|
Neruz posted:I've never not seen it happen, congrats we both have different samples I guess. Congrats on unsurprisingly missing the point I guess.
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 09:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:50 |
|
|
Agent Kool-Aid posted:if someone expends the effort to attack a powerful player then they're either going to become weak from battling said powerful player (and will be subsequently devoured by the other members of the 'coalition') or they're just as good as the powerful player. other members can faff about and do nearly jack poo poo while pretending to be part of the group effort to take down said 'enemy' powerful player. But... but then if no one does anything then the coalition fails to actually defeat the player it was formed against, right? It seems like you'd be better off just talking to a single player on the other side of the powerful one and agreeing to both attack- if you're on opposite sides, less chance that the backstab you and take your stuff since they'd need to go around or through the powerful player to get your things, and not as much competition over taken provinces. Or is that just unrealistic?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 09:08
|
|
|
Shoeless posted:But... but then if no one does anything then the coalition fails to actually defeat the player it was formed against, right? It seems like you'd be better off just talking to a single player on the other side of the powerful one and agreeing to both attack- if you're on opposite sides, less chance that the backstab you and take your stuff since they'd need to go around or through the powerful player to get your things, and not as much competition over taken provinces. Or is that just unrealistic? A really, really important part of MP dominions is effective diplomacy. You need to correctly guess what your potential allies want to do and convince them that doing things your way is the best way to reach that. Timing is also really important, once the big player gets an important global or summon going a lot of players give up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 09:20
|
|
|
Oh. Well I'm incredibly gullible and trusting.  RIP me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 09:26
|
|
|
Shoeless posted:Oh. Well I'm incredibly gullible and trusting. Its ok. I normally just ally with someone then let them eat me once I'm spent ruining someone elses game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 10:31
|
|
|
Sloppy Milkshake posted:I have literally never once seen this happen in a game. I've seen it happen again and again. Not with outright betrayal, but with coalitions breaking apart left and right. In one game some dude our coalition totally ignored won the game thanks to us pretending to fight the "most dangerous player". Other coalitions failed due to bad coordination or other players just going AI mid-war. It happens. Coalition members secretly undermining other coalition members or switching sides are also things that can and did happen, but in most cases out of lazyness, not maliciousness.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 10:53
|
|
|
I always use this example, but there was a game that was literally Good Guys versus Bad Guys. Even then some of the Good Guys designed their pretenders to better attack each other after the war rather than focus on killing the bad guys. The Bad Guys won, unsurprisingly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 12:57
|
|
|
Decrepus posted:I always use this example, but there was a game that was literally Good Guys versus Bad Guys. Even then some of the Good Guys designed their pretenders to better attack each other after the war rather than focus on killing the bad guys. Yeah, but in an ironic twist, the bad guys would have won even if the "good" guys had won. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 13:01
|
|
|
I found diplomacy in Dom3 to be heavily dependent on perception and reputation (who the other player is and what they tend to do). If they were the type to backstab allies, I generally would only agree to truces at the beginning and never take what they say at face value. Other times, you can come across honest players that you can make deals with, be it gem/item trades or temporary alliances. Personally, I tended to favor the idea of having a true ally and splitting the win with them, as I enjoy the additional strategy that comes with an ally but I do not have the personality to enjoy betraying them once its down to the two of us. Did that make me vulnerable for back-stabbing? Sure did, so I always started the alliance off with a caveat, where I tell them "I will be your ally and we can split the win, and I will never betray you. Should you betray me, I will burn the earth to destroy you, even at the cost of losing the game, because then killing you becomes my moral victory." In the handful of games where I had an ally, they never betrayed me, since they knew that in a cost/benefit analysis, being honest meant they get help, and back stabbing me came at a potentially high cost.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 13:27
|
|
|
There can only be one Pantokrator. Forming a team mid-game is bullsquash. NAPs, which everyone loves, expire, and when you say "Peace in our time" either ironically or unironically people understand that it doesn't necessarily carry any real weight. I have only made one NAP and broke it because I forgot I did (and then died) but have also had a ton of peace with people without agreeing to a NAP (and then dying). Or just make crazy province claims and wail on all of your neighbors until you die. Basically I am bizzaro flavahbeast where I can't win am bad at diplo and have a limited understanding of my surroundings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
Also a good strategem is rather than spending your gems for national defense as you are being killed, instead send them to the enemy of the guy invading you. Tell him "all of his armies are in my land so he is really vulnerable" and they will usually agree to revenge you. They were actually allies the whole time and are laughing about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
As someone who loves playing FFA turn based strategy games with diplomacy (but not Dominions because gently caress that pricetag), the answer to "be nice or be naughty" is "Depends on what your goal is and who you're playing with"
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
my dad posted:As someone who loves playing FFA turn based strategy games with diplomacy (but not Dominions because gently caress that pricetag), the answer to "be nice or be naughty" is "Depends on what your goal is and who you're playing with" It goes in sale for 10 bux during holiday. Pick it up and be cool.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
Oh so to be clear all this backstabbery talk has nothing to do with gem/item trades. By wide agreement breaking one of those is in fact actual cheating and will quickly make you a pariah.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
Yeah don't ever cheat somebody on gem and item trades. You'll get away with it because there's literally no way to enforce it in game, but that person will never ever trade with you again in any game and will make sure that nobody else does either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
I'm going to dissent and say that true betrayals are pretty loving rare in my experience. Maybe people are scared of me or something but usually if I form a coalition with someone to kill a 3rd person we Just Do It. I form coalitions in literally every game I play and they almost always result in both parties coming out ahead, so there's no reason to betray the other person. Grand coalition are usually a mistake and yes, they will almost always go poorly for all but one or two players. That's why you don't engage in grand coalitions. Keep your allies in a fight limited to 1-2 players and focus on alliances in the early game rather than the late game. That way it is actually possible for multiple people on the same side to profit from an agreement and there is no incentive to betray one another. A very basic concept that newer or badder players do not seem to understand in that dom4 is that the most valuable resource you can have in the game is a secure border. You should always, ALWAYS ally with a strong nearby neighbor and you almost never should consider betraying them unless they are getting pasted by someone else and you want to gobble up some free land, or they are pulling way ahead of the pack and you have no choice. Your ideal ally is someone that is about on your skill level - you want someone strong enough to make the late game but so powerful that you can't beat them then if it comes down to it. In a pinch though, it's better to ally with a strong player than to not have a strong ally. Find a buddy. Buddies make it to the late game. How are u posted:Yeah don't ever cheat somebody on gem and item trades. You'll get away with it because there's literally no way to enforce it in game, but that person will never ever trade with you again in any game and will make sure that nobody else does either. However paying someone for future favors is super at-your-own-risk I Love You! fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Aug 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
I Love You! posted:Find a buddy. Buddies make it to the late game. First lesson is usually "you made a poor God choice and are being murdered in the first couple years." Definitely ask in irc if you feel like bothering with it as your God decision is very important and you need to have a lot of knowledge to make a good one, knowledge a newbie will not have. Nuclearmonkee fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Aug 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
It's worth pointing out that you shouldn't listen to all advice given to you by experienced players, since some are being rather meta and giving you an idea they can exploit later. Notable example: Mr "I play Ermor in Dominions 3" Neruz constantly saying that coalitions never work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
Teaming up with a single person to kill a third isn't a coalition. Personally I have seen actual coalitions work though, at least in the sense that everyone contributed. The real issue is that people aren't gonna join a coalition until it's too late (and I'm guilty of this as well). Apart from that I consider Iloveyou's buddy thing kinda weird cause although a secure border is important making an actual permanent alliance is really bad, and leaving it vague makes it meaningless. e: Neruz doesn't play anymore, he doesn't like us anymore or something idk
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
my dad posted:It's worth pointing out that you shouldn't listen to all advice given to you by experienced players, since some are being rather meta and giving you an idea they can exploit later. Notable example: Mr "I play Ermor in Dominions 3" Neruz constantly saying that coalitions never work. Coalitions usually stick until the target is weakened or killed. If you see a member of your coalition getting too strong, turning on him either covertly (start helping the coalition target and quietly stop attacking) or overtly (peace out with the original target and stab the other guy in the butt) is a good idea. Peacing out of a stalemate or for big picture reasons is a good idea. There can only be one Pantokrator and its going to be the biggest meanest fucker not the nice ehonorable guy more often than not. If you see an advantage, take it. Most totally failed coalitions are a failure on someone's part to realize which threat is actually bigger. Unless someone its sharing graphs this can be difficult to identify. Always be scouting. Nuclearmonkee fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Aug 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
I would like to add that if you are dealing with Nuclearmonkee or Iloveyou, please pretend you are dealing with the devil and need to triplecheck everything for possible fuckery and misdirection. I haven't had anything happen to me that I remember but I have seen it happen to others often enough, the latest example being Chickenwing sending Ilu gems in dank memes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Absum posted:I would like to add that if you are dealing with Nuclearmonkee or Iloveyou, please pretend you are dealing with the devil and need to triplecheck everything for possible fuckery and misdirection. I will betray you in the end unless you do not have a throne I need to win
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Could be worse. Modpud would literally change her irc logs to pretend she had a different deal with you than she did.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Could be worse. Modpud would literally change her irc logs to pretend she had a different deal with you than she did. Like if it's about a gem/item trade I'd equally consider that cheating, but if it's some other diplomatic thing it's really way more effort than is needed. Just give the guy a heads up that you're totally breaking the agreement a few turns after you've attacked them and you're solid. People get really huffy about diplomatic stuff which is why my policy was never to agree to anything with actual terms. Hell people got huffy like I'd had an NAP even when I literally responded to their offer with 'I will attack you whenever I feel like it'. Feinne fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Aug 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Feinne posted:Like if it's about a gem/item trade I'd equally consider that cheating, but if it's some other diplomatic thing it's really way more effort than is needed. Just give the guy a heads up that you're totally breaking the agreement a few turns after you've attacked them and you're solid. Yeah, I pretty much just won't respond to NAP once my offense is online unless I want to invade someone else and I think you might buttstab me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Feinne posted:Like if it's about a gem/item trade I'd equally consider that cheating, but if it's some other diplomatic thing it's really way more effort than is needed. Just give the guy a heads up that you're totally breaking the agreement a few turns after you've attacked them and you're solid. I mean she was cheating, constantly Absum posted:Apart from that I consider Iloveyou's buddy thing kinda weird cause although a secure border is important making an actual permanent alliance is really bad, and leaving it vague makes it meaningless. This is not a speculative thing, it is a thing all the good players do to win games. It's non-negotiable if you want to win more than a random fluke game a year. I do it every single game, without fail. Hatwer does it, Monkee does it. Flavahbeast used to do it. If at all possible, I will do it with the best other player in the game if they border me, every time, and if they are smart (they are, that's why they are good at the game) they will say yes. The trick is we don't give a poo poo if we have to break the alliance in the lategame, because making it to the lategame already means we have a disproportionate chance to win. "Permanent" alliance are incredibly real and good. Of course if someone is starting to pull way ahead the alliance is off. But the absolute best way to have a chance to win is to have your best and strongest neighbor not threatening to attack you at any moment - and this goes for BOTH players. On top of that, backstabbing is almost never sensible - there's almost always a better target to attack and having a save border is usually better than sneak attacking someone. If I border Nuclearmonkee or Hatwer you can be drat sure we have an agreement not to attack each other and we're not going to violate it unless it's of immediate importance. The odds of one or both of us making it to the late game skyrocket. We're not going to actively help defend each other. The best case for me is, of course, that some coalition beats the poo poo out of Monkee or whoever and then I get to clean up the debris. This happens fairly often! In this case the other member of the alliance is 100% sure to make it to the late game in a position of massive power. Occasionally we will work together to eat a strong neighbor. In this case we both make it to the lategame, probably to the final 4 with (at worst) about a 25% chance of winning each. This is also super good! There are 11-13 other players in a game of Dom4: if I can always make it to the final 4, I'm going to win way more than my fair share of games, no matter how good I am. Your goal in the game is to make it to the final 4-5 players. If you can get there in a decent position, you should be able to figure out the rest a sizeable enough % of the time to win games. Make sure you have a global plan, find yourself a strong buddy, and worry about the alliance crumbling when it's actually time to worry about that poo poo. I Love You! fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Aug 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Also I want to point out that ChickenWing sending me gems in dank memes was his idea, he PMed me about it and I just went along for the ride. I didn't even need the gems but it would have been a waste of a really funny joke to stop him from hanging himself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
I Love You! posted:I mean she was cheating, constantly I never do it and I have won my last 4 games or something? I think I'm gonna need a better explanation of what you mean here because saying "hey strongest neighbour let's not attack each other" is not an "alliance", it's not wanting to die. The thing is that for new players this advice is pointless (at least if they join a regular game) because they will be so weak that their strongest neighbour will just eat them. I've had plenty of games where I say "hey strongest neighbour want a NAP" and they say yes because I'm as strong as them and suiciding into each other is pointless. But if my other, weaker neighbour came to me and told me "hey do you want to be allies" cause I'm their strongest neighbour I'd say "no I'm gonna kill you" and they'd be dead because their other neighbours are helping me kill them. In other games I attack my weakest neighbour and am then attacked by everyone cause I had the best expansion even if not by much and they all agreed I had to die, and my strongest neighbour quite simply refused to nap cause with everyone ganging up on me that'd be his strongest opponent dead. My issue is that an alliance is not an alliance when it's just "let's not attack each other until we feel either of us is too strong or too weak at which point we will immediately betray each other". It's meaningless because there is zero certainty. My post is extremely incoherent but my point is that yes, a secure border is good, but you don't know who will or will not agree to not attack you nor do you know if anyone will agree at all. You are used to being in a position of strength and thus being able to pick and choose, 10 out of 12 players or so won't be because they are either piss weak or just mediocre compared to their neighbours. e: My post sucks cause I'm bad at long posts also the 4 win thing is incorrect I forgot two games sorry. Absum fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Aug 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Absum posted:Teaming up with a single person to kill a third isn't a coalition. Personally I have seen actual coalitions work though, at least in the sense that everyone contributed. The real issue is that people aren't gonna join a coalition until it's too late (and I'm guilty of this as well). Aw poo poo, Neruz was one of the few players I considered as bad at making strategic moves as I am. Now I'm even further down the ladder of Dominions-competence. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Aw poo poo, Neruz was one of the few players I considered as bad at making strategic moves as I am. Now I'm even further down the ladder of Dominions-competence. Neruz was the best dom4 player of all time because he was the only one who always played ermor when it was allowed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Aw poo poo, Neruz was one of the few players I considered as bad at making strategic moves as I am. Now I'm even further down the ladder of Dominions-competence. Don't worry there are tons of bad players. I'm probably somewhat above average at this game at best, and the difference between average and bad in this game isn't so large that a good start or a team up couldn't bridge it. Monkee Hatwer and Ilu are probably the only current players that are actually good at this game
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Aw poo poo, Neruz was one of the few players I considered as bad at making strategic moves as I am. Now I'm even further down the ladder of Dominions-competence. There there, I once thought it was a good idea to wish for a horror. I thought it would be under my control. I was wrong. Nuclearmonkee posted:There can only be one Pantokrator and its going to be the biggest meanest fucker not the nice ehonorable guy more often than not. If you see an advantage, take it. I feel like you and I have different feelings on what is a meaningful victory. I'd be happy being an ally with someone else and even if they end up winning the game, I'd be glad to have made it to the late game and have been helping them. Whereas you seem to feel like it counts most/only counts if you're the one who wins. Is this a case of differing views or is there actually a mechanic in multiplayer that prevents people from deciding to just be best friends and support one another? Dear god I'm going to get eaten alive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Shoeless posted:There there, I once thought it was a good idea to wish for a horror. I thought it would be under my control. I was wrong. The mechanic is that only one person becomes Pantokrator, and in-narrative any Pretender who doesn't become Pantokrator is consigned to Tartarus for all eternity. There's nothing in-game to support a non-Disciple "buddy win" and the game is designed (insofar as the game is designed at all) around the assumption that there's no such thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Benly posted:The mechanic is that only one person becomes Pantokrator, and in-narrative any Pretender who doesn't become Pantokrator is consigned to Tartarus for all eternity. There's nothing in-game to support a non-Disciple "buddy win" and the game is designed (insofar as the game is designed at all) around the assumption that there's no such thing. Okay, so it's just up to the player whether they mind or not. A bunch of the pretender chassis sound like they had freedom at some point before the previous Pantokrato decided, in the spirit of most Greek/Roman gods, to be a total dick so maybe as long as the next one isn't a total jerk things won't be so bad? That's my assumption and I'm sticking to it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Diplomacy games tend to be pretty bad if people would rather play kingmaker than play to win.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
You are only an Official Gamewinner (tm) if you are the sole surviving human player. My second game ever ended with a joint me/someone else win because neither of us could be arsed to play an additional 50 turns in what was already a 140 turn game. Because of this, I am not an Official Gamewinner. If you don't care about winning games, cool, do whatever as long as you are at least making an attempt. Also note that if you make a habit of playing second fiddle then literally everyone will hate you and you will be summarily booted from most peoples' games because you are not fun to play with. We're not a big enough community that you can get away with ruining games like that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Yeah playing hardcore kingmaker/vassal state is one of the few things that will turn you into a pariah but consider this is like a board game that takes 3 months to play and if you were to spend an entire game of something like Settlers of Cataan handing your girlfriend every resource you got for free she would probably win and you'd get "2nd" but no one would ever want to be your friend again
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
It is cool being forced into peace with nuclearmonkee and Hatwer because you are sandwiched between both of them . E: I have been forced into peace with nuclearmonkee in every game except one and in that I had my revenge (and died). I think every single game we've both in we have started next to each other. Decrepus fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Aug 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Decrepus posted:It is cool being forced into peace with nuclearmonkee and Hatwer because you are sandwiched between both of them . To be fair I also lost. We both died. On the bright side we got good stupid poo poo out of it. 
Nuclearmonkee fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Aug 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:50 |
|
|
Huh? Oh no no no, I didn't mean just giving someone else everything! No, that would be boring. I just meant in having an agreement to be buddies and not necessarily breaking it as soon as is convenient. Like, hypothetically if me, the person I've been peaceful with and 2 others are in the end game and the guy I've been friendly with manages to get the last throne he needs before I do, even though I didn't win according to the game I'd still find that fulfilling. I'm definitely not trying to suggest rolling over and just giving all your stuff to another player. That just sounds dull.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 19:37
|
|