Random Thoughts Thread

[Unorthodox]

Of course you guys want everyone to 'play to win'. If everyone else is 'playing to win', it gives some measure of predictability to how others are going to act: always in their own best interest. Therefore, it gives you some measure of comfort in how YOU can go about winning.

But, if you're only requirement is that it tries to win, you might see the Mercs again. I'm dubious as to how it could work in Civ V at all till I see the game, however.

[conmcb25]

Try your Merc concept out in a PBEM, and figure out how to make it work. We don't need another Demo-game ruined for the sake of experimentation. Experiment with people who want to experiment with this concept. I don't and a bunch of other folks here don't. I for one am done with even attenpting something along the lines of a "Merc Concept".

I have gone from your biggest supporter who wasn't on your team, to your biggest opponent. There must be a reason for that. And it's based on my experience with your Merc teams. So from a customer perspective, your Merc concept is a complete failure. I hope you are actually listening to what I am saying here.

(Beta will vouch for that, I think he remembers some of our teams first discussions on whether to agree to the concept or not)

Figure out how to make it work elsewhere, first. Because based on my experience, I have done a 180 degree turn on my support.

[Unorthodox]

Hey, if it's trying to win, what does it matter?

I meet your stipulation there, what other complaint can you lobby other than your own grudge? (though it's always amusing how you guys continue to blame me for your own team's failing in that particular game.)

[conmcb25]

My stipulation is no Merc team, because quite frankly despite me going on ad nauseum about over the years you don't get, and your team mates never got the fact that you are a customer service organization.

Any stipulations I will make will be useless because at the begining of the game you will say or give the impression that you will do X, and then during the game you will do whatever the heck you want. Just like the last game.

No thanks, play to win, roleplay something if you like, But take your abortion of a Merc concept somewhere else please.

And just remember what I said above, I used to be your biggest supporter, not on your team. I have since done a complete 180. If I were in charge of an organization that took other gold for services rendered, I would myself wonder just what the hell went wrong?

Obviously you don't look at it that way or could care less, and I just go back to No Merc Team because as far as I can tell you just don't get it.

[Unorthodox]

Ya want to know what REALLY ruined that game?

Your team/ at least certain members, going in with a tunnel vision grudge against the Horde. That tunnel vision ruins games, but don't bother to learn that lesson, just shift it to team merc.

Had ANY other team been to the south, you guys would have been trying to team up on the Mercs. You even TOLD us such in official communications when we first met, and then are amazed when things fall apart?

We interacted with 2 teams in a 7 team game, militarily were conquering both. Just how did it "ruin the demogame"? A game that was decided on the other continent anyway. How is the fact that it was Team Merc change it at all? A normal team could have easily acted much the same way. In fact, I most likely WOULD have played it the same way. Aidun, the "master manipulator" would have still been trying to weasel any advantage and diplomatically reign in my team, which I can only stand for so long, and I would have still played up your tunnel vision vs the Horde to my advantage and eventually turned on you anyway. No, I don't get it at all. You got played. Now you just cry about how the whole idea ruins games. Funny there's only two of you that do as well. None of the third parties I've asked understand your ire.

You've said I had to play to win. I give you that and you're still not happy. Guess I can rename the team something else next time. The A team has a nice ring.

[Rhoth]

Glad I wasn't part of that game.

[ZargonX]

Glad I wasn't part of that game.

[Beta]

by provi in the other thread ...

Well, I do have something to contribute too.
Today I'll move back to Japan. Lets see how much spare time I will have, but I do try to continue contributing at the same mind-blowing level.
Online times will be quite different though.

Sayonarra provi! See you soon.

[Beta]

Funny there's only two of you that do as well.

I was against the Merc concept going into that game based on game theory alone, and it is the same reason now.

And you are correct that our past experience with the Horde affected how we played the start. However, if the 3rd team on the continent had been a regular team, we may have been able to strike an alliance with them to eliminate the Horde, or the Horde may have been able to do the same against us. In most other demo games I have seen, the 3 civ continents quickly become two civ continents, and the two team alliance usually holds. Couldn't strike such a deal with the Mercs. Again, a matter of game theory. You didn't 'get' my point way back when I made that initial argument, and you don't seem to get it now. I am not "crying" or making it personal; it is just my opinion that such a concept is not good for a demo game.

[Unorthodox]

No I GET the game theory.

What you have never understood is I find game theory boring, and certainly don't subscribe to the belief that it's the end-all be-all of how teams/people should act.

So, even if the Mercs are attempting to win, you're against it because they are specifically designed to ignore game theory (because I find it boring)? And, were I to begin a normal team and ignore game theory, I'ld assume you'ld be pretty pissed at such a team as well?

[Beta]

No I GET the game theory.

OK. Understood.

What you have never understood is I find game theory boring, and certainly don't subscribe to the belief that it's the end-all be-all of how teams/people should act.

I figured that out long ago.

So, even if the Mercs are attempting to win, you're against it because they are specifically designed to ignore game theory (because I find it boring)?

If you name a team the Mercs, and they are in to win, great! To me no different than calling the team the Imperialist Swine, or Blood Oath Horde.

And, were I to begin a normal team and ignore game theory, I'ld assume you'ld be pretty pissed at such a team as well?

Depends. Yes - if you entered a team where the team goal was something along the lines of:

a: our main objective is to keep team XYZ from winning no matter what ... or ...

b: our main objective is to help team ABC win ....

... then yes, I would be pissed as you are unbalancing the game for the others.

If your objective was to build as many wonders as possible, or stay neutral during the entire game, then I would still be pissed but to a lesser degree. The reason goes back to game theory - so you understand where I am coming from. It still unbalances the game , but to a lesser degree depending on the geopolitical situation. If you decided that you would stay neutral no matter what, you essentially have given your immediate neighbours a free pass that other teams who aren't your direct neighbours won't get. Hence the unbalancing again.

This is something we may just have to agree to disagree on.

[conmcb25]

Ya want to know what REALLY ruined that game?

Your team/ at least certain members, going in with a tunnel vision grudge against the Horde. That tunnel vision ruins games, but don't bother to learn that lesson, just shift it to team merc.

Had ANY other team been to the south, you guys would have been trying to team up on the Mercs. You even TOLD us such in official communications when we first met, and then are amazed when things fall apart?

We interacted with 2 teams in a 7 team game, militarily were conquering both. Just how did it "ruin the demogame"? A game that was decided on the other continent anyway. How is the fact that it was Team Merc change it at all? A normal team could have easily acted much the same way. In fact, I most likely WOULD have played it the same way. Aidun, the "master manipulator" would have still been trying to weasel any advantage and diplomatically reign in my team, which I can only stand for so long, and I would have still played up your tunnel vision vs the Horde to my advantage and eventually turned on you anyway. No, I don't get it at all. You got played. Now you just cry about how the whole idea ruins games. Funny there's only two of you that do as well. None of the third parties I've asked understand your ire.

You've said I had to play to win. I give you that and you're still not happy. Guess I can rename the team something else next time. The A team has a nice ring.

Not hardly a grudge still would have fitted in with the whole win the game theme. Because we had that grudge we preparred for them to hit us early, they sniffed around our borders, saw our preps and went after you.

Then you of course had your Merc grudge, but instead of actually doing anything you invaded, withdrew, and worked some kind of great deal for them because there was no freaking way they could rent that many troops from you at what the going rate was for us anyway.

And we had deals with you already and you led us to believe that if we had you locked into deals, you wouldn't deal with others.

Thats what ruined the game, sh1tty customer service, and trying somehow to re-balance the continent so you could keep a future customer.

You tried to have your cake and eat it too, and it unbalanced the game.

I couldn't have come up with a worse start in that game then to be on the same continent as both you and the Mercs, it ruined the whole freaking game.

I am done discussing this if game normal game theory bores you, then don't play demo games, because there is a whole heck of a lot of folks out there who don't deserve to be jerked around just so you can get your jollies.

I am done with this discussion, you and I will have to agree to disagree.

[Unorthodox]

Sorry to my PBEM mates.

As some of you know I have a show on Monday. Part of my prep was prepping makeup....well, they had this new product, and I'm elbows deep in it right now. It's not exactly...fast...I'm almost to the point of saying it's far from user friendly.

Anyhow...

I'll likely not get to PBEMs till tomorrow at the earliest, and then I may be pressed to finish other things if this runs into any further issues.

[donald23]

Hmm, I'm missing a "new" random thoughts thread, ah well...

My company released our new promotional video today. It's based on a new marketing thing that everyone (speaking Dutch) can ask us a question about ICT or something remotely related (OGD is a ICT services company) and we will answer that question to our best knowledge. Of course free of charge
The video is without speach (with audio though) and you can find it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhMoxXilwro

I'm curious what you guys think of it. Do you get what is happening right away?

[GeoModder]

Several layers on top of one another?
From programs to chips to larger components and so on?

[donald23]

More or less... it's about a world in which something happens (fire, earthquake, you name it) and when they zoom out, that "world" is inside some computer and you see the user that caused the disaster. So earthquake inside, means the user is shaking his laptop for example. This goes on for a few times and then loops back with the last time to the opening scene. It's meant as a fun little movie to broaden our company name

[Unorthodox]

Halloween vacation has officially begun. I'll get to any pbem's when and if I can.