(AESR) Anonymous Exploratory Steel Rex

[The Broken]

I am on record numerous times in multiple threads about not liking the anonymous games.

I still think the problem is one that hasn't been solved in any PBM since inception which is how to stop the 3v1. At least we have a forum to discuss that and a not elegant solution is some oft-times allies are revealed in discussion there.

What if you had to be declared enemies to attack a player, and any kingdom could only have two declared enemies at a time. Call it the games "Geneva convention" I mean don't really call it that, but it is just a law of the world that every kingdom agreed to long ago in the past.

Now if a third kingdom really wants to attack a kingdom that has two enemies already, then create a global outcry in the form of penalties. Ie, the kingdom suffers one negative reaction in a every region . His troops are - some % in battle vs that kingdom. And some other form of penalties.

This would stop or severely hinder the three and more on one. Now with that you might want to introduce a different mechanic, that acts like declaring an enemy now.

IE The Witchlord as declare the Dwarf Kingdom to be outlaws to our kingdom, and that would be the same as the current enemy deceleration. IE, loss of reaction in region where controlled, and 5% army bonus. Just a thought to throw out there.

[unclemike]

A possible scenario would be to make all kingdoms natural enemies to each other. Players may still end up working together but they won't be able to trade any food or gold which actually ends up being a major factor in tilting positions unfairly. Natural enemies should also make kingdoms more aggressive to each other since they cannot rely on another to feed their troops during winter or develop a wizard to cast a certain high level spell. Overall, this would make it more fair to the other players in a Steel game which is supposed to be an individual game, not kingdoms teaming up early like many do which is unfair to the other players.

[Ry Vor]

These recent posts are close to what I am considering. Whenever these rules come into effect, first, you need to establish an embassy to do trade with a kingdom, meaning an emissary needs to be in a pc controlled by the kingdom with which to trade, and issue the order to establish an embassy.

I've already discussed at some point the 5 regional reactions will be at least 7, and maybe there will be additional steps between ally and enemy.

I also through Grasshopper know about lots of cheap artifact transfers which is against the intent of the design. We will likely have soon a minimum of 10k gold to transfer an artifact..

Purpose: to forestall any per-arranged alliance.

[Panda]

[quote='Ry Vor' pid='23425' dateline='1411852835'
Purpose: to forestall any per-arranged alliance.
[/quote]

Guess it wasn't just me. Eager to see how this works out, but hiding in anon and/or team and or primeavel is my solution until the gangbros syndrome is not viable in the metagame.

Also - would anyone like to sign up together with me in a game to rofflepown everyone else? Just need about 5-6 people to join my informal but very organized alliance.

[Drogo]

If you're in a full diplomacy game you have to Diplome (sic), otherwise you are very susceptible to the gangbang. Its the obvious solution.

[Panda]

If you're in a full diplomacy game you have to Diplome (sic), otherwise you are very susceptible to the gangbang. Its the obvious solution.

Kinda missing the point - six people who collude to steamroll is not a game, it is punching kittens. Make yourself feel good and go club baby seals or something. Have seen a lot of solutions to this over time, from rules changes in game to moderators banning ringleaders.

If you are saying this practice is OK, then you are WRONG.

[Lord Diamond]

If you are in a full diplomacy game and you have not communicated with any given player on the map, you can expect that player to eventually knock on your door. You don't get the luxury of ignoring a player and then getting pissed when he attacks you.

Just because you are fighting some other player(s), you can't assume that he knows that you are a baby seal in the process of getting clubbed. You have to tell him. Otherwise, you are just some other kingdom holding on to resources that he really wants/needs. You may even be planning to attack him. Why should he wait for you to strike first?

In summary, if you don't like communicating, join an anonymous game. At least if you get gang banged, they aren't coordinating.

[Lord Thanatos]

If you're in a full diplomacy game you have to Diplome (sic), otherwise you are very susceptible to the gangbang. Its the obvious solution.

The "obvious solution" is to not coordinate with two or more players against a single opponent. If three or more players are coordinating (often in a single message sent to multiple other players) then make certain your group is targeting two or three other players - instead of just one. [In game 143 I refused to join two other players to attack a single opponent. It is actually an easy solution if one has any moral fiber!]

It seems easy to simply count the number of players that are all communicating and then count the number of opponents those players are attacking. If the ratio is greater than two versus one - STOP DOING IT.

This game will wither and die if everyone stops playing regular communication games because the Forum interaction becomes non-existent. Don't hasten that end by joining gangbangs. This seems to me to be the "obvious solution."

[Ry Vor]

First, I applaud LT and LD, who I have known since 2003 when Fall of Rome came out (won GAMA game of the Year in 2004, according to that trophy staring at me), and agree with their comments.

But I don't think Drogo's remarks about, if in a game with communication, its sort of incumbent upon you to communicate, are wrong at all. I have played in a few games under a moniker and I don't do enough communication and that is primarily why I don't have podium appearances. It's not really that weird. In another context, if you are at work and don't talk to anyone, do you expect to become company president (ie, win the game)?

Anyway, I have made this my special project, to come up with a design concept or three that preserves the diplomatic nature of the game which can be quite entertaining, while making the 3v1 coordinated jump less attractive. Meanwhile, as overseeing games, I think it happens less than most would think. Sometimes it is as said, player A hasn't heard from player B, thinks B is vulnerable, and C and D come to the same conclusion independently.

I'd just add, if you are say the Giants in Amberland, some players will avoid you because you are the Giants, but others might say, it's ballsy to think you can hold Amberland by yourself. In the thousands of interesting Alamaze discussions, one persistent one is about whether the player or the kingdom is more important in a given campaign. We have a very active forum and players will be aware they can get a reputation for joining as a team in a Steel game. Joining as a team is completely acceptable and recommended in a Magic game. And just to add something to that, because player A and B have worked together in the past doesn't mean that will always be the case.

[Lord Diamond]

Thanks, Rick. For the record, I cannot remember the last time I witnessed a genuine 3:1 attack. The last such claim that I was aware of came from a player who attacked his neighbor and was subsequently attacked by two other players. In my book, those are two sets of wars; a 1:1 and a 2:1. Just because you start a war with someone doesn't mean that you are immune from further attack.

As the Giant, I started a war with the Demon Prince and was then attacked by the Gnome and Underworld. I screamed for help like a little girl and help came running from the East. It was an awesome game even though I ended last. Great fun!