Dominion of the Den

[Kaelik]

Seriously Frank? You're finding fault with Atlantis for betraying you? What was he supposed to do, sit around nicely waiting for you to kick over his sandcastle?

I could be wrong, but I think most Denners would share my assumption unless otherwise specified that "diplomacy" rules apply--that is, what happens in game stays in game, and people are expected to betray you when they need to to win.

It's not total anarchy, in that lying about things which happened in the past is considered douchery everywhere I know, which I think supports your grievance against superbot et al. But, lying about what you intend to do in the future is totally kosher in every stategy game environment I've ever played in.

I wouldn't take it as far as Frank has to say "in future games" but then again, he is also lying about it. If he was honest and said "You were going to win, but I wanted to win, so I broke the pact" that would be different. Of course, I wouldn't make pacts with him ever again, because... well duh.

You and Kaelik, who, when Frank attacked Endovior w/out formally breaking off his NAP (endovior brought this up; frank did not deny it and only justified his actions), came in to the thread to lambast Endovior

Clearly you cannot read. Frank explicitly stated that there was no NAP in the first place, and that Endovior agreed to not take provinces, then took them anyway. You can say that Frank is a liar if you want, but saying that he didn't deny breaking a pact just demonstrates that you are a liar.

1. K is a lying piece of shit, and a likely borderline personality. This is easy to verify by looking at our correspondance.

You clearly know nothing of K. This statement does more to show you to be a whiny little bitch who thinks stupid allegations will bring people to your side than anything anyone else could ever say.

I report, you decide.

I agree, you are about as honest as Fox News.

[internet_superbot]

[ You clearly know nothing of K. This statement does more to show you to be a whiny little bitch who thinks stupid allegations will bring people to your side than anything anyone else could ever say.

I'm the one with the evidence, asshole. all the gaming den correspondence still exists. Who is the one more like Fox, the one who makes up stories without any support, or the one who actually shows the freaking documentation?

in conclusion: fuck you.

I hadn't ever played w/ Frank before, and have to say I was quite disappointed as I had read a few posts of his wherein he didn't seem like a fucking baby/moron.

also, your dedication to accuracy seems to be as great as your friends'. Nowhere in this thread did Frank disagree w/ Endovior about whether there was a NAP. Please cite your source, as it is not here. bullshitter.

[Endovior]

Clearly you cannot read. Frank explicitly stated that there was no NAP in the first place, and that Endovior agreed to not take provinces, then took them anyway. You can say that Frank is a liar if you want, but saying that he didn't deny breaking a pact just demonstrates that you are a liar.

Ahem.

The terms of our NAP were that neither of us would take territory already held by the other.

I was very specific and clear in stating, multiple times, that this treaty did not apply in any sense whatsoever to neutral or foreign territory.

At no point did I agree not to take any provinces held by Arcosephale or by any Indies.

There was negotiations over a certain few provinces held by Arcosephale.

Those negotiations fell through.

When I conquered the provinces in question, they were held by Arcosephale, and I did have to fight for them.

There were also a trio of neutral provinces in the area as well, which Frank didn't attack over a period of something like five turns after the fall of Arcosephale.

These were >3k pop provinces, including a crappy useless province full of undead.

If Frank had had any interest in those approximately worthless lands, he could've easily had them before I touched them.

He did not.

Having an expansion party present composed of priest-mages supported by my prophet, I went ahead and I took them.

This went unchallenged and unremarked for something like five more turns.

THEN Frank broke pact by conquering the former Arcosephale provinces without even so much as notifying me of his attack.

When challenged, he insisted that he was allowed to take those provinces because of the deal we were making that fell through, that he actually offered me nothing for.

I demurred, and requested that he make good on the deal by actually offering me the province I'd originally wanted from the start of the doomed negotiations by virtue of it being near-ish to my capital and adjacent to my chokepoint-defense fort.

He refused, declared war, and posted here that, by taking the provinces held by Arcos that I'd taken ages ago, I'd somehow broken pact or something; and added my conquest of the worthless neutral lands as further provocation.

Perhaps he was expecting that I'd keep all my troops back in fear and leave the whole of the world to him forever, to await that moment when he'd finally get around to conquering it?

Yeah, that wasn't going to happen ever.

I applaud Frank's strategic acumen.

That was actually a GREAT time to attack me, since I'd just finished repositioning the bulk of my forces to K's border.

I do however, resent the slight against my reputation.

Anyone who still perceives that I am the dishonorable one in this belligerency is welcome to their beliefs.

Kaelik, in particular, can suck a barrel of cocks.

That is all.


(As a footnote, I might add that this is the first actual multiplayer game I've been in. Having outlasted much of the opposition, I'm reasonably pleased with how things went. I never expected to win this going in, and doubly so given that both of my immediate neighbors were veteran players. But I feel as though I've given a good accounting of myself.)

[Kaelik]

I do however, resent the slight against my reputation.

Anyone who still perceives that I am the dishonorable one in this belligerency is welcome to their beliefs.

Kaelik, in particular, can suck a barrel of cocks.

That is all.

Whether or not you claim there was an NAP is not of any discussion whatsoever. We all know you claim there was one. There is no evidence there was, aside from he said she said. There is no evidence that there was not, aside from he said she said. I did not say that there unequivocally was no NAP. I pointed out to Intratrollbot that Frank has said there was no NAP because you violated the terms of the agreement about provinces.

Neither you nor Frank possesses any way to demonstrate to my satisfaction what any pact was. I generally do not believe Frank to be a lying asshole. I do not know you well enough to know if you are a lying asshole. My temporary position on the issue is: [misunderstanding]. And will probably remain that way forever, barring new evidence of a convincing nature.

Therefore, you can go suck the barrel of cocks, because I at least, have not been slighting your reputation.

I'm the one with the evidence, asshole. all the gaming den correspondence still exists. Who is the one more like Fox, the one who makes up stories without any support, or the one who actually shows the freaking documentation?

You don't have any support fox news. You obviously don't understand what the word evidence even means. You have presented no evidence, merely claims.

also, I know a reasonable amount about K, as both him and frank are pretty well laughingstocks among veteran dominions players.

Really, Frank and K are "laughingstocks" on boards they do not frequent dominated by cliques that they upset in initial interactions who spend a lot of time mocking people who aren't present and probably lie about claims as well? Well I'm sure that will really ruin their day, seeing as that has never ever happened to them before anywhere. Ever.

Protip: Reading someone else telling you what a dumbass someone is because they disagreed with them does not constitute knowing them.

But clearly they are laughingstocks of Dominion play, seeing as they both play better than you, a veteran dominion player. Oops, I guess despite being a laughingstock, they probably play better than most of their critics.

Nowhere in this thread did Frank disagree w/ Endovior about whether there was a NAP. Please cite your source, as it is not here. bullshitter.

Um... Are you smoking crack? The very first post he made on that subject was that Endovior broke the province agreement. That is literally the very first thing. There is no more pact after the other person breaks it. He does not need to say "The pact that my opponent broke never existed, so therefore I can do what I want" he instead said "my opponent broke the pact we had, I will now ignore it as well."

[internet_superbot]

Kaelik: "I pointed out to Intratrollbot that Frank has said there was no NAP because you violated the terms of the agreement about provinces. "

Nowhere in that first post does Frank deny that there had been a NAP; nor does he later. I interpret this as saying, "yeah, there was a NAP, but you violated it, so it was vitiated, and I can attack" That always seemed simple enough.

which, strangely, seems somewhat reminiscent of Cthulhu: "yeah, we had a NAP, but Frank violated it as I understand it by dispelling my global, so the pact was vitiated, and I could attack"

But in the first case, you come running all in like the little lackey you are to cry HONOUR! for frank; then, with the reverse case, you come into this thread and cry OUTRAGE!

you're but a lowly hypocrite, and a lickspittle. Why are you in this thread?

oh yeah, get the fuck out.

[internet_superbot]

But clearly they are laughingstocks of Dominion play, seeing as they both play better than you, a veteran dominion player. Oops, I guess despite being a laughingstock, they probably play better than most of their critics.

they are laughed at because of their childish and delusional behaviour, as is well evidenced in this thread.

K so unhappy that his remarkable PD strategy did not lead him to victory that he tears down his castles

Frank, the biggest player in this game, kicking over the board and bawling because the only other player of roughly his same size, attacked. In a wargame. *shock*

You, knowing nothing, coming in and running the basest toadying propaganda.

Really, this has, whatever else, been a hilarious game.

Also I very much enjoyed trying out Lanka, which I've never played before. The scales were not what I would want, but the position was servicible, and the monkey demons a lot of fun.

thanks to Akula and Korwin.

[jimbojones1971]

Hrmm, this game seems to have gone to hell in a hand-basket. Which is a shame, but such is life. I also only play games for the fun factor - if its not there, then there are plenty of other things that I can do with my time - so I sympathize.

I have learnt a lot from this game, primarily I how much I still have to learn. I figure I'm only in the early mid-game stage, when guys like Nief and Atlantis (and possibly Lanka - not much visibility of Lanka) seem to be powering towards the end game at a ferocious rate.

I think though that i am starting to get a much better feel for how the magic economy works, so next game I should be a bit further along. And Korwin certainly assisted me down the path of understanding why you need to get your tactical battles right

[cthulhu]

Meh, seriously, Frank's beef with me is that he doesn't think dispelling two of my globals is a breach of the NAP, based on:

A) He thought he specified that he was going to put up gift of health, thus how can I be annoyed when he dispelled mine to put up his own. I don't recall him ever saying that to me, and I cannot find any log of it in my discussions with him, and I log 100% of my instant messaging conversations. It might have been implied in the fact that an Air 4 caster went mute, and I should have known he had a nature bless... but I'm not that good at the game.

B) He doesn't think I can use the dispelling of Earth Blood Well as evidence that he broke the NAP, because I don't have beyond reasonable doubt evidence that it was him and/or dispelling a global isn't grounds for a NAP breach.

I think on the balance probability is more than sufficient, particularly given the action already taken in A.

Similarly I think taking down globals is an aggressive move. However, I was prepared to consider that it wasn't an aggressive move, so I asked three players who are not involved in the game if they thought it was a NAP breaking move. They all said 'yes' so on that basis I attacked.

Overall, I'd do it again to anyway. If you attack my infrastructure by putting unrest causing spies in my territory, I find your assassin units in my capital, or dispel and/or overwrite my globals, I'll consider it an NAP breach in any game, unless specified otherwise.

It's not a Non-attack pact, it's a non aggression pact, and those moves are aggressive. Also, I am prepared to eat my words and give it all back, if I am shown the money that indicates lanka did it.

[internet_superbot]

It was obviously Frank, and clearly beyond a reasonable doubt. Neither lanka nor hinnom have shown any evidence of any advanced astral power. Lanka has no native s1 mages, has ony ever been seen w/ s1 crystal amazons, and cannot have high astral on my pretender as if so that bless would have shown.

Conceivably, Akula could have been such a horrible player as to have given his god s3. I'm happy to show my empire to a neutral third party

Frank wants to pretend that there was plausible deniability, when there was not.

He's happy to give it, but can't take it.

[K]

Really, Frank and K are "laughingstocks" on boards they do not frequent dominated by cliques that they upset in initial interactions who spend a lot of time mocking people who aren't present and probably lie about claims as well? Well I'm sure that will really ruin their day, seeing as that has never ever happened to them before anywhere. Ever.

It's a fun story.

OK, so it used to be that Battlefield spells would continue as long as there was a friendly or neutral unit on the battlefield. Now, this means that Mist of Deception could be cast and you could retreat, leaving the enemy to fight phantasmal units it was generating.

So a bunch of people were calling for it to be nerfed. I was very vocal in saying that not only was it not that powerful, but that you could fight your way out of it pretty easily.

People got very insistent that it couldn't be beaten. They really staked their reputations as experienced players on it.

So, I think posted not one but several turn files showing that not only could a tiny, normal army beat the spell, but that if you could kill all the units in one turn, the spell would end (something that they insisted was not even possible).

Apparently, people on the internet don't like being proven wrong so publicly and completely. They started harassing me in every thread I was in and even went around making fun of me in threads I was not in. The fact that a month later battlefield spells were changed to not work that way didn't seem to cool anyone's hate, and I stopped going to that forum.

No sweat off my back. That forum drove out the best players in terms of games won and most productive players in terms of mods and innovative strategy guides. I consider myself in very good company.

On another note, it's nice to see internet_superbot still acting crazy and making outrageous and false claims. It reminds me that it'll be nice to never play with him again.

[Username17]

I for one have internet superbot on ignore. I never agreed to play in a game with him in the first place, and I would never agree to play with him in the future. He's a dick, and makes playing the game extremely unpleasant.

I do not fear his mad skills. He had a gem income of 29 after turn 40. To put that in perspective: I had an astral income equal to his entire income. I genuinely was unafraid of his shit. But his constant personal insults to the players was beyond the pale. You simply don't act like that in any game, whether it's competitive or not.

As for globals: putting up, taking down, or stealing a global is certainly a reason to go to war with someone. So is building an artifact or summoning a unique elemental queen or devil. But it's not a breach of a non aggression pact. Attacking someone without warning, is a breach of a non aggression pact. Putting up some globals, in fact putting up any globals is putting a target on your head. It is an aggressive thing to do. Some of them kill other peoples' stuff, and all of them shift the balance of power in a way that is bad for the other players. Some of them are so minor that they get ignored. All of them deprive other people of global slots, because there are less slots than there are players. Most people don't really give a fuck if you grab the Oak or the crown of stars. Others make people genuinely panic and flip out - like The Utterdark or The Astral Corruption. Most are somewhere in between. But absolutely nothing you can do with them gets anyone out of a non-aggression pact. Period.

I will never make any pact with Cthulhu under any circumstances ever again. He is not trustworthy. Because he went directly from "I have a reason to attack you" to "I'm violating a non aggression pact with no warning." That's a deal breaker, and there's no going back from that. Reciprocal altruism only works if you do in fact reciprocate. And the reciprocation is: no more deals with Cthulhu in any game of dominions ever in the future. No exceptions.

-Username17

[cthulhu]

Clearly we had a totally different understanding of what was allowable under a NAP. My discussions with other players will confirm that I was going to issue a NAP termination notice until my second global was dispelled. Also, if you put up burden of time in a game where I was vulnerable to it, I would attack you straight away or dispel it, no questions asked.

Then I decided that you didn't care, so I didn't care.

[Username17]

Also, if you put up burden of time in a game where I was vulnerable to it, I would attack you straight away or dispel it, no questions asked.

Good to get confirmation on that. You're a dangerous lunatic who is not to be trusted.

Every faction is vulnerable to the Burden of Time. Every faction. It kills population and ages all troops in every province of the map - including the ones belonging to the caster. Generally longer lived factions like Helheim and Atlantis suffer less, but everyone hurts. You cast it because it gives you a relative benefit by hurting other people more than you (either because you've invested in long lived thugs, or because you have saved up gold, or you've moved to a mostly gem economy or whatever).

Now let's talk about the flip side: the Well of Misery. It increases wealth across the map. Everyone benefits, but of course some players will benefit more. You cast it because it gives you death gems (which I remind you: everyone is vulnerable to) or because you're ahead in gold income and want to be even more ahead in gold income. But the logic is the same. Everyone is affected, and the caster has done the math and determined that they get relative advantage over the other players with the effect in play.

If you think that someone casting Burden of Time counts as breaking a NAP if the caster is getting relative advantage over you (which should always be the case), then you also must agree that someone casting Well of Misery when they have the most provinces negates all treaties as well, because it's the same fucking thing.

And need I remind you, that you cast Well of Misery in precisely that circumstance in both games? You disingenuous fuck wad!

-Username17

[cthulhu]

I agree with you that the game is about relative advantage, but in the context of a NAP, I consider taking actions that are directly detrimental to a player as aggressive.

[Endovior]

It really does depend.

If you're a faction full of the very long-lived, like Niefelheim, and I'm one of the many factions full of old men... say, Abyssia... then it's a rather different story then just 'minor relative advantage'. If you've got an old guy type magic base, Burden of Time will seriously murder all of your mages in a handful of turns if left up. If you can't dispel it, and your only remaining option is a surgical strike against the responsible pretender? Then yes, even if that fight involves killing off the other guy's pretender, you hardly have room to complain about breach of pacts. Burden of Time is horribly nasty, and not considering it an act of war is ridiculous. Casting it, Utterdark, Astral Corruption, or Arcane Nexus is widely considered equivalent to declaring war on the whole world, so you really don't have room to complain about pacts and whatnot thereafter.

Stealing/dispelling more standard globals is a different story. Personally, I'd consider having an important global like Gift of Health stolen from me casus belli; but I'd like to think that, if the terms of the NAP didn't specifically cover it, I'd issue formal declaration rather then attack at once. But you really don't have too much ground to be horribly surprised when someone goes after you for magically agressing you in that manner, pact or no. It'd be like if someone attacked you because they were convinced, based on available magic paths, that you were spamming anonymous unrest-causing magic at their capital.

Long story short, if you're using your magic to mess with someone, you hardly have room to complain when they use their armies to mess with you.

[Username17]

I'm not talking about relative advantage - you mention the difference yourself, Well of Misery benefits everyone, whereas Burden of time hurts everyone.

That's not a difference. It's a zero sum game. Comparative advantage is all there is. If everyone gains 500 gold, that is the same as everyone losing 500 gold.

That is the distinction I draw. So yes, I would for example interpret somone casting utter-dark as a hostile move if I was playing EA ermor, but not if they cast Steller focus.

So... you're completely irrational and you have totally game independent and unknowable lists of things you do and do not consider to be attacks that make no sense whatsoever and have no connection to the game at all. And you will attack other people in the middle of a NAP as if people could read your fucking mind.

You realize that is exactly the same to an outside observer as if you broke your pacts without warning at random, right?

Only one player can be declared by the game to have won. Alliances can win, but only with the consent of the people within them. Every boost to anyone else hurts you. Every hurt to anyone else is a boost to you. Every time anyone gains any advantage, that hurts you. Every time misfortune befalls any other player that benefits you. That's how the game works. If someone else gets a comparative advantage, that's bad for you. Period. If someone puts up a global, that's bad for you. Period. If someone makes an artifact, that means you can't. If someone makes an Ice Devil, you can't make that ice devil. If someone else conquers a neutral or an enemy province, that is one more province they have and one less province you could have without attacking them.

Attacking someone because you have been hurt by their actions is just like attacking them because they took any action at all. Because any time they gain, you lose. If someone isn't casting spells on or sending troops into your provinces, it's not a fucking attack. End of discussion.

-Username17

[cthulhu]

So you consider

A) Someone casting raging hearts an attack, but not

B) dispelling the global that lets troops breath underwater causing a whole bunch of a troops to die?

Seriously, I think that in the vein of 'don't touch my shit' my globals are just as much my shit as one of my provinces.

[Username17]

Do you know what happens when the list of globals gets filled? New castings attempt to dispel a global at random. No, dispelling someone's global is no more of an attack than casting it in the first place is. They are inherently temporary. That's why they are so ridiculously cheap for what you get.

-Username17

[cthulhu]

I hadn't actually considered what I'd think about getting bumped by the 5 global thing. I would probably care some what less, because that isn't a targetted move, but I take your point.

[Orion]

Frank,

Sorry for dragging this out if you're tired of it--but I was hoping to play Dominions with you some time, so I want to get this stuff sorted out. I think your comparative advantage argument is wrong.

Suppose I am Helheim, you are Abysia, and Hinnom is chilling over there. If I cast Well of Misery, my chance to win goes UP, yours goes DOWN and Hinnom's also goes DOWN.

By contrast, if I cast Burden of Time, my chance to win goes UP, yours goes DOWN, and Hinnom's ALSO GOES UP.

That's a big difference. The first one is clearly not a breach of an NAP. It's expected that during an NAP both sides will be trying to win by improving their standing. But the idea behind an NAP is that you two are making a deal which increases both of your odds of victory against the rest of the world. If you do something that specifically screws over your pact mate, that's different from just building up your own wealth.

----

There's another problem with the stance you're taking, which is that it cuts off diplomatic benefits you might gaint in future games.

If I put up a spell that forces someone to attack me or lose all his stuff, I'm not gonna hold it against him when he attacks me; I'm gonna expect it. His entirely predictable betrayal would IN NO WAY prevent me from making a pact with him in a future game, provided that he was trustworthy until his life was threatened.

[Korwin]

Votes so far:
Hellheim - Win to Atlantis
Lanka - undecided with Atlantis in the lead, but game should end (correct?)
Atlantis - not voted yet
Hinnom - not voted yet

[Username17]

Frank,

Sorry for dragging this out if you're tired of it--but I was hoping to play Dominions with you some time, so I want to get this stuff sorted out. I think your comparative advantage argument is wrong.

Suppose I am Helheim, you are Abysia, and Hinnom is chilling over there. If I cast Well of Misery, my chance to win goes UP, yours goes DOWN and Hinnom's also goes DOWN.

By contrast, if I cast Burden of Time, my chance to win goes UP, yours goes DOWN, and Hinnom's ALSO GOES UP.

Not necessarily. Hinnom is a huge blood power, and EA Abyssia's blood magic is kind of bullshit. Depending on what he's doing at the time, Hinnom might have just gotten royally screwed. Or he might not have. From my perspective as Abyssia, I genuinely don't know whether Hinnom got kicked in the nuts or not. All I know is that Helheim did some math and he believes that he is on the balance getting a longer end of the stick than anyone else. But he could also be playing a double game where he is trying to flush a big Dispel and clear out astral gems from Hinnom or me so that his "real" plan goes up against a field with no astral pearls on it.

Similarly, as Abyssia, I'm a huge order power, so I make a lot of money. If someone had cast Well of Misery, I might actually get a bigger income boost than Helheim did. It depends on our relative positions. He is definitely getting more death gems than I am (a lot versus none), but different people are getting different amounts of money out of the deal, so the chances of other people winning don't all go down.

The bottom line is that someone having a global up or not may be good or bad for you, and it may actually be so bad for you one way or another that you want to declare war over it. But you still have to declare war over it. You can't just arbitrarily decide that someone or another casting a global you didn't want them to or dispel a global you didn't want them to is bad enough that you attack them without declaring war. Or rather, you can, you're just a loathsome pact breaker and people should know that and treat you as a pariah.

It's not other peoples' responsibility to figure out whether you are hurt or not by what they are doing to the globals. And it doesn't constitute a violation of a non aggression pact for them to do stuff to it without consulting you.

If I put up a spell that forces someone to attack me or lose all his stuff, I'm not gonna hold it against him when he attacks me; I'm gonna expect it. His entirely predictable betrayal would IN NO WAY prevent me from making a pact with him in a future game, provided that he was trustworthy until his life was threatened.

There aren't any globals that do that though. If you're going to lose a bunch of troops to lack of payment to Utterdark, you can dispel it in time to keep from losing a lot of troops. But you can't invade them fast enough to stop that from happening. Globals don't go away just because someone loses a bunch of provinces.

Of course you can dispel a spell that is fucking with you without violating an NAP. That's exactly the point in fact. Cthulhu had in fact cast a global that was fucking with me, and I took it down. That's not an act of aggression on his part, and it's not an act of aggression on mine. The pact breaking that he did a number of turns afterwards, that was pact breaking.

-Username17

[jimbojones1971]

Votes so far:
Hellheim - Win to Atlantis
Lanka - undecided with Atlantis in the lead, but game should end (correct?)
Atlantis - not voted yet
Hinnom - not voted yet

Its pretty obvious to me that I wasn't going to win under any circumstances, as it took me waaaay too long to work out the whole gem economy thing and hence a vast gulf was starting to open up between my capabilities and those of the leading powers.

Personally, I am happy with either a win to Atlantis, or undecided but with Atlantis in the lead. With Frank gone, I don't see any point in continuing the game, as a large part of the interest for me was seeing how the "ultimate showdown of ultimate destiny" played out.

[Ganbare Gincun]

Frankly, I'm surprised it took so long for people to start stabbing each other in the back. Victory at all costs and all that.

[Endovior]

So Frank... you think it's just fine to use your magic to mess with someone, potentially to the point of doing some very serious damage, and don't see that as any breach of non-aggression.

If they decide that they don't like what you're doing to them, and decide that their most viable response is a military invasion, then you feel that you've been wronged... and wronged badly enough to knock over the board, despite the fact that the 'agreement' you made was inherently non-binding, and you yourself evidently feel free to violate such agreements at will if it benefits you.

To summarize, you play by your own rules entirely, and if you find it 'unfair' what someone else has done to you at any given point, you totally feel free to ignore and violate all agreements you have with them. Of course, them doing the same thing to you for equivalently good reasons is totally bullshit, and worth quitting the game over.