Re: Diplomacy clumps

Geoff,

I'm not trying to be an ass, but I must ask the following:

If you insist that tom PROVE that clumps exist, yet you
insist that clumps don't exist, then I think it's only fair that
you need to prove that clumps don't exist as well.  If we
all have "opinions", then by you showing me yours does
nothing than prove that we all have one, ie: prove it.

*I* think part of the perceived problem is that you claim
to be too busy to *run* your own country, yet have no problem
finding the time to send and read over 5000 emails about
your tactical strategies and how to attack, ally, etc against X.


Regards,
An Anonymous Voice






"Geoff Cashman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Akorps666 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >
>
> Tom, you're flat out *wrong* on a large plethora of points. I have been
> exceedingly patient with you over the years, but this latest post of yours
> has gone absolutely too far. You have laid out several accusations which
> are baseless, negative to the progression of Empire, and lead newer
> players to believe thay can not succeed. You are absolutely, categorically
> wrong. Personally, I am *shocked* at this post of yours. You of all people
> should know the hazards of speaking accusations without base.
>
> Now, on for the point by point shredding of your post...
>
>
> >It seems like the new trend (as best I can fathom, since I'm not part
> >of it) are large groups of countries forming permanent alliance clumps
> >that last all game (and from game to game),
>
> This rant appears to be most recently based on your experiences in LOTR
II.
> This "clump" that you referred to did not form before that game, and in
> fact was involved in several wars within itself before it figured out a
> diplomatic way through its troubles. That alone is proof enough of how
> absolutely flawed this comment of yours is.
>
> But worse, you try to pin *your* abysmal diplomatic performance in that
> game on to the play of other nations, rather than take responsibility for
> your own failure. There was a pivotal few updates during the game during
> which had you taken the opportunity that was staring you in the face,
> you could have crushed the world, had you had the ability to use diplomacy
> to any effect. You utterly failed. With that failure came your utter ruin.
>
> You are whining (and yes, I mean that in ever negative sense) that this
> clump of nations has formed on went on to destroy you. YOU brought on this
> destruction. You violated NAs with abandon, and treated nations' trust of
> you as beneath your contempt. What did you think would happen, that they
> would thank you for it? If you didn't want the wrath of a large number of
> nations to be wielded against you then you shouldn't have played with
fire.
>
>
>
> >while developing tools outside the
> >game itself to facilitate communication between members of the clump, and
to
> >assist the clump members to work together to roll targets one by one,
also
> >to assign tasks to feeders.
>
> Heaven forbid an alliance should work together! Nobody stopped you from
> using tools outside the game. Gosh, I bet you thought VE was a naughty
tool
> way back when too, huh? (VE = Visual Empire, a tool that allowed offline
> activity on your nation). Gee Tom, guess you'd better stop using WinACE,
since
> it is a tool developed outside of the game. Back to being purists for all
of
> us I guess. Only emp_client access allowed to the game.
>
>
> >Such a clump is basically unstoppable as far as I can tell, except
perhaps
> >by another clump or clumps, so that empire has degenerated into a kind
> >of diplomacy game rather than a strategy game.
>
> Diplomacy and strategy go hand in hand. I am flat out amazed that you are
> incapable of understanding this very basic concept. You of all people, a
> person who understands strategic considerations better than most of the
> players in Empire, should understand this. Diplomacy has been a major part
> of Empire since I first came into the game in 1987. It will remain so. If
> you don't like diplomacy, then go play Age of Empires, or play any number
> of ridiculous "strategy" games against a computer opponent where you don't
> have to think about diplomacy.
>
> This 'clump' formed in part because of your diplomatic failings. You made
> for a very convenient target, thanks to your lack of trustworthiness.
>
>
> >Naturally I don't like the trend, since I like strategy, in the sense of
lines
> >communication and such, and dislike diplomacy.
>
> If you don't like diplomacy, which has been part of Empire for decades,
then
> it's a foregone conclusion that you wouldn't like the consequences of
diplomacy
> that works against you. We're supposed to be concerned that you don't like
it?
> Diplomacy is part of the game. Grab a tissue, stop sniffling, and get over
it.
>
>
> >But I don't know how
> >to stop the clump trend, perhaps only the death of empire itself will do
that
> >(which the clump trend is leading to)
>
> Prove there IS a clump trend. I can't tell you how many times over the
last
> dozen games that I've worked with newer countries to help them succeed.
You
> want to cite LOTR II as a reference, but that reference is flawed. So,
cite
> other references. If you can't, then shut up about it. Opinion without
proof
> is nothing more than an asshole, and everyone's got one.
>
>
> >It also builds up the ego of weak players, who think they are better
players
> >than they are, for "winning" as part of such alliance clumps, so alters
the
> >course of game developmen,t as the weak players become more confident
> >and assertive that their style is right for empire,
>
> This is contradictory with yourself. Make up your mind. Either these
'clumps'
> form and last from game to game to game or newer players also aid in
making
> clumps. Which is it Tom? If your own opinion can't agree with itself, it
> doesn't stand much of a chance of standing, much less without proof.
>
>
> >so that empire becomes more and more an exhausting game of
micromanagement by
> >teams of co-rulers, ruling nations that are part of such a clump.
>
> Yet another baseless gripe, based on your perceptions of LOTR II. The
'clump'
> you are whining about was 50% nations that were not co-ruled.
>
>
> >So it isn't much fun for single players running single countries, rather
it is
> >quite a negative experience for such, in contrast to the old days when
everyone
> >wanted to run his own country and co-ruled countries were rare.
>
> I don't recall you complaining all high and mighty when Sinergy entered a
> game with *7* co-rulers, what 13 years ago now?
>
> I have commented on the co-rule phenomena many times before. The
demographic
> of Empire has changed. Empire requires perhaps 20-30% more time to play
now
> than it did 10-15 years ago. While that is a problem, it isn't the core of
> the issue. The fact remains that Empire is now typically played by people
> who are 10-20 years older than players from back in the 80s. The reason is
> simple; there are a huge number of multi-player Internet games available
now.
> Back in the 80s, there were less than 10, Empire being probably the most
> evolved of them. Empire stopped being king somewhere around 1993-1994.
>
> The result is that with the average player being older, they have less
> time to be fanatical about the game, and co-ruling has become the *only*
> option for them to play. I myself am in that category. If I can't co-rule,
> I won't play, because I *can't*, except to be a roll-over-and-die fodder
> for someone else.
>
>
> >Since co-ruled countries are the rule now,
> >that means fewer countries in each game, as, if each player was running
his
> >own country instead of co-ruling with several others, there would be more
> >countries in each game.
>
> That's about the only accurate thing you have said in this post.
>
>
> >Basically a gloomy scenario for the future of empire, as fewer and fewer
> >players will be interested in playing the role of marks getting beaten
> >up by clumps.
>
> ...which you have yet to prove even exist.
>
> Besides which, you of all people shouldn't be complaining about clumps.
> Your behavior over the last five years has been to ally with just about
> every country you come in contact with. So, you're engaging in 'clump'
> behavior.
>
>
> >So we've lost not only the strategic (as opposed to diplomatic) aspect of
> >the game, that made empire great in the past, but also lost the fun of
the
> >game, except for the sadistic pleasure members of clumps get from beating
> >up their marks (with say a material advantage of 10 to 1 in favor of the
clump
> >its almost a certainty that the clump can beat any individual country
they
> >target)
>
> A conclusion with the prerequisite existence of clumps, which you've
> failed to prove in any respect.
>
>
> >Clump members have hijacked the control of the Wolfpack code itself,
>
> Thanks for the insult Tom.
>
> Care to show how I, the leader of Wolfpack, have hijacked the code? Let me
> guess, you don't have any proof of this either, do you?
>
>
> >and perhaps without realizing it are making the game conform more and
more to the
> >clump style of play, so the clump trend is strengthening its grip on
empire in
> >several different ways at once
> >(clumps that last from game to game,
>
>   o  Which you can't prove exist
>
> >tools outside the game to help clumps,
>
>   o  Which nobody is stopping anybody from doing
>
>
> >and taking control of the empire code itself and making
> >the game playable only by clumps and unplayable by single player
countries)
>
>   o  Which implies a sinister cabal leading Wolfpack. You can't prove it,
>      but you want to insist it exists.
>
>
> In short Tom, stop making this crap up. You miserably lost a game. You got
your
> head handed to you on a platter, complained when an update unexpectedly
fired,
> and then blamed everything on every conceivable thing...except yourself.
>
> You got yourself into the situation you found yourself in. As an old time
player
> myself, and thus sharing some history with you, I am flat out embarrassed
that
> you have devolved into this whining, sniveling mass.
>
> Grow up and take some responsibility for your abject failure in LOTR II.
>
>
> ---
>
> You have in the past routinely castigated those who would disagree with
you.
> Perhaps now, after years of offering glowing compliments to me, you will
now
> seek to regularly insult me and call me things like "fucking moron" as you
are
> wont to do with many other people who disagree with you. So be it.
>
> I have actively sought your goodwill over the past because I felt that you
> offered a great deal to the game, and contributed much to it. I took your
> insults of other people in stride, because you never actively worked
against
> the game.
>
> That's changed. Now, you *are* actively working against the game. You are
trumping
> up baseless charges, insulting the very people working to enhance the
game, and
> making a mockery of the efforts of Wolfpack. Worse, you are doing so all
the while
> refusing to accept personal responsibility for your own abject failures,
and even
> worse doing it all in a public forum.
>
> You *owe* everybody here a public apology for your baseless accusations.
If you
> want to retain any sense of credibility amongst this community, you would
be
> well advised to make such an apology, and do so publicly at your first
> opportunity.
>
> ...unless of course, in the unlikely event that you can actually provide
proof
> to support your baseless accusations.
>
> -Geoff
>  aka Mithrilien,
>  Deity of Lord of the Rings Empire I and II,
>  Player of Empire for 17 years,
>  Winner of many games as both a solo ruler and co-ruler,
>  Member of the Empire Hall of Fame and
>  Current leader of Wolfpack Empire.
>