Re: ME-PBM Late Joiners

From: Patrick F. McGehearty <patrick@convex.COM>

Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0000

In article <3usjtv$l9t@cnn.Princeton.EDU>,
David desJardins <desj@ccr-p.ida.org> wrote:
>TomTG <tomtg@aol.com> writes:
>> I suggest another alternative...
>> Play the game before you comment on it.
>> I have yet to hear a ME player agree with you.
>
>Not a big surprise there.  A certain type of game attracts a certain
>type of player.  This game attracts players who think that playing to
>achieve the victory conditions is a bad thing.  Players who don't think
>that way, therefore don't play the game, because it would be no fun
>playing with such people.  I'm hardly the only one in that group.
>
>That doesn't make their opinions any more or less significant.  If the
>extent of your claim is that such people are probably better off not
>playing the game, I agree with you; that's what I have been saying all
>along.  But I disagree that just because most of the people in the game
>think a certain way, that trying to win in a different way is therefore
>wrong or sinful.
>
>                                        David desJardins
----------------
and from another branch of the response tree:

>You seem to think that it's the responsibility of other players not
>to try to win in ways which you feel is "slimey", and I don't think
>that's a reasonable position to take. Victory is defined by the rules
>of the game, not by the opinions of the players.
>
>-Andrew
>markiel@callisto.pas.rochester.edu
----------------

My experience is that ME-PBM players can by roughly grouped into two types
of players (with some in between): (1) people attracted to the team concept
and the idea of cooperative winning, and (2) people attracted to the
individual glory of beating a large number of opponents by whatever means
allowed in the rules.

To be successful in the "team player" mode, a certain amount of trust in
your teammates is required.  Some of the rules make it easier to be double
crossed by someone of the same alignment than by someone from the other
side.  For example, the command "Influence Other's Population Center", which
can be used to take control of another Nation's Popcenter requires that
there not be any Armies present that consider your nation an enemy.  If
you are both Free People or both Dark Servants, you can't consider the other
nation an enemy, so having armies in your own popcenters do not protect them
from being taken away by an 'ally'.  [In the game in question, the Corsairs
may not have realized their weakness to this attack.  We almost got their
capitol this turn from exactly this method, in spite of three armies being
present.  We expect to take one or two major popcenters every turn this way.]

If 'allies' start fighting among themselves, they are much less likely to
win.  Even if some allies just stay out of the attack on the other side in
order to build their own nations, they still hurt the team effort.  Team
players will be negatively inclined towards those who are not contributing
to the team win.  This is a perfectly reasonable position to take.  Trust is
important in team games, and those who betray a trust in one game must be
dealt with cautiously in other games.  For a PBM game, this is doubly true,
since the primary means by which we know about our fellow players is by
their actions in games.  It is a rare exception to be in a game where you
happen to know the other people from other sources.

The other sort of player, who is going for the individual win above all,
will mix strategies, encouraging others to fight when possible.  They will
attack when the potential gain justifies the risks, and will sometimes go for
cooperative action when it is necessary for survivial or looks like a good
idea.  However, they won't hesitate to mislead, eliminate rivals, or
otherwise enhance their victory potential at the expense of teammates.
This person considers that "victory is defined by the rules", which is also
a reasonable position to take.

Experienced players are aware of both these personalities, and deal with
them accordingly.  Being perceived as a team player when you are actually
going for an individual win has significant advantages in getting others to
let their guard down and give you an opportunity to double cross them.  I
believe that is why we have not had many comments supporting the individual
win point of view in this thread.  The most skilled of such players would
not want to reveal themselves for fear of making future games more
difficult.  I have never met David desJardins, but have read his postings on
other threads.  From those, I have the impression he is a competitive sort
of person who likes to win.  His reasoning is sound, and I think he does
fairly represent the point of view of the individualist player.

In the game that started this thread, the Corsairs has been careful to
conceal his true identity from both the DS and FP.  He originally proclaimed
that he "just wanted to experiment with the economics of the game, and would
drop out around turn 30 or so".  Neither we nor the DS really believed him,
but figured we had more important things to worry about in the opening
moves (like each other).  On turn 13, the Corsairs took a South Gondor
village at 2534, claiming that it was in his natural territory.  Since he
was still mostly not communicating, we assumed that he had joined the DS
alliance although he had not changed his icon.  We took measures
accordingly.  On turn 18, the Corsairs changed their icon to FP to avoid the
approaching South Gondor armies, and also moved into first place due to his
long buildup without serious opposition.  Since we are playing as a grudge
team, we all are more oriented to team play than individual play.  That
triggered this thread, and the questioning of playing style.  In addition to
the game rules, since the game is based on the popular Tolkien Middle Earth
world, many people like to inject some role-playing into their games.  Thus,
we had some initial hesitancy about 'attacking' a nominal ally.  The mixed
response led me to conclude that while "victory is defined by the rules",
style is also important.  So we intend the result to be for our "team" to
win, and to crush this upstart who is using a rule mechanic to try to grab
our rightful :-) winning position.

To the best of our knowledge, the only DS left is the Dark Lt, and we assume
his only hope is to find the One Ring.  He won't last much longer as we have
armies converging on Barad Dur.  The Corsairs no longer hold any of the top
three places, and are likely to continue to lose at least one major
popcenter per turn as long as we can find them. :-)  So for the purposes of
ME2950, game 5, we have made the discussion of appropriateness of a sneak
victory moot.  [Am I bragging?  Well... ok, I'll admit it. yes! :-)]

My guess is that net effect of the Corsairs changing their icon is to delay
the end of the game by a couple of turns while we jumped him instead of the
Dark Lt, and give the Dark Lt a slender chance at finding and using the One
Ring.  As we have long since located the One Ring (on Bilbo Baggins of
course), we are prepared for that result.  The biggest other chance for the
DS is to hold out for a number of turns and have several of us drop out due
to boredom (always a possibility when you are paying $6.50/turn).

For the future, when I am playing on a ME-PBM grudge team, I will expect the
neutrals to declare a side fairly early, certainly by turn 10.  I will
assume that any neutral who has not indicated a willingness to join my side,
is going to join the other side.  When I play an individual game, then my
style will be considerably different.

- Patrick McGehearty
  patrick@convex.com

References

Re: ME-PBM Late Joiners
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Wed, 19 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0000
Re: ME-PBM Late Joiners
tomtg@aol.com (TomTG)
Fri, 21 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0000
Re: ME-PBM Late Joiners
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Sun, 23 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0000