Vellos, your arguments are valid, but I have to say that I really don't like your latest posts. It feels like you do not consider what the other person is trying to say, merely looking for bits and pieces for you to build a counter argument for your point around. I am trying to communicate, and I don't want to do point arguments since I don't think they lead anywhere. We could sit here and argue back and forth all day and get nowhere.
You are as familiar as I on the
social contract, so you know why it is appropriate to compare BattleMaster to a board game where the goal is to
have fun with friends. When I play a board game with friends, yes, I try to win, but more importantly it's to enjoy the time and make it an enjoyable experience for my friends as well. I am ultra-competitive, but I try my best to remember that it is in the end just a game. I agree with you, BM is not like a board game where there is an end state, but neither is there usually an end for a well played diplomacy game where everyone is reasonably equally skilled. I am trying to draw the parallel in the atmosphere of BM and a board game, and even the competitive nature presents some parallels as well.
Standard etiquette is just that, ways to interact with other players that does not end in flame wars or huge OOC debates or banning new players trying out stuff. If you don't want new players trying out hazardous stuff randomly,
tell them the consequences.
I agree that when I play diplomacy, I teach/tell those who are not as familiar about the same things,
those are basic strategies. I see stalemate lines in a variety of tutorials/strategy guides, and these are fairly common occurrences in good games, even not at the highest levels. But do you tell your friends exactly what you plan on doing in every single situation? Do you teach them what to do in each exact circumstance? I don't, since unless they actually play and have fun, they will not be able to get better and be able to react to any situation successfully. Learning
should not be limited to a question and answer session.
I do
not want to see cookie cutter bankers, rulers, marshals, dukes, just as you do not want to see someone seceding just to learn how it works. When I first read your trade system stuff, I felt they were indeed basic strategies that most should know, but are simply derivatives of understanding the underlying mechanics. I enjoyed reading the articles as I stated in the other thread, and I don't even disagree with most of your points, just please, actually consider the other side, that's all I'm asking.
Again, I am
not trying to argue, so please don't treat it like an argument that you must win to have your point understood.
