Poll on 3 v 1 and 4 v 1

[HeadHoncho]

The answer is simple. If you find yourselves in a discussion and three of you are taking actions against a single player then STOP DOING IT.

I'm sorry, but even though I don't typically do this, I simply disagree with you on a black-and-white test. It is just not that easy, and I refuse to draw a bright-line in an area that has significant gray.

PS: I must also reject your accusation of disingenuousness, and also disagree with you that there is any one reason why the player base is arguably stagnating.

[Lord Thanatos]

The answer is simple. If you find yourselves in a discussion and three of you are taking actions against a single player then STOP DOING IT.

I'm sorry, but even though I don't typically do this, I simply disagree with you on a black-and-white test. It is just not that easy, and I refuse to draw a bright-line in an area that has significant gray.

It is black and white if you focus on building a player base and making the business model successful. You may, may, be right about a grey area if you focus only upon winning a particular game. Even then I disagree with you because the challenge of playing any position is diminished when you have more allies to coordinate with than you have opponents to coordinate against. This is black and white.

[Brogan]

If Rick keeps the game signups separate for new players vs experienced players the that removes a large part of the complaints.

My suggestion on being attacked by superior forces, is you enjoy the game for want it is and have fun with it or drop and try your luck again in a new game. Look at the DW player in 121, he had a hell of a defensive stand, brought in other kings to assist him and is now in a group with superior numbers. His current position might look bleak in regard to pop centers and other resources but he can choose to continue to fight on or resign and hit the "reset" button and get in a new game. As the RA in that game I just endured 4 turns of getting my ass kicked by 4 kings in my home region. I am not complaining other than to point out the hippocracy of the players tag teaming me. All is fair in love and war.

[Lord Thanatos]

The answer is simple. If you find yourselves in a discussion and three of you are taking actions against a single player then STOP DOING IT.

I'm sorry, but even though I don't typically do this, I simply disagree with you on a black-and-white test. It is just not that easy, and I refuse to draw a bright-line in an area that has significant gray.

PS: I must also reject your accusation of disingenuousness, and also disagree with you that there is any one reason why the player base is arguably stagnating.

You (a generic you, not you personally) either want the maximum challenge or you don't.

You can reject the premise that players are not continuing to play because of 3 v 1 styles, but that should not stop you from making an effort in this regard in the hope that maybe if we change our behavior we can have more players. At least try it and see whathappens.

[HeadHoncho]

Each person plays this game for his or her own reasons, and that is one of the strengths of Alamaze. Not everyone is going to play for "the maximum challenge" like you. Some will want to play and just build. Others will want to win. Others will want the fun of combat or magic. Others will want to role-play. And no one answer is more valid than the other, IMO.

As for changing behavior, again, I never go into a situation looking for a 3-on-1. And this thread has already outlined numerous scenarios where a bright-line test would fail (attacking a leader, subsequent and independent developments, AN/DE, attacked first, etc. etc.), and so I see no need to rehash them at length here.

Regardless, the point where people try to deny me or anyone the basic use of certain skills such as negotiation, just because they themselves don't want to spend the time either exercising or developing those same skills... or as the implication sometimes seems to be, the point where people try to make me or anyone out to be a bad guy for winning games (all while keeping my word, avoiding 3-on-1 situations, and choosing to spend my own time on negotiations), is the point where I quit playing this game.

[Jumpingfist]

I am still getting my first few games under my belt again and already find myself on both the receiving end and giving end of the mass team ups, and I think they are both natural courses of the game and don't really have a problem with either.
G124 my first game in 20 years. I did what I think all new players should do email anyone close to you. Read the forums figure out what your suppose to do with the kingdom you started with. One of the big guys in the forums agrees give me a game long kinda newbie pass. So some are practicing what they are preaching in the thread he could have easily walked right over me still struggling to get my region on T9. Anyway the SO and I(RA) form a strong alliance and the BL is getting NAP from everyone it seems, but maybe ally later. T5 or 6 rolls around BL is ready to be allies. We have not done anything together yet we start looking for somewhere to go after when the RD plops he big red butt on my capital and moves an emm to a village. I am in no position to fight RD with my cavalry in the mountains. BL stop what he is doing heads up 8 squares liberate my capital from RD rule. BL is to fast and keeps after the RD. SO hears WI needs help vs DW so we get ready and start invasion. The turn we are launching BL says hey WI is asking if I can help vs DW. Not like we are going to say no we did not want to take him away from fighting RD. So now it is 3 on 1. But not a newbie

Other side is more simple G128 GI and I formed an alliance early and wanted to go fight or settle with the DE. DE did what anyone would do asked for help. Now it is 5 or more on 2. I am sure both games will be fun and just see them as the way things play out.

I think if I were getting together with others I already know to make some big secret pack that is different and should not be sought after as it will ruin the game.

[paway]

Interesting revelations about Game 124.

So just to be clear, kevindusi (WI) is in a 1v1 war with DuPont (DW) and he appeals to 3 additional kingdoms (SO, RA, and BL) to attack the DW and help him out?

[kevindusi]

Interesting revelations about Game 124.

So just to be clear, kevindusi (WI) is in a 1v1 war with DuPont (DW) and he appeals to 3 additional kingdoms (SO, RA, and BL) to attack the DW and help him out?

Close. A couple minor adjustments:

I asked SO and BL. Didn't ask RA. And by the time BL was ready, I told BL that I was making peace with DW to get him out of my region. After I was invaded, asked for peace, and was told "no thanks".

I would assume the asking of help during an invasion is a common practice. Please let me know if I'm incorrect.

[Cloud]

Ideally, disincentives for these kind of unbalanced attacks would be baked into the system, and indeed they are - as some respondents have already noted, the spoils of war can only be spread so thin before it hardly seems worth it. How many orders, how much coin, how many turns are invested in mounting an attack of any worth? It seems to me that mustering forces for the benefit of a few villages or whatever is a questionable reward for such investment.

Still, there are always going to be reasons why it makes sense to gang up. Gaining population centers or regional influence isn't the only reason for participating in an attack against the target. And, of course, accidental group targeting against a weak or silent opponent is a different thing and something that will always happen. And there's an incentive to joining a counter alliance to combat an aggressive alliance. It reminds me of the Ideology mechanic of Civ 5. The rewards for joining a given coalition will always be greater for early adopters and smaller for latter-day joiners. At some point, the target is willing to present very good terms to a potential defender and the choice between safety and reward becomes blurrier, and more individual, for every player.

I'm a noob. I'm playing my first game in 20+ years. But it seems clear to me that this issue is largely similar to the issue of broken agreements. Back in the day, when anonymity was more the norm, it was not rare for players to break their word and backstab an 'ally.' Now that the game exists within the context of an online community and anonymity is effectively destroyed, the memory of your acts follows you from game to game in a way that it didn't before. The consensus of the community seems to have basically eliminated backstabs as a part of the game.

For those who despise this sort of ganging up tactic, the path is clear - discourage its use by utilizing the same public shaming you would employ against an oathbreaker or backstabber. If the community just plain sees the issue as more gray than you do, combat the tactic by joining in the defense of those targets you view as unfairly outmatched. If that response was common enough, players would hesitate to construct larger invasion alliances.

Cloud

[Nitnux]

For those who despise this sort of ganging up tactic, the path is clear - discourage its use by utilizing the same public shaming you would employ against an oathbreaker or backstabber. If the community just plain sees the issue as more gray than you do, combat the tactic by joining in the defense of those targets you view as unfairly outmatched. If that response was common enough, players would hesitate to construct larger invasion alliances.

This makes sense to me. A post mortem of a game should be the place to reveal any dishonesty or poor sportsmanship, whether that's 3v1s or targeting noobs unfairly. An active game thread is also a reasonable place to bring this up if it's happening to you.

Because of the fog of war in the game, it may be the case that a player is attacked by several enemies at once without it being an intentional, explicit 3v1. That's bad luck but not unsporting behaviour - it's also something that would be revealed by the post mortem.

I don't think the game would benefit from having further penalties built in, or the community from having specific negative status rewards/titles after a game.

As a 1-game-at-a-time player currently only on my second game, my experience of different in-game situations is obviously limited but I do like the pre-set alliances and anonymous formats so far. I actually think noobs should probably always be directed into team games, and perhaps always in 12-player games too with more space to grow early on... 15-player solo play is actually considerably harder.