Game 142 - Scumbags or playing the game?

General
#1

Members of the Jury, I give you the case in question:

Game 142, Fourth Age LAS set up.

Standard set up except that the NK and two neutrals join as a team and thus cannot change allegiance.

Turn 1

3 of the DS players declare to the rest of the team that they are going to ‘do their own thing’ and don’t want to be party to team plans. A pain, but acceptable. They also declare war on all Neutrals. Not a good start for the DS team.

NK attacks the FP

Blood Pact (a different DS) attacks the neutral team.

By turn 3 it becomes apparant that the 3 DS are helping the NK alliance and freely moving troops through the NK homeland.

On this forum they are challenged by the FP but declare that it is an alliance of opportunity and that the original plan was for the 3 DS to attack the NK. They are grudingly believed.

Turn 7 the Blood Pact were eliminated by emissaries from the 3 DS (whats up NK, you and your two buddies too pathetic to take on one DS?). No declaration of hostility, by the way.

The three DS and the neutral team cannot win as a team so what is your oppinion?

Are these six players who have joined on seperate sides to gain a maximum advantage and thus spoil the game - Scumbags who need naming and shaming?

or

Is this some cunning plan by 3 DS working to their own agenda - Playing the game?

For those remaining true neutrals, you might as well turn free because the rest of the DS team is probably going to drop a game for the first time in their playing careers (guess what their view is).

To the FP, sorry, wish that you could have had a better game. Good luck.

Sour grapes? Maybe :wink:

#2

Had an blatant FA Scumbag experience way back in the early days of 4th age (game 15). They had 9 nations, 5 ds and 4 neutral that started in the south/rear of mordor area, totally intermingled with capitals exactly 4 hexes apart, and all with email addresses from a small ISP in south texas. They claimed to be unlinked, but were all DS by turn 5, and fighting against myself (SK), my one neutral teammate, and one FP Dwarf nation that started in north Mordor.

In your case, it is possible that they joined separately, and decided it was in their best interest to join forces, and unless they are willing to divulge this information, you will never know.

What I will say about fourth age, is that you should always join with a team of friends that you feel comfortable waging war against every other nation regardless of nationality. More often then not, there are groups that join as multi allegiances to gain numberic advantages, and you can never really count on preset allegiances as a guarantee of teammates to work with in a FA game. FA is a free - for - all environment unless there is some preset design idea that players go into the game with, and you just have to accept the fact that you can only trust those that you joined with, and anything else you get is gravy.

Frightfultales

#3

Thanks guys, you just ensured that I will never play a 4th age game with this kind of thing not only possible but from each of your posts probable. At least in the TA 1650 game there are sides and while doing your own thing is still a possibility there does not seem to be the kind of thing you both mention. Perhaps it is because of the superior organization of that game.

This eliminates 4th Age and Gunboat for me. Now I seem to be a bit more limited.

Brad

#4

Perhaps the moderators could ensure that players linked upon joining could be placed as far apart geographically as possible. While cooperation would still be possible (most notably in companies) it would certainly seem that it would be far more limited.

I’m in for the next 4th Age game and filling it is taking a long time. I suppose screening for these allegiances is made more difficult by the fact that a spot in this game isn’t the greatest of demands.

Clint, does ME Games have any policy for limiting this kind of collusion? It seems a bit weighted against those players who find themselves facing a cabal of prealigned players.

Greg

#5

Persons intent on increasing their PRS scores can find an easy way to do that. Just form a mini-team of 4 or 5 perons and join, unannounced, a 25 nation pickup game. The House Rules allow this.

#6

Brad

Don’t get me wrong. I love the Fourth Age game and have played numerous times using all different nation make-ups. Have a go, it’s worth it.

My issue isn’t with the game, it’s with spoiling tactics. There’s nothing wrong with making and breaking alliances during a game, that’s often a very enjoyable element.

I am more concerned with those who need to grab underhand advantages and by doing so spoil things for the other players (and use up my hard earned cash!!)

#7

Hey I’m apart of this game. One of them Steam-Rolled FP’s. And my hats off to those in it who have made it just about the single most miserable M-E experance I’ve ever had in my 30+ games. Though I was not the Marsh Men, who got attacked by 6 nations, from all three sides, one Kingdom, all by turn 4. I’ve only gotten the back swing of it all.

Still seeing that this kind of thing happens, it will be my last 4th age game I’m sure. I guess I’m just not cut out for it. There are other things, like game #142, which I do not enjoy and try to avoid as well. For example: laying down while mack trucks use me as speed bumps, getting lynched by angry mobs, having my money set on fire while I get kicked between the legs by 200 kindergarteners all crying “Sour graps!”…hum I’ll stop there.

We should however be some what happy that all this took place so early on. That way we can get back into real games.

#8

“Clint, does ME Games have any policy for limiting this kind of collusion? It seems a bit weighted against those players who find themselves facing a cabal of prealigned players.”

You can join with upto 4 others players on the SAME Alignment - not otherwise. If you are Neutral then if you have more than 2 players then you are forced to be fixed as Neutral throughout the game (specifically it’s called being a Neutral Team). Ditto for later games of 1000 with a Kingdom and a single Neutral ally. Generally though players don’t join 1000 with more than one other ally (there’s exceptions but they are exceptions, - 1650 and 2950 much more often do so).

GSI allowed team games (upto 5 allied), individual games (solely players - but from what I heard this was broken with allies joining up just not declaring it) and Grudge games - we’ve found that it’s generally best to split this to just the two formats - Individual and Grudge.

With 1000 I now, as per player feedback, limit the number of Neutrals in the game. Game 142 very much had a limited number of Neutrals, (3 Neutrals and 3 Neutral team players that I’ve mentioned in the Notes for the game). I also look for teams of players joining and make them even for all formats and roughly balance each game - in this case both Aligned teams had players starting together (Team of 4 for the FPs, and for the DS) so an even, and fair, split.

If you feel that some players joined with allies already pre-set at game start get in touch with me off list so that I can investigate further. If during the game they just made allies that’s fine and all part of the game though.

Clint

#9

Had you attacked the FP and NOT the NK’s ally you would still be in the game.
You moved 4 60+ agents into a neutral pop center on turn 1 and starting kidnapping and assassinating on turn 2. You were hampering efforts to hurt the Dunland FP, plans were made to emmy strike you after camp limit.

IMO you and others make the mistake of assuming that allegiance means something in FA, it does not to some of us. It never meant much under GSI when I played in the early games. I would much rather play with someone that I have respect for as a player than be saddled with same (generally) sorry lot of allies that I am forced to play with in other games based on same icon

The Emerald Order and the Prophets of Doom joined as FP with the intent of nuking the NK or least seeing how much damage we could do. I was switched over to a DS due to a mistake of too many FP and not enough DS. An email was sent out to everyone in the game (at least that is what I was told by MEG) asking if me flipping to DS was OK or should we wait another month to reinitialize the game. The feedback from MEG that I received said everyone (or perhaps the majority) were OK with me flipping to the DS side. I informed MEG before this was even considered that PoD player and myself play in multiple games of MEPBM and that we would work together no matter what our icons showed.

The plan was to strike the Dunland FP. I am not one of the 3 DS that you speak of and they can speak for themselves but I can tell you that two of them wanted a shot at some of the Dunland FP. Your choice of aggressive actions and your assumptions lead to your downfall, nothing more. If it makes you feel better to think there is some grand plan to throw the game then feel free to wallow in that as long as you need to. It is simply not true.

From what I remember of the early FA days it was designed to be a “me first” type of game. Why people still think of it as either/or is beyond me. FA can have no winners as in game 7 under GSI or strategic site victory can be obtained. There may be other ways to win but I have diverted too much time to responding to this same drivel for the second time in this game

Personally I could care less who wins the game, who drops or who has a set of balls to stay and fight. I find it amusing that people like to complain about things rather than doing something about them.

Steve
Emerald Order-142

#10

They should know already. Several turns ago I posted an answer to this in thread: Game 142 Up and Running. But let me see if I can make it clear here.

I joined with 2 others as a neutral team. My teammates and I had no knowledge of any other players in the game. Part of the requirement as a neutral team is that we cannot change allegiance. The player names of my team were listed for all to see.

I got my setup to find myself with 6 non-neutral players around me. This was not at all what I had expected, and put me in a difficult spot, especially since I cannot change allegiance. I was subsequently contacted by other players who know me. Needless to say, I was willing to deal, as were they, especially when they learned that I was NK (a fact I did not disclose, until it was clear that we could reach some deal). And, yes, this took place prior to the first turn of the game.

It was pretty obvious to us that if we fought, none of us would stand a chance. Given that we know and trust each other from previous games, we came up with a long term agreement, and at its core is that we will decide the outcome and winner of the game. It is up to the rest of you to contest that, if the sour grapes don’t get you first.

As to the FP team in Dunland, you just got the short end of a bad combination. You started near me, in a game where I had no option to join you. Negotiations would have been much different if that had been an option. I will truthfully admit that the deal I made in this game is not one I would have made with people I did not know and trust from past experience, which also didn’t favor you as I don’t know any of you.

Blood Pact, no sympathy. You jump a neutral, then cry when something you didn’t expect bites you. If I had been able change allegiance in this game, your turn 1 action would have put me firmly in the FP camp, and instead of fighting them in Dunland, I’d be pounding you instead.

Should we have told every player in the game that we made a deal right off? Only reason I can think of is so you don’t cry and whimper and quit the game. You will note that there were no efforts to get information or pdfs, which would have been deception. As far as I am concerned, it is well within the scope of the game to make whatever deals you see fit, especially given that the same allegiance can fight each other militarily in FA.

There is is. Call me scumbag if that makes you feel better. I would challenge you to stop us. Its not like the odds are in our favor.

NK142

#11

Okay, this is ridiculous. I have to weigh in here too.

This is the Brodic Sons, one of the 3 neutrals who started as a team. FYI, here’s the facts:

Originally we hadn’t planned on taking NK. Clint asked us to to help get the game set up faster. We agreed. We also agreed to the stipulation that we couldn’t change allegiance and that it would be announced to all players before the game. So we entered the game as a team of 3, vs 2 teams of 9 and 4 truly neutral nations. That gave us 18 downgrades each just to get our enemies to disliked – an additional handicap if you think about it.

When we got our turn 0’s we immediately saw there were 14 nations west Fangorn! Half of each the DS and FP teams were west of the Misties. Everyone of us had multiple enemy capitals on their map. We were completely surrounded and looked like dog-meat on a stick. We saw right away our only hope was to attack one side instantly and try and cut a deal with the other – othewise we weren’t even going to get our downgrades done before we’d be dead.

Fortunately, having our names plastered across the front sheet had a silver lining. Since some of us have been playing since GSI days we’ve been around a bit. Some players who’d played against us before (in fact bashing the crap out of me in FA 41) contacted us to say hello. They didn’t know we controlled NK, and it took a while before we all figured out what was going on and tentatively decided to work together.

We had extensive dialog at the time about whether this was fair or not, whether we should announce our intentions or not, and what it meant for game balance. Some of the DS chose to warn their teammates that they would not be playing with them as a team. We 3 neutrals decided to just attack the Marsh Men & Dunland FP, and ignore any diplomacy from other neutrals (ie, not try to recruit them).

On turn 1 however we were also attacked by the DS, when the Blood Pact started slaughtering our characters at the Flurtherian capital. (Why you did that I have no idea, but it was a rash move). So now we already had a war vs both FP and DS going, which wasn’t our choice, at which point we really dedided to ally tightly with our neighbors instead of be destroyed.

So yes, you 4 Western FP’s have been sorely outnumbered for a while now by our alliance, and I know that it is no fun to play under such odds. I’m sure you’re disappointed.

But allow me to repeat this one more time as well: there really wasn’t any conspiracy to join together. All that took place was normal diplomacy and us responding rationally to our horrible strategic position.

I would also stress Steve’s point that FA is an open melee not bound by allegiances the way 1650 is. In my last 3 FA games, every one has been won by a cross allegiance alliance. This is not an exception, it is a rule. If you come into FA expecting to play it like 1650, you’re going to be surprised. In my opinion what is broken in FA is not that FP can attack FP, it’s that the victory rules aren’t set up to recognize cross allegiance alliances. This would make the expectations more explicit and reduce the surprise of cross allegiance alliances.

At this point, it’s clear though if you want to win you need to rally the rest of the board against us – FP, DS, and Neutral – which could make an exciting game since combined you outnubmer us and control most the real estate. I hope you guys do exactly that.

Adam

#12

Some of us don’t play for PRS. For me, the challenge is to be in control of the game, to have significant impact, to make the outcome something I want (whether it is my team winning, me winning, or the guy I think deserves it winning).

Some of you may be proud of your PRS standings, but it don’t mean squat to me. I’ve played this game far longer than most, PRS is a recent thing.

NK142

#13

Okay I’m satisfied that there was no pre-game alliance. Some of the guys have decided to try something out in this game and although personally I think it a bad thing it’s not upto me.

Generally if you want to play across allegiances I need to know so that I can advertise it as a variant game of 1000 as players will go in with the knowledge that this game is of a different format to the other 99 games they have played. The game has a specific format of an ALLEGIANCE wins a game, therefore cross game allegiances, although for the short term useful, cannot be used long term to achieve the overall aim of winning the game - that can only be done within your allegiance so removing your team-mates seems somewhat incongruous to those aims.

Nothing to do with PRS - that’s Ed Mill chucking a spanner in as his won’t. You guys play what you want but I do need to know so that everyone goes into the game with the same aims and objectives if at all possible, and if they are substantially different to the game format that is generally agreed upon that others need to know and be made aware of the fact.

With the flexibilty of 1000 comes a greater opportunity to develop what normally happens (eg Neutral victory) and GSI didn’t fully explore the way this could then develop. For the benefit of the game some rules have been added (eg Neutrals joining etc) and so when something unusual happens I need to know before hand. I think that’s part of the problem of 1000 is the flexibility has come back and bit players on the behind in this manner, causing them to move onto pastures new. So for your own enjoyment as long as we have a level playing field at the start of the game then I’m happy to run whatever format of 1000 you guys want.

Clint

#14

This is no variant game. FA has always had the chance of being a free-for-all.

Winning the game as allegiance is not the only outcome. I have a turn 52 PDF somewhere (game 7 GSI where there were no winners). The 4 other guys that I worked with in game 7 were the winners because we kicked everyone else’s ass. It is not our fault that a lot of linear thinkers play this game.

One other note, the Teleldari (FP) contacted me trying to convince me (DS) that we did not need to fight each other as the NK and neutral team should be then enemy. At this same time the Marsh Men (FP) (Teleldari ally) placed camps and emmyed away camps in my area for turns 2-4.

Perhaps MEG should come up with a linear variant where you can not downgrade nations with same icon as your own. This way everyone could heel-toe, heel-toe their way through the game.

#15

I guess the last thing to ask is does anyone want to take us on, or do you admit that you can’t beat us even though we only have 8 players on our team.

Payback for game 125 Mr Rouselle. Next time you might want to respond to our emails instead of ignoring them.

We might not have the numbers, but we by far have the superior teammates, which is more than enough to defeat the remaining 13, 14 or 15 nations still left in the game.

#16

Prophets of Doom here.

All I will say is I joined this game only knowing Steve who I joined with in this game. Its not our fault his setup got entered wrong. I was the person who contacted MEGames to let them know that Steves nation was set up wrong as he had a DS icon on what was supposed to be a Freep nation. I also let them know that I had a disproportinate number of tolerated vs disliked nations to show that he was indeed set up as a dark servant. We all know the solution MEGames came up with was to make him a dark servant to get the game started instead of taking another month or so to resetup the game and as far as I know everyone or the majority said this was acceptable. We joined this game to play together so at that point we started making contact with other people in the game that we knew to see if they wanted to work together as a mixed alliance as Steve and I werent going to attack each other. We originally thought that Gene was the South Kingdom and had 2 allies somewhere. As freep and DS we had no idea what neutral nations were being played by whom. Everyone knew that they could not change allegiance and that fit in fine with our predicament of Steve being a DS and me being a Freep as we had no desire to attack each other. It was a mighty surprise that once we had agreed to an alliance of sorts with Gene and company that he was actually the North Kingdom and his allies were close by.

The original idea from GSI days of FA 1000 was that anything goes. Alot of us have had allies we really hated who were not team players and this scenario gave everyone the opportunity to deal with them as they saw fit. Its not our fault that everyone who comes to FA 1000 comes with the linear mindset of Freeps ally with Freeps and get neutrals to flip icons to their side as well as DS doing the same. This scenario made it open to do whatever you wanted to do. A) Make a freep, ds, neutral alliance and end the game with the alliance win. B) Win by strategic victory. And C) The rulebook also states that the game WILL end on Turn 52 if A or B are not met. C) might have been put in the rulebook to end those games with 2 vs 2 that can go on forever til one side just quits but C) also could mean that WOW new thinking, alliances could be formed from a mix of alliances and work together and just let the game end on Turn 52 and rather than the crappy Victory Points deciding who gets to win the game and get a guaranteed free setup of their choice, WE the players got to pick who we wanted to take first place and get it. Remember back then you got winners certificates and those current players who play for the PRS rating are great at being the selfless ally who only thinks about their Victory Points and if the needs of the team can be spared its done. Personally I dont think there should be any ranking of any kind in Third Age and Second Age games except Games Won, Games Lost, Games Dropped from winning allegiance and Games Dropped from losing allegiance. Personally if you drop as a neutral who never changed his icon then it really doesnt matter. If you showed these numbers you will get a better idea of a players ability than quantifying by numbers what shows up in a game.

I will say I was also in Game 7 of FA 1000 under GSI. Its because of this game that Steve and I thought to get a mix alliance game once our predicament was upon us. I played the North Kingdom and will share my Turn 52 pdf with whomever wants to see it. In this game we found some friends in the game and as it was early FA we wanted to do as much research about the scenario as possible to gain as you might say an upper hand on riddles and encounters like anyone else might do over a half dozen games, except we planned to do it in one game. Our combined goal was to eliminate the enemy as quickly as possible and then just do pure research til the game ended. If I remember correctly we eliminated the last nation not of our alliance on Turn 38. We killed every NCP in the game except Alatar the Blue who never stayed in the same hex more than one turn. We researched or LAT’d every artifact and picked up somewhere around 160 of them via killing the owners, answering riddles, fighting off spirits and wights and whatever else it took. The goal of the game for us was intelligence gathering and we did gather alot for a new scenario.

Fred Young
ufgamog@austin.rr.com

#17

Clearly some players have one perception and others another.

Note the GWC to fix a position etc makes set-up pretty unviable as we get too many clashes. I also don’t see that a player winning one game should then be able to pick a nation that he wants in another. Encourages players to play for VCs which the majority of players don’t like.

Clint

#18

Back we go to limited or broad horizons.

#19

Personally I think a number of threads on this forum would be enlivened if Ed Mills made some positive suggestions instead of being so negative all the time.

Come on Ed, give people a reason to read what you say instead of seing your name and groaning.

Colin

#20

Colin no longer has Stassun and Feild to kick around, so back to throwing rocks in the bear’s cave.