliminating coordination among players as the goal.  Thus, this Forum has hosted many discussions as to what is allowed and what is not allowed in the Anonymous format.  The players who first posited the idea of eliminating communication outside of the game have been nearly universal in their response that every conceivable form of coordination [HC issues (raising and voting), ally declarations, resource trading, avoiding starting pcs, naming characters (i.e. ELPEACE?), ransom of prisoners, beneficial spells, etc...] was intended to be eliminated. It seems a pretty simple concept to understand to me; apparently I am the only simple minded player.  Or, could it possibly be, the very same mindset that sees nothing wrong with 3v1 and 4v1 gang bangs is unceasingly looking for loopholes to exploit in the definition of "anonymous?"

How to avoid the winnowing of the player base?:
Can those who like Full-Diplomacy possibly stomach the ocassional no-coordination-whatsoever-format we presently label Anonymous?  If Full-Diplomacy advocates wish to have players to play Alamaze against they should stop looking to undermine the compromise reached in Anonymous contests.  Otherwise I suspect that Airborne Ranger will not be the last player to "rage quit."  As an advocate of the Anonymous format I still join Full-Diplomacy games for both variety and to assist in enabling the creation of new games.  Many times I am one of the last players to join a Full-Diplomacy game because I am willing to pay for two games in order to be able to play the Anonymous game.  But if the Anonymous games are going to continue to be exercises in exploiting definitional loopholes [which, I admit, I do for a living] why would I pay for either format?  I play Alamaze as entertainment, I do not want my games to feel like my work.  So I guess I am saying we need to change the name of Anonymous to "No-Coordination" or "Lone Wolf" or "No Hyenas Allowed" or something which accurately conveys the initial premise: do not under any conceivable circumstance coordinate with any other player [other than your two teammates in a Magic game] in any conceivable fashion and if there is any question in your mind as to whether your intended action approaches the definition of coordination err on the side of integrity and do not do it.  What should we call such a format?  "Integrity" sounds better than "Anonymous"; I am open to suggestions.  Remember, once the player base shrinks to 11 players or less we are down to only Warlords, Titan, and Primeval formats!

We are already playing a game like you describe above it is #182.

I happen to think everything that occurred in game 175 was fine.   I also think what occurred in game 164 was fine.   The format does what it was designed to do:   People are playing their positions and not making decisions based on relationships with other players.   

Leading teams in both games got ganged up on but that was because they were winning and not because one player knew another player or somebody wanted payback from a previous game.   Any coordination was based on luck and the general concept that preventing the leading team from achieving victory is a mutual goal of all kingdoms.  Until today I had no idea who had what position in game 175.  That is anonymous to me.

If everyone thinks the 182 format is superior then I am sure that will become the standard.  I will choose from whatever variant is available.   After 182 is complete I will have a better idea of which version I prefer.

[Drogo]

People combat the leader to prevent a victory using all fair game tactics. I really think people need to put on their big boy pants a little more. You play to win the game. You guys know this is a wargame right? Seems like people are complaining about play that is well within the rules. You want to change the rules to some sort of PC fluff that is self monitored? Anonymous limits coordination so all tactics are only within the game orders . What more can you reasonable ask for and keep the integrity of the game? It is not a moral issue it is a tactical one. The same thing happens in Steel games where you try to take down any kingdom that looks like an imminent winner. Rather than change the rules I might suggest the offended parties adjust their expectations. Sh*t happens and sometimes you are get a bad hand. Move on, play on.

[HeadHoncho]

I think LT has the right of it. By all means, try to stop the leaders, but having been on the receiving end, it "feels" unseemly to see other teams coordinating in the ways LT described.

I simply have no interest in playing in Magic or Warlords without the additional player-enforced rules on coordination. If others like that and want their games to be played like that, more power to them, it just wouldn't include me as a player.

[Lord Diamond]

In one of my anonymous games, the Ancients Ones and the Troll declared one another enemy. Then the Ancient Ones sent gold and food to the Troll every turn for a long while. This annoyed me greatly.

[unclemike]

For anonymous games, I was thinking of suggesting to Ry Vor two ways for the program to help prevent unfair play like that:

(1) block all ally declarations so only enemy and neutral declarations are allowed

(2) block all trades between kingdoms so only order 200 is allowed

Would that help prevent such problems from happening in anonymous games? Are there any other ideas that I may code to help make everyone happy once again 

Even though 2nd Cycle is supposed to be frozen, it sounds like something needs to be done programmatically to help settle everyone's nerves a bit. Some people are actually quitting because of unfair play in team/anonymous games so it may be a good idea to do something like the above in the code.

So even though I'm busy with 3rd Cycle (and the new GUI order checker that's coming out soon!!!), the above changes won't take that long to do. Just a few minutes actually so I can be pulled off to do something like this without a problem...

[Hawk_]

In one of my anonymous games, the Ancients Ones and the Troll declared one another enemy. Then the Ancient Ones sent gold and food to the Troll every turn for a long while. This annoyed me greatly.

You can't gift an enemy so how could the player send resources to the other player.  Were they all on the same team?