Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Stone Swapping

["Baron von Skippy" <bvs@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> The big problem with backstabbing is that people will remember.
>>> Theoretically, I could backstab all my allies, stated or undeclared,
>>> whenever I wanted, but then I'd have very little chance of ever
>>> entering into an alliance with anyone again, as nobody would trust me
>>> not to stab them too.
>> -Well, I don't trust anyone in this game (the old guard, at least) 
>> farther than I can throw them, but that's just me. That, and I believe 
>> strongly in "Do unto others."-
>
>"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? Or just "Do unto 
>others as they do to you"?

-No, just "do unto others."-
>
>>> What we could perhaps make use of is some sort of alias mailing
>>> system... each player could be assigned an alias from a given set, 
>>> such
>>> as {"Red","Green","Blue","Mauve", etc.}; a script could then be 
>>> devised
>>> that, upon receiving an email from me with subject PGo:Blue:Wanna
>>> Backstab Turquoise?, would look me up in its table to discover that 
>>> I'm
>>> Green, lookup whoever happens to be Blue, say, Sagitta, and Sagitta
>>> would get a message from the script with the subject PGo:Green:Wanna
>>> Backstab Turquoise?; e'd know it came from Green and talked about
>>> Turquoise, and the PGo map would show stones owned by Green, Blue, and
>>> Turquoise, but e and I would never know which player was behind each
>>> color.
>>>
>>> A few modifications would allow this to hold multiple sets of aliases
>>> at once, so one subgame might be using {Red, Green, Blue, etc.} while
>>> another used {France, Italy, New Zealand, etc.} and another had
>>> {Falcon, Eagle, Hawk, Titmouse, etc.}.
>>>
>>> And then some subgames could allow things like grey and black press 
>>> (to
>>> steal some Diplomacy terms), where messages can be sent anonymously, 
>>> or
>>> even with faked senders or fake recipient lists.
>> -Oh, now this could be /very/ interesting... note, though, that 
>> someone would have to know who sent all the messages, so if someone 
>> grey-press spammed everyone, their ass could be beaten... privately, 
>> so as not to reveal their identity.-
>
>It wouldn't be hard to track how many messages have come from each 
>player... in fact, you could even restrict how many messages one could 
>send in a given period, or something like that.

-I dunno, if several players were communicating a lot on a plan, they could max out and be stuck. Maybe restrict the number of Black/Grey press messages you can send, but leave unlimited normal messages.-
>
>>> (This is an idea that originated a while ago during a conversation 
>>> with
>>> another player about how a game like Diplomacy could be made into a
>>> subgame; I also got some ideas from reading about various online
>>> Diplomacy hosting tools, like the DPjudge at www.diplom.org, which has
>>> all these features built in to the games themselves)
>> -Now that is a sweet game. I like how you can't do anything without 
>> some alliances. That makes for a lot of fun in this game.-
>
>In fact, if we wanted to, we could just start a private game on the 
>DPJudge; it doesn't cost anything. All we'd need to do is agree on how 
>the events of the game would influence our game.

-The winner gets a million chocolate eclairs.-
>
>>> There are two big problems that I can see with this sort of anonymity:
>>> 1) New players - if a new player joins B Nomic, and then joins PGo, 
>>> and
>>> at the same time off-yellow pieces appear for the first time, it won't
>>> be too hard to guess who's off-yellow
>> -No new players until the game ends, then. And no quitting, either - 
>> if you stop doing anything, you'll just get beaten out of the game, I 
>> suppose, and that's like quitting sort of.-
>
>The other possibility I can see is a game where who's who changes 
>periodically, so after a personality shuffle, the green player might 
>now be blue, blue might be lavender, etc.; this obviously wouldn't work 
>in a game like PGo, but in a game where the full state of the game 
>isn't public, it could get interesting...
>
>>> 2) Victory - if Chartreuse wins the subgame and suddenly bd is 200
>>> points richer, it is again not too difficult to deduce the identity of
>>> Chartreuse.
>> -Secondary accounts for points. Dave knows which is which. When your 
>> player account and your secondary account added together are > 1000, 
>> you win.-
>
>And if twelve subgames all decide to make use of this system? I'd 
>prefer to keep Dave's involvement minimal in terms of brute force 
>tracking and updating.

-There's only one secondary account per player. 12 subgames would protect anonymity by making tracking the changing scores somewhat harder to do.-
>
>>> OTOH, grudges and inherent mistrust can make things more interesting,
>>> so perhaps this sort of system isn't needed just for backstabbing; but
>>> I'd still love to see a subgame with Black Press.
>> -It can be done... it might not be the easiest thing ever, but it can 
>> be done.-
>
>I'll bet a modified version of the system could be built for specific 
>subgames, too, to restrict communication; for example, if Glotmorf ever 
>finishes making Tunnelers automated, players might only be allowed to 
>communicate with players they can see, or to broadcast anonymously 
>through the surrounding tunnels.
>
-I'm gonna have such a hard time resisting the urge to shout "Echo!"-

[[BvS]]
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss